4 ms·

Having used a great many different cameras what I think about Leicas is that their primary advantage is the state of mind they create in the photographer, which

Having used a great many different cameras what I think about Leicas is that their primary advantage is the state of mind they create in the photographer, which isn't really connected to any tangible usability in design, or engineering marvel in the camera performance. Just the fact that some photographers know they have a Leica in their hand, makes them feel more liberated and ... how shall I say it ... "photographery". I think it cannot be denied that with a suitable picture style, you could shoot JPEGs on a 5D MkIII that look similar to what a Leica produces without processing. I bet you most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the JPEGs with their naked eye, and even fewer would be able to pick out which one was from the Leica, and which from the 5DMkIII. Leicas remind me of French Wine. Everyone waxes poetic about them until they are asked to pick out the Leica photos from a lineup in a double blind test. At that point everyone then says the Leica is about intangible things like "superior UI". In the end, I think the Leica is a brand first, and then a camera with certain characteristics next. A camera made from a solid carved piece of aluminum is just damn attractive. But people feel the need to imbue the Leica with more qualities than it actually has, because maybe they feel embarrassed to have chosen the tool of their trade based on its looks, rather than its utility. I for one think designers should not apologize for choosing a camera just because it looks good. Design is their whole trade, and they need to surround themselves with inspiration to get into their creative space. I look at Leica as the cost of doing business for a designer. That is the way their brains work. And lest programmers develop some superiority complex about their rationality ... I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point.

caycep 12y ago
In the film days, it really made a difference. You can use a Leica M4 or 6, yeah it'd cost you a little more but your camera took amazing photos at 1/4 the weight and size of say, a Nikon F3, with a shutter that is whisper quiet. You can go closer and shoot more unobtrusively; while a given Nikon has equal optics, if different characteristics, it couldn't go where a Leica could. At least that's my take on it. Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still... Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed. I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy. Them and Eastman Kodak.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Them and Eastman Kodak The first digital Leicas used Kodak sensors.
- justincormack 12y ago
  Yes I think thats fair. In fact you had to go closer, as you would normally use a 35mm or 50mm lens (there are longer ones but hardly anyone used them). There are also some other differences, like the viewfinder not going black when you take the picture, so you see what you took, and the fact that you see beyond the frame in the viewfinder.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  I agree with your general point, though I disagree with the history. Japanese SLRs wiped the floor with Leica - Leica's competition wasn't originally with SLRs, it was with more cumbersome "portable" cameras of their time - TLRs. Leica was the first major 35mm player to actually make the cameras usable with the featureset professionals wanted. Leica's Golden Age was in an era where 35mm SLRs didn't exist. SLRs like the Nikon F3 were in fact the cameras that ultimately toppled Leica from their throne. People loved the WYSIWYG SLRs, they were cheaper to manufacture, and had lower maintenance requirements (rangefinders drift over time/use). Even pros practically completely switched over by the 80s - look at the cameras being used by journalists in the 50s vs. the 80s and you'll see a complete collapse of Leica. Yeah, Leica was an original innovator who sat on their asses and got disrupted - but the SLR was the disruptor, not really electronics/CS. That said, the electronics/CS component of it did contribute. After all, the M cameras didn't get an aperture priority mode until 2002. I'm not sure when Av mode was invented, but the Canon AE-1P brought it to the mainstream in 1981. Leica was literally 20 years late.
  - caycep 12y ago
    Leica definitely was at a disadvantage in the marketing arena vs. SLRs. But the arguments that M rangefinder still had photographic advantages to SLR's in a number of situations still held weight. Sadly, I think even that selling point has been erased in this day and age.
3pt14159 12y ago
I shoot a 5DMII with a variety of pricy glass. I'm not very good yet, but good enough for people to offer to pay me and to incorporate into the work we do at Venn. I've even been hired to do some video stuff by the CBC (web only, of course). I think most non-photographers can tell when a photo is "pro" but they have a harder time distinguishing how good things are at the top part of the photography spectrum. For fun, I'll sometimes go on "photo walks" around Toronto with my friend that owns a super pricey Leica and has been into photography for way longer than I have. The primary advantage he has beyond just being a better photographer than I am is that when he takes a street photo people don't notice he is there until he already has the shot, whereas I look like a paparazzi. I've lost so many shots because people see the militaristic look of my camera / lens combination. It also can sometimes lead to arguments on the street over the finer points of the legality of photography in public in Canada. Whereas Leica cameras never really illicit this response. Not that I'm ever going to shoot Leica, I find Canon's cameras much more usable and ergonomically designed.
- rdl 12y ago
  This is where the super-premium compact cameras make sense; I use a Panasonic (~Leica) LX5 for that kind of stuff now, but S110, RX100, etc. are great. Obviously not in the same league on sensor size or glass speed, but pretty good, and subtle.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    Some of the mirror less designs with aps-c or 4/3 sensors are getting pretty good too. Combine them with a pancake lens and you have something a lot like traditional rangefinder in relative stealth.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    Some of the mirror less designs with aps-c or 4/3 sensors are getting pretty good too. Combine them with a pancake lens and you have something a lot like traditional rangefinder in relative stealth.
danso 12y ago
I definitely get what you say...quite frankly, that's probably how I feel about Apple hardware...I feel way more comfortable typing away at a standard Mac keyboard, even though it's likely a comparably-priced keyboard from a keyboard-manufacturer would have more bells and whistles and be better constructed. I consider myself a decent amateur photographer...and reading the OP makes me think that, with some tweaking, there's a foundation here for a good Portlandia sketch. I get that beauty is in the eye of the photographer, but I made a mental snort reading the OP's amazement at how good he felt his pics came from right out the camera...(I also think it's a bit silly to prize the just-out-of-the-camera quality, as if it were the difference between fresh-from-the-farm and factory chicken eggs). But what really turns me off is that I associate Leica with great hardware...it sounds like they've sacrificed precise controls with an imprecise touchscreen...I thought the point of a Leica was to give a skilled photographer a full-range of control and depth? To reduce the physical controls so that the camera comes out as a more pure slab of aluminum seems like a move toward superficiality than of craftsmanship.
aeturnum 12y ago
You're absolutely right that a Leica takes technically equivalent (inferior, if you're pushing the sensor) photos. However, that's not really what they're about. I owned a Leica M9 for 3 months last year. My "keeper" rate was 36% higher on the M9 than on previous (or subsequent) digital cameras[1]. I sold the M9 due to its limitations, but you shouldn't underestimate the value of a form factor. [1] I use lightroom, which lets me get pretty good stats. For reference, my "non-M9" keeper rate is 5.5%, my M9 keeper rate was 7.5%. My film keeper rate is 19%.
geoka9 12y ago
> I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point. Or rather the lack of them, it least in my case (just look at the site). There is so much emphasis nowadays placed on the form and the looks that many tech products end up being praised for their design, but once you start digging, the insides make you cringe because of the sloppy work and lack of substance it tries to cover. It's become so bad that I automatically go into a "tread lightly" mode whenever I have to approach a piece of technology with a stunning and trendy design. Maybe that's why I was immediately drawn to Go when I saw its web site :)
tempermanent 12y ago
I made perhaps a rough comment earlier so I looked for somewhere to agree with you. Not only is Go quite an aesthetically pleasing language, but the description of the draw of Leica cameras could probably be swapped word-for-word with Macbook laptops.

