😂😂 for real. I'm finally switching from DSLR to mirrorless, and I have no idea why I would ever want to take three steps back. I started photography on a black and white film camera and it was so tedious. I enjoy the memories, but I don't think I would enjoy going back to shoot on something more difficult. I am awed at how accurate to the screen my pictures are with my mirrorless, and how easy the amazing autofocus makes it to shoot. Definitely not trying to pay eight grand to tediously match up to boxes so I can have proper focus 😂
I’m still running around with my Fuji X-Pro3 with Fuji 35mm 1.4 lens, and I love it. Great camera, compact, and a blast to shoot. I think the key is to find what works for you, and then most importantly, get out there and hone your craft. Cheers!
Yes but complex menu, APS-C instead of full frame. Not real range-finder and that is why I use the EVF most of the time. Great lenses, good value for money.
@@AlphaCygni The matter is not so much about opinion as it is about fact: I have got both cameras and I can tell you it is a fact (for instance on the Q you do not have all the film simulations (useless in my mind as they try to reproduce film flaws) that you have got on the Xpro 3, and there is more).
I first wanted a Leica M in 1993, after I’d been in Africa and realised that I needed a quieter, less intimidating camera to take photos of people who were nervous about the presence of a camera. I fell in love with the Leica M7, but was gutted when I researched the prices… £12-15K for a body and a few lenses. Since then, I’ve continued photography, had a family, witnessed the invention of digital photography (which I also fell for, as the dark room had to become a kids bedroom, yet I had my laptop). After the kids become adults, I started a business and after a couple of successful years, I realised I could afford an M. So I walked into Leica London, and bought an M11 with three lenses. I have NEVER gone out into the world exploring with my camera so much. I really don’t even care whether anyone thinks my work is any good (although it seems to improve the more I practice), but for the price of a small car, I’ve never been so physically fit, nor enjoyed my time out on the streets more. I’m also developing as a theatre photographer, working with a local improv theatre (the street photography of theatre photography). Don’t give a shit what anyone thinks of me or Leica, for me, the M11 has been one of the best things I’ve ever owned… the most I’ve ever experienced being in love with an object.
this. my leica gets me out shooting more purely because of the experience.i spend less time sitting at a desk editing too because of the colors and just overall character and look it delivers. i become more of a photographer because of it even on days when I am burnt out from photography being my full time.
If you want a quieter camera then practically every mirrorless camera from 6-7 years ago onwards has an electronic shutter mode which has zero noise - whether you shoot single frames or at 60 fps.
@@markhoffman9655I'm not sure you understand me... it's not a decision based on technical features... if it were, I'd have a Sony, or even a Hasselblad. It's a dream from thirty years ago. It's an emotional attachment. It's a different type of choice to the one you're solving for here. .
At the time you could get an M7 + a 35 AND a 50 mm summicron fornearly half of the sum you are quoting ?!!? Are you speaking in today's money (adjusted for inflation and hyperbole ;o) ?
I love this comment - very inspiring and honest. When I went in and worked with the Leica, I felt immediately hooked. I went to look at other brands, just in the name of diligence but I still come back to Leica. They’re like your favorite lipstick or pair of jeans.
Leica didn't start making cameras until 1923, although their lead designer had a working prototype as far back as 1913. They have been making microscopes since the mid 1800s, and industrial grade survey equipment is their backbone.
@@bondgabebond4907 i wasnt suggesting anyone go out and buy a M11 or Q3 to take nogtalgia filled pictures, I was mentioning somwthing that was omitted in the video about the history of leica, which i think is pretty nice observation. Everyone halted film camera production while you could always at any time get either a M7, a MA or a MP and now an M6 new fresh from the factory which i think is pretty cool
This title is soooo miss leading no everyone is not buying Leica there less then 5% of the total market . So some TH-camrs are buying them for content then ether retuning then are reselling them
@@phillippugh2161 I doubt that any TH-camr just buys a Leica for "content", most of them can certainly not justify of such an expense with the TH-cam revenues, let us be realistic here.
I’ve been capturing images from the age of 8 when I was gifted a 110 film Kodak camera. I moved on to my Dad’s Canon AE-1, his Canon T-50, and then I purchased my first digital camera a Canon 40D. A few years later I borrowed a friends Leica M6 and fell hard. The ergonomics, the small form factor and the beauty of the images captured by those beautiful little Leica lenses. I sold my other equipment and purchased a Leica M8 and slowly purchased other lenses. That camera was my daily companion for 6 years, taking the M8 to 12 countries, and taking over 100,000 photos. I sold the M8 to a young photographer who had dreamed of owning a Leica camera. And a few years later I purchased a used M9, which was sold to accommodate a Leica MP-240. Two years ago that became a Leica Q2. There’s just something special about how Leica cameras draw light.
Everything you saying could be applied to any camera... and I shoot only Leica. I'm glad you make a living via content but this video fails to cover WHY you should use Leica....
I’ve heard someone say: „you want to go retro? Get a DSLR!“ I like that idea! Thinking of a D800 or 5D3 with a 35 or 50 - it honestly feels retro already. The optical viewfinder, the „click-clack“, the somewhat bulky body. Could be true retro on a budget.
Yeah, I just re-bought the Nikon D810 for that very reason and I'm loving it. Leicas are great but I think they are a bit overhyped. At the end of the day, you have to go with what works for you.
Recently having bought a Q3, I 100% agree! It got me more interested in going out to shoot photos again, and I really love just taking the JPEGs and seeing that they are just fine. No need to tinker around on Lightroom at all, just enjoy your photography.
@@dalekperov The thing is. When you have a Leica in one hand and a Fuji in the other the Leica feels way better quality. And that's what you're paying for. As they say, the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
If you have to spend $8k to get you out shooting and falling in love with photography again, it’s not the equipment that is the issue. I would feel an obligation to get out and shoot to not feel like I was ripped off too.😂 People get the red dot for the same reason people buy supercars, so they can say look at me! A Lamborghini looks great, but a Lexus will be a better car in almost every way! I shoot with the Nikon FZ. In every measure except maybe color science “opinion,” it is so much better than a Leica M. I prefer the color science of the Nikon over Leica. I am glad I didn’t mortgage my home to figure that out.
@@apolloomd4939 the reason people buy Leica or a Lamborghini from a financial POV is .... because they can, they can afford to. Lets be awfully honest here, we both fly economy class not because we want to "save the earth" or "we are more prudent with money", its because we cant afford our own private jets. So lets stop with the inferiority complex of "people taking first/business class are stupid and they are wasting money, my economy flight does the exact same thing for cheaper. airplane food sucks anyway so business/first class is a waste of money". if you had unlimited amount of money suddenly, I can tell you tomorrow you will be flying the "stupid" class you are calling today
first up, if I had enough lazy money, I WOULD buy a Q. It would be fun. I'm a full on Fuji shooter, recently retired from photojournalism. I enjoy using the Fuji's. I do have the X100V as well, but unlike most users, it doesn't make me want to pick it up. It's a 'meh' experience. The Fuji I most enjoy is my GFX 50R, used with old film camera lenses. That is what brings a smile to my dial. Oh, and I don't need Peter McKinnan (however it's spelt) or anyone else to inspire me, I've had the photography bug for 50 years now :) Cheers from Australia.
Yo Buddy....ex-phojo after 32 years ( although shooting sports for our fish wrap/digital missive after a layoff) I shoot the big Canons for cannot miss the shot news and sports, my Fuji x's Pro-2 and H1 for less important stuff, and my digital Leica Ms for up-close politics and nonsense. Cannot be happier.
Bought a Leica M-4 in 1973. The lenses are a revelation. Because I worked in a camera shop at the time and was privy to information from a Leica rep, I was able to see their quality control standards. They are extraordinary. Their standards are so high, that in the 1970s when they had Minolta subcontracted to build the original Leica CL, Leica told their dealers at the time that the product they were receiving from Minolta was so far out of tolerance, that only 10% of them could be adjusted into tolerance. That’s the difference between the best of Japanese production, and what Leica was doing. This is a camera where you don’t look at how many features it has. You look at how well it connects to your eye. On that count, absolutely nothing beats a Leica. The only operation I’ve ever been around, where they had standards at least as high as Leica, was when I was in Hollywood 30 years ago and I had good friends working at Panavision. It’s almost impossible to describe how high their engineering and manufacturing standards are. That’s also why when a production company rents a camera package from Panavision, they have to insure that camera package for at least $1 million dollars.
