What is the big fuss about Leica

RaglanSurf said:
Don't buy them to put on a shelf, buy them and use them, unfortunately cameras die in display cabinets.
Click to expand...
But surely, if you use something, it will wear out? So putting things in glass cases is a good way of preserving history. That's why we have museums.
 
FruitFlakes said:
Most Leicas aren't particularly rare. Expensive, yes, but there are literally tens of thousands of them. Use them. Don't let them get gummed up.
Click to expand...
Sure, things are made to be used. But as things age, they wear out. Cameras with little use/in mint condition are more sought after for good reason. But I see your point. But I would add that although there may now be lots of cameras out there, eventually many will wear out and fall to bits. The ones kept in glass cases will still be around for people to enjoy looking at, at least. I appreciate good design and engineering, hence I have a fair few things in my 'collection'. Some get used, some are just to look at really, as I no longer have use for them. Most bits are not worth much, so I'd rather just keep them for old time's sake. nothing wrong with that.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
But surely, if you use something, it will wear out? So putting things in glass cases is a good way of preserving history. That's why we have museums.
Click to expand...
But you're just preserving it as if its an ornament, although they are are beautiful to look at (IMHO) they are wonderful pieces of engineering and they really need to be used.
 
RaglanSurf said:
But you're just preserving it as if its an ornament, although they are are beautiful to look at (IMHO) they are wonderful pieces of engineering and they really need to be used.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. But I'm just saying that if I no longer have real need for an otherwise valueless object, then keeping it for sentimental reasons isn't so bad. To admire the craftsmanship that went into making it, the design, the aesthetics, etc. Lots of people have old, fairly worthless cameras as ornaments. That's fine, they get to enjoy them as objects to be looked at. Better than throwing them in the bin.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
I don't disagree. But I'm just saying that if I no longer have real need for an otherwise valueless object, then keeping it for sentimental reasons isn't so bad. To admire the craftsmanship that went into making it, the design, the aesthetics, etc. Lots of people have old, fairly worthless cameras as ornaments. That's fine, they get to enjoy them as objects to be looked at. Better than throwing them in the bin.
Click to expand...
You really have a strange outlook! Everything you say is based on your opinion and your opinion alone.
You criticise people for buying a make of camera stating they do so as a status symbol yet have no evidence of this, now you are saying you would like an expensive camera just to look at!
Why not use it then when it Wears out just look at it then you have the benefit of both?

I've owned many cameras and my favourite to use is my Leica. I've paid alot more for less features and I love being back involved in my photography again.

People like yourself would do much better than concerning yourself as to the whys and wherefores of the equipment people choose. (IMO)
 
Last edited:
Jammy Dodger said:
You really have a strange outlook! Everything you say is based on your opinion and your opinion alone.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I've really no idea what you've based this opinion on.

Jammy Dodger said:
You criticise people for buying a make of camera stating they do so as a status symbol yet have no evidence of this
Click to expand...
Wrong. I said SOME people do this. Not ALL.

Jammy Dodger said:
now you are saying you would like an expensive camera just to look at!
Why not use it then when it Wears out just look at it then you have the benefit of both?
Click to expand...
Sigh. All the cameras I own, I have used at some point in my life. Where did I say I would only buy a camera to look at and not use? I wouldn't buy a modern Leica because I wouldn't use it much if at all, so it would be very poor value. An old one, I might buy as an 'ornament', and why not?

Jammy Dodger said:
I've owned many cameras and my favourite to use is my Leica. I've paid alot more for less features and I'm involved in my photography again.
Click to expand...
That's fantastic. I'm very happy for you.

Jammy Dodger said:
People like yourself would do much better than concerning yourself as to the whys and wherefores of the equipment people choose. (IMO)
Click to expand...
Well, you've based your judgment of me on nothing, refused to actually engage in any discussion, and as a consequence have learned nothing. And then you've come on just to attack me. Is that fair? What have you gained from this?
 
I think Andrew was right - best to ignore you as we clearly speak a different language. I'd love to see your actual evidence of the status symbol and people posing! I've never even seen someone with a Leica and most at my camera club have never heard of them but you carry on
 
Jammy Dodger said:
I think Andrew was right - best to ignore you as we clearly speak a different language. I'd love to see your actual evidence of the status symbol and people posing! I've never even seen someone with a Leica and most at my camera club have never heard of them but you carry on
Click to expand...

