Is Leica the Naim of Photography?

No.

I can't answer your question.

But if you want to buy into the whole Leica brand thing and can afford it, where's the harm?

No harm, but there's more effective ways of taking pics with better results. You only have to look at the pic thread on here to see someone using a Leica, posting poorly framed, out of focus, camera shake pics.

Count.D - and others, a friend of mine gave me the advise to buy a prime lens and operate my existing camera in manual mode until the rate of good photos is at least equal to auto mode / non-prime lens. Is that something you can recommend too? Other suggestions?

count.d posted:

No harm, but there's more effective ways of taking pics with better results. You only have to look at the pic thread on here to see someone using a Leica, posting poorly framed, out of focus, camera shake pics.

More the photographer than the camera I would have thought count.d. Or maybe you're intimating that many folk who buy Leicas do so for the status symbol, rather than because they want to take good photos with them...

I treated myself to a Leica Q a couple of years ago, and love the thing. It's beautifully put together, and great to use. I still use my old Fuji X-T1, which I really like and I've got lots of lenses for. Had to get rid of my Canon stuff, it started to weigh too much for my arthritic hands.

The Leica binoculars are excellent too. IIRC someone on here recommended I buy a pair. 

Yes Tony, more the photographer than the camera and yes I think some people do buy Leica for their perceived status. General questions or statements about which is the best camera or lens is futile. Your Leica is a a fine piece of engineering and you've bought it for a specific reason. Is it better than my Nikon D5 or vice versa? No it's different. Yes, nice binoculars ;-)

I've shot outside portraits with a Nikon D5 with 80mm f1.4 at f1.4. First thing I do when choosing the pics back home is view them at 100% and highlight the 2 out of every 5 that are crisp where I want them to be crisp and go from there. Is it me, the camera or the lens that has lost 3 out of every 5 shots? Often the best timed shot is one of the 3. Now go back to the original post at the start of the thread.  

I grew up in a family of amateur photographers, three uncles were founder members on the local camera club. The oldest bought his equipment second hand, his materials from army surplus, the youngest had a coupled of Agfa rangefinders. The middle uncle had Leica (and sharp suits, silk ties, soft top sports car...). Which one was regularly the competition champion?

When I was old enough I joined the club, one of the rules for the monthly competition was that camera, lens, film and exposure were written on the back of the prints. It took about three competitions to work out that before considering the image, the judges sorted the pictures into German cameras, Japanese cameras and others - if you didn't have a Rollei, Contax, Leica then you didn't stand a chance. I haven't been a member for many many years.

I used the purchase of a Nikon to justify giving up smoking, but started taking far better pictures when teaching my children photography and to level the playing field bought three Olympus Trip 35s. I moved into digital when asked to take pictures for a woodturning club magazine and they provided the camera. This was about the time of the Panasonic/Leica partnership. I was deeply unimpressed.

I now own a Leica by chance, when I have time I love playing with black and white and Caffenol. Have my pictures improved? Not a jot, but dearly beloved says that I positively glow when people look or talk about the camera!!!

Long time Leica user here. In fact my daughter is named Leica. I would agree on the analogy, and have personally used it before. But keep in mind the user becomes a bit like the source - are you a hi-res flac or a 64kb mpeg? Do you explore the outer reaches of the Blue Note catalog, or do you listen to Aja on repeat constantly comparing new cables? 

I’m also a pro, and rangefinder’s can take years to master. I can out shoot a dslr with my M10; the camera has become second nature, and muscle memory is all I need. It’s like studying a martial art - one practices the basics over and over again and then slowly but surely string it all together. I do have a Nikon for super wide or long situations, but since the M10 rely on it less and less. The Leica brand and philosophy align for sure, and in large part what attracted me to Naim gear in the first place. 

Leica is much more like an LFD amp than NAIM, small, hand built to a very high standard and limited in capabilities. it doesn't need any power supplies..

Leica is a great street and perhaps  travel camera as long as you are not interested in landscapes and nature. Macro photography is also almost out of the question. Personally, I never considered one because I was never be willing to give up the ability to view the image through the lens. 

The Leica lenses are mechanically better built than the Canon and Nikon glass but I doubt if their optics are superior in these days of computer design. 

I have enjoyed photography all my life from my first Brownie Box camera to present and currently have eight cameras.

Four film: Rolleiflex f3.5 with Carl Zeiss 75mm Planar, Mamiya 7 II, Leica M6 TTL & Leica MP and

Four Digital: Leica MP (240), Leica M Monochrom, Panasonic GF1, Pentax K5IIs

The majority of my photography is on walk about's and usually only use a tri-pod when shooting at night. 

