Leica has recently introduced a couple of new cameras and a lens. Now, the large sensor (APS-C sized, 1.5x crop factor, much like those of Nikon DX, Sony NEX, Samsung NX and some other cameras) compact Leica X2 is hardly going to receive all that much attention and admiration, mainly due to some, by today’s standards, rather pitiful specifications. Think about it – the conservative Leica has fitted the X2 with a 6-7 year old LCD screen (2.7″, 230.000 dot), slow 24mm f/2.8 lens (the Fujifilm X100 has a 23mm f/2 lens) and a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000s. All this would not be so bad for those wanting simplicity for photography’s sake – mind you, I’m all for less gadgetry and more photography itself. But then there’s the price of $1,995. Two thousand dollars will get you a fixed focal length lens fitted compact camera, and nothing else. It looks good, yes. It probably feels good, too. And yet it’s a compact camera that doesn’t even have a viewfinder (unless you want the optional EVF, which is likely going to be mighty expensive, too), for a lot of money. In short – probably not worth it, unless you really love that red dot. Fujifilm X100, anyone?
And then there’s the new M.
…no. It still doesn’t work as you would expect it to, does it? At least not at first glance – it’s not exactly new as such. Different – yes, new – hardly. Apart from taking sharper B&W only images with no Bayer interpolation, Leica M-Monochrom is the same camera as the M9-P, which is the same camera as the 3-year old M9, which, apart from being digital, is very close to what a film M7 or MP is like. And all of these are mighty expensive. You can buy a D4 for M-Monochrom money, easy. With a AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G lens. And a memory card or two. Want a simple Leica branded lens to put on that brand new M body? A 50mm f/1.4 Summilux will set you back another $3,995.00. Truly, properly expensive.
But then…that is the point. That is the way of Leica. Let me explain.
Modern, conventional DSLR makers mostly strive towards technological advancement and, with that, complexity. We get sophisticated metering systems, sophisticated autofocus systems, sophisticated lenses, sophisticated processors and sophisticated LCD screens. I’m almost sure one could find a sophisticated camera strap. Everything sophisticated. Progress is understandable and very much needed – we use these cameras daily for our pleasure and work – but with it comes an immense amount of both rivalry and similarity between different brands, which sometimes makes things a little bit… well, boring. And we start to focus on the wrong things to stay entertained, forgetting photography itself.
Leica is one of the best known names in photographic history, going head to head with Carl Zeiss, Fujifilm and Kodak. To survive, Fujifilm had to start their X series with the X10, X100 and X-Pro 1, digital cameras focused towards achieving a compromise between functionality and personality. And it seems to have paid off, despite all the niggles you get with their products. Carl Zeiss had to take a niche approach with their manual lenses for modern DSLRs, among other projects (SLR lenses likely make up a very small portion of their business). Kodak has, not so long ago, suffered Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection and continues to produce film which many photographers, myself included, hope will live on. Leica had to make a choice as well, and what they did was make film camera’s that didn’t use film, but felt like they did. Leica focused on pleasure, because film isn’t about quality anymore, it’s about taking it slow, it’s about mastering your gear and enjoying the very process of photography with every feeling that you have. There are no autofocus systems, and no complex settings to choose from. There’s no need to look at the LCD – it just feels out of place. There’s just you and what you see through the viewfinder. Leica never pretends to compete with other manufacturers. Sophisticated simplicity. Why no one else thought about it?
It has to be rare. It has to be expensive. Not “look-I-have-a-Leica” expensive, no. “Look, I love photography” kind of expensive. It’s not for everyone, the M-Monochrom – it only takes B&W images, along with other things a Leica body does or doesn’t, depending on your point of view. There are different types of photography and, with that, lets be fair, a D4 and AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G fits a lot more applications than an M. But Leica comes as close to shooting film as you can get, without actually shooting film. All it does is take a photograph. The rest is up to the person holding the camera.
