What is the big fuss about Leica

[antonroland]

Hello Guys & Girls

Not to brand-bash but an honest question…

I never could and, to this day, can’t get excited about the idea of owning or wanting to own a Leica camera…

Now I own some Pentax K-1000 cameras, a Mamiya 645, a Hasselblad 500C and Canon D-SLR equipment and lenses so it’s not like I am hell bent on one brand only. I mean I even have a SONY compact() for underwater stuff…

What am I missing?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What am I missing?

Nada, nowt, nothing.

I've owned various Leicas and in the days before digital, a Leica M3 was great for candid photography, thanks to its near silent operation and one of the best viewfinders of the time. The lenses were good but, in my experience, no better than Canon, Nikon or Pentax optics. In fact, for many years my Leica IIIc wore a Soviet Jupiter 35mm lens permanently, which produced images that were as sharp, in general terms, as those from the Leitz lenses.

A combination of smart marketing, brand loyalty and old-fashioned snobbery has led to some people pretending that Leica branded equipment is "magically" better than other cameras but for the last twenty years or so, many Leica digital cameras have been rebranded Panasonic designs, though none the worse for that.

 

[antonroland]

Nowt.

I've owned various Leicas and in the days before digital, a Leica M3 was great for candid photography, thanks to its near silent operation and one of the best viewfinders of the time. The lenses were good but, in my experience, no better than Canon, Nikon or Pentax optics. In fact, for many years my Leica IIIc wore a Soviet Jupiter 35mm lens permanently, which produced images that were as sharp, in general terms, as those from the Leitz lenses.

A combination of smart marketing, brand loyalty and old-fashioned snobbery has led to some people pretending that Leica branded equipment is "magically" better than other cameras but for the last twenty years or so, many Leica digital cameras have been rebranded Panasonic designs, though none the worse for all that.

View attachment 378062

Cheers Andrew!

I recently looked on eBay at what R6 / R7 cameras are going for……I mean actually not THAT much but I can get 2 nice Mamiya lenses for the same money…or pretty much a 3,5/60mm for my 500C…

 

[woof woof]

I can see the attraction to the mechanical cameras and lenses in their build and tactility and the feel and joy of handling and using them, both old and new. I've never had one, I went for other much cheaper film cameras and lenses and ditto with todays mirrorless cameras which I sometimes use old just metal and glass mechanical film era lenses on. I do see the attraction but I don't buy into the Leica look and brand worship and paying way over the odds for a rebranded Panasonic just seems crazy to me as Panasonic make good enough cameras and lenses themselves but "Leica" and "Made In Germany" seem to be attractive additions to the label on the bottom despite the sometimes serious issues with design and build which have cropped up from time to time.

 

[FishyFish]

I think there's a strong element of wanting to be like <insert accalaimed photographer> who uses Leica cameras. This also encompasses popular online channels who also use Leica gear.

It's the old sense that, if only I had one of those, then I could be just as good as this other person. It's a strong attraction.

It misses the point that good photography is mostly down to the photographer, not the equipment. Well made and capable equipment is definitely a benefit of course, especially for professionals who need that reliability, but it's not the singular reason for their success.

 

[Deleted member 95430]

I've never owned one but the hype sometimes does tempt me. Most of the cost is having to pay the German wages which isnt a bad thing as people should be paid well but I wonder how much itd cost if they shipped it out to China.
They have a super strong brand and they are akin to Rolex in a way, good tools, everyone wants one but you can usually get better for less money

 

[lindsay]

I think the reputation was founded pre-WW2 and has been cleverly retained post war through the cold war era. I only have early models inherited from my Dad, and the engineering of my iiia, iiic and iiig is a beautiful thing, alongside the Contax iiia with similar reputation. I have no idea what more modern film Leicas were like, nor the digital ones, but I suspect they continue to trade on a reputation for engineering excellence, and as was said above, brand loyalty and the assumed value of the red dot brand. I am equally proud/happy with my collection of 1960's/70's Pentaxes though, which again have stood the test of time and are far easier to use - I detest the shutter speed knob on my Leicas, rewinding is a pain, and really struggle with rangefinder focusing!

