# Is Leica really worth it?



## Terry Rogers (Dec 31, 2014)

It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.

My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?

I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M


----------



## fotofool (Dec 31, 2014)

As you seem to understand, you are the only person who can answer the specific question you have asked.

If you are seriously curious then I suggest you sign up for a Leica Academie, get some hands on time with a Leica M, and find out...

http://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-Akademie/Leica-Akademie-Worldwide/Leica-Akademie-North-America

I did and now my 5DmII and collection of L lenses is growing rather bored. Others will obviously reach different conclusions.


----------



## sanj (Dec 31, 2014)

Above all first ask yourself if you can live without AF and if you shoot mostly low ISO. Because Leica is manual focus only and not so great at high ISO.

Rest follows later.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 31, 2014)

Is Zeiss-Otus worth it - instead of a Canon EF 50/1.4? 

I used Leicaflex for many years (slides, always the same 90mm-Lens). I was never dissapointed about the results wich i saw only weeks later. You know in the moment when you push the button, that the picture is just as you want it. This experience is for me connected with Leica and Kodak. Now Kodak is dead and i do not want to shoot with Velvia. 

I do not have the money for a digital Leica M. But if i had it, the decision would be between FF Canon/Nikon and Otus-Lenses or Leica M-System. The price would be rather the same. The question is obviously not whether it is worth or not. It is rather whether you feel good with a manual focus DSLR or a manual focus Rangefinder. Technically there are advantages in the case of DSLR-Otus Combination. The advantage of the Leica is, that it is small, silent and that it is a Rangefinder. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 31, 2014)

Whilst I accept that some photography gear will provide a better image than Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax DSLR's, there will also be a niche market also for products such as Leica that to my thinking don't offer anything significantly more than the rest of the DSLR market runners, but fills a niche that some people buy into for what ever reason. 

People look at me in amazement that I've spent £2k on a bit of glass, or £700 on an iPhone rather than a £400 Andriod, we shop a lot at Marks & Spencer's and Waitrose rather than Aldi, ASDA or Lidl, I've had BMW's and Audi's, all of which are my choices partly because I appreciate the small gains in quality but also because I've bought into the lifestyle hype - don't get fooled by the hype, Leica's a great bits of kit, but will they improve you photography ? That's very subjective and something only you will know once you try one ;-)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 31, 2014)

Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.

There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
There is not and can never be ultra wide-angle lenses. :-X
There is not and can never be fisheye lenses. 
There is not and can never be super tele lenses. 
There is not and can never be tilt shift lens. :'(
There is not and can never be Image Stabilizer Lens. :-*

For me, rangefinder cameras work well for a werent limited number of photos, not worth the investment.

You would have more benefits using Zeiss lenses Otus in their current DSLR.

EDIT: How could I forget ... Leica M is the only camera system currently to take pictures with the lens cap, and not notice anything wrong through the viewfinder.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 31, 2014)

I heard a great saying about the Leica M system...... "The two best days with Leica are the day you purchase it, and the day you sell it". The M lenses are great... the cameras seem to be plagued with problems. I sold all of my Leica M stuff about a year ago and haven't missed it. I do know a few other Leica shooters that have left M digital for Fuji. There's a thought out there that Leica has become a lifestyle luxury brand above all else... which is fine, they make money now.

The Leica S stuff is very good though and the lenses are remarkable. I've considered it for some time now. I'll be heading on a photography tour with a Phase One in March to see which I prefer.


----------



## tron (Dec 31, 2014)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue


----------



## Berowne (Dec 31, 2014)

I did thousands and thousands of slides over decades without AF, IS and automatic metering. Before i bought a Canon DSLR I never used a Zoom. With the Leica/Kodakchrome-combination i never had problems with gear or quality of the slides over years and years. I pushed the button, send the film to the Kodak-Lab and received perfect quality. Everything changed, when Kodak was dying. 

And now? Within five years I changed Camera, Computer and Software. I had to learn PS, LR, care with RAW-Files, bought TB-Harddrives, care about color-adjustment and printer and so on and so on. As I know, people who changed to digital Leica M had serious technical problems with nearly everthing in the camera wich was not mechanical: sensor, SD-cards, battery, shutter ... I would not invest so much money and have so much problems with a hobby wich was making me happy for many years without electronics. 

In summary: analog photography with Leica was easy and the results pretty good. Used camers were affordable the quality of the lenses realy good. Digital photography made everthing only more difficult (if you do not need to shoot 3000 pics per hour of tiny birds with 800mm lenses free hand ...). Digital photography with Leica M seems to be a mess. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Rocky (Dec 31, 2014)

Terry Rogers said:


> It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.
> 
> My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?
> 
> I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M



Are you asking about the M as a film camera? or as M as a digital camera???


