In the film world I inherited a pristine Leica M3 from my dad, and I already had a Canon AE with a 50mm f1.8 lense. When looking at prints from both cameras same film same shot same light I could never tell the difference.
There is an obvious difference, Leica lenses are one of the bests. The color and contrast are superb, same as resolution. 3000$ for them is justifued price, don't forget canon rf 50/1.2 for 2200$. But cameras are overpriced. Sony sensor inside, 5000$ top for M11, not 8000$.
The fact you do not see the differences does not mean there aren't any. I was just like you and challenged a friend of mine. He lent me his Leica M6 and told me to take exactly the same images with it as with my Nikon F3 (and 35 mm lenses). Then to print them on the same enlarger and that he would be able to recognise the ones taken with his Leica. He did, showed me the differences... and I bought a Leica M ! ;o)
a camera is a tool, & if you understand how to use one to get what you want, then any half-decent manually operating camera will do fine. Everything else is an excuse to have it because you desire it
On the contrary. To me a Leica is far more than "just a tool." Granted I don't make my living via photography but I don't need "an excuse" to own a Leica, no more so than I need an excuse to own a classic Porsche.
Hello, I shoot professionally full time (product photos) and after moving through all the brands over the years I have to say that the number one thing people miss about understanding the Leica brand is ease of editing. Sony and Nikon always required sooo much time to get colors to look like real life. Nikon was definitely the hardest, and I was shooting a combo of d810 and d750 which are pretty powerful dslrs. Canon is a close second in terms of editing time. But after taking a chance on a ten year old Leica, I’ll probably be using them for the foreseeable future. Editing time is so much faster and the end result has a sort of 3d pop to it that seems suit marketing images well. I just like a camera that I know is going to deliver the color that I see with my eyes after putting in time for lighting and props ect. I used to think Leicas were just snobby hipster cameras, but take it from a guy whose job is on the line in terms of turnaround time and image quality, Leicas really are special. I wish I would have switched years ago, and I wish all cameras had the color accuracy that they do. It’s a shame they cost as much as a used car. But even their old stuff is worth it’s weight in gold.
What is easily missed is that these cameras are excellent value for money on the 2nd hand market: you can get a SL (or even an S!) for less than 2k$, given their qualities it’s a steal. You get Leica lenses because of their unmatched image quality, you get Leica bodies because of the unmatched focus they give you when shooting (zero irrelevant distracting technical details), all in a small package (not medium format sized). I owned a X1 and M9, currently own a M10 and SL and I’m far from rich nor am I showing, and none of my Leica-shooter pals are… We’re mostly hiding our cameras to avoid attention in order to get genuine pictures (not posed)(both their small size and functional, no-bling esthetics, helps). Quite the opposite of the clichés…
One reason that was overlooked in this video and comments is that Leica cameras and lenses are also expensive because they are manufactured and hand built in Germany. They’re built by skilled technicians who are paid well. They have never been mass produced in Asia for example.
@@jca5233 Yes, this has been the case for a very long time. Many of the Panasonic clones are made in Japan. But the M, Q, SL, etc. are all made in Germany.
Don´t forget that Leica has a factory in Portugal since 1973 and there they produce all the camera parts as well lenses parts. Binoculars for example was 100% made in Portugal.
The Asian technicians are skilled as well. They just charge less because their cost of living is lower. Don't blindly worship Euro stuff. Leica doesn't even have an in house colour science. They don't make their own sensors.
My Leica M10 was only camera that I ever bought new. That I felt was worth buying new, which I did in 2018, along with the 28 'Cron and 50/2.4 Summarit. The lack of automation and features has been an asset, not a hinderance to my creative process and the M10 has taught me much about photography as an artform. Das wesentliche? Indeed.
I think you can certainly say, that lack of frivolous features and any unnecessary automation, have forced you to teach yourself photography, at least on a technical level. The trick is that they slow you down and force you to make decisions, and that takes thinking. Compare that to the world of Fuji, Sony, Canon etc etc etc.
Leica SL system is still the greatest camera system ever made imo.. Sure it doesnt have some of the features of the newer cameras, but it was the first system to have the features many cameras only recently came out with. The SL2/s are even better. The real power of the SL system is in the glass, it just doesnt have any equals.