 

[Sangoma]

I won't part with mine

 

[excalibur2]

A Leica? well as we all know it's also the person behind the camera that counts...I remember seeing a post many years ago that if you go to a Leica forum you can see some crappy shots there...well I never bothered to go to this forum or if a forum even exists to see shots as I'm sure we have all taken some excellent shots without using a Leica.

 

[FruitFlakes]

Ask yourself what your Hasselblad has over a Bronica and you'll probably find the same answers that Leica users would give. Great build quality, optics, and lots of history/lore/collectability/potential for investment if you're into that sort of thing.

I will also say that Leica as a company have been pretty good at supporting up and coming talent via exhibitions, awards, and workshops. Fuji are the only other company that does something similar to them.

Full disclosure: I have two Leicas (an M4 and M3) and also one of their enlargers so yeah, I'm gonna be biased.

 

[Kevin Allan]

Before Xmas I was considering buying a Leica R6 or 6.2 as I wanted something totally mechanical and reliable. Fortunately, I wasn't able to find a body and lens in good condition in the UK. I noted there were a few zoom lens selling for hundreds of pounds even though they had haze.

In the end I came to my senses and called off the search. I bought a Centon K100 with 50mm lens, which appeared to be unused, for £38 and am perfectly happy with it.

I've never used an interchangeable lens rangefinder and don't fancy the complications of having a limited range of focal lengths which can be used with a particular model, or their lack of close focussing.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Ask yourself what your Hasselblad has over a Bronica...

I think the same answer as I gave above.... nothing.

They're both capable of giving excellent results but Hasselblad, as with Leitz before it, went in for very clever marketing which stressed the advantages of their cameras. Having used both brands "in anger", I'd say that there is no real difference between the leaf shutter designs from either company. In my opinion, the "S" series Bronicas with their focal plane shutters were slightly more comfortable to handle, an advantage they lost with their later, more angular designs.

Both brands can produce excellent results, limited only by the user's ability.

 

[excalibur2]

Ask yourself what your Hasselblad has over a Bronica and you'll probably find the same answers that Leica users would give. Great build quality, optics, and lots of history/lore/collectability/potential for investment if you're into that sort of thing.

I will also say that Leica as a company have been pretty good at supporting up and coming talent via exhibitions, awards, and workshops. Fuji are the only other company that does something similar to them.

Full disclosure: I have two Leicas (an M4 and M3) and also one of their enlargers so yeah, I'm gonna be biased.

Well OK but as I've posted before I'd rather take my Canon T70 or other cheap camera when going on holiday on a sandy beach with grandchildren kicking up sand every where and the chance of dropping in the sea or being stolen.....the difference between a Canon, Pentax, Minolta etc and Leica lens is subjective, although I suppose if you have the best lenses for Leica (or any make) it's only downhill from there.

 

[antonroland]

Thanks for all the responses!

Yep, as has been said here, the gear plays a role but a lesser role subject to the abilities of the operator.

If I was going to shoot a lot more 35mm film…which I won’t…I would probably have considered a R6 or R7. For this same reason I don’t own or plan to own any Nikon gear. Talk MF film though and I’ll sell my soul in a heartbeat.

Cheers all!

 

[Plain Nev]

Well, I suppose Leica have survived and produced high quality cameras. They deserve credit for that. There is a mystique surrounding them. But, if we're honest that's all it is. They are no more capable than many other cameras. I actually can't think of a practical scenario in which you might use a Leica. And in fact the baggage of the brand name just gets in the way.

 

[Harlequin565]

I can only speak for me and Leica M system film cameras.