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 31, 2014)

Terry Rogers said:


> It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.
> 
> My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?
> 
> I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M



No one who has spent the 3x to 5x premium for Leica equipment has ever, in the history of the universe, said it was not worth it. 
Now, while some of this could be attributed to high levels of customer satisfaction, there is no way that number could be 100% positive unless something else was at work. Kind of like how elections in Iran and North Korea are always 100% in favor of the incumbent leader but it seems fishy. One possibility is that, in some cases, people who have shelled out so much on the Leica item find the possibility it was a waste of money to be so horrifying that it is literally unthinkable.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 31, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.
> 
> There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
> There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
> ...



In this photo You could pass for Eric Clapton. (Lol). Can you grind a metal rangefinder over the strings and play Leica slide guitar?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 31, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.
> ...


Yes, this is Sir Eric Clapton. He is among those people who can spend a lot on an object, not for performance, but the plaque written LEICA.

In addition to it, Victoria Beckham also fell on the viewfinder trap that does NOT show the image captured by the lens.


----------



## arcanej (Dec 31, 2014)

Is it worth it in terms of the cost - probably not. 

I have the Monochrom and simply love the camera and Leica glass really is top-notch. (Although, Zeiss' latest 35mm M-mount is actually better than Leica's higher priced 35mm Summilux.) Shooting with a range finder really isn't that difficult and I've even used it to photograph a dance show while I recorded video with my 5D3 (see below). I do, however, often have a magnifier attached to aid in focusing. 

I love how range finders force me to slow down and think about composition instead of running and gunning. The Monochrom doesn't have a bayer filter and produces super detailed images. When I do studio shots and edit in Photoshop I am amazed how when I zoom in even to pixel level I still see detail whereas images from my 5D3 go to mush well before pixel level. 

My big gripes with the Monochrom are the horrible LCD on the back and the fact the buffer fills up fast and takes forever to clear. There is apparently an issue with the Monochrom and M9 in terms of sensor corrosion, but Leica has offered a free lifetime sensor replacement. 



Dr. Cornel West by Evan&#x27;s Pix, on Flickr



aerialist by Evan&#x27;s Pix, on Flickr



modern dance by Evan&#x27;s Pix, on Flickr


----------



## arcanej (Dec 31, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> There's a thought out there that Leica has become a lifestyle luxury brand above all else... which is fine, they make money now.



I wouldn't be surprised. Private equity shop Blackstone bought a large stake in Leica a few years ago and they will look to maximize their return on investment.


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 31, 2014)

Many of the buyers for the Sony A7 and A7r seemed more interested in using their old Leica rangefinder glass than adapting any LSR lenses. They could not afford a new digital Leica M camera. So a A7 with an adapter is a no-brainer for lenses that would normally just sit in their closet. Or only come out when they wanted to shoot film.

Is Leica better than an A7 shooting Leica glass? I do not know on normal to telephoto. But Leica digital does much better with wide angle lenses. From everything that I have heard.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 1, 2015)

I assume that the OP means the Leica M's, but there is another option if someone is curious about Leicas and wants to see if they are "worth it" - the Leica R's. Used film bodies are very affordable and many lenses can fit onto Canon bodies with an adapter. The R system also has the usual fisheyes, wide angle, super telephotos etc. The lenses are also good to use on mirrorless cameras.

But to answer the query in general, Leica M's are great for travel, street shooting, portraits and landscapes. They are fairly well made, reasonably compact, portable cameras and many of the lenses are at least equal to Canon L lenses in relation to image quality. If the cameras and lenses were selling for less than half of what they currently sell for, there probably wouldn't be much debate. But selling a lower volume, niche product, I can understand why Leica portrays itself as a luxury brand and aims to keep their price high. Though, to me, I think you pay a little too much for the branding, mystique and mythology. But then, Leica did "invent" photography...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-NzDnlOgIw


----------



## Berowne (Jan 1, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> The lenses are also good to use on mirrorless cameras.



No, they are not. If it is about tele-lenses you can adapt them and use them also with mirrorless cameras. But not fast (in particular wide angel) lenses with short exit pupil distance. They will suffer reduced preformance because of the mostly thick sensor stacks used in mirroless cameras. 

The Leica M is perhaps also affected, its sensor stack is 0.8mm thick. This means that you can not use M-Lenses wich are designed for Film-Cameras without loss of IQ. This is of course also true for Nikon and Canon lenses, but they are not so expensive and in most cases no longer used, because cheap new lenses are available. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 1, 2015)

Thanks, surprised to hear that's the case given the R system has a longer flange distance than even Canon EF lenses (47mm vs 44mm). Adapted lenses also suffer from the inherent problems associated with using an adapter and the hit to IQ, but you do hear of people using them successfully.