A Leica M body with a Summilux on it is like your grandmother’s frying pan (yes, a rather strange comparison, but bear with me). It’s nowhere near as sophisticated (that word again) as your wife’s new frying pan (the D4 pan, if you like), it’s not as shiny or as lightweight and easy to clean, possibly. And you put the same ingredients when you cook in both. It’s very hard to screw up your meal in the new pan. But why do pancakes taste so much better when you cook them in the old one?
Yes, it is a bold move. It is niche. But in the end, we would all want one, right?
The truth is there is something to say about the Leica look. for starters it is true and it is real. many photos almost look painterly and to be honest with the images that I see, I see more that were taken with a Leica that I would hang on my wall vs images from other manufacturers. Not sure what it is but it is true. Just look at some images on 500px taken with Leica rangefinders and even point and shoot. Pretty amazing and that is no joke. I would take a Leica any day over a Fuji. Color and the black and white images look the closest to film I have ever seen.
Or you could just choose not to use the shooting enhancements of most modern DSLRs and shoot absolutely manual… and buy a nice trip somewhere.
Seriously…
Ahhh the Leica argument. Points (and arguments) of nostalgia so closely intertwined with Diana, Holga, Polaroid instant and other manual cameras shooting film always draws the crowds.
I shoot a Voightlander R2 with a Zeiss 50mm F/2 and a couple of Nikon FE2 with different 50mm lenses for some odd reason. Maybe 2 in 24 or even 36 frames are keepers, it is expensive beyond belief by today’s standards, focusing in low light or even in general is spotty, and it is slow. I do not like most of the developed shots, to be honest. All that said, I still like shooting them.
Artistic for “Art sake” aside (as that argument has to do with something outside of logic), the digital Leica’s do have a lot going for them – Glass that renders images in a unique way (like Zeiss) and a great image quality. The monochrome M – wow. If people don’t understand the Tech behind the abilities of an Only B&W sensor shame on them. They really, are not that useful for most photographers desire of what photographers want to shoot. They fill a niche, and fill it really well.
The key, at least to me, paid and personal work is the ability to capture a moment, create the image that I have in my mind, and render that image in a unique way. Choosing a system that can execute all that is impossible – that is why so many of us buy dozens of lenses, light modifiers, various bodies, different software, iphone apps, that just sits in the “bag”, but is there when we need that “one” capture. Leica fills a “unique look” tool to people’s amazement. The Photographers who know how to utilize that look or who are just “built” for that tool far exceed what I sure most Leica engineers ever had in mind. Because of it’s price and the drawbacks of the system, leaves most to choose something else but are always wondering what they could do with it. That is why so many are drawn to it, it is a unique tool that you just can’t justify owning. Those who do, spent too much to say they actually don’t like it.
On my side, I have a X100, and that has filled this nich for me better than film ever did. I am more satisfied with it than any film camera. I still shoot my Voight because of the Zeiss, but really film is dead for me. Last summer I shot 20 rolls of film trying to do a personal project of friends and life. That failed miserably. It cost about $250 in film, developing, scanning, another $200 for a OneStep Polaroid and a used 24mm lens. In the end, I was use to getting usable shots, with film the rate of success is much, much lower. With 4 beers in me, the AF still works fine. After the X100 hit my hand, I knew that was my future to fulfill this need. An X-pro 1 will be in the other hand soon. They work like film, but incorporate advantages made that the last 20 years that Leica has chosen to leave out.
So, $6,900 for a body, $5,000 for a 50mm f1.4, $3,200 for a 35mm f2, $4,000 for a 28mm f2 and all of that comes to just shy of $20,000. I don’t care who you are, prices at that level are not relative- that is expensive! When you can buy the whole X-pro 1 with a X100 for $4,000, and honestly get a similar experience that they were looking for in the first place, that premium reaches a bit too far. If they sold the bodies for 50% less, I think that would bring it more in line. Digital bodies just are not worth that cost.