If you enjoy shooting with a Rangefinder style camera then Leica is where you want to be. Sort of like if you enjoy PRAT then you may purchase a NAIM product. 

Shake in hand held cameras can be managed with aperture and ISO. The only thing they can't manage is the aging shooter where the hand shake increases along with failing vision.

Like anything in life, its your money and you spend it on what you like.......

As a side note I can highly recommend the book "Lost Over Laos" which is the story of four combat press photographers that were killed when there helicopter was shot down during the Viet Nam war and two friends who continued to work to find their comrades remains. 

Ardbeg10y posted:

 

 

Is Leica the Naim of Photography, and should I really start collecting coins for lenses which start (!) at Euro 1200?

I can only speak for myself of course and I've never thought about Leica in those terms. Their rangefinder cameras and lenses are expensive though, but so is Naim equipment, motorcycles, sports cars, wrist watches, traveling etc. I belive most of the other middle aged men I know use a considerable amount on a hobby. A Leica M will likely last more than a decade and your carbon footprint will be sympathetic at least, and with the cost involved you won't buy a new camera every second year in the false belief that a new camera makes you a better photographer. 

Unskilled and uninspired photographers are to be found among Leica owners but I believe there are at least equally many of those to be found using Sony, Canon, Fuji and Nikon as well.

I do believe a pure rangefinder camera makes you a better photographer though. You would likely become better at composition and framing simply because you won't have the luxury of using a zoom lense. And it demands that you master basic photography.

I would not suggest that the Leica photographers in our photo thread are any worse at framing or composition than the other participants, and I strongly disagree with the Count. He may be right about the focus though and you would have to expect that your hit rate falls dramatically if you're not used to manually focusing. This even happens to myself every now and then - and I've been manually focusing for the last 36 years!

Only you will know if Leica (M) is worth considering, but if you are not used to manual photography then you should try or loan a camera for an extended period before committing.

notnaim man posted:

I grew up in a family of amateur photographers, three uncles were founder members on the local camera club. The oldest bought his equipment second hand, his materials from army surplus, the youngest had a coupled of Agfa rangefinders. The middle uncle had Leica (and sharp suits, silk ties, soft top sports car...). Which one was regularly the competition champion?

When I was old enough I joined the club, one of the rules for the monthly competition was that camera, lens, film and exposure were written on the back of the prints. It took about three competitions to work out that before considering the image, the judges sorted the pictures into German cameras, Japanese cameras and others - if you didn't have a Rollei, Contax, Leica then you didn't stand a chance. I haven't been a member for many many years.

I used the purchase of a Nikon to justify giving up smoking, but started taking far better pictures when teaching my children photography and to level the playing field bought three Olympus Trip 35s. I moved into digital when asked to take pictures for a woodturning club magazine and they provided the camera. This was about the time of the Panasonic/Leica partnership. I was deeply unimpressed.

I now own a Leica by chance, when I have time I love playing with black and white and Caffenol. Have my pictures improved? Not a jot, but dearly beloved says that I positively glow when people look or talk about the camera!!!

‘Camera Club’...the clue is in the name.

G

Both make a statement of sorts too I guess.

G

Sorry for being absent on this topic - I had a birthday to celebrate which was a bit more important.

I've been reading interesting stories on this topic, from both the Leica side and the non-Leica side. I think there is consensus that the photographer is more important than the gear. Without doubt - in my opinion.

I have checked what gear I actually have and my current lens is a kit-lens which can be bought new for 65 euro. I suddenly remembered that my father was using a Minolta when I was a little kid, so I gave my parents a call today to check if the camera is still there. They are going to dig in the stuff in the garage / attic and meanwhile I keep my fingers crossed and hope that they find an old Rokkor 50mm lens or so which is supposed to be miles better than what I currently have. Such a lens could give me an important lesson in photography.

If this does not work out well, I think that I'm going to look for a camera (Leica X series ??? - cant really afford more expensive camera's for hobby) which has both the shutter and aperture dials so that I learn better what I'm doing.

I feel attracted to the Leica's for the same reason that I feel attracted to Naim.

I used to use an M8 but the shutter failed after 10 years. After much thought I replaced it with the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) for circa £750. All the dials where you want them and a cracking fast f1.7 24-75mm lens.

It’s not quite an M in terms of absolute image quality but still excellent - certainly good enough for my amateur efforts.