I got my first M6 in 2001. It was fantastic! Over the years I've owned MANY Leica cameras, and even slogged through owning the M240 for years. A clunky beast that still gave amazing images with a great sensor and of course the legendary M lenses. But the Q series has been my favorite of all time, starting with the quite fantastic original Q. Between the SL2-S with a few SL lenses and a Q3, I couldn't want anything more for stills. I can even shoot wildlife with the heavy but excellent Sigma 60-600mm for L-mount. I do also own other L-mount cameras for better video autofocus, though. I assume the SL3 will fix that, but for now it works. I've gone through many systems over the years, including Fuji (great for the size and weight), Canon (the RF 28-70 f/2 is the only zoom I've ever truly loved), and even Olympus and Nikon and back in the film days, Contax and Mamiya. But I always come back to Leica. Yes it's nice to have the build quality... also what other camera manufacturer actually gets their cameras IPX rated? Most just say splash and dust sealed, with no indication to what degree these seals will function. I've been in torrential rain with both Fuji and Canons with no issues, but I wasn't 100% confident. With my Leica's I know what they're built do endure. But more than that it really is the shooting experience. These days with computer aided design most companies are making excellent lens designs. But Leica is one of the few companies still pushing for that extra 10% (that you pay more than 10% for) and I appreciate that. Chromatic aberration is my absolute pet peeve and they've all but eliminated it in their amazing APO lenses. And they do that while still retaining the beautiful character and color typically associated with Leica lenses. Then there's the color. Each manufacturer has their preferred way to process color, and I'm personally the most drawn to Leica. The Q series has always been amazing to me in this regard. The combination of that fantastic 28mm 1.7 lens and the color processing that Leica uses... it just produces a look that I absolutely love, and haven't been able to replicate with other high end cameras.
Overpriced is an under statment LOL. I sold my two M8 cameras many years ago and sworn I would not get another Digital Leica M, so I got my film Leica M4P. Regarding the Q serie, I reviewed the Q2 Mono on my YT channel, the feelings are great, no doubt, but the optical quality is far from Leica's good reputation. The Leica Q3 is even worse and has heavy distortion and the software correction makes it really bad in the corners at maximum aperture... for 2000 Euros, the Q3 would be fairly priced, for 6000.... they are simply laughing at their buyers.... This Summilux speech is pure hype, no, a Leica M summilux is FAR better than that wrongly called Summilux on a Q3 that cannot properly handle the 60mpix. So if you are buying feelings, you are completely right, using a Leica camera is something unique and special, but if we speak about quality, you can get much better tool for half the price. Thank you for your interesting video.
OMG I was wanting to upgrade to a Q3..... so I currently have a Special edition Q... it's a Titanium colour and Black... Love it... so would going to Q2 vs. Q3 be the better upgrade in your opinion? you seem to have tested it out... I love your take on my question.... Been a Photographer since my Dad bought me my first SLR...all manual with only a light meter inside... Grade 9 Photography Club... a natural... most of the FILM shots I took HAD to be perfect, I could barley afford the film.... the Yearbook that year had quite a FEW....ha ha of my photos...dawning the pages... even the centerfold... I caption most of my shots...one comes back to mind... TWO TO BEAM UP.... shoved a girl and guy into the Trophy showcase in the hallway...facing each other with the lights glowing down on them snickering.... I never ever got in trouble for the things I had people doing to get the SHOT.... to this day... Captions R us.... Cheers Eric!
Several issues in what you are declaring here: 1-you must have had a damaged version of the 28 mm f .17 on all the Q (it is the same lens so whether Q, Q2, Q3 or Q2 mono, the lens is so good Leica decided not to change anything. So the lens having more distortion on a Q3 than a Q2 does not make much sense. I have used several Qs and Q2s, many of my friends have Qs (whatever generation) none has ever complained about the quality of the lens, very far from it in fact. I do not know where you get your facts... or how you filter your experience, but it is far from being one you should generalize from. The point with the 28 mm on the Qs is that it was specifically designed for them it is not interchangeable which can be problematic for some but also allows consistency. In terms of resolution the design of the Qs' lens was based on the same specs and requirements as those held for the Summiluxes (meaning 28, 35 and 50) and on top of that for the price you get a free camera, not one of the least capable as its commercial success (unexpected by Leica) proves. In conclusion I do not know what unlucky streak you have been with Leica but definitely not the general consensus, and readers here should be made aware of it.
@@BrunoChalifour I came here to say the same thing.... I love our Q2 so much, quality and feel, I'm debating a Q3 as an update. We shoot professionally and have for the last 30 years, the Leica is amazing and far better than my full frame DSLR's.
Idk I love my Q3. It’s my first Leica and I upgraded from a D800. Yeah, it’s not as versatile, but it feels good to shoot with and I like the pictures it takes. That 60MP allows me crop to my hearts content. Is it stupid? Sure. Should I have gone with a Sony ? Maybe.. but I like shooting with my Leica. The same way I enjoy looking at my watch to tell the time.
I’m an amateur photographer. I have been for many years. I’ve spent a lot of money on equipment in my time. Over the last few years I realised that I wasn’t enjoying my photography. I sold all my gear, and had a break. Recently I bought a second hand Fujifilm X-E1 with a 27mm pancake lens. Suddenly I’m enjoying photography again, the old feeling of excitement when I go out with the camera has returned. I have one camera with one lens. That’s all I need. The X-E1 is brilliant. That said, if I had the money I’d have a Leica.. Outrageously expensive, but bloody lovely to use.. 🙂
At 80, I’m still using my M6 and my Summicron 50mm les, my only lens. Never shot digitally and probably never will. Life is a Kodak moment ! 📷 Thanks, fun video. Rick…..
Leica and Fuji make great cameras. I own and use both. I have been a Leica shooter for decades. My first Leica was an M1 that I used on a microscope in college. My second Leica was an M6 that I used for reportage, documentary, and street. The Leica M10 was my most recent Leica purchase. I use the following lenses on my Leica cameras: 90mm f/2 Leitz 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/1.4 Leitz I have been a Fuji shooter for decades. The ST750 was my first Fuji 35mm film SLR. The Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm medium format film rangefinders were next. The Fuji S5 Pro was my first digital SLR body. The X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 digital mirrorless were my most recent Fuji digital body purchases. I use the following Fuji lenses on my Fuji mirrorless bodies: 56mm f/1.2 23mm f/1.4 16mm f/1/4 16-55mm f/2.8 50-140mm f/2.8
My understanding is that Leica did *not* stop producing film cameras in 2002. They stopped making the M6 in 2002, and then introduced the MP in 2003. I don't know why so many people are buying Leica's, but I know why I own them: I like manually focusing with a rangefinder!
Leica has never stopped making film cameras. M6 to m7 to MP and MA now reissue of M6 classic added to MP/MA! Same craftsmanship and minimalism carried into Q and SL line! 🏆🙏🏼
I’ve been a Leica shooter for 25 years and everything else for 50 years. I currently own 15 Leica cameras and lenses. The one relevant thing that you said about the brand is that the files don’t require as much editing.
Even the non-monochrome cameras produce the best in-camera black & white images of any digital camera. The monochromes are next level of course, but you can get a lot of the way there with dialing in the right sauce. I noticed that right away when shooting the Digilux 2, but the newer cameras all improve upon that. To me - this monochrome pleasantry is why I am a Leica fan. I may give a slight edge for the SuperCCD sensors of the ancient Fuji S-model DSLRs (S2, S3, S5) - their in-camera color JPGs are pretty stellar, especially for green tones. But those are entirely different beasts, and image quality is always hyper subjective
An S007 has 15 stops of dynamic range and also has a 6 micron pixel pitch. The medium format sensor has a ton of data in the files and converts beautifully to B&W. @@GaryLangEngr
I have been a Leica shooter for more than 20 years and film shooter for 40 years. What you are paying for is all about experience. Their cameras are objects of desire at one level. They are also really fun to shoot. They are the only brand that delivers an authentic classic film camera experience in a digital format. I have a 10 year old M240 that I still use and the image quality still holds up. It will get retired to the shelf when I can no longer get batteries for it. Most of my photog friends have shot multiple cameras as and multiple systems chasing faster AF or higher MP in the same period of time that I have had the M. It is still as fun to shoot as the day I bought it. That is what you pay for. It’s not throw away technology for the sake of chasing competitors. It’s a really well engineered piece of kit designed to last a long time. That’s why so many folks who have been shooting other systems come to the brand. It’s a destination brand for enthusiasts.
I’m into B&W and it was a no brainier for me to save up for a monochrom. I can’t afford a brand new m10m or a second hand one…but I did manage to get a typ264 and I have NO regrets, worth every penny for the happiness it gives me
My Leica works the way I think. I capture exactly what I see with very little effort. No ridiculously complicated menus, just the basic exposure triangle with dials easily at hand. That my Leica is built like a tank is a bonus.