Are there places for Leica? Of course. Is the price justified for the work that goes into making them, Probably. Is it “worth” the price? Not a chance. Why do people want them? Because they can’t afford them. (It really is that simple.) Would I take one if someone offered it, Hell yeah!
Dear Jared,
I agree on most things that you said – and Roman, your writing style is absolutely admirable.
However, there is one argument that hasn’t been mentioned in the whole thread of conversation, and it is important for me.
The only reason I would like a Leica M (Not the monochrome) is that I consider it the most beautiful camera ever made, and one of the most beautiful objects on the world for me.
Nice article, Roman. I’ve played with M9, but the rangefinder focusing simply does not agree with me. I think many of those enamored with it should try it. It is a very different way of doing things. In the end, I would love a digital FM2. One day it will come, but that day is still far away.
Oh, not to be too anally-retentive, but it’s “bear with me”, unless you are making a suggestion to a fairer sex.
Well written, nice use of words. Though I don’t really agree with the rationale presented. However what can’t be denied is the author is quite passionate about Leica and his passion shows, das is gutt :)
Now, as noted by the author in one of the comments, price indeed is personal. Simple economics can be used to prove that the Lecia M Monochrome for some is underpriced and for others it is overpriced.
“But in the end, we would all want one, right?” – Not necessarily, certainly not necessarily for me. I could be just as happy or perhaps even happier with any other camera which sports a 50mm 1.2-1.8 and shoots clean images at high ISOs. When I remove the battery grip off my D7000 and mount a 35mm/1.8 on it, it comes pretty close to being the perfect walk around camera. Other people could argue just as effectively for their camera setups.
My nostalgia takes me back to my film bodies, which I still have: Nikon F100,F90, Mamiya and Pentona (oh yeah, lens and body in one monobloc, parallax error et al). All of these bodies are still in perfect condition. However I won’t pay any kind of premium for a new camera which digitally emulates the experience I have had with these above mentioned film cameras. I’d rather put a film roll in one of them and shot or fall back upon my option of my D7000 sans the grip with a 35mm/1.8 and then develop in Lightroom. Further if this camera costs the same as a fantastic new D4 with 70-200/2.8 then it would pretty much have to be the world’s best camera and have technology which is scaleable and relevant for the next decade and a half for me to consider it.
I know that the Leica M Monochrome is a pretty fantastic camera, I don’t think anybody really disputes that, it’s just about the extra ordinarily high premium that is being charged for it. Having said that, it is fair to observe that I am not much into other luxury products either (cars, watches etc.) so perhaps I feature no where in the intended consumer group for this product for a good reason.
Even if one hypothetically agrees that the meal does taste better when cooked in my grandmother’s pan then perhaps the difference is not in the pans but in the cooking styles of my grandmother and my wife, or perhaps in which ingredients they choose or perhaps………
I can’t say I adore Leica – I don’t. If I had to choose between an M7 and Zeiss Ikon, I’d take the latter. But Leica is exclusive. If Nikon were to make a digital rangefinder for a more reasonable price, I’d be happy to own one and would never look back at Leica. I’d love it if Fujifilm made one. It’s not the brand I love, it’s the concept of those camera’s – simplicity and lack of features other than ones necessary to take a photo.
Though I fully understand such an approach is not for everyone due to different needs and goals. :)
The author asked: “But in the end, we would all want one, right?”
Well let’s see.
I used M4 and R3s with many lenses. The results from F2 and Nikon lenses were always picked by my customers as “better” looking. The only visibly superior results were with Leica Apo’s, provided the camera was used on tripod. Since neither Canon nor Nikon offer Apo’s, it is impossible to judge how would they compare to Leica’s. But this is history.
The current issue for Leica is its application.
