Thoughts on LEICA M ?


argh...................

This thread............. Reminds me of the days when the M8 & M9 came out!
Afraid I still cant justify putting down money onto this new M! Haiz...........

Been shooting on my film M for the pass few donkey years, kind of getting tired of scanning films but digital Ms are just out of my reach Still a towkay toy to me haha

Lol...this is sad... Leica used to be a prevalent camera among the street photographer in the 80s but today she has transformed into a premium luxury fashion brand.
It is no longer just a tool for the working class or professional. It is also a symbol of status first before profession. Compare to if you carry a Nikon and Canon pro bodies the perception is you are a just a working professional... .;)
 

Last edited:
Lol...this is sad... Leica used to be a prevalent camera among the street photographer in the 80s but today she has transformed into a premium luxury fashion brand.
It is no longer just a tool for the working class or professional. It is also a symbol of status first before profession. Compare to if you carry a Nikon and Canon pro bodies the perception is you are a just a working professional... .;)

Not enough people will buy a rangefinder even if it were priced cheaply. Most people will fret/curse/swear at how difficult it is to focus using the rangefinder.
 

Lol...this is sad... Leica used to be a prevalent camera among the street photographer in the 80s but today she has transformed into a premium luxury fashion brand.
It is no longer just a tool for the working class or professional. It is also a symbol of status first before profession. Compare to if you carry a Nikon and Canon pro bodies the perception is you are a just a working professional... .;)

Despite its prevalence, I don't think a Leica was ever meant to be for the working class. Well, those that don't save anyway :)

It is still very much a tool for anyone that can afford it considering how the years have made a leica M2 cheaper. Just because a large proportion of its clientele are non professional doesn't mean it isn't a tool for a professional. Trouble is, today you're paying for the sensor technology.
 

Last edited:
In mass production, fixed cost in overhead, machinery and development can be deflated off so long as the demand is sufficiently large enough.
On the flip side of the coin, market size determines the product pricing strategy vs the number of total makers.

We all know that rangefinders are not going to be the main stream camera design. Leica M series cameras are it's main product line. It tried making R series but did not compete well with rivals. I'm sure Leica knows well that dropping price will not turn it into a high volume camera maker but to only dilute it's brand. Not to mention that it's demand already outstrip supply at current pricing strategy. Does Leica want more frustrated customers who can afford to pay but cannot get their cameras? Would you pay for a $3000 Leica M made in China by subcontractors who also produce $100 dollar Casio cameras?

Let's not kid ourselves, there will be no cheap Leicas if it were to remain profitable and continue making and coming out with new models.
 

I wouldn't mind if the camera was made in Japan. On the other hand, I would point out that Leica does have a production plant in Portugal and some Leica parts are manufactured there. Not everything "Made in Germany" is really made in Germany.
 

Despite its prevalence, I don't think a Leica was ever meant to be for the working class. Well, those that don't save anyway :)

It is still very much a tool for anyone that can afford it considering how the years have made a leica M2 cheaper. Just because a large proportion of its clientele are non professional doesn't mean it isn't a tool for a professional. Trouble is, today you're paying for the sensor technology.

Wrong your just paying for the brand... I mean REALLY.... Why does Leica have a 50mm f/2.0 Lens that sells at USD $7,000 !!! What a Joke !
 

I wouldn't mind if the camera was made in Japan. On the other hand, I would point out that Leica does have a production plant in Portugal and some Leica parts are manufactured there. Not everything "Made in Germany" is really made in Germany.

Portugal is 3rd world Europe :p Almost.... The same as Romania.... the cheap labor euro countries. ;)
 

Wrong your just paying for the brand... I mean REALLY.... Why does Leica have a 50mm f/2.0 Lens that sells at USD $7,000 !!! What a Joke !

That lens is really sharp though. Personally, I think it ought to just sell for 4K but I guess the Leica mark up will cause it to hit nearly twice that.
 

That lens is really sharp though. Personally, I think it ought to just sell for 4K but I guess the Leica mark up will cause it to hit nearly twice that.

With this kinda price, ZM 50/2 offers a very good price to performance ratio instead. Thus this lens aims for the high end buyers... How good is it over the ZM 50/2 in actual shooting?
 

Wrong your just paying for the brand... I mean REALLY.... Why does Leica have a 50mm f/2.0 Lens that sells at USD $7,000 !!! What a Joke !

80/20 rule applies and it is not proportionally incremental.
In the real world: One needs to be willing to pay for the top 20% increment in superiority @ 80% increment on price to pay.
Remember: LV or Leica charges what one is willing to pay for products and not what it cost to produce!

If you equal the 50mm APO ASPH summicron to be an ordinary Nikon f2 lens, then all men should be wearing the same shirt and sharing the same diet. There will be no motivation to differentiate or to make a mark for success. Or for the least any improvement!
 