@@bondgabebond4907yep. I sure as hell wouldn’t want my Leica colliding with one of those. Hard to think of a tankier camera than the Nikon F2-maybe Graflex Super Graphic.
It’s all about the lenses. They draw unique images on film and sensor. With an M6 since the 1980’s, today I shoot portraits exclusively with a SL2-S and the APO-Summicron-SL 2/75 and clients are mind blown amazed 😊
@@joshuathomas4934 That's a good argument. If it's a Nikon Z7II or so ;) But definitely not with the Sony colours and the magenta cast, low light situations enhancing it. - For your convenience, I tried the a1 and a7rm4, shooting those cameras for photojournalism, usually on camera flash, at about ISO 1600 to 6400 to avoid hard shadows bouncing the light bouncing from the walls and for getting sufficient light, at all ISO values > 100 all shadows get a reddish orange tint, making the people looking 20 yrs older. All speckles and wrinkles and other skin imperfections are most ugly enhanced. That's quite different with Leica and Nikon. Canon RAW has no details in the shadows. However, I envy all bird, wildlife sports and action photographers for the new a9III. It's a beast.
In the film days more so. Then the film stock contributed, & today the sensor/processor/firmware do the films part. The Leica lenses are very special IMHO. And if one could afford them, I say do it. I mostly shoot wildlife & nature but if my pockets were deeper, .... Heck, one day I might just say the heck with it & do it anyway!
My Leica Q3 is what I call, “ My Life Camera “. Never to be used for work. That’s what my Sony and canon bodies do. The Q3 is documenting life. Yeah it’s expensive but the satisfaction in using this camera in comparison to other brands is overwhelming. I also own a Fuji XPro3 and it too gives me a unique experience. My other brands just sit in their bags and are not released until a job calls. They are just tools.
@@phillipbanes5484 something you will never understand. I was warned of people like you when I purchased my Leica. You obviously don’t or can’t own one and so would not understand nor do you appreciate the brand.
I had an M3 single stroke that I had overhauled, so it shot like new. With a 40mm Leica/Minolta 40mm Summicron, it was $1100 around my neck. I hated loading film into it, there really is no practical reason for that antiquated system. I sold it because I didn't find myself using it enough, partly because I hardly shot 35mm anymore. The Leica M3 wasn't that much lighter than my Pentacon 6 medium format camera: waist level finder and the wonderful Soviet Mir 65mm lens, and you will always have sharper images due to the size of the negative. The Canon P would be my choice for a replacement for the M3. Similar RF, easier loading, lots of sharp lenses available, and a really nice one can be had for a couple hundred bucks. For 35mm, a Pentax Spotmatic with a Super Multicoated Takumar 50 1.4 (or even the little 55mm f2) is a magnificent piece of machinery producing photos as nice as a Leica, maybe being edged out in microcontrast or some such nonsense. For size/weight, an OM1 with a 50 1.8 is good too. Under $100 all day long for either.
Spot on. I shoot with a Fuji X-T3 as a hobby and have no plans to upgrade. Swapping systems is expensive, especially if you have a lot of lenses. Today I am thinking about selling some of the lenses I don’t use very often. For me, I am noticing what lenses I gravitate to the most. I prefer to focus more on honing my own craft vs upgrading gear.
Very wise: Fuji X-T3 is already a great camera. Newer cameras don’t make better images, they just make it easier to make better images. I find I tend to only shoot at either 40 or 50mm nowadays; I suppose I’ve developed that as my “style”. It took me loads of lenses and money to realise that was the case, but it does make life easier (and lighter).
It's not about Leica film CAMERAS, a film camera simply holds and advances film, has a shutter and a viewfinder. It has little effect on the image. But Leica LENSES do make a difference. The leica look, or for my usage, Zeiss pop, is real and when folks learn there is more to a lens than sharp sharp sharp, they begin to appreciate those lenses. After shooting film for 40 years, in 2000 I moved to digital and loved the clean images. But after 10 years, sterile images started to appeal to me less and less. So I now have 9 rolls of film in a half dozen cameras plus backs because of the look of film. Also, the older Nikon lenses or my zeiss, voigtlander glass is 5 to 9 elements, not 21 light sucking, reflecting modern lenses with flat rendering and muddy shadows. THAT is why folks like Leica... of course the "cool" or hipster factor can't be ignored. But in 1978 I ditched my range finder for my long coveted slr and you couldn't pay me to use one. Lighter? The cry of people carrying an extra 20 lbs of fat. Now I haven't gone mirrorless but the one reason I would consider it would be to adapt Leica glass to a nikon mirrorless. But, I doubt that will ever happen as my mamiyas, nikon, pentax film carmeras and lenses give me what I want.
One of my relatives was an engineer at Leitz Wetzlar who worked on the M Line. I remember him taking shots in family settings on Christmas. He was just standing with his back to a wall and the simplicity of his M6 forced him to wait for the right moment - to come to him, without forcing anything. The pictures were gorgeous and the man was in his 80s. I am far away from beeing in my 80s but the complexity of my brand new Fuji XT30-II is just making me nervous. I stoped taking pictures with a Canon AE in 1987. I don’t understand the overload in options, it takes me far away from concentrating on the most important task, taking a good photo….
I agree with this. The overload of options is too much when all I need is a photo. I personally don’t like to see things I know I’m not going to use. I don’t even want to make extra inputs just to skip over an option I’ll never use. That said, this goes all out the window the moment I have to shoot something for a client haha
@@cb2721 … he did understand the technical aspect in all details including lenses… I think in this case the jump to take a good picture isn’t that big of a thing because god also gave him a detailed feeling for art… interesting was he wasn’t much hooked by the fact that he can create good looking photos. I think it was boring to him because it wasn’t a challenge. Sadly I don’t have any of his talent in me….lol
I’m using Leica for both my professional fashion/beauty work (next to Hasselblad) as well as personal work. I’d argue that over the years Leica has cost me less than some other brands I’ve used. First, you tend to buy only what you really need, but next to that, depreciation is often far less than what I’ve seen with other brands. In fact, some of my M cameras (both film and digital) I’ve bought pre-owned and sold them at the price 4-5 years earlier. Lenses hold their value even better.
I really respect your work a lot and don’t like to correct you. Leica never stopped making film cameras. MPs were never stopped. In 2002 they stopped the M6 and started m6 again in 2022. You are right but they never stopped making film cameras 😅
Kyle, Leica now has about 1% of the worldwide and ever declining camera market. For the most part, mainly the rich and name dropping habitually buy Leicas. Cameras are well built, but Canon and Sony offer way more stuff for the shooter. And as for lenses. Leica does not own the market for great lenses. They are good, but so are Sony, Canon, Sigma, and etc.
I use an M11 with the red dot blacked out, because the thing makes me slow way down and focus on the photography. Love the M11 it’s by far my go to camera. use a Nikon for shooting sports.
Great video. One thing I think you should have mentioned (which was one of the main reasons I sold my q2) is the worry of having such an expensive object on your shoulder every day, particularly when traveling.
I took my Q3 on a recent six-week trip to Europe and had no worries about having it on my shoulder. The alternative - an A1 and two-three lenses - would have been bigger and more intrusive, still expensive, and guaranteed to always have the wrong lens attached when there’s no time to swap (theoretically I could take just one lens and crop, but I know I’d fail to resist the urge to pack another lens or two …) Over the trip I certainly got my share of ‘nice camera’ comments from the dodgy guys you find at every tourist place, but no more than the people carrying Sonys or Canons - even old entry level DSLRs. If I need my A1 for something that the Q3 does not do well, I have no hesitation in picking up the A1. Otherwise, my hand reaches for the Q3.
Well if you start worrying, you end up wearing crap, eating crap, driving crap that, in the long run, will cost you more than any quality equipment you will keep for years if not decades (35 years for my M6 this day), not mentioning the potential frustration. Good walking shoes are expensive but last long. I have traveled world-wide always carrying it (sometimes being cautious, agreed) and never had a single problem. If I have one regret it is not to have bought the camera mentioned above earlier, from a friend, at a good price but that would have put me in the red (for a few months)... and I still regret it beside the point that I ended up paying more... But this is just a personal, and real, experience, it cannot become a rule. However, being real experience it is probably more conclusive than being just in angst about something that has not happened and may never happen to you. In the meantime I would have (and have) made a few hundreds thousands images with a well-crafted tool.