In the past, Leica was a fast action camera. Today some who believe in Leica lens superiority are trying it for the landscape and find problems. The 70 yrs. old Leica mechanical focusing system simply lacks precision which digital sensor demands and absence of the LV makes it impossible to focus with precision. I will not review other problems with the M9. Anyone can find long lists of issues, and letters to Leica, on the Net published by many frustrated users.
So, we have a paradox. The Leica collectors, and those who want “a piece of legend”, demand as much adherence to the past design as possible, while on the other side there are photographers. Since it is impossible to satisfy these contradictory demands, the Leica will have to choose which group of customers to satisfy.
For me it boils down to: “which problems Leica would solve for me vis a vis my current gear?
Unfortunately not many. Mainly the size, weight and simple menus at huge expense. There is also much longer list of problems Leica would create for me at the same time. Even the Leica “solutions” will be questionable as soon as someone offers a full size sensor camera with a set of quality optics. The Fuji X Pro-1 would fit the bill, if it was not a prototype camera plagued with bugs and elementary design omissions (e.g lack of VF diopter adjustments).
So, in the end it is not so obvious who would want it.
I work with a Leica M9. There are 2 reasons why. First, the real life printed image quality at low ISO is as good as if not better than high end Canon and Nikon cams (my last camera was a Canon IDs II with L glass). I don’t shoot much over ISO 400. If you do, then its not the camera for you. Secondly, the camera is a fraction of the weight of higher end DSLR. If you drive your camera around then that’s unimportant. If you’re young or burley and don’t mind schlepping around 3-5 kilos of camera equipment then this advantage is irrelevant. But if you walk a lot with your camera then the relatively low weight of an M9 is a god send, esp., given point 1, the image quality. On the IQ/weight ratio an M9 is as good as it gets right now.
There are 2 principle reasons why Leicas are very expensive. The first is that unlike the big manufacturers which have industrial strength robotic assembly lines, Leicas are assembled by real people at work benches. This is expensive, esp. as they are assembled in Germany where labour costs are relatively high. Obviously to hand assemble a camera with the complexity of a Leica requires well trained staff. While this gives Leica reasonably good quality control but at a high cost. The second reason is that overall production numbers from Leica are tiny compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. This means that not only buying parts in relatively low numbers and the actual unit manufacturing costs are high but all the ancillary costs like marketing, distribution, advertising, running Leica shops, managing a dealer network, managing the business and all the fixed costs like site, taxes, lights, heating etc are amortised over a far smaller number of units raising the individual unit cost. Leica only recently started making a profit so while they’re expensive, its not like the people who own and run Leica are laughing all the way to the bank.
The decision to market Leicas as a premium product is thus down to necessity. That people with more money than camera knowledge buy Leicas to show that they can or that collectors buy overpriced Hermes editions or all white cameras is just part of running a premium product and doesn’t reflect on the serious artists who shoot with Leica (do I have to name names?)
Leicas offer other unique advantages, I’m currently shooting with a 1954 50mm lens that draws beautifully and happily lacks that antiseptic intense micro contrast that so many photographers use as a yardstick to quality these days. The lens cost me a fraction of what a Canon L lens let alone a Summichron 50 f/2 costs.
Horses for courses but its not about the slow and deliberate shooting process for me personally that draws me to shoot M9s.
if I have $100k for buying any leica product, I will not buy any leica body, but surely I will buy 1 or 2 leica lens &
put it in my dslr body. Because for me lens is the most important gear in photography.
Hi Roman,
I always enjoy your artistic wording.
:-)
I like Leica, I have an old IIIf with 50mm f2 Summicron and 35mm f3.5 Summaron lenses. My old Leica is just like an precious antique/art . The new M is below my reach. I think what Leica famous for is the quality of their lenses. All their lenses could produce stunning good images, because of these, they all can keep their value. The new M electronic digital body is just a 21th century invention, it is way over priced. I prefer to invest my money to their lenses instead. That is why I have a new Fuji X Pro1 as the substitiution.