I find this hard to believe but I suppose at 62 I'm very old now :D but even so I'd have thought camera club members would include more people who've at least heard of Leica and most not having heard of them seems a bit strange. Ditto if they've not heard of marques such as Hasselblad, Zeiss and the like. I suppose if they're younger or haven't been into photography long they might not have heard of Leica but of course they'd have to avoid forums and photography gear websites as if they go near any it'd be pretty difficult not to notice Leica exist.

Here you go. Top of Google when typing in Leica as a status symbol...

Interesting Facts About Leica Cameras

Leica
www.tourboxtech.com www.tourboxtech.com

Like their products or not they are IMO an important part of the story of cameras and photography. Not to have heard of them seems like a car nut not having heard of Aston Martin or a watch fanatic not having heard of, oh I don't know... Rolex? But it's all possible :D
 
Last edited:
You are right Alan - most is an exaggeration but a significant number hadn't, mainly young people not in the slightest interested in brands etc!
 
Jammy Dodger said:
You are right Alan - most is an exaggeration but a significant number hadn't, mainly young people not in the slightest interested in brands etc!
Click to expand...

I can understand that. I'm pretty sure they know more about smartphones than me. They've probably heard of Sony and Fuji cameras :D
 
woof woof said:
I can understand that. I'm pretty sure they know more about smartphones than me. They've probably heard of Sony and Fuji cameras :D
Click to expand...
Two of them were women that take great photographs - one used Sony, the other Canon then a middle aged gent who also used Sony.

It was discussed whilst the camera club walked round Chester on a 'street' practical.

It is often said a Leica is so good for street photography as few recognise it and most think it's an old small 'toy' camera so doesn't attract attention! Not really what someone investing in a status symbol would want?
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Looking at your posting history across various threads it looks like you like to argue with everyone!
Click to expand...
I'm flattered you pay me such attention. :cool:

Almost all photographers I've ever known, have heard of the brand Leica. Some younger people/those new to photography might not have. Whatever. The fact that some people are getting so defensive over perceived slights, kind of proves there is a bit of a fuss about the brand...
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Two of them were women that take great photographs - one used Sony, the other Canon then a middle aged gent who also used Sony.

It was discussed whilst the camera club walked round Chester on a 'street' practical.

It is often said a Leica is so good for street photography as few recognise it and most think it's an old small 'toy' camera so doesn't attract attention! Not really what someone investing in a status symbol would want?
Click to expand...

I think part of the reason for street photography usage is the compact nature of the camera and lens combination as it's arguably less attention and therefore scene disturbing than for example a Canon DSLR camera and honking great L series lens. That and you can easily set cameras like this up to shoot without deliberately focusing on a subject so all you need to do is frame the shot and press the shutter. Of course you can also use modern kit in the same way if you want to. This all makes the kit good for street photography as there's little mess on, you just point the camera or frame the shot with the kit already set up and press the shutter.

Also these are often rangefinders and some people love them. One advantage is that when you've got the camera to your eye you see beyond the limit of the picture you're going to take so you can to an extent see what's about to enter the frame. They're also quiet. There's no loud mirror slap. Some people like these things.

I suppose the collection and status symbol thing is in part because of the history and the look and tactility of the kit (men in particular seem to like things like mechanical cameras and watches) and possibly partly because of the cost too as some of the cameras and lenses are insanely expensive, but also some of the lenses are very good even by the standards of today. Put it all together, the history and the build and how it can be used and the RF and the lenses and the near silent operation and I can see why some go big on Leica :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I find this hard to believe but I suppose at 62 I'm very old now :D but even so I'd have thought camera club members would include more people who've at least heard of Leica and most not having heard of them seems a bit strange. Ditto if they've not heard of marques such as Hasselblad, Zeiss and the like. I suppose if they're younger or haven't been into photography long they might not have heard of Leica but of course they'd have to avoid forums and photography gear websites as if they go near any it'd be pretty difficult not to notice Leica exist.

Here you go. Top of Google when typing in Leica as a status symbol...

