davhill
Canon P
Because I don't feel like carrying a watering can around?
OK.. let me explain that
A friend at work is a Russian immigrant, and she came to me one day recently to tell me that the literal/phonetic translation of "Leica" in Russian (лейка) is "watering can". When she was a young girl growing up in Moscow, she'd read accounts of the WW2 press photographers slogging through the front lines, and they'd invariably carry a leica and a notebook. She didn't understand why a war photographer would carry a watering can.
(Yeah, ok, I was looking for a spot to share this. So shoot me.)
OK.. let me explain that
A friend at work is a Russian immigrant, and she came to me one day recently to tell me that the literal/phonetic translation of "Leica" in Russian (лейка) is "watering can". When she was a young girl growing up in Moscow, she'd read accounts of the WW2 press photographers slogging through the front lines, and they'd invariably carry a leica and a notebook. She didn't understand why a war photographer would carry a watering can.
(Yeah, ok, I was looking for a spot to share this. So shoot me.)
DanskDynamit
Well-known
because the only digital Leica I like is the M9-P Hermès edition and I cannot afford it.
Gary E
Well-known
It mainly comes down to the cost and the fatty bodies they initially came in. It didn't have the same feel to me (not including the missing winder which Epson got right). In addition to this, to process the RAW files I would have to upgrade my PC, storage and software to handle the PP work.
The M10 is now back to the M's original size but the price is still to high for a piece of computer equipment. I only hope someone else tries again like with Epson and Ricoh, but with the limited market I don't see that happening in the near future. That Ricoh with interchangeable modules had a good idea and direction with separating costs between handle and sensor module which would keep future update costs lower than upgrading a whole camera. I doubt Pentax would continue that tradition; we haven't even seen an update to the Ricoh GR.
The M10 is now back to the M's original size but the price is still to high for a piece of computer equipment. I only hope someone else tries again like with Epson and Ricoh, but with the limited market I don't see that happening in the near future. That Ricoh with interchangeable modules had a good idea and direction with separating costs between handle and sensor module which would keep future update costs lower than upgrading a whole camera. I doubt Pentax would continue that tradition; we haven't even seen an update to the Ricoh GR.
shimokita
白黒
I don't buy into the "too expensive" option... if you compare the price of new black body Leica Monochrom (digital) vs a new black body Leica MP (film) the difference is about 366 rolls of film developed at a lab. Shopping around, self development, etc might get you 500 rolls of film... whatever, there will be a break point.
Many of us already have a film Leica (apples to apples), so the question might rather be one of additional gear vs. "benefit". It's no longer a quality issue, in fact... and I ignore the post processing cost issue for the moment (it's a real issue, but we don't live in isolation from other daily requirement, we need a computer - the cost is incremental and decreasing). Skip a couple of lattes...
There are other digital camera options... gear does make a difference so it comes down to personal preference (PROs have their own approach to the equipment choices).
At this point I don't have a digital Leica, most likely the reason is that "it's a timing issue" ; )
Many of us already have a film Leica (apples to apples), so the question might rather be one of additional gear vs. "benefit". It's no longer a quality issue, in fact... and I ignore the post processing cost issue for the moment (it's a real issue, but we don't live in isolation from other daily requirement, we need a computer - the cost is incremental and decreasing). Skip a couple of lattes...
There are other digital camera options... gear does make a difference so it comes down to personal preference (PROs have their own approach to the equipment choices).
At this point I don't have a digital Leica, most likely the reason is that "it's a timing issue" ; )
narsuitus
Well-known
UPDATE:
Back in 2014, I cast my vote for, "there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better."
However, I recently decided to buy a Leica M10 digital camera to use with my Leica M6 film camera.
Leica Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
raid
Dad Photographer
They are two great cameras. Congratulations. I have the M6 and the M9 but not the M10.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Truth be told, I bought a film Leica BECAUSE I was curious about the digital, and as a film cameras the M4-2 and M6 TTL that I picked up offered a possible path to a digital camera I might eventually own. Emphasis on "might".
Of course the trick is that I've found film such an engaging challenge, I guess it's fair to say I've spent far more money on chasing dead-end film cameras (mostly Medium Format), a Nikon scanner, a Jobo, etc. I didn't plan on that, but the film infrastructure takes a bit of nurturing that ... well... I might have saved a bunch of dough if I'd just swung for the digital Leica. Emphasis on "might" as though it were an exclusive but unlikely proposition to NOT have done both film and digital. So for anyone who suggests film is cheaper, I have to say, "How? Sure hasn't been for me. More fun, more frustrating, more challenging and more rewarding... maybe... but cheaper? Not!" Go figure.