G

GraemeH posted:

I used to use an M8 but the shutter failed after 10 years. After much thought I replaced it with the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) for circa £750. All the dials where you want them and a cracking fast f1.7 24-75mm lens.

It’s not quite an M in terms of absolute image quality but still excellent - certainly good enough for my amateur efforts.

G

Well, I still have my D-Lux 4 pocket camera.

It slips easily into my jacket pocket, so can be taken virtually anywhere, anytime. The picture quality is really quite good (well, to my mind anyway) and the default program for colour, saturation, contrast ......whatever, seems a lot nicer to my eye than the program in the Panasonic equivalent. Yes, I'm sure that I could change the defaults in a Panasonic or do some post-production editing, but life's too short to become an expert at everything......

.....saying which, i'm sure that that a more modest camera, in the hands of an expert photographer and post-production editor will produce infinitely more pleasing results than my pathetic attempts !

But i like the camera and therefore i'm inclined to keep trying and I think that's important !

Over the years, I've had lots of different film cameras, but no Leica -  they were undoubtedly the best, but far too expensive for me. When the whole world went digital, I bought a camera which felt closer to a traditional one than any other, the Fujifilm XE. I've had other Fujis since, and I've always been very pleased - with the cameras, and the lens range. I'm not convinced that the Leica is still the best - there are lots of different criteria to consider now (low-light sensitivity, colour rendition, etc.) but who cares after all - if you feel the camera is right for you, then it's all that matters.

Oh, and to answer the original question - no, Leica is not the Naim of photography, if it were, you'd have special editions of everything, a red Louis Vuitton designed 272 (for twice the price of the bread-and-butter one...

SamClaus posted:

Oh, and to answer the original question - no, Leica is not the Naim of photography, if it were, you'd have special editions of everything, a red Louis Vuitton designed 272 (for twice the price of the bread-and-butter one...

I do not fully agree. Last time when I discussed transportation equipment with James - my personal assistant - he asked me if I was interested in a Naim edition of Bentley and a barely known builder of vessels - Princess. I had to reject his proposals, since Gulfstream did not offer an integration with Naim.

GraemeH posted:

I used to use an M8 but the shutter failed after 10 years. After much thought I replaced it with the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) for circa £750. All the dials where you want them and a cracking fast f1.7 24-75mm lens.

See... you can take good photos with a Panasonic too... 

Though perhaps there is an analogy between Leica and Naim.  Both companies their “traditional” range (pres and power for Naim, M rangefinder cameras for Leica) are held in high esteem while many other their newer products (streaming for Naim, Mirrorless and compact cameras for Leica) are perhaps a bit quirk and may be considered overpriced vs. the competition while lacking functionality.

(Yes the analogy isn’t exact)

Eloise posted:

GraemeH posted:

I used to use an M8 but the shutter failed after 10 years. After much thought I replaced it with the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) for circa £750. All the dials where you want them and a cracking fast f1.7 24-75mm lens.

See... you can take good photos with a Panasonic too... 

Though perhaps there is an analogy between Leica and Naim.  Both companies their “traditional” range (pres and power for Naim, M rangefinder cameras for Leica) are held in high esteem while many other their newer products (streaming for Naim, Mirrorless and compact cameras for Leica) are perhaps a bit quirk and may be considered overpriced vs. the competition while lacking functionality.

(Yes the analogy isn’t exact)

And this is quite why I like them: lacking functionality. I have a new Citroen car, having loads of electronics. These electronics provide interesting safety functionality which completely makes me nervous - and it is therefore missing its purpose. The car key does not have to be in its contact anymore, so my wife gave it to a crying kid in the car to play with (stupid action). The kid opened the window and threw it away on the highway. So, we arrived home and tried to stop the engine - this involves an extensive procedure since the carkey is not there anymore. When you open a door whilst the engine is still running, a loud alarm goes off and lights start to blink.

I started to be unable to find my way when I started to use the GPS system. Checking the route before you leave is much easier and gives more contact to the environment.

I hate functionality.

Ardbeg10y posted:

Eloise posted:

GraemeH posted:

I used to use an M8 but the shutter failed after 10 years. After much thought I replaced it with the Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) for circa £750. All the dials where you want them and a cracking fast f1.7 24-75mm lens.

See... you can take good photos with a Panasonic too... 

Though perhaps there is an analogy between Leica and Naim.  Both companies their “traditional” range (pres and power for Naim, M rangefinder cameras for Leica) are held in high esteem while many other their newer products (streaming for Naim, Mirrorless and compact cameras for Leica) are perhaps a bit quirk and may be considered overpriced vs. the competition while lacking functionality.