I started shooting with Leica in 1968. I've had my current M3 and Walter Mandler designed Summicron lenses for over 40 years. It would seem natural that I would go with digital Leica. I actually spent a morning at Samys in Hollywood looking at the newly released M8. My wife was with me and was encouraging me to walk out with one. Unfortunately, I had read some information about the M8, plus discovered my dual range Summicron 50mm was incompatible. Since then I've examined the M10 and Monocrom. I could have (and still can) easily afford a digital Leica M, but I just couldn't justify buying one. I have a degree in photography and worked for several years as a full time commercial/industrial photographer. I've used everything from 8x10 view cameras to 16mm motion picture cameras for both personal and professional work. I've shot with most of the iconic film cameras. I don't think you have to use a camera with constraints to still enjoy shooting. I regard Leica's limitations as an artificial constraint. If you're not having fun, it's not the camera. However, I do enjoy shooting with my Fuji cameras much more than shooting with my Canon DSLR. I regard Fuji cameras, especially the X-E series and the X-Pro series to be what digital Leicas should be. Fuji lenses are as good as Leitz lenses, both in technical performance (read the tests) and with the intangibles (bokeh, etc.) and cost far less. If I wanted to spend $10k+ on a system, I'd pick up the Fuji GFX-100 II and lenses in a heartbeat over any Leica.
The only difference is that the X series are APS-C and not as well built as the full-frame Leica Ms or Qs. Fuji has improved their greens since the X-pro1 and the X-E1 (same sensor). Best XPro colors are still the one the XPro 3 renders although I do not find the camera as practical (with the new design of the back) as the Pro2. In the end I prefer by far to use my M10.
Most people take boring pictures, regardless of cameras they use. Leicas are fine, other cameras are fine as well. Just our brains are wired to create myths. Kudos to people who enjoy their photos more than their gear.
I really like how you laid this out. I also love how you addressed detractors ahead of time. Lots of great things to consider. Thanks for your post and for how you did it. (Loved the Jimi Hendrix sidebar about the Strat.)
Honestly Leicas are not a waste of money. If anything, digitals are a bigger waste of money. I’ve bought a couple mirrorless and dslr bodies from Nikon, Sony, and Fuji and can tell you from my experience, after doing the math, I lost a lot of money because of how much they depreciated. Even when they’re in great condition, I still lost 1-2k. With a Leica, the demand is so high that you don’t lose a lot of money selling it. That’s why people don’t mind investing if it means getting 90-95% of your money back. Another thing I notice is my GAS as in gear acquisition have died down. The only time I’ll buy a new piece of gear is if I truly want it instead of following the marketing.
What you're saying is that digital camera's only depreciate and a non-digital Leica doesn't. This isn't the case. Look at the Fuji X100V. I can sell mine for more than I bought it, easily. The Sony RX1 series also barely depreciated. Then there's digital Leica's too, that don't depreciate that hard either.
It’s all supply and demand. Yes a Leica will also depreciate but with how much demand there is for one, it’s going to maintain their value relatively well. Yeah your fuji is going to retain its value and sell well because people still want your x100v and not a rx100. To give you an idea, I bought my fuji xt1 a year after it came out and needless to say, nobody cared about fuji because everyone wanted a canon back when dslrs were hot. Fuji finally got its moment in 2020 during the pandemic, and now everyone wants one because of TikTok. I can guarantee you that your x100v wouldn’t sell if it wasn’t for TikTok promoting it.
I've used Ms for many years now. Starting out with the M6 that I upgraded to an M7, which I still have. Then I bought an M9P and later an M240P and a Monochrome 240P, I closed the collection with an X-U (type113). So it is some years ago that I bought the last one. But I still use them occasionally when I feel the need of following my inclination to be a fotographer, since you have to do a lot of thinking - and most certainly also have the time - to get the proper results. But the cameras that I use on a daily basis is now Nikon Z (Zf, Z8 and Z9). In fact Nikon has been my favourite brand since the FA was launched many years ago. These are foolproof cameras with great lenses. They may lack the elegance of a Leica M, but they are, as Kyle says, workhorses/tools. We shall be going on a safari in Kenya soon, and I would be a fool if I only brought the Leicas with me with the 135 mm tele lens as the longest one. For me Leica is for fun and I chose the P versions where I could so that I use a camera, that does not draw attention. Are they worth the money? That depends on your attitude. If you are a fan of equipment from the top shelf and are able to feel the sheer joy of owning and using something unique, they most definitely are worth the money. But I now have retired and do not have the money to follow two branches. I have to stick to one. Kind greetings from Denmark, Klaus
Got my first Leica (SL2-S) a few months ago. Now, my Sony kit sits neglected (except the RX1). My film gear is also neglected - I seem to have lost interest in shooting film for now. The SL2-S is brilliant.
I have owned cameras from many brands. Among those cameras, M7 & MP have been top 2 cameras I’ve ever owned. That feeling of wind lever, that feeling of the shutter. So satisfying. I truly enjoyed it.
I have been thinking about buying a Leica Film Camera for a few years, but I kept talking myself out of it because of the price. After a while I just decided that I am going to get one. I wanted to get the new M6, but it was never available. Took the plunge this week and brought an MP. Love it so far. Is it overpriced and a waste of money? Yeah, it kind of is. But some of my favorite things in life have been that.
The MP is exceptional. There's a reason why it's been in production for the last 20 years. Buying used helps save a lot of money as the resale value tanks less over time.
@@slippinjimmothy The resale value was one of the factors I took into account when buying the MP. If I decide I don’t want it in a year, I’ll get most of my money back if I re-sell it. Right now I’m planning on keeping it, tho
I'm a wildlife and landscape photographer with a premium Nikon Z system of gear. Yet, I just plunked down $2000 for a Leica CL / Vario-Elmar kit. The CL is a 24MP APSC camera that Leica discontinued 18 months ago. What's more, they have discontinued all of the APSC cameras. However, if you pick up the CL, put it on AF-S mode, shoot single advance, and add a piece of vintage M-Glass, you experience a back to basics feel that emphasizes simplicity above all other things. I've owned Leicas in the past, and they just feel good in the hand and embrace both a simple and elegant design ethos. Would I take this camera to photograph an epic landscape on Diamond Beach in Iceland... no, but it would be the camera I keep next to me as I speed through the Icelandic country side... My like inspires me to be serendipitous.
Are you sure hahahaha, i am a Fuji user and i can definitely tell you which one is from Leica bro. Rendering, 3D pop, bokeh and everything absolutely different than a Fuji sensor provides
@@nguyendaniel7042 Leica uses Sony sensor. Is the image the same as from a Sony camera with the same sensor? If it is, then why buy a Leica that costs more.
I love my Leica cameras. I was a professional photographer in the analog days and a loyal Nikon user. When I came into some extra money as I contemplated going digital, I bought Leica's D-Lux 4. It was my gateway drug. Now I own and actively make pictures with it, a D-Lux 109, an M10-p, and a Q2 reporter. The Q2 never leaves my side. These are great cameras, even though they are very expensive.
man you can justify it as you want but the gist of it is: it's just fashion. Camera looks undeniably cool and sexy af, u end up wanting it you buy it, and than to feel a little less sorry for the pain you put u're ass through, spending a shit ton load of money on it, you try to shot the hell out of it and start making up excuses to try and escape the judgement of other people. But first, judgement of others shouldn't care to you, second just admit it, you're probably passionate about photography, you're (as most of us human) attracted to shiny things, you have the budget, you went for it, that's it. It's just an uber expensive adult toy (not the one u use down there, you pervs) and a risky super bad investment (i mean leica usually hold up well their value but i don't think you can get revenues out of it). But if u're a youtuber/content creator you can get away with it, because it buys you views and so your finances won't be too much affected (you're the sexy guy shooting around with a camera that looks like it went out from ww II photo-reporters). For an average person that doesn't have a photography related job, that maybe barely earn 1.5/2k a month buying one of these is just pure madness. I mean, i was barely able to justify the expenses i had for my xt-3, which, with lenses included cost 1/3 of a leica...
I made someone happy today. I chose not to buy the shiny new Q3 that had my name on it at Seattle’s best camera store, so it’ll go to the next person on the waiting list. I’d been on that list since mid-summer but when my name came up in the queue yesterday, I was torn. Do I really need this? Do I WANT it that bad? I have the money, barely. What finally tipped the scale all the way to no was the fact that I’d rather use that cash to pay for travel experiences, to go somewhere I’ve never been, or return to places I love. I already have a good camera with a 28mm lens, a Fuji X70. I’ve got film cameras and a couple of other Fujis, including an X100F that does a fine job. None is a Leica, and of course I’d really like to have that Q3. Maybe in a few months I’ll make a different choice; I had the people at the store put my name at the bottom of the waiting list. For now, I feel liberated from the constant debate in my head, and I’m feeling more motivated to use the cameras I currently have than I have been in quite a while.