Some people buy L Mount Alliance glass or Voigtlander M lenses for Leica Body, I am clueless as which one to invest in with limited budget.. is it Leica Body or Leica Glass
whoever says Leica is same level of other brands just try it, of course part of the price is because of the brand name which costs to be kept in high standard but just make a comparison and honestly express your feeling after that. people who believe that a seiko wrist watch is showing time same as a Vacheron constantin or Patek philippe so they are the same value are majority of course and its true in this specific issue but just consider Seiko is produced in mass and maybe millions per year but for Vacheron and patek they make less than 2000 per year and for each piece it takes 2 or 3 masters to make it in lengthy time., vacheron has history of watch making of about 280 years and patek 200 years, nobody makes you to pay 40,000 to 100,000 and even more usd for a watch but if you feel you like it and have enough to afford it, its your call. thanks for video and explanation.
One of the big 3 of binoculars with Zeiss and Swarovski. Is the same thing, you can get almost the same with a bino that cost 1/3, but sometimes you want the best.
I know Leica optics as in Leica semiconductor inspection microscopes, which I was trained on in Westlar, Germany. I could never afford the digital nor the 35mm cameras. I do have a Leica branded 35mm point and shoot camera from 1995, when I worked for Leica.
We are glad to have a former Leica employee like you here. As you have the experience of working there, we would like to know if you think Leica lenses are still as sharp as they were previously. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.
What this video misses is that you're really paying the premium for unique features and performance, it's not just luxury. The M cameras rangefinder is a unique way to shoot that has high precision engineering requirements, and is paired with very compact and light yet high performance lenses, a lens like the 35mm or 50mm APO is better than most any lens you will find at this focal length, while being far more compact and light (pocket sized, under 300 grams). The SL series of cameras has a different concept, is an ordinary mirrorless system however the SL Summicron lenses are the highest performing lenses that you will find for a full frame camera in terms of contrast and sharpness. People want to compare Leica to Rolls Royce, but Porsche would be a far better comparison. As their philosophy is to combine luxury and performance (especially optical performance). And what you are really paying for is the high precision required to do best performance in a lens that is about 1/3 the size of what is typical for full frame. Leica's philosophy can really be summed up in the phrase, no expense spared. They're expensive because they don't care about economising production.
A Sony Full Frame is the bleeding edge in precision engineering. Leica is a company resting on its laurels and living purely on legacy while marketing to dentists and other wealthy people as a form of male jewelry. If you’re a serious photographer, your go to camera is a Sony Canon or Nikon. Everything else is a secondary. Full stop.
I’ve shot most of the early rangefinder film cameras and honestly, I couldn’t tell the difference in image quality. I’ve not tried the digital Leicas yet. Maybe one day I will, but for now I’m happy with the quality of the mirrorless cameras I use now.
while traveling in Europe in the early 70's , I found a Leica llla for $50 . when my Olympus 35rc was stolen , I started using the leica llla , and It changed my feeling for photography . using a rangefinder Leica is a different experience than using any other camera . in the. film days , leicas seemed more reasonably priced . now digital m cameras are expensive , even when used , because the new price is so high . my film m cameras and lenses are way higher priced now than what I paid for them . I was able to find an m8 for under $1000 3 years ago , and recently stretched and purchased an m240 3 weeks ago . an expensive watch is passive , but a camera is a tool for me . if I have a tool i like , and it works for me , I will enjoy and use it when ever possible . I am sorry Leica rangefinders are so expensive , but there really isn't an alternative .
Bought a used M10 and I’m very happy with it . It’s like going back to a manual film camera that happens to have a sensor on it. If you’re not interested in taking pictures this way , don’t get a Leica M. ( get a Q2 ) .
I've always thought they are overrated, until I realized I can easily tell if a picture was taken by a Leica. The distinctive form of images produced is an art of its own
In this video I didn't hear too many reasons why they are so expensive. All I heard was limited production, brand appeal and snob value. I actually got far more useful information from the comments below.
Limited production because of extreme craft and well-paid/trained workers, brand value... based in Germany for most of its production. Reliable, the M line is the model using the same bayonet for the longest time allowing its users to use a vast number of lenses. Very compact for 25, full-frame cameras. No plastic involved. Special quality of the lenses (Ms) due to their design compactness included. The pre WWII models and then the M line is what made Leica's reputation. How could so many photographers whose production count among the best ever be wrong... and you right? ;O) Most the reasons listed here (except the end) were in the video by the way.
