5 ms·
I could understand the point of leica, in the 40s-60s it was quiet, well built, had good lenses and was reliable. (it had a fabric shutter, or something simila
by KaiserPro 11y ago
I could understand the point of leica, in the 40s-60s
it was quiet, well built, had good lenses and was reliable. (it had a fabric shutter, or something similar, which means it didn't click. This allowed people to be "in the moment")
In the digital world, I just don't understand the point of them. Sure yes its a full frame with a decent lens in a similar body size as the old compact rangefinders.
But.
the image quality just isn't worth the $4K. Thats top end SLR price. Under its all its just a panasonic lumix. If it was a separate entity, I could sorta see the point. You are paying for the name, and thats it.
What I'd really like is a leica/fujion style body, but with a nikon sensor and lens adaptor. (Although I suspect that its not really possible because the focal point is much too deep.)
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoLeica's optics in that period weren't as good as other brands': http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/11/17/13-how-leica-lost-its-way http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/11/17/13-how-leica-lost-...
- fossuser 11y agoI suspect it's more like Rolex or Porsche. New technology leads to better core function at a fraction of the cost (quartz watches and electric cars), but there's some artistry to the old mechanical way of doing things. Precise analog machines can be cool even with their faults (or because of them) - I think that's the point.
- jgalt212 11y agoI'd say a Porsche is about 30% more expensive than a comparable Nissan GT-R. Whereas a Leica is 2-3X a comparable Canon or Nikon.
- tonyedgecombe 11y agoIt's all about image, just not the image taken by the camera.
- FireBeyond 11y agoI'm someone who thinks Leica is a bit overpriced. But as the owner of a 5D Mk III and several L lenses, -and- a Lumix DMC-LX100... the Leica is not a Lumix. This isn't even the best article for image quality (though there are certainly many very good shots). But where the Leica excels is razor sharp images that don't have any hint of "is that sharpened in Photoshop?" (for example: http://i1.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/L1000366.jpg http://i1.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2... )
- foldr 11y agoIt looks pretty ordinary to me, to be honest. Even entry level DSLRs produce very sharp images these days.
- cjbprime 11y ago> Under its all its just a panasonic lumix There was/is a cheap Leica digital that was a rebadged Lumix, but that isn't true of these full frame digitals.
- onre 11y agoAlmost all old rangefinders were quiet, ditto for folders and TLRs - it wasn't in any way Leica specific. SLRs, on the other hand, can be rather noisy because of the mirror slap. Pentax 67 sounds almost like a weapon.
- KaiserPro 11y agoI was watching an interview with a famous street photographer[who I can't remember], he was saying why he liked leicas, one was the viewfinder position, and the other was the silent shutter (I've never used one so I can't comment) The pentax 67 is a medium format monster, with a solenoid actuator. I have used it and its a wonderful beast.
- dagw 11y agoUnder its all its just a panasonic lumix. No, it really isn't. While Leica has rebadged Panasonic cameras in the past, and let Panasonic use the Leica brand on some of its lenses, they've always kept their own camera factories and production going and this is a 'real' Leica.
- KaiserPro 11y agobut a "real" leica is a film camera. I strongly doubt that they even design their own CMOS sensors.
- melted 11y agoThey don't design them from scratch, but they DO participate in sensor design. That's part of the reason why wide angle Leica lenses don't suffer from terrible vignetting, corner smear and peripheral color shifts when used with Leica bodies. Leica uses offset microlenses to counteract those effects.
- dagw 11y agoIf we're going to be really picky, they didn't make the film for their film cameras either.