I wouldn't mind if the camera was made in Japan. On the other hand, I would point out that Leica does have a production plant in Portugal and some Leica parts are manufactured there. Not everything "Made in Germany" is really made in Germany.

Agree with you. I was a Contax/CarlZeissT* user in the 80s. Unfortunately Contax/CarlZeissT* did so but did not survive!

It is absolutely fine for Leica to produce out of any third world country, so long as the same production spec, material be applied to ensure product quality!

The EVF on the Leica M is a 'made in China' Olympus sourced component. The LCD is certainly made in Asia as well.
 

Wrong your just paying for the brand... I mean REALLY.... Why does Leica have a 50mm f/2.0 Lens that sells at USD $7,000 !!! What a Joke !

At the risk of starting a flame war, I just wanna clarify that there's definitely going to be a brand premium. Not disagreeing with you there.

But at the same time, the m240 is in essence, the smallest FF mirrorless camera out there which I suppose should justify, at least in part, the price premium.

As for why they have such an expensive lens, it is the highest performing 50mm out there. Definitely super high brand premium as well and not something I'd buy either haha.

The zeiss 55mm 1.4 is also set to break records for DSLR lenses, something you'd more likely be able to understand. So Sillbears15 makes a good point about the pareto principle. He has also hit on points about the free market which is pretty true. We are free to choose whether we want to pay for the brand or performance :)
 

We all know Leica camera is market as a luxury product. The price is not only a reflection of it's ability to take quality picture compare to other professional brand where the superior performance worth the higher price. For Leica camera it is about a brand name and marketing. So lets not debate why Leica is so expensive. The answer has been debated in many forums including here. Lets move back to the original purposes of this thread which has been so enriching to read :)
 

Leica is king of the that targeted niche market which the rangefinder experience is still very prevalent.

And indeed its a luxury product by its own merits, if it had gone down the masses like canikon, it would have lost its appeal.

Willing buyers, willing sellers. its that simple. and hence of course, its not for everyone.
 

If you equal the 50mm APO ASPH summicron to be an ordinary Nikon f2 lens, then all men should be wearing the same shirt and sharing the same diet. There will be no motivation to differentiate or to make a mark for success. Or for the least any improvement!

Well said! Cannot agree more.:bsmilie:

Is there any "ordinary Nikon (50mm)/f2 lens" still available these days? (BTW, the Nikon 50mm f2 lens in the '60s was based on classic Guass lens formula which is identical to the (non-apo) summicron 50/2 lens. It's a superb lens even by today's standard. I still have one which I paid $50 few years ago.) so those who want cheap go get a Japcron but stop gian the Leica APO-Summicron and so sour over its price lor.
 

Last edited:
Aite, I have quite a bit of experience so I guess I can provide a bit of input :)

I have used Leica M6s for a long time with a 50 Summicron f/2. the old one, practically glued to it. And did play with a M9 for a few months. Here's the thing though, the images that you get are great, provided that the rangefinder is calibrated properly, the framing is correct despite the rather inaccurate viewfinder framelines, the precense of proper light to provide enough exposure to the image as there is a huge sacrifice in High ISOs, and the fact that you can MF before your subject moves (if it is moving that is) and if you can focus well enough with a fast lens. But boy, are the images worth it. The Leica magic (or wdv you wanna call this visual voodoo) is present.

The Leica M? It has Live view so it sort of solves the need to have your rangefinder calibrated (but defeats the point in buying a M anyway.) the high ISO is better, the sensor has more resolution, a much better battery life AND retains the same price of the M9 when it was out. That being said, the fact that it is priced the same as the launching price of the M9 doesnt matter as it needs to compete with current cameras at that price point, which isn't many as it is more expensive than a lot of the flagship consumer models of other brands like the D800E, 5D MKIII, A99, X-PRO 1, K-5 IIs, OM-D, etc. etc. All of which can be bought with a proper lens or 2/3/4/5 for the price of a M TYPE240 body only. More on this later. So does these improvements actually justify the high price of the M? IMO, it actually does, in a way, unless you compare it apples to apples.

Let's put it this way. It has 1080p video (not very good video), ISO is decent (good to 2500 ISO imo), a great battery life (1k approx. = big plus here), higher res sensor, And it is full frame. full frame in a camera half the size of a D800, uses the some of the best lenses ever made (both mechanically and optically), and has the build quality like no other. Are these things worth the 10k++ it is priced at? for a body only? You are getting the SMALLEST FF interchangeable digital camera in the world (this is probably gonna raise the premium quite a bit), that uses some of the BEST and MOST EXOTIC lenses ever, and you get a body that has a style that will get you ladies ;) and street cred (you use the camera that only a small percentage can afford to buy). I mean people spend thousands on Prada, Hermes, Vuitton bags right?