caycep 12y ago

In the film days, it really made a difference. You can use a Leica M4 or 6, yeah it'd cost you a little more but your camera took amazing photos at 1/4 the weight and size of say, a Nikon F3, with a shutter that is whisper quiet. You can go closer and shoot more unobtrusively; while a given Nikon has equal optics, if different characteristics, it couldn't go where a Leica could. At least that's my take on it. Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still... Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed. I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy. Them and Eastman Kodak.

ams6110 12y ago
Them and Eastman Kodak The first digital Leicas used Kodak sensors.
justincormack 12y ago
Yes I think thats fair. In fact you had to go closer, as you would normally use a 35mm or 50mm lens (there are longer ones but hardly anyone used them). There are also some other differences, like the viewfinder not going black when you take the picture, so you see what you took, and the fact that you see beyond the frame in the viewfinder.
potatolicious 12y ago
I agree with your general point, though I disagree with the history. Japanese SLRs wiped the floor with Leica - Leica's competition wasn't originally with SLRs, it was with more cumbersome "portable" cameras of their time - TLRs. Leica was the first major 35mm player to actually make the cameras usable with the featureset professionals wanted. Leica's Golden Age was in an era where 35mm SLRs didn't exist. SLRs like the Nikon F3 were in fact the cameras that ultimately toppled Leica from their throne. People loved the WYSIWYG SLRs, they were cheaper to manufacture, and had lower maintenance requirements (rangefinders drift over time/use). Even pros practically completely switched over by the 80s - look at the cameras being used by journalists in the 50s vs. the 80s and you'll see a complete collapse of Leica. Yeah, Leica was an original innovator who sat on their asses and got disrupted - but the SLR was the disruptor, not really electronics/CS. That said, the electronics/CS component of it did contribute. After all, the M cameras didn't get an aperture priority mode until 2002. I'm not sure when Av mode was invented, but the Canon AE-1P brought it to the mainstream in 1981. Leica was literally 20 years late.
- caycep 12y ago
  Leica definitely was at a disadvantage in the marketing arena vs. SLRs. But the arguments that M rangefinder still had photographic advantages to SLR's in a number of situations still held weight. Sadly, I think even that selling point has been erased in this day and age.