And when you think about it, its your same eye and mind looking through either the Q3 or the X70; you carry that heart in to whatever tool you choose to use. Well done on your reasoning. I hope you are savouring that 'new' motivation.
Leica : Camera :: Collings : Guitar I got my first Leica brand camera - D-Lux 4 - after owning the Panasonic series equivalents prior to that. Even though the Leica D-Lux and the Panasonic LX series have identical components and sensors, etc, I always felt like the Leica processing had just a little bit more. We’re taking the exact same CAMERA just a Leica version vs Panasonic version. Minor design differences but otherwise the exact same camera. Secret weapons that give you the entry into the excellence of image processing that Leica brings to the table. Fuji is a terrific gateway drug, but having shot the X-Pro a lot before succumbing to the M hype, it just is a very different camera.I love things about the Fuji that are missing in the Leica. But I much prefer the M. It is absolutely something you aspire to owning. There are limitations and constraints that you are presented with, and I feel like those challenges make you really step up your game. The Leica Digilux 2 is one of my all time favorite cameras, yet I refuse to shoot it over ISO 200 (it only goes to 400). The EVF is not that great, and it’s a 20+ year old digital dinosaur. But the images I still get from that 5.2 megapixel sensor are still some of my favorites. And that’s entirely the point. Use the tool or instrument that helps you capture and share the images you want to make, whether for business or for pleasure. It’s truly hard to explain to someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to shoot many cameras in the Leica catalog but you do a good job explaining a lot of it.
Totally overrated. There are many other equally good choices for a fraction of the price. When the hipsters get their eyes on something it usually becomes overpriced
Leica's have always been expensive, for a reason. I'd argue with how much inflation has gone up, that they are actually cheaper now than ever before, relatively speaking. That is, if you have any money left after buying groceries ;)
I totally agree with you Kyle. coming from the Sony A7C ecosystem, I dont feel inspired to bring that camera out. maybe its so clinical? maybe of its weight and size? maybe its the design? I dont know but there is something special with my Lecia Q3 that just make me feel inspired to look for more creative moments in my life. its the simplicity and its build quality as well as its colours that really draws me in. kind of bring back the kid in me when I first started photography. Hard feeling to describe in words
Fully agree on this points. Not sure if you’ve watched this vid yet, but think you might find it interesting as well I Turned The SONY A7CR Into The LEICA Q3 th-cam.com/video/T_gdeRaCWGo/w-d-xo.html
A year ago I bought a new MP and wanted a second film body so I got a mint 60 year old M2. What a dream they both are. When I take photos with especially the M2 I feel like I'm driving a 60 yr old Porsche with the top down...
I love that the “elephant in the room” is someone I had never heard of. Someone new (to me) to check out who found Leica and thought “Hmmn, what’s this?” Normally the elephant in the room is price. 😂 The best thing I ever did was to buy a few beat up old Leicas and shoot them (film, obviously) exclusively for ~2 years. That was particularly fun and challenging with a young and very active child. I had to re-focus on exposure, craft, and work around limitations of film and manual focus. even though I did miss shots due to poor exposure choices or inability to focus quickly enough, I got photos that still drop my jaw today. And what I learned has carried through every other camera I touch. And I still love M’s and Leica glass. There’s some magic lenses that you can get, even today, for a lot less than a plastic Canikon lens. Try it!
More Leica nonsense rationalizing why you spent some much on a camera, if it costs that much it has to be better, it just makes want to shoot. I made a living as a photographer for a very long time and having shot with most every brand of camera there is. At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the image, whatever tool that allows you to create the image you see is the best one to inspire you to shoot. Image creation for one's self is where the inspiration should come from not some overpriced camera jewelry.
@@RobinMarplesI have a few friends that say people see the camera more than the pics it will produce. And to those jewellery aficionados Leica will always be the better camera.
There are brands which are, if you can afford it, a nice and sustainable investment, like Leica, Rolex and others. I have many cameras beside of my 2 Leica's but always come back to just take the Q3 and shoot. The feeling and experince is unmatched, at least for me.
All these companies are living at their prime from all the free advertisement and hype they are receiving from the internet. Their products are not even hitting the shelves, they don’t even need to spend money on advertising anymore.
When was advertising free last? ;o) What would people advertise a product they do not like or they do not want??? Does not make much sense to me. As far as I know all Leica products mentioned have it the shelf and if they are absent (Q3 these days) it is because the demand is too high.
00:01 Leica cameras are making a comeback in a digital age 01:13 Leica M6 re-released in 2022 02:16 Leica offers intangible qualities beyond Fuji 03:21 The importance of having the best tools for photography 04:24 Leica inspires art and simplicity 05:28 Leica gear reignites the desire to take photos 06:27 Peter McKinnon's influence on Leica camera 07:30 Leica cameras are expensive but offer a nostalgic and inspiring experience. I own a Q2, Q2M and an SL2, cause, reasons 🫶
It is the iPhone-Moment of the pro cameras. It get the newbies into photography and the quality is superb so you keep exploring and learning. I talk from experience, thats how it was for me. I then start discover focul lenghts, aparture etc.
Great video! I had a CL with 4 lenses. Then I added a X100V. Then I got tired of trying to figure out which one to take with me. So I sold them all and got a Q2. It’s the last camera I will own.
Leica Ms are beautiful cameras. On the other side: Q, S, SL.. not so much. Well, the said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I certainly still want one. Considering the tech/price, for me Fuji GFX is the obvious #1 choice: more affordable used price, more modern tech, and obviously a medium format. Leica afficionados may think this camera is "too robotic/computerized/less soulful etc etc...". I totally get that. As much as I admire the minimalist, mechanical, all-manual film cameras, I also happily embraced modern tech. But really. We don't have to rationalize choice, though. You like the Leica? Go buy one :D
The most "inspiring and fun to use" camera I've ever handled was the Fuji X-Pro2 and I had the 35mm f1.4 basically bolted to it most of the time. Should not have sold that camera. They are now hard to find in excellent condition and sell for not much more than they were new. Viewfinder wasn't all that great, AF was slow but it was just fun to use and got out of the way. I'm afraid I'm going to have to get another one..
you talk about it like it's ancient LOL. My current "main" camera is the X-Pro2. Dude, it's only like 6 or 7 years old. And that's current digital era where every two years your old gear isn't totally irrelevant. I don't see myself buying another digital camera for a good 4 or 5 years... maybe more. It's a really great camera.
When u talk about how when you first started photography as a creative outlet really hits me I started doing photography 4 years ago I was bored and just wanted to get out to do something to not look at the PC 24/7 I dont know maybe its because of how it make me clear my thoughts or how it is so chill I was just hooked. I was using the x-Pro 3 and just take picture and that is my first time owning a body system now i owned a Leica m11p and it just makes me want to bring it everywhere i go
Paid out the butt for a Q2 and a SL2-S. Which is a weird move considering I had a Fuji X100v and an R5C (still have it). They are by far the two best built cameras I have, but more importantly the two cameras I enjoy shooting most. Which has gotten me out to shoot more, and with the reps I've seen some improvement. Love that reporter Q2, had the opportunity to buy a Q2 mono a month ago, and Kind of regret not pulling the trigger.
Leica cameras were never just tools; they are premium equipment that offers outstanding performance. They hold their value and can become heirlooms for those who own them. It feels strange to compare them to Canon, Sony, Nikon, or Fuji.
I shoot with all sorts of brands, Sony, Nikon, Ricoh and Fuji. I agree they are just tools to get a picture. 5 years ago, I thought I would get a Leica Q to try, It’s definitely worth it to me, absolutely loverly to use and the images I get are worth it. I cover it with black electrical tape so no one knows it’s a Leica from a glance and I just get out there and take pictures with it. Cameras are tools but Leica is like a instrument, I agree with that. Happy Shooting.
I love people covering the Leica logo... most probably the only people that will recognise it are the people who will recognise the camera anyway. I must concede that their black logo is subtler than the red one.
I started shooting with Leica R 6.2 after been with the superb Minolta SRT-101 for 30 years. When I had to switch to digital, I started out with Canon, later Sony, but I wasn't satisfied. I got the chance, to pick up a brand new Leica Digi Lux 2, a very slow camera, but it performed very well. Today, my professional gear for press photography is Leica only and even the cameras are 10 + years old, they do the job perfect. For video shooting I'm on Panasonic, but that's a different story. Keep on rolling.
No, many go for a reliable well-made tool that makes their work easier and add to the quality of their production. Leicas are not Rolexes (to quote some responses above) they are actual tools for actual working photographers. Some may wear them as Rolexes, all the better for us who started by buying used Leicas. I had a few examples of buying from one of those consumers: pristine equipment, perfect price (and not just Leicas) ;o)
I had several film Leica cameras. Then went the usual modern route. Eventually, I realised the camera was taking more of the image than my skill and experience. Sold the lot and went back to Leica M11. I adore the simplicity. I don’t use social media and I’d never heard of “PM” until you mentioned him.