Interesting Facts About Leica Cameras

Leica
www.tourboxtech.com www.tourboxtech.com

Like their products or not they are IMO an important part of the story of cameras and photography. Not to have heard of them seems like a car nut not having heard of Aston Martin or a watch fanatic not having heard of, oh I don't know... Rolex? But it's all possible :D
Click to expand...
I'm 62 as well.
I don't feel so old now.
 
This thread is clearly click-bait,
Leica cameras are great, as good as any other camera manufacturers.
If a thread was started called what's the big fuss about canon, there would be the same amount of responses.
 
soupdragon said:
If a thread was started called what's the big fuss about canon, there would be the same amount of responses.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point…

Anyway; the answers would be different, and there’d be far less defensiveness.
 
Jammy Dodger said:
You are right Alan - most is an exaggeration but a significant number hadn't, mainly young people not in the slightest interested in brands etc!
Click to expand...

I could see that as being the case. We old buggers know of Leica, and some even own one. But the esoteric nature of the brand, and the expense mean they might as well be a fairy tale as far as the young uns are concerned. They are probably unlikely to own one, that's for sure.
 
Plain Nev said:
I could see that as being the case. We old buggers know of Leica, and some even own one. But the esoteric nature of the brand, and the expense mean they might as well be a fairy tale as far as the young uns are concerned. They are probably unlikely to own one, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

You’d be surprised, here in London I see at least one Leica a week and they’re usually being used by younger (20-40) people. I bought mine when I was 18 although prices for film bodies (and film) were a lot more reasonable then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
People buy Leicas for many reasons, one of them being that they are very expensive, but they can afford it so why not? It could be compared to people buying Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough, but they like them. Then there is the Rolex buyer, I mean what on earth can a twenty grand Rolex do that a £20 Casio can't, apart from, of course, look expensive. People buy really expensive things sometimes because they don't know what else to do with their money, sometimes it's because they want to show off how much money they have, but often, I surmise, it's because they can.
 
FruitFlakes said:
You’d be surprised, here in London I see at least one Leica a week and they’re usually being used by younger (20-40) people. I bought mine when I was 18 although prices for film bodies (and film) were a lot more reasonable then.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose if you can afford to live in London you might have money to burn. :D
 
steve_lyt said:
Leica had reputation and still probably do for build quality and lens quality. I have never owner one so I have no experience of these cameras
Click to expand...
Leica products were good but so were similarly priced cameras from other manufacturers at the time.

I've owned two screw thread Leicas, both IIIc models, a M3 and a M2. The IIIc bodies were pigs to load and even worse to unload. The M bodies were easier to load but no better when it came to unloading. The IIIc viewfinders were pretty ghastly, even compared to their main 1930s competitor, the Contax II or III. The M3 body had a superb viewfinder/rangefinder, The later M2 had a much cheapened viewfinder which was a great let down, so far as I was concerned. The Leitz lenses were good but equalled by several other German makes such as Zeiss and Meyer.

The secret is that Leitz were superb marketeers and had an enthusiastic chorus of cheerleaders such as Theo KisselBach, Walther Benser, Theo Scheerer and Josef Makovec, to name just a few, who poured out a stream of books and magazine articles praising the Leitz products.
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough,
Click to expand...
^^^Exactly this^^^
 
Plain Nev said:
Well, I suppose if you can afford to live in London you might have money to burn. :D
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, most people who live in London, much like the rest of the country have very little money, to burn or otherwise.
 
ShinySideUp said:
It could be compared to people buying Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough, but they like them.
Click to expand...
If that was the case all the other manufacturers of V Twin Cruisers wouldn't have bothered to copy them. ;) And yes I ride Harleys.
 
And it can be a lovely noise!!!
 
ShinySideUp said:
People buy Leicas for many reasons, one of them being that they are very expensive, but they can afford it so why not? It could be compared to people buying Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough, but they like them. Then there is the Rolex buyer, I mean what on earth can a twenty grand Rolex do that a £20 Casio can't, apart from, of course, look expensive. People buy really expensive things sometimes because they don't know what else to do with their money
Click to expand...

Disclaimer: never owned a Leica but don't see anything wrong in them.

