E. Leitz, Inc. had their New York City office on the ground floor of the Swarzenbach Building in Manhattan in the mid 1950s. There's a M&T bank there today. Back when a major camera manufacturer could have their own outlet right in midtown Manhattan. Nikon had a similar thing with Nikon House back in the late '60s and through the '70s. A great time to be alive for a camera and photography enthusiast. I think it's important to remember here, though, that back when these Leica ads came out, the Leica M camera really was peerless in terms of technology, build, optics and refinement for 35mm cameras. Nikon was slowly beginning to offer a serious challenge, but that challenge wouldn't fully manifest until after the arrival of the F in 1959.
It would be a Weimaraner, a k.a. Weimar Braque, an example of refinement. I don't spent that amount of money on a new camera, but it's a cameras brand that I respect and much admire. As with Rolls Royce, or Lamborghini.
They were working hard here because they'd had it all their own way for a number of years until Nikon came along and first made a rangefinder that was every bit as good and then perfected the SLR concept - making rangefinder focusing still useful but not the only game in town for rapid, accurate focusing. Good autofocus made it obsolete in terms of speed and accuracy. But their reputation still holds and, to their credit, they didn't suffer any major quality drops. But today they really are trading on a combination of nostalgia and status. There's nothing they do - besides actually being a rangefinder camera - that others don't do just as well for a fraction of the price.
The fact that people are always talking about Leica, and always claiming it is not worth the money with respect to pure technical facts, means, there is a lot of envy around it. So these people are making advertising for Leica :-) ! The video itself is very interesting as always from you Azriel !
It seems the idea of Leica as a status symbol really started taking off during the '60s and '70s, especially as the rangefinder was losing significant market share to SLR's. Previous to this, in the '40s and '50s Contax was considered the "professional" camera and Leica was for amateurs. I purchased an M2 about 15 years ago for around $500, but would not consider buying one at today's prices. It is a very smooth and intuitive camera to shoot with, and I've owned and sold almost every other brand of rangefinder there is. I often have to check if the shutter fired because it is very quiet. If shooting with an RF suits your style, then M-mount Leicas are great. My favorite SLR is an unmetered Nikon F, with the F2 Photomic a close second. As an aside, the F2 supposedly has about 1,500 parts!
When the Leica was first introduced in 1925 it was for the advanced amateur photographer, Professionals used larger format cameras it just because of the film technology of the time. But, even professionals started to see the advantage of carrying a compact quick to use camera with quality enlarged images if only in a documentation style. Zeiss tried to copy the Leica sales model with their first 35mm cameras in the 1930s, but they suffered with dependability problems and from the 1930-1950s Leica was THE compact 35mm camera to have (cheaper Japanese Leica copies in the 1950s were an option), with the M3 cementing that reputation till the Pentax/Nikon SLR take-over in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Well known how the RF camera business went for Leica by the 1970s, but looking back now the RF concept has endured for both amateur and professional photographers with digital and the resurgence of film.
It wasn’t just Leica. All camera manufactures filled their advertisements with what we can look at decades later as hyperbole and unintended humor. These adds were made by an advertisement department to interest amateur photographers and increase sales. As a photographer working not that many years after these 1965 advertisements I can say they would not have had any influence on me. Most every working photographer then respected Leica and carried a Leica camera as a quick action, fast to focus and clear/bright finder image in low light, dependable, compact camera (especially with a wide lens) to supplement the versatile SLRs. As for the Leicaflex…, I always have said it was as well built as an M3, but the big downfall was that it was never as versatile as the Systems cameras of other manufactures. Interesting that all those great SLRs of that age have faded away, but the Leica RF concept has endured, for some reason.
I’m sure these wonderful ads were written by the American advertising company that Leica hired to sell their products. I own a NIkon F, F2 in black, Nikkor mat ftn, a Nikon F3 ,Fe,and F100. There’re all great cameras and I enjoy using them. My Leica M3 single stroke with Summicron DR is the best 35mm film camera I own. My Nikon F3hp coming in second strongly.
I own Nikons and Leica cameras and can say that, both take excellent photographs. Any differences in quality is quite small. My experience with repair, my Leica’s end up in the shop more than the Nikons.
Just fyi: "Leica" is short for "Leitz Camera", so the "Lei" part is pronounced the same in both words. "Lei", not "Lee". My vote is for German Shepard :-)
All the ads sounds like something right out of the textbook to David Oglivy, or his book, “Oglivy on advertising” . Just think of Mad Men if you have not heard of him. Classic ads for Schweppes, Dove, Rolls Royce, Sears and so on. Enough advertising geeking for now . . . Leica did not believe for quite some time that SLR cameras were enough of precision, hence the Rube Goldberg esq. visoflex sysems they provided to their rangefinder cameras. Might be Nikon F and similar cameras gave them an eye opener, or at least a push in the right direction, since the F came in 59 and the Leicaflex in 64. Fun reading old ads, as a daily driver I would prefer an M3 to an Leicaflex, any day.
I owned an M6 back in 1987, for about 3 months. A classic case of G.A.S. and “trying to keep up with the Joneses”. The then $ 1800.00 price tag (not including a Summicron, which pushed my purchase shy of $3k), remember this was 1987, that was a fortune for a camera. I simply could not afford to keep it and honestly, it was for show and as my main kit was the Canon FD system, the M6 was just collecting dust, so I sold it and recouped most of my costs, these rigs held their value fairly well and were in high demand back then. Frankly, no camera is worth $7k and up, I am quite content with my X-Pros and X-Ts.