Well he seems nice enough although a bit ‘alternative’ for my tastes. I find the internet attracts people good at being on the internet but often (though not always) much less good at being a photographer. I’m not really sure which he is.
The modern Leica hype is something for people who believe, their creativity depends on the camera they use. But it is their decision and money, they spend on it, others have oldtimers or travel a lot. So why not. It is subjective. For me i am very happy with my X-Pro 3 and the 18/f1,4, or my GX9 with Panaleica 15/f1,7 or my X100V or my Pana LX10.
Why do some people resort to old stereotypes and think that most Leica owners are klutzes?? It does not bode well for the conversation unless one sees it as an opportunity to empty one's camera closet (of un-Leica items of course).
For me, there can only be one reason to buy a Leica: Robert Capa. Not only did I worship him as a child, but so did nearly every photographer whose work I like that came after him. And of course one could add Cartier-Bresson, et al., but that would be superfluous. That said, I couldn't afford a vintage Leica 15 or 20 years ago when they were fairly cheap, and I certainly can't now. Last week I purchased a late-1960s Canon FT QL, just like the one I learned to take photos with as a child back in the mid-1970s, when I first found out about Capa. The one I learned on had a cool back-story; my father purchased it at the PX in Long Binh, SVN in early 1968. He was sent up to Huế, where among other things he took some photos with his new camera, mostly of Huế University, part of which was being used as a military command post at the time. The one I have now doesn't have a cool back-story (at least not one I know), but they are still really excellent cameras. I thought then and still think now that the Canons of that era were just as good as anything Nikon (or Leica) was making, and happily for me they are much more affordable all these years later...
We all know that Leica has a great and deserving reputation from all these previous years ago..and gain "legendary" status among "famous" photographers" early on especially with street and documentary photographers with their M6 film cameras..etc...but in my opinion..these "modern times"..Leica has sadly become a "luxury brand"..and in some sense a "status symbol"..yes when you reach their level you can "justify" their price points but an "M6 film camera" still costing like what 5K for a Film Camera!!.C'mon their is something wrong with that..haha Yes..its German made, quality, design..etc..we all get that and what they are producing..but in all honestly its obviously not an "everyman/persons' camera..Is Leica "afraid" of losing their "status"..so thats why they don't price their cameras within a reasonable and comparable price point as like Canons, Sony's top of the line model?. .It would be awesome if everyone got a chance to expereince a "Leica Cameras"..at a reasonable price and be able to grab them any time like the other camera brands..yes we all pay a price point to get the "latest techs and specs" on our camera's..but you can't tell me a Leica's specs..AF, color rendering, low light, processors, sensors etc..is "worth more" than the next brands hardware and software? German "design" are worth more than "Japanese" ones?..haha ..they get some of their sensors from other brands..and yet they put their camera at a higher price point...haha Leica digital cameras should never be around 10K+..only cameras that justify those prices are like a Hasselblad medium format stuff, Phase One and other cameras like that where its reasonable and practical for high end studio and commercial photography etc..hence they cost more because of their intended purpose ..but not a "regular" mirrorless camera.. Leica seems overrated for what they are..
No-one can deny that Leica has "broadened" its clientele by also advertising itself as a luxury brand. None the less it has not lost its original constituency whether they start with a used beaten-up camera or not. It is not an either / or situation as the annual Barnack Prize can testify (just an example).
I've been shooting for 30 plus years. Shot lots of cameras to your point of fun camera to shoot than aspires you. No one ever mentions Olympus and that's my go-to camera now or cameras. I love shooting with them. They are cameras that are made for photographers. They have a simplicity but they can still do the work you need. Want to get done awesome. Awesome! Awesome!!!
I guess you replied to the wrong video: this one was about Leicas. ;o) The nice thing is you can copy and paste this response for any video about any camera. Go ahead, awesome! ;o)
The Fuji Xpro2 did all you say for me, after 25 years as pro news snapper... Still does, it inspires me to shoot pictures, and I can carry it everywhere. Even if I had the money I wouldn't get a Leica. I like the look, hence the reason I like the Xpro2 as well, they look very similar..but I could literally get 8 or 10 Fuji's for a Leica M11.. Interesting debate though!!
If you've ever being done building work, you would find, that you do have a favourite hammer, you do have a favourite glass cutter or brick trowel. It's the way it feels in the hand. It's not just a tool, you are at one with it.
I disagree completely! - as a photographer for the past 30 years, I’ve shot with everything, the digital Leica cameras are maybe 10% better than FUJI due to the FF sensor and that’s only noticeable in lowlight …. Everything else is people trying to justify their overpriced Leica … same when people say that their off white jacket is better than a Nike jacket with a similar feature set 😂 Hype is hype, Leica was only in front in the analogue world
As history has proved and continues to prove it, a Leica is not a toy or just an expensive piece of jewelry (which it might be for a few wealthy ones), for many of us it is a tool that delivers on its promises: reliability, quality, ergonomics (agreed not everyone does with the same ergonomical requirements), and it is to be mention the pleasure to work with a tool that has excellence as one of its requirements.
@@BrunoChalifour That's not what I said, fact is that if I take ANY Leica camera vs. ANY Fuji camera, take the same photo in good lighting, edit them in the exact same way, you would be very pressed to tell me which is which ... so pricing a Leica Q3 at 6000 usd. and an X100V for 1400 usd. you WONT get what you pay for with the Leica, no matter what you say. The ONLY way you would be able to tell the difference was if we did a close up portrait or something where the bokeh from the larger sensor would be visible (and that would only count camera people) everybody else would see the same.
Exactly, I think this video explains the fetish effect very well. It is a commonplace to attribute magical powers to things. Those who need to believe it and feed their ego with Leica will have help. Pure blah, blah, blah.
Leica M rangefinders have the fastest autofocus of any camera. With your camera down in the resting position, eyes clear on the target. Right hand on the shutter, left hand on the lens focus tab. Visualise the 3D zone of focus you want to capture.. and adjust its size for aperture and range. See something you want to shoot - quickly raise the camera to frame the shot through the finder, and bang - pull the trigger. Instant hit, no thinking required. All you need is a bit of practice, and your brain will automatically get your finger to put the focusing tab in the correct spot. 0ms latency, 100% accuracy every time. It’s like steering a bike - clumsy at first, you fall off a couple of times, then it clicks, and your bike turns exactly how you want it to turn. No thinking needed.
silly semantics. if that was true in anyway, one might expect to see more great work from leica buyers, but one doesn't. Things become instruments in the right hands.
After shooting with every Mirrorless out there, I have to say that for personal work, my Leica M11 has been the most fun camera to shoot. And the best part it doesn’t have any video. A true photo camera with great image quality and resolution. However for commercial work my Sony A7R5 wins every time
I just got back from 2 weeks of hiking and photography the Grand Teton NP and RMNP. I brought my Leica Q2M and Nikon D850. Though the Nikon D850 yields very good results, the Leica results were stunning. Yes, it is limited with the 28mm, but it will make you a better photographer and want to photograph. Yes, they are expensive, but the sharpness, black, grey, and white tonality is very impressive! Plus, it becomes the camera you want to pick up and shoot. Just buy it.
A M3 found it's way to me almost three years ago. I been shooting for over 20 years at this point and I got to say the Leica M3 is one of my all time favorite cameras. I enjoy the simplicity and slower workflow. I am seriously considering a digital M.
The issue with the M3 is that the range-finder coupling does not accept lenses shorter than 50 mm. The M4-P is probably as well built and remedies that, and then the M6 (I do love range-finder covering 35 and 28 mm lenses, and its rewind crank far more convenient than the knob on the M3.
@@BrunoChalifour I slapped a 40mm on my M3 and works just fine. I know everything in the 50 lines will be in the shot with a bit more. It not a SLR so I don't expect exactly what I see in my final image. No need for anything wider. The great thing about the M3 is the viewfinder is almost 1:1 magnification so I can shoot with both eyes open.
@@Being_Joe Yes a 40 mm on an M3 does not help the precision of the viewfinder but as long as it works for you. By the way. I have never had problem "shooting with two eyes" with my M6 (which I upgraded from an M3 decades ago without any regret).
Outhouse shot at 5:08 is crazy 🤩 I like the tool vs. instrument analogy - I would love to rent one for a short trip just to try one out. And super jealous of the double left kidney havers.
