3 ms·

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 wei

by 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.

by caycep 12y ago

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.