It's a vastly different experience to standard 35mm photography. From loading the film, to using the rangefinder. Upon buying an M3, I was immediately struck by how much better it felt in the hand. I was then struck by how much more accurate the focus was and how much easier it was for me with my knackered eyes to get accurate focus. The film advance lever was buttery smooth.

I now own an MP which I love, alongside a Zeiss Ikon ZM for when I want aperture priority (speed). I did have an M7 which broke 5.5 months into a 6 month warranty (the relief was immense on that one!) and vowed never to go back to that model! I've also previously owned the Bessa R3M which was a really nice camera but chunkier than an M and not as solid; and an M6 which I sold along with the M3 as soon as prices went stupid for them. Selling the old Ms to majorly fund the MP (which was brand new) was a no-brainer. With the MP, I have a mechanical camera, that's tough, repairable, simple, small, has great, compact lenses, and is easy to use & load. I can quickly nail focus almost all the time, and the lenses are well made enough to mean that you can preset the focus and not have it "slip" while you're walking about. It's perfect for what it was designed for - documentary & street photography.

Is all of that worth the price premium though? There's no right answer for that as everyone has a different budget, different requirements, and different tolerances for "what's acceptable" - including "price you'd pay for a 35mm film camera". Looking at some of the responses here, the answer from most people is likely to be "hard no".

And of course, as a Leica owner, I'm not likely to tell you that they are a waste of money, or that I bought it because I thought it would make me better. Judging by the Internet, I'm probably considered an idiot.

 

[antonroland]

Well, I suppose Leica have survived and produced high quality cameras. They deserve credit for that. There is a mystique surrounding them. But, if we're honest that's all it is. They are no more capable than many other cameras. I actually can't think of a practical scenario in which you might use a Leica. And in fact the baggage of the brand name just gets in the way.

True and true…although a fair number of other producers of great cameras havr also survived…

Now their rangefinders might have cult status but their 35mm film SLR’s, specifically the R6/R7, are BUTT-UGLY IMHO. So if there is no single mechanical or other real-life advantage and it shoots puny 35mm film AND it is only the red dot…well…I think it is a hard pass then.

 

[antonroland]

I can only speak for me and Leica M system film cameras.

It's a vastly different experience to standard 35mm photography. From loading the film, to using the rangefinder. Upon buying an M3, I was immediately struck by how much better it felt in the hand. I was then struck by how much more accurate the focus was and how much easier it was for me with my knackered eyes to get accurate focus. The film advance lever was buttery smooth.

I now own an MP which I love, alongside a Zeiss Ikon ZM for when I want aperture priority (speed). I did have an M7 which broke 5.5 months into a 6 month warranty (the relief was immense on that one!) and vowed never to go back to that model! I've also previously owned the Bessa R3M which was a really nice camera but chunkier than an M and not as solid; and an M6 which I sold along with the M3 as soon as prices went stupid for them. Selling the old Ms to majorly fund the MP (which was brand new) was a no-brainer. With the MP, I have a mechanical camera, that's tough, repairable, simple, small, has great, compact lenses, and is easy to use & load. I can quickly nail focus almost all the time, and the lenses are well made enough to mean that you can preset the focus and not have it "slip" while you're walking about. It's perfect for what it was designed for - documentary & street photography.

Is all of that worth the price premium though? There's no right answer for that as everyone has a different budget, different requirements, and different tolerances for "what's acceptable" - including "price you'd pay for a 35mm film camera". Looking at some of the responses here, the answer from most people is likely to be "hard no".

And of course, as a Leica owner, I'm not likely to tell you that they are a waste of money, or that I bought it because I thought it would make me better. Judging by the Internet, I'm probably considered an idiot.

View attachment 378088

A good balanced response from a Leica owner / user, thanks for that!

Bottom line IMHO is that you experienced a few different ones before you settled on “the one” that you liked and it served your requirements.

I do believe that when those requirements are met it doesn’t matter what brand logo is on it…even Ford?

 

[Plain Nev]

I can only speak for me and Leica M system film cameras.