I had a leica, and frankly, focusing is a pain if you are getting older. not to mention the constant worry about damaging that expensive instrument. And if it was 6 times better than other cameras, I would venture to say I would want to use it all of the time. If simple is what you need, then set up the camera you have once, and do not change the configuration, but just your exposure, etc. I think people with leica are full of fashion, status, and self-importance, rather than the art of photography. What a joke.
Cool video but I don't really agree :) Since you professional photographer guys use other high end brands such as Canon, Sony etc to do your work (because they are very good and easy to work), Leica feels an escape to you and remind you your hobby days. I am a hobby photographer and using my R6 Mark II gives me the same feelings, grab it and go out to create some art! It can do everything a Leica can do and more. I enjoy shooting anything, anything in between, friends, family or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I am not against Leica, I like it but I also think its a bit overrated. Kind regards.
I've got an SL2 and one workhorse L-mount zoom; Leica 24-90. But I really enjoy shooting with the M lenses. Got a 28mm and 50mm. Both Voigtlanders. I prefer manual focus - and way lighter lenses.
ehhh... one can always make an argument for being "overpriced." You can buy a rather well functioning 2005 Malibu for $4000 and with care, drive it until you need a nursing home. Such thinking makes nearly anything else "overpriced." Dollar Tree used to sell watches... so Timex, one can argue, is overpriced, etc. and consequently there is no end to such discussions.
No the elephant in the room is that leicas most cameras are built by Panasonic and should cost a third of the price but they go extreme lengths hiding the Japanese trail and charge an arm and a leg. A brand new leica q should cost max 3000 dollars. That's already not a small number. But 7000????? Where does this number come from? Especially that digital technology gets outdated so fast, and in it self is not as robust as manual mechanical technology. The moment Leica went digital first problem it hit is sensor rust which makes a 10 15 year old camera and overpriced paperweight. A good mechanical leica can run for 50 years easy. Leica is not about photography anymore it's about branding and gouging prices. I got a q 1 in excellent shape for 1800 dollars. Full frame 1.7 f lens. That's a good fair price. But 7000 dollars for pretty much the same camera with a bit more pixels. Now if it was real built in Germany by gnomes camera I would get the price. EU salary and regulations that special German touch. But most leicas are automated Japanese mass produced electronic products. Which by its nature should cost less as Asians always try to make something high quality at a bargain competitive price .You have to be an idiot to waste all that money on a red dot made in Japan assembled in Portugal. Some old Leica lenses were built by this one guy in Germany who had magic hands. I totally get prices of 20000 to 200000 dollars for his work. But a Japanese machine grinded and assembled "summilux" lens???
I’m a long time Leica user. The M6 with b&w film for portraits is incredible. Now I have the M10 with the same old lenses (50 and 35 mmm). I also use Canon 5D III. Canon is very practical and great camera. Leica not as versatile but photos are incredible. IMO.
“Sony/Nikon/Canon is a tool; a Leica is an instrument”. That’s it. That’s the analogy I was searching for to describe it. That’s it. Nice video. Thanks.
You can get into film with a Leica R and a good Summicron R lens for 500 - 700 bucks, if you‘re a little lucky. You can get into their digital APS-system for not too much money. You can get Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses for the M. You can get the first SL. If you know Leica, you‘ve got tons of options. I switched from Sony, and never regretted it.
It re-inspires you to take pictures again because you paid 6000 USD for it.
Sony,Canon and Nikon all have cameras in the $6000 range
Really? which ones?@@Old-School-Liberal
😂😂 for real. I'm finally switching from DSLR to mirrorless, and I have no idea why I would ever want to take three steps back. I started photography on a black and white film camera and it was so tedious. I enjoy the memories, but I don't think I would enjoy going back to shoot on something more difficult. I am awed at how accurate to the screen my pictures are with my mirrorless, and how easy the amazing autofocus makes it to shoot. Definitely not trying to pay eight grand to tediously match up to boxes so I can have proper focus 😂
@@Old-School-Liberalyes and they do a lot more for that price.
Hahahahahaha
I’m still running around with my Fuji X-Pro3 with Fuji 35mm 1.4 lens, and I love it. Great camera, compact, and a blast to shoot. I think the key is to find what works for you, and then most importantly, get out there and hone your craft. Cheers!
Such a good camera
Yes but complex menu, APS-C instead of full frame. Not real range-finder and that is why I use the EVF most of the time. Great lenses, good value for money.
Great camera!
@@BrunoChalifour I don't think that the X-Pro 3 menus are more complex than those you find in Leica Q for example.
@@AlphaCygni The matter is not so much about opinion as it is about fact: I have got both cameras and I can tell you it is a fact (for instance on the Q you do not have all the film simulations (useless in my mind as they try to reproduce film flaws) that you have got on the Xpro 3, and there is more).
I first wanted a Leica M in 1993, after I’d been in Africa and realised that I needed a quieter, less intimidating camera to take photos of people who were nervous about the presence of a camera. I fell in love with the Leica M7, but was gutted when I researched the prices… £12-15K for a body and a few lenses. Since then, I’ve continued photography, had a family, witnessed the invention of digital photography (which I also fell for, as the dark room had to become a kids bedroom, yet I had my laptop). After the kids become adults, I started a business and after a couple of successful years, I realised I could afford an M. So I walked into Leica London, and bought an M11 with three lenses. I have NEVER gone out into the world exploring with my camera so much. I really don’t even care whether anyone thinks my work is any good (although it seems to improve the more I practice), but for the price of a small car, I’ve never been so physically fit, nor enjoyed my time out on the streets more. I’m also developing as a theatre photographer, working with a local improv theatre (the street photography of theatre photography). Don’t give a shit what anyone thinks of me or Leica, for me, the M11 has been one of the best things I’ve ever owned… the most I’ve ever experienced being in love with an object.
this. my leica gets me out shooting more purely because of the experience.i spend less time sitting at a desk editing too because of the colors and just overall character and look it delivers. i become more of a photographer because of it even on days when I am burnt out from photography being my full time.
If you want a quieter camera then practically every mirrorless camera from 6-7 years ago onwards has an electronic shutter mode which has zero noise - whether you shoot single frames or at 60 fps.
@@markhoffman9655I'm not sure you understand me... it's not a decision based on technical features... if it were, I'd have a Sony, or even a Hasselblad. It's a dream from thirty years ago. It's an emotional attachment. It's a different type of choice to the one you're solving for here. .
At the time you could get an M7 + a 35 AND a 50 mm summicron fornearly half of the sum you are quoting ?!!? Are you speaking in today's money (adjusted for inflation and hyperbole ;o) ?
I love this comment - very inspiring and honest. When I went in and worked with the Leica, I felt immediately hooked. I went to look at other brands, just in the name of diligence but I still come back to Leica. They’re like your favorite lipstick or pair of jeans.
Leica didn't start making cameras until 1923, although their lead designer had a working prototype as far back as 1913. They have been making microscopes since the mid 1800s, and industrial grade survey equipment is their backbone.
this and also they never stopped producting film cameras
@@bondgabebond4907 i wasnt suggesting anyone go out and buy a M11 or Q3 to take nogtalgia filled pictures, I was mentioning somwthing that was omitted in the video about the history of leica, which i think is pretty nice observation. Everyone halted film camera production while you could always at any time get either a M7, a MA or a MP and now an M6 new fresh from the factory which i think is pretty cool
This title is soooo miss leading no everyone is not buying Leica there less then 5% of the total market . So some TH-camrs are buying them for content then ether retuning then are reselling them
More money than sense. Enjoy your photography.
@@phillippugh2161 I doubt that any TH-camr just buys a Leica for "content", most of them can certainly not justify of such an expense with the TH-cam revenues, let us be realistic here.
I’ve been capturing images from the age of 8 when I was gifted a 110 film Kodak camera. I moved on to my Dad’s Canon AE-1, his Canon T-50, and then I purchased my first digital camera a Canon 40D.
A few years later I borrowed a friends Leica M6 and fell hard. The ergonomics, the small form factor and the beauty of the images captured by those beautiful little Leica lenses.
I sold my other equipment and purchased a Leica M8 and slowly purchased other lenses. That camera was my daily companion for 6 years, taking the M8 to 12 countries, and taking over 100,000 photos.
I sold the M8 to a young photographer who had dreamed of owning a Leica camera. And a few years later I purchased a used M9, which was sold to accommodate a Leica MP-240.
Two years ago that became a Leica Q2. There’s just something special about how Leica cameras draw light.
Everything you saying could be applied to any camera... and I shoot only Leica. I'm glad you make a living via content but this video fails to cover WHY you should use Leica....
I’m interested in a Leica camera. Do you recommend someone who does show what using a Leica professionally would work.