Of course the trick is that I've found film such an engaging challenge, I guess it's fair to say I've spent far more money on chasing dead-end film cameras (mostly Medium Format), a Nikon scanner, a Jobo, etc. I didn't plan on that, but the film infrastructure takes a bit of nurturing that ... well... I might have saved a bunch of dough if I'd just swung for the digital Leica. Emphasis on "might" as though it were an exclusive but unlikely proposition to NOT have done both film and digital. So for anyone who suggests film is cheaper, I have to say, "How? Sure hasn't been for me. More fun, more frustrating, more challenging and more rewarding... maybe... but cheaper? Not!" Go figure.
cz23
-
Maybe a related question: "Why did you decide to buy a digital M after deciding NOT to buy a digital M?"
I've been there a couple times and now feel it coming on again.
John
I've been there a couple times and now feel it coming on again.
John
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Hey John,
Thinking M 10?
Maybe when things slow down for me a bit we can grab a cup of joe and you can check mine out.
Deardorff38
Mentor
Shimokita....that's a lot of lattes for an $8.29k M10 body !
edodo
Well-known
UPDATE:
Back in 2014, I cast my vote for, "there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better."
However, I recently decided to buy a Leica M10 digital camera to use with my Leica M6 film camera.
Leica Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Beautiful cameras! I too love the titanium M6. It's a M4 top plate with meter!
It's the only brass top plate meter leica that is the size of the M4! M7 and letzen 999 M6 are taller! Lot's of flack about the M6 titanium not being titanium, but the thruth it's a beautiful camera, better finish that the zinc ones!
It's look very tall compared to the smaller M6. I thought M10 was same size as the film classic M!
edodo
Well-known
For me I will not buy a digital M because it's a copy of a film camera. The film M is form and function, curves like the film roll, rangefindered in order to have the possibility to use beautiful symmetrical wide angle optical designs. Or having the most useful manual focus system in the universe enough said!
The M digital are mimicing the curves but it's lacking form and function. The whole camera is a pale transfiguration of the film M that is a hundred years of design in the making, industrial empirical and photographical design that is the only motivation to have the digital M.
Sure I would love to have a M10 or hopefully a M11 (cheaper, made in China, same size as M6 vanilla), so I can calibrate the Contax Zeiss Hologon that I DIY converted to leica M for use with my M6! ^^
The M digital are mimicing the curves but it's lacking form and function. The whole camera is a pale transfiguration of the film M that is a hundred years of design in the making, industrial empirical and photographical design that is the only motivation to have the digital M.
Sure I would love to have a M10 or hopefully a M11 (cheaper, made in China, same size as M6 vanilla), so I can calibrate the Contax Zeiss Hologon that I DIY converted to leica M for use with my M6! ^^
NickTrop
Mentor
DXO Mark sensor scores highest rated full frame Leicas:
Leica SL $7450 Score: 88
Leica M10 $6895 Score: 86
Leica Q Type 116 $4250 Score: 85
__________
Cameras I currently own:
Nikon D600 full frame price paid $670 (used, 8,000-ish actuations) Score 94.
Nikon D5300 (crop sensor) $290 (refurb'd) Score: 83
Other current Nikons
D850 $3,300 Score 100
D800 $3300 Score 97
D750 $2,300 Score 93
That's why.
Leica SL $7450 Score: 88
Leica M10 $6895 Score: 86
Leica Q Type 116 $4250 Score: 85
__________
Cameras I currently own:
Nikon D600 full frame price paid $670 (used, 8,000-ish actuations) Score 94.
Nikon D5300 (crop sensor) $290 (refurb'd) Score: 83
Other current Nikons
D850 $3,300 Score 100
D800 $3300 Score 97
D750 $2,300 Score 93
That's why.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I have a Nikon D700, Nick. Is its sensor also a high rated sensor like the D600?
MIkhail
Well-known
Not the cost for me.
I got bonus for the last year and wife suggested- go and buy what you want.
I was looking and thinking... considered Monochrome, etc... and bought Sony a7S2 in the end. And love it.
There is just really no rational reason that I could find to have digital Leica over something like Sony. None.
I got bonus for the last year and wife suggested- go and buy what you want.
I was looking and thinking... considered Monochrome, etc... and bought Sony a7S2 in the end. And love it.