3pt14159 12y ago

I shoot a 5DMII with a variety of pricy glass. I'm not very good yet, but good enough for people to offer to pay me and to incorporate into the work we do at Venn. I've even been hired to do some video stuff by the CBC (web only, of course). I think most non-photographers can tell when a photo is "pro" but they have a harder time distinguishing how good things are at the top part of the photography spectrum. For fun, I'll sometimes go on "photo walks" around Toronto with my friend that owns a super pricey Leica and has been into photography for way longer than I have. The primary advantage he has beyond just being a better photographer than I am is that when he takes a street photo people don't notice he is there until he already has the shot, whereas I look like a paparazzi. I've lost so many shots because people see the militaristic look of my camera / lens combination. It also can sometimes lead to arguments on the street over the finer points of the legality of photography in public in Canada. Whereas Leica cameras never really illicit this response. Not that I'm ever going to shoot Leica, I find Canon's cameras much more usable and ergonomically designed.

rdl 12y ago
This is where the super-premium compact cameras make sense; I use a Panasonic (~Leica) LX5 for that kind of stuff now, but S110, RX100, etc. are great. Obviously not in the same league on sensor size or glass speed, but pretty good, and subtle.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Some of the mirror less designs with aps-c or 4/3 sensors are getting pretty good too. Combine them with a pancake lens and you have something a lot like traditional rangefinder in relative stealth.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Some of the mirror less designs with aps-c or 4/3 sensors are getting pretty good too. Combine them with a pancake lens and you have something a lot like traditional rangefinder in relative stealth.

danso 12y ago

I definitely get what you say...quite frankly, that's probably how I feel about Apple hardware...I feel way more comfortable typing away at a standard Mac keyboard, even though it's likely a comparably-priced keyboard from a keyboard-manufacturer would have more bells and whistles and be better constructed. I consider myself a decent amateur photographer...and reading the OP makes me think that, with some tweaking, there's a foundation here for a good Portlandia sketch. I get that beauty is in the eye of the photographer, but I made a mental snort reading the OP's amazement at how good he felt his pics came from right out the camera...(I also think it's a bit silly to prize the just-out-of-the-camera quality, as if it were the difference between fresh-from-the-farm and factory chicken eggs). But what really turns me off is that I associate Leica with great hardware...it sounds like they've sacrificed precise controls with an imprecise touchscreen...I thought the point of a Leica was to give a skilled photographer a full-range of control and depth? To reduce the physical controls so that the camera comes out as a more pure slab of aluminum seems like a move toward superficiality than of craftsmanship.

aeturnum 12y ago

You're absolutely right that a Leica takes technically equivalent (inferior, if you're pushing the sensor) photos. However, that's not really what they're about. I owned a Leica M9 for 3 months last year. My "keeper" rate was 36% higher on the M9 than on previous (or subsequent) digital cameras[1]. I sold the M9 due to its limitations, but you shouldn't underestimate the value of a form factor. [1] I use lightroom, which lets me get pretty good stats. For reference, my "non-M9" keeper rate is 5.5%, my M9 keeper rate was 7.5%. My film keeper rate is 19%.

geoka9 12y ago

> I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point. Or rather the lack of them, it least in my case (just look at the site). There is so much emphasis nowadays placed on the form and the looks that many tech products end up being praised for their design, but once you start digging, the insides make you cringe because of the sloppy work and lack of substance it tries to cover. It's become so bad that I automatically go into a "tread lightly" mode whenever I have to approach a piece of technology with a stunning and trendy design. Maybe that's why I was immediately drawn to Go when I saw its web site :)

tempermanent 12y ago

I made perhaps a rough comment earlier so I looked for somewhere to agree with you. Not only is Go quite an aesthetically pleasing language, but the description of the draw of Leica cameras could probably be swapped word-for-word with Macbook laptops.