----------



## Berowne (Jan 1, 2015)

Hallo Hillsilly, 

Have look at this: 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter 

Rogers mesurements and data predict, that the Leica-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Elmarit (EPD= 29mm) will work badly on the Sony A7 (Sensor Stack 2mm). This is a realy good lens. The mirrorless Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 has a Sensor Stack that is 4mm thick. This should ruin the IQ of most lenses wich are not designed for such a camera. 

In most cases nobody knows the exit pupil distances of the Leica lenses. So it is not predictable whether a particular lens will have a good performance with a special camera. But fast wide-angle Leica-M Lenses will most probably not work with mirrorless cameras without loss of IQ. In the case of Tele-Lenses it is unimportant. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Rocky (Jan 1, 2015)

As a M4 user for the last 46 years, I can say that the Leica M4 and the lenses are is well made. They have been trouble free all the time. I do not " baby" my camera, I use them as tools. The lenses are way above average even by today's standard. 
I am sure that when Leica goes into digital, The picture quality suffers slightly due to the Bayer sensor. You should look into DPreview and look at some of the sample picture and see how good the pictures are.
As for using the Leica lens on the mirrorless camera, I have done that on the EOS_M with 90/4.0 and 35/2.0. The pictures are sharp with excellent color rendition with super definition. It actually beat the 22/2.0 EF-M by a wide margin. That is from a 46 year old lens made for film.. However, most mirrorless are not made for manual focusing. It is a slow and tedious process. Therefore this is not a acceptable operation for me.
The Leica lens focal length range in production now is quite limited. from 17 to 135mm only. It does offer one zoom 17-28mm. 
The M9 or ME and model after them are manual focus body. It is a joy to use with the Leica lenses. The focusing is silky smooth and precise. Much better than the film SLR and the modern DSLR. With fine focusing movement and DOF scale on the lens, you can actually prefocus and stop down the lens to made sure that you have more than enough DOF and shoot with zero focusing delay.
"ARCANEJ" posted an excellent comment with excellent pictures on the Mono Chrome model.
Is it worth the money??? That depends on how deep you pockets is and your shooting style.


----------



## Perio (Jan 2, 2015)

Some time ago I was looking to get Leica S2 medium format cameras. But their lenses are ridiculously expensive (the cheapest one I believe was around $5000), so I came to a conslusion that my photography skills were not good enough to justify the expense.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 2, 2015)

No


----------



## lintoni (Jan 2, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.
> 
> There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
> There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
> ...


Blind Blake, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Eric Clapton...


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 2, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Hallo Hillsilly,
> 
> Have look at this:
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter


Thanks, but I suspect we're talking at cross purposes. The R system lenses that I mentioned are SLR lenses and are different to the M system lenses. The R lenses are just like your regular Canon SLR/DSLR lenses. Most were very high quality for their time and there were even some rebadged Minolta lenses that are now fairly affordable on eBay. Going back to the point about using them with mirrorless cameras, they usually have good optics, nice manual focusing mechanisms, manual aperture rings and as far as older, adapted lenses go, there isn't much better . And if you're shooting APS-C, just add a speed booster (which exist for Leica R, but not Leica M) and you're essentially back to using the lenses as designed. (Not that I'm necessarily saying adapted lenses are a great idea, but it is a useful side benefit)


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 2, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

If you want to own something because it's too expensive for any of your friends to afford one, then yes it's worth it.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 2, 2015)

I'd like to meet someone with a brand new Porsche who says "It's nothing special - just a Volkswagen with a big
engine". He could be a Leica owner. Sure, they have a "special" past, fine glass and a body you could drive nails with, but "nothing special" - if you have enough spare change. Using one requires more than a basic knowledge of photography, a mindset to take "photographs instead of pictures" - and not needing a longer focal length than
135mm. It also requires good eyesight to use the rangefinder, good psychomotor skills to focus, and a touch of
arrogance. For an entertaining evening try the Leica user forum at l-camera-forum.com.


----------



## arcanej (Jan 2, 2015)

dickgrafixstop said:


> I'd like to meet someone with a brand new Porsche who says "It's nothing special - just a Volkswagen with a big
> engine". He could be a Leica owner. Sure, they have a "special" past, fine glass and a body you could drive nails with, but "nothing special" - if you have enough spare change. Using one requires more than a basic knowledge of photography, a mindset to take "photographs instead of pictures" - and not needing a longer focal length than
> 135mm. It also requires good eyesight to use the rangefinder, good psychomotor skills to focus, and a touch of
> arrogance. For an entertaining evening try the Leica user forum at l-camera-forum.com.