Must admit I don't understand the perspective outlined by the poster above and the fact that people who hold this view tend to focus on Leica cameras. Some people seem to wilfully ignore the fact that Leica cameras have also intrinsic ergonomic, optical and mechanical qualities that make them especially suitable for certain types of photography.

Also, in relative terms, a used Leica rangefinder is not that expensive compared to what some people are prepared to spend on photography nowadays.

There are people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelid in dropping 5K or 6K on the latest Nikon Z or Canon whatever mirrorless monstrosity with ultra-mega-photonic phase AI AF with the latest f/0.95 Lanthanium glass to get the best 'bOhKeh'.

Then you look at their pictures and it's images of a picket fence, a sparrow in the feeder or a slow-mo waterfall in the Peak District, which had never been photographed before in history. And that's fair enough. But I don't see posts written about overpriced DSLRS and mirrorless cameras that often.

Just let other people be. One man's status symbol is another man's perfectly functional tool.
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
People buy Leicas for many reasons, one of them being that they are very expensive, but they can afford it so why not? It could be compared to people buying Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough, but they like them. Then there is the Rolex buyer, I mean what on earth can a twenty grand Rolex do that a £20 Casio can't, apart from, of course, look expensive. People buy really expensive things sometimes because they don't know what else to do with their money, sometimes it's because they want to show off how much money they have, but often, I surmise, it's because they can.
Click to expand...


Worth bearing in mind for investment buyers is that there's no CGT on mechanical things like watches, cameras and cars since their expected to last fewer than 50 years (IIRC).
 
He started it...
For anyone who might take umbrage at their comments being questioned or challenged by others, is that it's just that; it's not your manhood being undermined or anything, so perhaps take a moment to step back and look for nuance. Nuance is important.
ShinySideUp said:
People buy Leicas for many reasons, one of them being that they are very expensive, but they can afford it so why not? It could be compared to people buying Harley Davison motorcycles, very expensive and, in my personal opinion, only good for making a noise or perhaps pulling a plough, but they like them. Then there is the Rolex buyer, I mean what on earth can a twenty grand Rolex do that a £20 Casio can't, apart from, of course, look expensive. People buy really expensive things sometimes because they don't know what else to do with their money, sometimes it's because they want to show off how much money they have, but often, I surmise, it's because they can.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very fair comment. Although I would say that as a creative tool, a Leica is perhaps somewhat better 'value' than a Rolex, and here in the UK at least, Harleys are perceived as brash, inefficient and noisy, ridden by old men with a mid-life crisis. That may be an unfair assessment, but stereotypes exist for a reason. All can be seen as status symbols though, Rolexes definitely so; I cannot really see their value much beyond that tbh. All the Rolex wearers I know freely admit this. I'ts a 'nice' thing to have, it gives off a certain image to others. I don't see Leica quite like this, but there is definitely an element of that with some owners. That doesn't mean ALL Leica owners are pretentious show-offs though. As with many things; a minority will give the rest a bad name.

Nod said:
And it can be a lovely noise!!!
Click to expand...
To each their own. I will be more than happy once all ICEs are banned, and these noisy behemoths are banished from our streets. One good thing about Harleys is that their default state is 'broken down', so mercifully we don't get to suffer them much here. ;)

trypdal said:
There are people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelid in dropping 5K or 6K on the latest Nikon Z or Canon whatever mirrorless monstrosity with ultra-mega-photonic phase AI AF with the latest f/0.95 Lanthanium glass to get the best 'bOhKeh'.

Then you look at their pictures and it's images of a picket fence, a sparrow in the feeder or a slow-mo waterfall in the Peak District, which had never been photographed before in history. And that's fair enough. I don't see posts written about overpriced DSLRS and mirrorless cameras that often.
Click to expand...

But you can make exactly the same argument about Leica owners; none of the pictures that we see on here and elsewhere, that are taken using Leica equipment, can't be achieved using other types of camera. But the important difference here, is that the 'latest Nikon Z or Canon whatever mirrorless monstrosity' can be used to take pictures that most Leica cameras can't (or will certainly struggle with), for example super tele shots, extreme wide angle, sports and fast action etc. The rangefinder system is somewhat limited in this regard (although no doubt superb across a spectrum of other photographic genres). So; the right tool for the job. Oh; I can even use Leica M lenses (and others) on my Nikon Z monstrosity.

So.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top