Educate me please re: Leica

I know Leica makes great glass; I almost bought some of their binoculars.
But why are their (manual focus, rangefinder) cameras so expensive?
I had an old Argus C3, then switched to a Canon AE-1 (about 100 years ago,) and absolutely love the slr vs. a rangefinder; what's the appeal (he asked out of ignorance. . .)?

Craig Lipski wrote:I know Leica makes great glass; I almost bought some of their binoculars.
But why are their (manual focus, rangefinder) cameras so expensive?

The market for rangefinders is getting smaller and smaller which makes manufacturing them more expensive per unit. Those who buy them are willing to pay the higher price because they want the better image quality.

And you pay a pretty big premium for the name. The little digital point and shoot that is the panasonic LX rebadged costs almost twice as much in Leica colors as it does in Panasonic colors and all you really get for the extra money is some claimed better software.

E.J. Peiker wrote:And you pay a pretty big premium for the name.

The Leicas are often jokingly referred to as "doctor cameras" to suggest that there is some element of elitism associated with ownership.

Status, eh?
A Rolex kinda' thing?
Got it.
Thanks.

Yup!

Interesting case in point: Take a look at the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 lens. Exotic, yes, but also ridiculous. They sell it for $11,000. Comes with a silly collector's box, etc. Meanwhile, Cosina-Voigtlander sells a very similar 50mm f/1.1 lens for $1149 that is reported to be a better lens overall.

I think (kind of guessing here) that 40-50 years ago the Leica Rangefinder cameras, with their excellent lenses, really were the best (or very good) choice for many types of photography.

With that they built a very loyal following.

So I'd say that the Leica appeal is part status (i.e. a diamond studded Rolex) and part loyalty, being a part of something.

They are much smaller than DSLR's, and have great lenses available. If the M9 (there isn't one of these yet) could autofocus and had a decent sensor there might be something to it.

A local camera store in Montreal still holds a decent collection of Leica lenses and bodies under a glass counter. Sometimes I peer in at the tiny price tags to see the absurd figures -- $3000 for a used body, $1195 for a lens.... It's times like that when I start to get philosphical about human desires and motivations. Of the few real Leica owners that I have met, at least one was a real purist: shot slide film in exotic and expensive vacation spots. The images were of the docu-travel genre i.e. colorful outdoor markets busy with people in third world countries. So, if I try to see the Leica phenomenon in the most positive light that I can, I ignore the elitest connotations and see a kind of photography that is perhaps more about the experience of travel photography than the images themselves. Kinda like travelling through europe in an Italian sports car or sailing around the world.

Not talking about the M8 or M8.2 or any of their digicams, but the mechanical rangefinders are very well made and beautiful craftsmanship. A have a couple of older bodies that I acquired used and although one is 50 years old, another is 70 years old, they're both still working fine if a little battle-worn.

Othewise, the Leica name is more for the collector than for the photographer _these_ days.

I think it's part snob value and part love of fine craftsmanship, plus anything that becomes collectable tends to send prices to crazy levels. It's like fine wines, we have some labels here that used to be affordable, but prices have been pushed through the roof by collectors.

Though I have to say I have a set of Trinovid binoculars and they are are really very nice to look through.

Nostalgia was the appeal for me. I have one lens made in 1948 which is fun to shoot with, just for that reason.I used my Dad's Argus when I was a kid, and had always wanted to get a rangefinder. I originally was thinking this would give me a light carry around system when traveling with my wife, and I wasn't supposed to be on a photo trip(Canon G series?). Considering the size of the M8 and the crop factor, lack of zooms (there are 2 multi focal length lenses available), the 5D and a 24-105mm covers most of the focal length potential of the Leica (12mm to 135m)x 1.3x. I have never carried my Canon and wished I had the Leica, but there have been times when I have had the Leica and wished I had the Canon, either wanting AI Servo AF or high ISO IQ. Okay there was one time when I was turned away from an event I wanted to photograph, but they let me in with the rangefinder. Like others have pointed out, the prices for Leica lenses are just nuts now, although you can get C/V lenses or some vintage Leica glass for a reasonable cost. I like the IQ from the sensor, but I like the IQ from my 5D, too. I doubt Leica will be able to keep up with changing digital technology as well as larger companies, especially with their M line.