It's a vastly different experience to standard 35mm photography. From loading the film, to using the rangefinder. Upon buying an M3, I was immediately struck by how much better it felt in the hand. I was then struck by how much more accurate the focus was and how much easier it was for me with my knackered eyes to get accurate focus. The film advance lever was buttery smooth.

I now own an MP which I love, alongside a Zeiss Ikon ZM for when I want aperture priority (speed). I did have an M7 which broke 5.5 months into a 6 month warranty (the relief was immense on that one!) and vowed never to go back to that model! I've also previously owned the Bessa R3M which was a really nice camera but chunkier than an M and not as solid; and an M6 which I sold along with the M3 as soon as prices went stupid for them. Selling the old Ms to majorly fund the MP (which was brand new) was a no-brainer. With the MP, I have a mechanical camera, that's tough, repairable, simple, small, has great, compact lenses, and is easy to use & load. I can quickly nail focus almost all the time, and the lenses are well made enough to mean that you can preset the focus and not have it "slip" while you're walking about. It's perfect for what it was designed for - documentary & street photography.

Is all of that worth the price premium though? There's no right answer for that as everyone has a different budget, different requirements, and different tolerances for "what's acceptable" - including "price you'd pay for a 35mm film camera". Looking at some of the responses here, the answer from most people is likely to be "hard no".

And of course, as a Leica owner, I'm not likely to tell you that they are a waste of money, or that I bought it because I thought it would make me better. Judging by the Internet, I'm probably considered an idiot.

View attachment 378088

I think this is equally true. How do you define quality?

 

[Topsy]

I don't know about the big fuss it's probably fuelled by internet influencers and their followers, however, I can say that I am a Leica user (not exclusively) I currently own seven (BTW the M6 in shot is now an M4-P).



I have multiple platforms for different jobs, I have Fuji Digital GFX 50S for landscape photography along with Fuji X-T2s for all weather do anything photography. I have Medium Format Film Bronica SQ-Ais for film projects mostly landscape plus a Yashicamat (for fun).

My Leicas (particularly my M9s) are for general personal photography and travel photography (although I do much less of that these days). I enjoy using my Leicas much more than I do my ever-so-much-more-practical Fuji X-T2s but they are not, for me, everything cameras. I love the simplicity of the Leicas and the fact there's no live view crutch (on the M9s).

To be honest the least used Leicas I have are the film ones, I don't feel I get good enough results with 35mm anymore so I hardle use them I much prefer the 120 from my Bronicas and here's the rub, I don't like the user interface of Hasselblads, never did even when I had to use them at work so I went for the Bronica for my own MF kit which is exactly the opposite of how I went with the Leica against much better specced other brands.

It boils down to individuality for me if we were all alike there would only be 1 camera system at each format and we'd all be happy with it and using it but that would be one boring world.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's a vastly different experience to standard 35mm photography.

As someone who used Leicas, alongside other 35mm brands, for many years, I can only say that my experience is otherwise.

It is certainly different to use a rangefinder than a SLR but to use the word "vastly" seems to me misleading. I frequently used a Leica and a Nikon together, when appropriate, as did many other photographers. The two cameras were each more appropriate for use with certain lenses or in specific circumstances but they both did the same job: hold a strip of 35mm film in the correct relationship to a lens and provide a simple method to control focus, shutter speed and aperture.

When it comes to the specific of using rangefinder focusing rather than SLR, Various other brands were just as good as Leica, the Canon P and 7 or the Nikon S2 and SP being obvious examples.

 

[ChrisR]

AFAICS the Leica M cameras are high quality, excellent cameras for their particular niche, as Ian (@Harlequin565 has articulated so well. Hand-built, mostly in Germany, was always going to carry a high price tag, and that would have put many companies under without some very clever "luxury-brand" marketing ("Veblen Goods": demand goes up as the price rises?).