(Yes the analogy isn’t exact)

And this is quite why I like them: lacking functionality. I have a new Citroen car, having loads of electronics. These electronics provide interesting safety functionality which completely makes me nervous - and it is therefore missing its purpose. The car key does not have to be in its contact anymore, so my wife gave it to a crying kid in the car to play with (stupid action). The kid opened the window and threw it away on the highway. So, we arrived home and tried to stop the engine - this involves an extensive procedure since the carkey is not there anymore. When you open a door whilst the engine is still running, a loud alarm goes off and lights start to blink.

I started to be unable to find my way when I started to use the GPS system. Checking the route before you leave is much easier and gives more contact to the environment.

I hate functionality.

Haha, sorry for laughing but that's a lovely story

Yes, the lack of functions is perhaps one of the best features with the M(essucher) camera. Few controls, no programs, no mirror and no menus to worry about. There is aperture priority and exposure compensation which I rarely use and you have of course a very rudimentary centre weighted exposure metering. That's it, but it is enough for the photographers who likes to take the picture by themselves.

Personally I have only really enjoyed two cameras and the M 246 Monochrom is one of them. The other is a Nikkormat FTN from -68. They have the lack of functions in common and they are both very good and simple cameras to use.

True, you will lose some precision with a window to look through rather than composing your photo through the lens, but one gets used to that too.

Leica also make very good "conventional" cameras if that's what you want. The SL is a pro mirrorless built like a tank and with very good auto focus lenses. The S is a medium format SLR but with a prohibitive cost. The Q full format is fabulous and has auto focus and the new CL with a reduced censor looks very very interesting indeed with interchangeable lens mount and adapters which means you can use a plethora of lenses; R-lenses, M, SL etc.

Mr Fjeld posted:

Yes, the lack of functions is perhaps one of the best features with the M(essucher) camera. Few controls, no programs, no mirror and no menus to worry about.

 

Leica also make very good "conventional" cameras if that's what you want. The SL is a pro mirrorless built like a tank and with very good auto focus lenses. The S is a medium format SLR but with a prohibitive cost. The Q full format is fabulous and has auto focus and the new CL with a reduced censor looks very very interesting indeed with interchangeable lens mount and adapters which means you can use a plethora of lenses; R-lenses, M, SL etc.

I disagree with this (above).  The “conventional” cameras are where Leica fall down. They live on past glories and the “red dot” allows them to overprice their offerings.  

The SL is an overpriced underperforming camera. You get better from Sony (with their quality Zeiss lenses rivalling Leica) for less cost. The AF is limiting for anything other than static images. The only redeeming feature is the viewfinder which is by far the best EVF available.   The same can be said about the TL and CL models but add in Fuji as a second competitor. 

The S is somewhat unique (though the Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D aim for the same market now and more successfully IMO) as is the Q - which is a great camera. 

I’ve thought about the CL or Q but would like a ‘Q2’ with a 35mm or 50mm  f2 or faster...but then I wonder what it would give me over the Typ 109. It certainly wouldn’t improve my photography.

Although, after using the 40mm ‘cron for a decade,  I do prefer the discipline of a fixed lens. 

G

Overpriced? Maybe relative to comparative abilities in other cameras. However, there is a cost to consider being a small camera producer in a high cost country (like Naim I suppose ) . Considering the development of lens technology is done in-house their products will nessecarily be more expensive. The M is built in Germany and I believe the S, the SL, the Q and also the CL is produced in Germany and to some degree in Portugal (?).

I'm no Leica fanboy and these discussions easily slide into the usual mess. And I have to stress that I haven't tried the S, the SL or the CL. I do know that there are several arguments in favour of the S against the Fuji GFX and and the Hasselblad - for instance that it operates much more like an ordinary SLR and that its opponents are slow and quirky. The SL compared to Sony A7 isn't as straight forward either as the build quality of the A7 has been less than satisfactory. Professional photographers have experienced pieces falling off etc. Then there's the argument of how many pixels of which there seem to be a whole lot of discussion about; should you have more pixels of lesser size squeezed onto the sensor or fewer and larger - which seems to represent less heat and hence less picture noise?

I guess I'm only trying to illustrate that there are arguments in favour and disfavor of all the cameras.If I may say so the discussion about price is of course of importance but the cameras offered today have such a good technical merit that most of the arguments for and against either proposition is only of academic importance. They are all of such high quality today that it really doesn't matter. How much you are willing to pay does matter though