Take away the styling, the fact the Leica branding, and the street cred though. You actually get a very overpriced camera for the money. The sensor first most, yes, it is FF, but does it actually justify that high price anymore? It is now a CMOS, so some of the Leica magic that the CCD provides is lost right? I personally don't think so. I think that 90% of the magic is in the Leica lenses, 10% in the sensor. I mean if Leica magic can be found in the film Leicas, which make use of different "sensors" all the time, this means that it should be in the lenses. Just my take. The D800E can fit a FF that is HUGE in resolution, thrashes the Leica CMOSIS sensor to the ground in detail resolving, in terms of high ISO as well. and in a body that is half the price. But sure in a body double the size. Video on the D800E is also much better with better controls, bitrates, etc. etc. Performance is much better in terms of shot to shot, processing images, etc. etc. Much more versatile, it has AF, better flash compatibility. AND ALL AT HALF THE PRICE.

So is the rangefinder experience, metal body and tactility of the functions worth it? Nope, not even close. Add in the branding and stuff, yea it might. That's how modern society works. The brand and where it is makes matters.

Lenses-wise, it is the same thing. Take away the Leica branding and stuff, and all you get is an expensive piece of glass and metal. Let's take the Summilux 50 1.4 ASPH which I had some experience with. It is sharp, beautiful, fast and well made with great bokeh. But worth ALOT. more than 4k to be exact. And I'll put another lens that I love into the mix. The Nikon 85mm 1.8G. It has decent AF, sort of a mechanical focus, fast, beautiful rendering, well made, reasonably light, incredibly sharp and has very nice bokeh. But it costs about $600 new. :/..... That is 6-7 times cheaper than the Summilux.

Both fast FF lenses below f/2 (the Nikon has a shallower depth of field), both extremely sharp, but is the Leica lens, without the AF motor, the metal body, and the "Leica magic" worth that massive (MASSIVE) price premium? No. Not even close. The great build quality? Sure that adds to the price premium. But Voigtlander can make lenses like the 75 1.8 which is beautifully made all metal, etc. Not Leica quality but 85-90% there and costs 800 dollars. It doesnt have AF and not weather sealed. If having access to said Leica magic means a premium of 3-4k, count me out.

In the end, I am still a sucker for Leica cameras and lenses. Something about using them that makes it all come together into a satisfying, wallet-lightening, heart-wrenching, divorce-causing and thief-attracting (if your thieves research their targets before robbing/stealing) package. Sure you get the shot, and most likely, the Canikons, Fuji, Olys, etc. will get the shot much easier and faster with AF etc. But it won't be as satisfying as using a Leica, if you just slow down and appreciate everything. If you are impatient and expect the camera to churn out shot after shot, second after second, then this camera is not for you at all. Just an expensive expense you might hurl into the nearest wall or floor in rage.

Just a bloody long thought I wanted to get out in a long time.
 

It's all about the rangefinder experience. A film M costs $800-1000, a 50mm Cron is about $1400. Both excellent quality that will last a LIFETIME. How often can that be said of any other equipment? Dont always have to buy the latest Leica, in fact the resale value shows that people already know this. Having a small compact, full frame camera with very compact lenses and a viewfinder window is a very unique experience, especially if coming from an equivalent FF SLR. Some people appreciate this enough to justify the price.

Finally shooting style and pace should be up to the photographer! Don't let the camera control you... Yu can shoot any camera as fast or slow as you want.
 

Last edited:
Life experience is not always about 'black vs white' and justifiable with a price tag.

Be it film or digital Leica users, I believe it is a certain 'feel' or experience one is after. It cannot be clearly defined by fastest, best, best in value but certainly no less than best when considered 'all in all' against my personal desire. There are those that do not agree. I think it is perfectly fine. But just remember that everyone's desire list differs! And I'm certain our desire changes as our life experiences accumulates!
 

Wrong your just paying for the brand... I mean REALLY.... Why does Leica have a 50mm f/2.0 Lens that sells at USD $7,000 !!! What a Joke !

When some one had reach the TOP and want to improve MORE, the 1% improvement may needs 500% of hard work and times. USD$7000 may not be the true cost of the lens but there is no joke if the R&D and BRAND put in. But sad that many times people only see the final product but ignore the hard and tough progress.

just my 2 cents, btw I'm also not work for Leica.
 

Last edited:
Demand is greater than supply. So apparently there are alot of people out there who don't think it is overpriced. Complaining will just sound like whining.

Anyway, back on topic.

The M9 sensor is special because:

1. It is a CCD sensor
2. It did not have an AA filter
3. It has a microlens array optimized for legacy and modern M lenses

We all know that 1. is now CMOS from CMOSIS, 2. is still true, what about 3.? Does the custom made CMOSIS sensor still have a microlens array? I am assuming yes. So the question is, most reviewers have been using the 50 Lux, 50 AA Cron and 35 Lux. Has anyone tried using a wide angle lens?

Also the M is now the only full frame mirrorless camera with live view and focus peaking on the market. Which means that with the right adapter, it can use almost any and every lens in the world. Something that no other camera can do.
 

Back
Top