I believe they've had some sticky patches in the past, though some of which have been navigated with alliances, eg with Minolta. My only "Leica" was a Leitz Minolta CL; later models were Leica CLs. Quite nice, with a really annoying implementation of the meter; I preferred the Voigtlaender R3A I got to replace it, but ultimately the lenses were too expensive for me. I think the R series were also based on Minolta bodies. I've a vague feeling Leica terminated the CL alliance as it was too popular and risked undermining their mainstream M models!

They've now taken the "luxury branding" to the point where a good quality camera series is almost inaccessible to many photographers, while others might be put off by the "rich dentist" owner image (caricature, I'm sure, as we can see above). Nevertheless, they appear to be doing a good job keeping a quality camera brand alive, and even more widely relevant today, with some of the non-M models. More power to them!

 

[Asha]

Had one, an M-4 iirc .

A very nice piece of kit with quality workmanship but nothing more special than many other outfits that I’ve owned.

Personally I found the film loading to be a pita.

 

[woof woof]

My father had a Leica, it was a very high quality piece of kit. Did it take better photos than his Minolta? No. But was built like a tank, exception being the tooth on the spindle that advanced the film, it broke off after 5 years of occasional use, and a replacement was not available, rendered the camera useless unless you taped the film to the spindle, and that was not the best solution...

I think the tendency is maybe to concentrate on the high build quality image and people can tend to forget that Leica have had some real quality issue howlers. I suppose this is true of many prestige brands and often the quality is more talk than substance.

 

[piper]

had an m3 - nice but couldnt afford what is the whole point of getting a leica - the glass. Used zeiss zm, voigts and sundry others.

sold it and reverted to my contax iia and iiia’s for film but not often.

thought about a digital: the ccd m8 has a following and I like RFs but again its the cost of even an early type 4 or 5 cron that put me off - let alone a modern cron or lux

Beautifully made and the m10/m11 sensors now seem up to speed

Does the RF need adjusting periodically I wonder. Had to have my m3 done by Red Dot cameras. The contax RFs never had any trouble with but little glass for these - mostly sonnars except the odd wide biogon and recent cvs.

just have to make do ( joke ) with my nikon Z lenses

 

[FishyFish]

Is all of that worth the price premium though? There's no right answer for that as everyone has a different budget, different requirements, and different tolerances for "what's acceptable" - including "price you'd pay for a 35mm film camera". Looking at some of the responses here, the answer from most people is likely to be "hard no".

I think the amount of money you have available to spend and / or how much you desire something are definitely factors. Enough disposable income and the price of a Leica (or any premium product) becomes less of a barrier. And if you desire something enough, then savings and sacrifices can be made to enable its acquisition.

If I were in receipt of a significantly large windfall then I think I'd perhaps get a Leica (or a Mamiya 7 or something) because I would like one. I don't think my own reasons for wanting one are good reasons - for me personally it's mostly gear lust rather than a practical need, and I don't think that even the finest Leica lenses would make much difference to the sort of photos I'm able to make, but it would be nice to be able to use one to make them nontheless.

Without the luxury of that funding however, I don't have enough desire for one otherwise. If I were to save the necessary amount I think I'd be more likely to spend it on other stuff.

I'd like to have a go with one at some point though. My Olympus 35 RC is a nice rangefinder that takes great photos, but it's not the easiest to focus in a snap - the rangefinder patch is small and not as bright as I like, and the focus ring isn't as intuitive as I'd like (although, I guess if I used it every day then I'd get much better with it).

 

[desf]

I was out for a walk this afternoon with one of my four film Leicas (a Leicaflex SL in this case), the photos will no doubt be average as usual but the pleasure of using such a finely crafted piece of engineering gave me a warm glow.

 

[PeterSpencer]

For many decades I lusted after a Leica and finally bought a services IIIA with Elmar lens. It was a lovely camera to use until, ironically, I had my cataracts fixed and then I couldn't operate the camera unless I constantly swapped spectacles (the rangefinder and view windows don't work with spectacles and the lens settings were too small to read without spectacles), bloody frustrating. I finally sold it.