Azriel old chap, so many adverts of the 1960's were pretty much the same annoying retoric, but I know what you mean, I wanted a Hasselblad so bad when I was a late teen in college, and I had to settle for a Nikon EM later, because I was silly and caused a family rift by selling my 16th birthday present (a Zenit 3 or B, which tore 100% of my precious moments in NY, in 1979). 5 years later in 1984, I saved got a loan & bought a Canon A1, traded my Nikon EM and lenses, but I was swindled by someone that claimed it was stolen from his car; he sold it and that was that, in 1989. Mum didn't speak to me about photos etc for about a year and a day.... until she died in 1990. I have lots of cameras now including a Leica R5, a pre 1960's Ricoh 35mm viewfinder, 4 Pentax's - 2-digital, 2 film both needing replacement parts. 5 Nikon digital SLRs, inc a D600, 300, 200, a D50 and D70s; 5 EOS Canon SLRs, all good - except for a battery for the D70s. 1 film Nikkormat FTN, F601 and an F4 (really very fantastic). A Panasonic FZ10, & FZ82. Not forgetting an Olympus Pen PL 1, MFT adapter for a Leica M lens, with a 90mm Leica C lens and other bits and bobs just ordered on the 9th of January!! Yes, next year I intend to get a reasonably priced M9 and decent tripod too. However I expect that my GAS bout won't be over until I have a reasonably priced Leica S 006 in my hands!!! Cheers Azriel, hope you have a good 2024, fella and keep on making interesting stuff for us GAS sufferers.
Thanks for the great comment, that was quite the ride you took me on :) As a recovering GAS addict I'm hoping I don't tempt you too much with my videos :)
I just bought an M3... One of the earliest circa 1955. It feels half that age. I told myself I wouldnt buy a Leica... But I did. Truth is I reall really wanted a rangefinder and there arent a lot of options. I was looking at the old Canons but wanted more modern glass. The Voigtlanders seem to be cheaper made, and my other option was a Nikon, but they are close in price to the Leicas, so I went ahead and got the Leica. Just dont buy the $2k+ lenses. Theres lots of high quality Chinese and Japanese glass out there for them.
I do not like Leica rangefinder cameras ! But I do have some Leica R Lenses. Did you know when new Leica R Lenses was much more expensive than Leica M Lenses !? Today Leica is much too hyped and much too expensive.
The thin line of corny and cool is a specialty of Leica advertisement. But I have to say those texters knew how to write eloquently. just a small correction, the 'ei' in Leitz is just like the 'ei' in Leica (and any other german word) pronouced 'ay'
Thanks for the comment. I wasn't sure about the pronunciation of Leitz and so I googled it before recording and what you hear is what it gave me, so I guess chalk it up to accent? I know Nikon is supposed to be pronounced knee-kon, but that ain't happening either ;)
@@AzrielKnight that’s interesting. I mean there are few exceptions like the name Leia but in general letters (or in this case the combination of e and i) are always pronounced the same in german. But it’s not that big of a deal.
I used to be obsessed with having a leica and owned several, until I Realized it was not necessary and I didnt need to prove anything to anyone. I now do what I thought could only be done with a leica with various point and shoots and for super shallow depth of field portraits I use an SLR.
Great video as always man. I actually own one of these m2 cameras. I paid 300 quid for it in 2014 an m6 was available from the same store for 500 at that time. I really like it and it's prob the only one I won't sell. Not because it's superior to any other light tight box. It's iust since the resurgence of film photography in the years after I got it the price has gone from 300 to over 2k. Its insane and totally unjustified. The same thing has happened to the vintage guitar market. Kinda wish I had the money at the time to invest in a ton of them as I'd be able to sell them all to afford 1 lens for the thing. 😀
Great video: If a Leica were a dog breed, then it might be a German pinscher, but how about something more fancy like a briard, even though it is French. 🙂 BTW, Leitz sounds like lights.
Don’t get me wrong - I love Leica, and shooting them is an experience unto itself, but there is a lot I give up in the pursuit of getting to use a Leica. In 2024 it is a camera for masochists. When everything falls into place the images are really supreme. But I end up shooting rolls and rolls of things that just don’t “click” for whatever reason in the hope of getting a winner or two. Give me a Nikon F, where I have complete and total control over my framing and focus, and I’ll consistently churn out a roll of 36 winners every single time. But they are obviously not as good as they potentially could have been, considering that I did not shoot them on a Leica.
As someone who's been shooting film--on and off--since 1980, I think you have one of the best film channels on the tube. I've always found Leica to be a pretentious status symbol. Even if I had the money to purchase Leica bodies and glass, I wouldn't, and that goes for their digital bodies too.
Ah the world of advertising back in the 50s/60s. It was generally accepted that German engineering was second to none and Leitz like other German companies took advantage on this. On the other hand the Japanese were perceived as “inovaters” and sold their products as having the latest tech. When it was introduced the original Leicaflex was already behind Nikon etc. and never really caught up. Leicaflex was a case of an expensive over engineered obsolete camera. I own and occasionally use a Leicaflex SL and it still shouts out its wonderful engendering but a Nikon F or F2 was and still is a much better camera system especially for professional photographers at the time.
not exactly pretentious for the M models as the experience is very different. BUT the Leicaflex being the ne Standard is laughable when Nikon F was already the Standard.