There is just really no rational reason that I could find to have digital Leica over something like Sony. None.
peterm1
Mentor
I recently unexpectedly had this experience. Having come into a little money I decided to upgrade my M8 and buy an M240. But as it happened the shop had a mint Leica Q with accessories for the same price. The deciding factor was the af mated to a superb lens albeit a 28mm one so the Q is what I got. My eyes are not what they once were and I am fed up with missing shots as I try to find optimal focus.
Michael Markey
Mentor
I feel the same .
OK the Sony menus could be better organised but that was no reason to pay the extra for a Leica body.
As a digital back for my manual focus lenses the Sony is more then adequate and has additional advantages over a Leica that easily mitigates the poor menu system .
telenous
Well-known
Asking from a position of near ignorance (my only digital cameras are very old Canon DSLRs): if you have a slew of Leica lenses, isn't it better to get a Leica M digital body? Am I wrong to think that Sony A7x cameras do not always work well with lenses of other systems (esp. wide angles)?
NickTrop
Mentor
Leicas were and are simply too expensive. There are simply much better options out there. In fact, in the case of their digital cameras, their sensors lag far behind Nikon and Sony. This is according to DxO. Say what you will about DxO? But they do do sophisticated tests, in labs, with real lab equipment. Their site is ancillary to their business. They are not paid off. They perform these tests in order to develop their software. Of course, this produces backlash when the Canon and Leica cults are confronted with the inconvenient truth that their coveted gear is simply not keeping up. In Leica's case, the highest-rated sensor on one of their new full frame models barely edges out the consumer Nikon D5300 I had. It doesn't touch even seven year old full frame cameras from Nikon like the entry-level full frame D600s from 2012 I bought used for $650. Nor does it come close to Sony. So, if I can get a camera with a better sensor and a body with more features that's very well-made for this price, thousands less, why bother with the red dot?
So, a sensor is not the only thing that makes a camera? Here again, Leica brings nothing to the table. In fact, they lag. Leica stopped innovating decades ago.
And I've always thought what Leica should do is farm all their digital out to a Japanese company -- Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony whomever and focus on making lenses in other mounts. Leica was never an electronics company. They -- from a realistic standpoint, can't compete with those who are electronics companies. But they sure make a heckuva lens.
What does Leica make that's great? It is no longer their cameras, sad to say. The more camera's go/went electronic? The more Leica lost its edge to the Japanese -- and this goes back to the later days of the film era with Leica lagging even to include a built-in meter. Few care about "mechanical perfection" these days. But imagine the demand for a Cron in a native Canon, Nikon, or Sony mount. They would sell like hotcakes. A Lecia body and a Cron might be out of reach. But I might be able to spring for a Cron for my Canon body. Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, Tamron and many others have done it (until recently with the exception of Zeiss on the budget end).
Why not Leica?
It I was CEO of Leica, I'd point the ship in that direction.
From a consumer standpoint. Film Leica? Sure. Digital? No way. Not unless I've invested heavily in Leica glass, refuse to sell it, and was "trapped" in the Leica system.
So, a sensor is not the only thing that makes a camera? Here again, Leica brings nothing to the table. In fact, they lag. Leica stopped innovating decades ago.
And I've always thought what Leica should do is farm all their digital out to a Japanese company -- Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony whomever and focus on making lenses in other mounts. Leica was never an electronics company. They -- from a realistic standpoint, can't compete with those who are electronics companies. But they sure make a heckuva lens.
What does Leica make that's great? It is no longer their cameras, sad to say. The more camera's go/went electronic? The more Leica lost its edge to the Japanese -- and this goes back to the later days of the film era with Leica lagging even to include a built-in meter. Few care about "mechanical perfection" these days. But imagine the demand for a Cron in a native Canon, Nikon, or Sony mount. They would sell like hotcakes. A Lecia body and a Cron might be out of reach. But I might be able to spring for a Cron for my Canon body. Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, Tamron and many others have done it (until recently with the exception of Zeiss on the budget end).
Why not Leica?
It I was CEO of Leica, I'd point the ship in that direction.
From a consumer standpoint. Film Leica? Sure. Digital? No way. Not unless I've invested heavily in Leica glass, refuse to sell it, and was "trapped" in the Leica system.
People that buy an M buy it because they like a Leica M... not because they want the norm. Some people want less features. And let's be honest, the sensor in the M10 is just fine for photography even if it doesn't stack up in a lab test.
Leica doesn't make its own sensor. However, they have the only mechanical rangefinder camera (digital and film) and a wide range of rangefinder lenses made specifically for that camera. Might not be important to you (or even me), but it is to some.
Uhm... Panasonic / Sigma / Leica have an alliance, so...
But enough care for them to make $ and have luxury boutique stores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Mount_Alliance
https://l-mount.com