I was hoping to buy an M2 or M3 but by that time the M series cameras were priced out of my range, and still are. Instead I bought a refurbished Canon (well two actually, a 7 and a P) and a couple of lenses. The Canons shouldn't be underestimated, the lenses are outstanding as is the build quality and the ergonomics are better, no question that an opening back is better that fiddling around loading a film into a pre-M Leica. I have read that the Canon lenses are more contrasty than Leica lenses and that may be the case, I wouldn't say that means they are better, just have different characteristics. And, if you want, you can use Leica lenses on a Canon body, why not. Get the ergonomic advantages of the Canon, built in multi-frame finders for example, and the Leica look, if there is one. I'm talking about Leica screw fitting camera/lens combinations, I can't comment on a comparison between the Canon gear and Leica M series.

Interestingly, before the IIIA, I had a Zorki I with a copy of the Elmar 50/3.5 which, as luck would have it, was as good as the Leica lens on the IIIA, in terms of sharpness. I think I was possibly very lucky with that camera.

 

[Dryce]

My feelings about leica in the 70s was that they were pretty backwards, antique, and overrrated.

But I wouldn't have said no to one.

At the time the prices were relatively high but seemed less excessive in relative terms than they do now. And the glass was rated. But it just seemed crazy that even back then people would get hung up about a new model and the introduction of metering,

My feeling about them went a bit negative in the 1990s. They introduced a version with black paint that was intended to crack and show through the underlying metalwork. Basically for collectors. As a photographic tool they lost credibility for me. A company able to sit on its behind selling neck jewelry to rich people and collectors - with some capable customers keeping the foundation intact.

I think the prices are a bit too silly but as a company they have actually evolved with digital. I applaud them for the monochrome and FF rangefinder style products and being different.

But they played that same trick again with the black paint finish on the M10-R a year or two back .....

 

[zx9]

For many decades I lusted after a Leica and finally bought a services IIIA with Elmar lens. It was a lovely camera to use until, ironically, I had my cataracts fixed and then I couldn't operate the camera unless I constantly swapped spectacles (the rangefinder and view windows don't work with spectacles and the lens settings were too small to read without spectacles), bloody frustrating. I finally sold it.

I was hoping to buy an M2 or M3 but by that time the M series cameras were priced out of my range, and still are. Instead I bought a refurbished Canon (well two actually, a 7 and a P) and a couple of lenses. The Canons shouldn't be underestimated, the lenses are outstanding as is the build quality and the ergonomics are better, no question that an opening back is better that fiddling around loading a film into a pre-M Leica. I have read that the Canon lenses are more contrasty than Leica lenses and that may be the case, I wouldn't say that means they are better, just have different characteristics. And, if you want, you can use Leica lenses on a Canon body, why not. Get the ergonomic advantages of the Canon, built in multi-frame finders for example, and the Leica look, if there is one. I'm talking about Leica screw fitting camera/lens combinations, I can't comment on a comparison between the Canon gear and Leica M series.

Interestingly, before the IIIA, I had a Zorki I with a copy of the Elmar 50/3.5 which, as luck would have it, was as good as the Leica lens on the IIIA, in terms of sharpness. I think I was possibly very lucky with that camera.

Indeed the Canon LTM lenses could be very nice and can be used on a Leica M with adapters, I was slightly disappointed when I first used my Canon 50mm f/1.4 on a digital Leica, it somehow lost some of its feel becoming more modern.

 

[excalibur2]

Had one, an M-4 iirc .

A very nice piece of kit with quality workmanship but nothing more special than many other outfits that I’ve owned.

Personally I found the film loading to be a pita.

Well IMO Leica had their day before the Japanese got their act together and started producing VG cameras much cheaper (probably the same comparison with cars)...and IIRC their first SLR was a disappointment.