Try creating a decent rangefinder camera in 2023. They’re the only ones (thankfully) still doing it. Not ‘rangefinder style’, an actual rangefinder. This is 90% why I shoot leica.
Have you ever tried to photograph with a Smartwatch or a Rolex? More seriously, I am glad some wealthy people show off their Leicas, this for two reasons: 1-they maintain Leica's production and help them to carry on their excellent craftsmanship (and pay their employees decent wages and provide them with good working conditions), 2-the used market becomes a trove for immaculate cameras and lenses at a more affordable prices (and I have some experience there ;o).
Why the high cost of Leicas? Several reasons: every Leica is made by hand by highly trained craftspeople. Many Leica employees stay with the company their entire careers. Every piece of a Leica is handcrafted in-house. There are no plastic pieces in a Leica to wear out. The Leica recipe for success remains largely unchanged for over 125 years…it is about innovation, achieving excellence, and retaining employees who are committed to the company’s culture. Leicas are built to last more than a lifetime. These are characteristics that are not replicated by other camera manufacturers who have chosen to crank out thousands of new cameras every year. Their business,Odell is very different than Leica’s.
Leica can't be compared to PhaseOne or Hasselblad image quality and it cannot be compared to Sony A1 or Canon eos r3 performance and features. Looking to their products technical sheet I think that there is nothing special about their cameras and the only thing that can justify their price tag is the fact that they are handmade .
A leica isn’t the best camera to produce high quality images, that’s true. For the same price you could get an r3 with so mich higher specs. But if there isn’t a client and your taking photo’s for yourself. There’s no camera that is more joyfull to shoot with than a leica. Shooting on a leica rangefinder is a completely different experience. Its also so easy to take one on a trip as it is so small. Granted it is a luxury product, that is true, but being handmade is not the justification for the price tag.
You are mixing apples and oranges if you are comparing an M or SL camera to a medium format. Have you ever seen the results obtained with an S3, ever used one or even knew they existed. For a photographer what matters is results, photographs and their image quality... see how many "real" photographers think Leica are worth it, look at their work, try a Leica M rather than looking at technical sheets. Only informed opinions are worth expressing, the rest is just wind and waste of time.
@@shumyinghon That is not the only argument for marketing Leicas, by far. The list of their successful users (as photographers) is quite a compelling argument far more then the pseudo Rolls Royce one. Another one is just using one.
As it has always been hard to make a good dish with crappy ingredients, a good wine with bad grapes, a good print with a bad negative, if you start with a bad image file, good luck for the "nice vibrant sharp picture" So it all starts with camera and lens, whether film or digital (with the same user of course).
As a Leica M10-rR owner, I'm disappointed. I can pick any $600 camera with a $1500 lens and produce almost (not same) similar results to Leica with some free software like GIMP
I have 2. A Q1 & a M240 + a 50mm f2 lens and a couple of vintage Leica lenses. I love them. However I've found they are expensive to service and not so easy to exchange without a 20% loss of investment. More wanted than I needed. Unique Camera's, highly desirable by some. You can't join the Leica owners club unless you have one.
"...the bokeh quality is also incredibly even in shape, giving you a distinctive shape that no other lenses can match." C'mon now, that's just not the case. Also, "bokeh" is the least most important aspect of a photograph containing any real artistic or editorial merit.
Do people still buy products to "show off"? That seems to be more the case in emerging countries where the wealth is growing rapidly. In most European countries showing off is considered bad. Here people think that if you buy an expensive car, you probably have a small... . There are some markets though where people still buy thinks BECAUSE they are expensive. That is quite an irrational behaviour. You should never buy anything to impress others, because your friends like you anyway and your enemies are not worth the money. I also own a lot of expensive camera gear, but I bought that stuff because it helps me to get the photos I want. I would be glad if my camera had just cost $1000 or so. Then I would have a lot of money left for other stuff.
Humans are humans wherever you go. Showing off and common sense are part of humanity all over the world. Showing off in Europe may have to do more with income taxes ;o) ... tell it to some Russian oligarchs and their yacht in the south of France ;o)
I still can't understand why they are pricey.. sorry but marketing does not speak to me when quality is ignored or not compared on the market. We say expensive 'cause other brands are less expensive, so a comparison is better than branding
Many people are like you. They are happy with the average.. Im not. My camera gear is my living and nothing is too good for me. It earns me money and its my reward for the work I do.