I love the Monochrom -- really and truly do. It's so much fun to shoot and I really like the images it renders.

I am also the first to admit that it probably isn't worth the price - it's a great product, but I think it would be reasonably priced a few thousand dollars less. 

However, I think you exaggerate the difficulty in using a rangefinder. 

You need to have a basic sense of what a proper exposure will be but that really isn't too hard to grasp after shooting for a little while. The camera does have a meter built into the rangefinder and it is very easy to adjust the aperture ring if you are within a stop or two of the right ISO/shutter speed on the fly. 

Focusing is really easy. I only have two lenses: the 50mm Summilux and the 90mm Summicron. The 50mm is super easy to focus and I rarely have an out of focus shot. I do admit I prefer to have a 40% magnifier on when shooting the 90mm, but, with the magnifier I have few out of focus shots.


----------



## Berowne (Jan 2, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Most were very high quality for their time and there were even some rebadged Minolta lenses that are now fairly affordable on eBay.



This is true, as I know these are the Leica-R 24mm Elmarit und the 70-200mm Zooms. But the Leica R3 and the Leica CL/Minolta CLE are also "Minoltas". On the other Hand the Minolta MC/MD Rokor 85/1.7 and the 85mm f/2 MD Rokkor-X are great lenses. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## mustafaakarsu (Jan 2, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
> There is not and can never be ultra wide-angle lenses. :-X



Actually Leica produces a macro lens for M system http://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/M-Lenses/Macro-Elmar-M-90mm-f-4-New

And Zeiss produces a 15mm for Leica bayonet http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/camera_lenses/zeiss-ikon/distagont2815zm.html

Also Monochrom creates really good images because of the lack of the bayer filter.


----------



## arcanej (Jan 2, 2015)

mustafaakarsu said:


> Also Monochrom creates really good images because of the lack of the bayer filter.



It really does! Even Roger Cicala likes it although he says he has difficulty using rangefinders. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/mm-mm-good

Also, this blurb from the rental page:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/leica/cameras/leica-m-monochrom

"A bargain is something you don’t need at a price you can’t resist. This is something you don’t need at a price you can’t afford. But, damn, it’s a spectacularly awesome thing you don’t need. There’s no logical reason I would need this camera, at all. I can’t even focus a rangefinder because of some eye problems.

"But when I see the images that come out of it, ‘need’ has nothing to do with it. It’s lust, pure and simple. They are different, spectacularly different. I’ve heard people say they can make images just like this with high resolution SLR images and post-processing. They can’t. What comes out of this camera is absolutely unique.

"If I was a great marketing guy, I’d tell you rent this for a week and get it out of your system. But I’ll be honest. You won’t get it out of your system. At least I haven’t.

"I can’t even focus it. I just set the lens to hyperfocal distance, bang away for a while, and then get home, pop the card in the computer, and it’s like Christmas. I’m unwrapping images going “oh, boy, let’s see what I got”. And whatever I got isn’t quite like anything else I can get with any other camera."


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 2, 2015)

mustafaakarsu said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
> ...


How can the photographer do the right framework in Macro, through a rangefinder with parallax error?

Again, how to make a correct framework using ultra wide 15mm lens? Is there an optional display that covers the same angle of view?


----------



## arcanej (Jan 2, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> How can the photographer do the right framework in Macro, through a rangefinder with parallax error?
> 
> Again, how to make a correct framework using ultra wide 15mm lens? Is there an optional display that covers the same angle of view?



1) see the macro-kit. It has optics that go over the range-finder. 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/382646-USA/Leica_11629_90mm_f_4_Macro_Kit.html
Also, the M240 has an EVF.

2) there are two options. 
-The M240 has an EVF.
-For M9 and earlier cameras, you can just buy a line finder to go on your flash shoe.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/586201-REG/Leica_12_024_Brightline_Finder_M_21_f.html


----------



## zlatko (Jan 2, 2015)

Terry Rogers said:


> My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?



The answer is entirely subjective. I would say the answer is "yes" if all of these are true for you:

1) you specifically want to use a high quality manual focus full-frame rangefinder camera with a system of very high quality, very small lenses;
2) you can afford it; and 
3) you can put up with the issues associated with a relatively low volume hand-crafted product, such as slow repair times.

In most cases, it's about the whole package, that is, the experience of using the system, not the specific difference in image quality. That said, a lens like the 50mm f/2 Summicron-M is amazingly sharp wide open at f/2, not to mention the $8K APO version. Likewise, a lens like the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M is amazingly sharp wide open at f/1.4. Canon doesn't currently offer a 50mm that is as good wide open. On the other hand, the newish Canon 35/2 IS is probably as good as the Leica 35/2 Summicron-M, and is much cheaper albeit much bigger.


----------