 

[antonroland]

Well IMO Leica had their day before the Japanese got their act together and started producing VG cameras much cheaper (probably the same comparison with cars)...and IIRC their first SLR was a disappointment.

IF my info is correct then Canon cameras were modelled on Leica and Nikon cameras were modelled on Contax…

Any truth to this?

 

[excalibur2]

IF my info is correct then Canon cameras were modelled on Leica and Nikon cameras were modelled on Contax…

Any truth to this?

Well I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me as the Japanese and later the Chinese were VG at copying and improving and when the Japanese had the funds for R&D esp for SLR's they surpassed cameras made in Europe. The same for many Japanese lenses which are copies of Leica/Contax formula, but the Japanese started to produce some excellent lenses that even some digi guys use now if you visit the forums using these lenses.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Well I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me...

...and you'd be correct not to be surprised.

There's an incomplete list of Leica copies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_copies

The Contax situation is a little more complicated. To begin with, the Soviet Kiev range are, strictly speaking, not copies of the Contax II and III but actually Contaxes made in the Arsenal factory to the German plans on the German machines. These had been taken from the Dresden factory, along with new machines made by the Dresden tool makers under Soviet instructions, as war reparations.

The Nikon "Contaxes" were a different case entirely. Externally, the Nikon 1 shared the Contax lens mount and the basic body layout. Internally, though, the Nikon owed far more to the Leica, both the rangefinder and shutter being more or less straight copies of those in the Leica IIIc.

I still own but rarely use, a Kiev 4...

 

[PeterSpencer]

I once owned a Kiev, the version without the light meter. It was a nice camera but the lens, at least my example, didn't seem to be very sharp. Handling was better than the Zorki and the Leica for that matter. I sold it with a batch of other cameras so I could buy my Rolleicord. I imagine that a properly serviced Contax IIa would be great camera to own and use.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

.. but the lens, at least my example, didn't seem to be very sharp.

Alas, quality control was something that happened only outside the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, when you got a good one, it was very, very good. I've owned two Kievs and been lucky both times. Mind you, I don't expect to be able to resolve the flea on the elephant's posterior from 500 yards....

 

[Peter B]

My rangefinder journey has included an M3, a Fuji GSW690, a Bronica RF645 and a Kiev 4a, with only the Kiev kept as it's not really worth much. The Leica was lovely to hold and listen to the shutter curtain, the Fuji felt great but was a touch unwieldy, but the Bronica is the only one I regret selling. It never felt as well built as the others, and there were tales of several problems, but it just felt right to me. The Kiev has only had a couple of outings in recent years for the Soviet camera challenge, but there wasn't one this year due to the war in Ukraine, so here's a shot from 2021 instead.

 

[excalibur2]

An amusing story that would relate to a quiet Leica was when at a school concert (with my grandchildren were appearing) and no cameras were allowed, well I was always one to break rules and used a Canon with 135mm lens and the Canon was so noisy that I got banned from future school events

 

[antonroland]

Alas, quality control was something that happened only outside the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, when you got a good one, it was very, very good.

Did these guys start Sigma??

 

[Mostly Vintage Cameras]

"What's the big fuss about Leica?"
Well they created the 35mm still camera format. That alone is quite a legacy.

The build quality is better. I have a Leica R3, the least loved Leica as it is "a Minolta in drag" but even so it does look and feel better than the equivalent Minolta. From what I see the same is true for the Panasonic/Leica digital cameras.

I like Cosina cameras and they make some nice rangefinder cameras irrespective of whatever German brand name is attached to them, but they always look and feel like a Cosina. A Leica always looks and feels more solid.
Is this worth the extra cost? We'll it's your money so only you know the answer. For me, no. Not a new Leica but I am window shopping for an M39 Leica. I could get a Japanese or Russian "Leica copy" but its still a cheaper copy of the thing I actually want rather than an improvement on the original.

Some lead others follow.