@@travis8665 It's up to everyone, and what you call "average". Personally, I have no reason to pay double the price (or more) when 95% aspects/features are surpassed by the what you call "average". Especially for professional use, I want to win time and satisfy customers and still keep the image quality. So why Leica when you can do better faster cheaper ? As I said, I still don't understand why some prefer this option. Being original is good, but not when this original side is not an advantage for the price. Still, you can get some of this originality side with Fuji x-t series
"Gain social acceptance from others and only the elite can afford them" I have never heard such rubbish. I do love mine.. I am neither Elite nor am i a rich man. I saved my Money and i bought what i wanted.
Yes I do not think that "social acceptance" is such a relevant argument. Acceptance from what "society"?? People can recognise an expensive sports car from its unique design, who can actually recognise a Leica except its users/owners and a few others.
People don’t whine about others who buy some $60-70,000 car they don’t need when you could simply buy a cheap $25,000 vehicle. They operate on the mindset of if they can afford it then they SHOULD buy something nice. But somehow it’s a problem When people want to buy an expensive camera from Leica instead of some cheap Fuji.
No Leica is both luxury and performance, not just luxury. so more like Porsche. Both expensive and high performance (if you look at the performance level of the lenses)
They failed to compete in the market with big players as competition is getting tougher, so changed their company model to Luxury brand instead of value.
@@camerazone_ They have survived so far after being on the brink of disappearance. Some may disagree with their new somewhat luxury policy (I somewhat do) , on the other hand if it keeps them afloat and as long as the used market is full with cheaper and pristine cameras and lenses, I have very few objections ;o)
My wife wanted one of those 2CV french cars but I wanted a new leica we only had the money for one of those. She just went ahead and bought the car while I was out working. It's not fair I mean like. i like a leica like her likes a light car. plz like.
Does her 2CV take photographs? I hope for her back, butt, ears, right hand (patience and wallet for parts) she does not plan to drive across Europe with it (unless she wants to write a book). Cute!
I think leica is a niche market. I rather cash on where I feel I would make a return on mu purchase. Although if I could really afford one it would be for its ability and image quality not for bragging rights.
If the reasons in the video would be correct, then Voigtländer, TTArtisan, and 7Artisans lenses wouldn't be able to exist for the price - low quantity made and still excellent quality. Reason why Leica is so expensive is simply marketing to keep the luxury brand name as such and (collector) gear value high.
None of these produce range-finder cameras. As for TTartisan and 7artisans low-cost labor, very probably state financed sponsorship, and patent infringement has allowed them to produce excellent low cost lenses (but as an employee I would rather work in Germany than China). As for Voigtlander, originally another German manufacturer, it did not survive and was bought by Cosina (Japan) whose also excellent lenses are produced in...
As a luxury camera brand, Leica is almost everyone's dream. But when it comes to performance, Leica is always seemed like more of a luxury brand, rather than a performing camera.
I use a Q2 and absolutely love it. Don’t think I’ll ever go to another brand. Compared to my previous cameras(Nikon & Ricoh) I have found the Q2 to be so much better with its simplicity.
@@camerazone_ Interesting opinion when you look at the roster who actually have used and do use Leicas. Only informed opinions are worth expressing, the rest is just wind and waste of time.
No offense, but European companies love to take something practical and just push it into luxury territory and charge absurd prices for status symbols. Watches, cameras, cars, sunglasses… they make something into high fashion, and then reap the profits.
They so happen to treat their employees better and this has a cost. They also understood that quality matters and provides them with an area/niche where they can compete with non-European productions that do not provide that has their focus is low-cost.
Why Leica charges so much money for range finder cameras is unconscionable. I don’t care that they only make a limited number of them. They should go the way of DSLR’s. I am not saying they are not good cameras because they are. They are just way overpriced for what they do.
except in actual performance its pretty much a elitist symbol more than a "better" camera, in most departments that can be named and people use cameras for at the least... so yeah, people will probably keep on enjoying their cute luxurious Leicas anyway not for being better... just more prestigious.
Rich , weathly 's will follow ing , leica's , foot step, by times to times .see....now , 2022 ,2025,2030, 2035, 2040,2045,2050!!!!!!!!! Done , so well ....