Exactly.
well if you wanna show off and tell people that you own a Leica, then Leica is the one for you.
I’ve heard someone say: „you want to go retro? Get a DSLR!“ I like that idea! Thinking of a D800 or 5D3 with a 35 or 50 - it honestly feels retro already. The optical viewfinder, the „click-clack“, the somewhat bulky body. Could be true retro on a budget.
Yeah I reckon prices of these will steadily go up in the next few years too.
Was the guy a Leica owner? [I am trying to understand the point here]
@@BrunoChalifour he used to, yes. Got rid of it and got into DSLRs again. 80% of the retro appeal, fraction of the cost. His words, not mine ;-)
Yeah, I just re-bought the Nikon D810 for that very reason and I'm loving it. Leicas are great but I think they are a bit overhyped. At the end of the day, you have to go with what works for you.
I still love my 5d mk3
Recently having bought a Q3, I 100% agree! It got me more interested in going out to shoot photos again, and I really love just taking the JPEGs and seeing that they are just fine. No need to tinker around on Lightroom at all, just enjoy your photography.
I still find a dash of Lightroom improves my images.
That's why people choose Fuji. Without overpaying.
@@dalekperov The thing is. When you have a Leica in one hand and a Fuji in the other the Leica feels way better quality. And that's what you're paying for. As they say, the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
If you have to spend $8k to get you out shooting and falling in love with photography again, it’s not the equipment that is the issue. I would feel an obligation to get out and shoot to not feel like I was ripped off too.😂 People get the red dot for the same reason people buy supercars, so they can say look at me! A Lamborghini looks great, but a Lexus will be a better car in almost every way! I shoot with the Nikon FZ. In every measure except maybe color science “opinion,” it is so much better than a Leica M. I prefer the color science of the Nikon over Leica. I am glad I didn’t mortgage my home to figure that out.
@@apolloomd4939 the reason people buy Leica or a Lamborghini from a financial POV is .... because they can, they can afford to.
Lets be awfully honest here, we both fly economy class not because we want to "save the earth" or "we are more prudent with money", its because we cant afford our own private jets.
So lets stop with the inferiority complex of "people taking first/business class are stupid and they are wasting money, my economy flight does the exact same thing for cheaper. airplane food sucks anyway so business/first class is a waste of money".
if you had unlimited amount of money suddenly, I can tell you tomorrow you will be flying the "stupid" class you are calling today
first up, if I had enough lazy money, I WOULD buy a Q. It would be fun. I'm a full on Fuji shooter, recently retired from photojournalism. I enjoy using the Fuji's. I do have the X100V as well, but unlike most users, it doesn't make me want to pick it up. It's a 'meh' experience. The Fuji I most enjoy is my GFX 50R, used with old film camera lenses. That is what brings a smile to my dial. Oh, and I don't need Peter McKinnan (however it's spelt) or anyone else to inspire me, I've had the photography bug for 50 years now :) Cheers from Australia.
Yo Buddy....ex-phojo after 32 years ( although shooting sports for our fish wrap/digital missive after a layoff) I shoot the big Canons for cannot miss the shot news and sports, my Fuji x's Pro-2 and H1 for less important stuff, and my digital Leica Ms for up-close politics and nonsense. Cannot be happier.
Bought a Leica M-4 in 1973. The lenses are a revelation. Because I worked in a camera shop at the time and was privy to information from a Leica rep, I was able to see their quality control standards. They are extraordinary. Their standards are so high, that in the 1970s when they had Minolta subcontracted to build the original Leica CL, Leica told their dealers at the time that the product they were receiving from Minolta was so far out of tolerance, that only 10% of them could be adjusted into tolerance. That’s the difference between the best of Japanese production, and what Leica was doing.
This is a camera where you don’t look at how many features it has. You look at how well it connects to your eye. On that count, absolutely nothing beats a Leica.
The only operation I’ve ever been around, where they had standards at least as high as Leica, was when I was in Hollywood 30 years ago and I had good friends working at Panavision. It’s almost impossible to describe how high their engineering and manufacturing standards are. That’s also why when a production company rents a camera package from Panavision, they have to insure that camera package for at least $1 million dollars.
I got my first M6 in 2001. It was fantastic! Over the years I've owned MANY Leica cameras, and even slogged through owning the M240 for years. A clunky beast that still gave amazing images with a great sensor and of course the legendary M lenses. But the Q series has been my favorite of all time, starting with the quite fantastic original Q. Between the SL2-S with a few SL lenses and a Q3, I couldn't want anything more for stills. I can even shoot wildlife with the heavy but excellent Sigma 60-600mm for L-mount.
I do also own other L-mount cameras for better video autofocus, though. I assume the SL3 will fix that, but for now it works. I've gone through many systems over the years, including Fuji (great for the size and weight), Canon (the RF 28-70 f/2 is the only zoom I've ever truly loved), and even Olympus and Nikon and back in the film days, Contax and Mamiya.
But I always come back to Leica. Yes it's nice to have the build quality... also what other camera manufacturer actually gets their cameras IPX rated? Most just say splash and dust sealed, with no indication to what degree these seals will function. I've been in torrential rain with both Fuji and Canons with no issues, but I wasn't 100% confident. With my Leica's I know what they're built do endure.
But more than that it really is the shooting experience. These days with computer aided design most companies are making excellent lens designs. But Leica is one of the few companies still pushing for that extra 10% (that you pay more than 10% for) and I appreciate that. Chromatic aberration is my absolute pet peeve and they've all but eliminated it in their amazing APO lenses. And they do that while still retaining the beautiful character and color typically associated with Leica lenses. Then there's the color. Each manufacturer has their preferred way to process color, and I'm personally the most drawn to Leica. The Q series has always been amazing to me in this regard. The combination of that fantastic 28mm 1.7 lens and the color processing that Leica uses... it just produces a look that I absolutely love, and haven't been able to replicate with other high end cameras.
HEY. I KNOW YOUUUU ;) It's Vu!
What convinced you to upgrade from Q2 to Q3? How do you like the user feel of the Q3?
Overpriced is an under statment LOL. I sold my two M8 cameras many years ago and sworn I would not get another Digital Leica M, so I got my film Leica M4P. Regarding the Q serie, I reviewed the Q2 Mono on my YT channel, the feelings are great, no doubt, but the optical quality is far from Leica's good reputation. The Leica Q3 is even worse and has heavy distortion and the software correction makes it really bad in the corners at maximum aperture... for 2000 Euros, the Q3 would be fairly priced, for 6000.... they are simply laughing at their buyers.... This Summilux speech is pure hype, no, a Leica M summilux is FAR better than that wrongly called Summilux on a Q3 that cannot properly handle the 60mpix. So if you are buying feelings, you are completely right, using a Leica camera is something unique and special, but if we speak about quality, you can get much better tool for half the price. Thank you for your interesting video.
OMG I was wanting to upgrade to a Q3..... so I currently have a Special edition Q... it's a Titanium colour and Black... Love it... so would going to Q2 vs. Q3 be the better upgrade in your opinion? you seem to have tested it out... I love your take on my question.... Been a Photographer since my Dad bought me my first SLR...all manual with only a light meter inside... Grade 9 Photography Club... a natural... most of the FILM shots I took HAD to be perfect, I could barley afford the film.... the Yearbook that year had quite a FEW....ha ha of my photos...dawning the pages... even the centerfold... I caption most of my shots...one comes back to mind... TWO TO BEAM UP.... shoved a girl and guy into the Trophy showcase in the hallway...facing each other with the lights glowing down on them snickering.... I never ever got in trouble for the things I had people doing to get the SHOT.... to this day... Captions R us.... Cheers Eric!
Several issues in what you are declaring here: 1-you must have had a damaged version of the 28 mm f .17 on all the Q (it is the same lens so whether Q, Q2, Q3 or Q2 mono, the lens is so good Leica decided not to change anything. So the lens having more distortion on a Q3 than a Q2 does not make much sense. I have used several Qs and Q2s, many of my friends have Qs (whatever generation) none has ever complained about the quality of the lens, very far from it in fact. I do not know where you get your facts... or how you filter your experience, but it is far from being one you should generalize from. The point with the 28 mm on the Qs is that it was specifically designed for them it is not interchangeable which can be problematic for some but also allows consistency. In terms of resolution the design of the Qs' lens was based on the same specs and requirements as those held for the Summiluxes (meaning 28, 35 and 50) and on top of that for the price you get a free camera, not one of the least capable as its commercial success (unexpected by Leica) proves.
In conclusion I do not know what unlucky streak you have been with Leica but definitely not the general consensus, and readers here should be made aware of it.
@@BrunoChalifour I came here to say the same thing.... I love our Q2 so much, quality and feel, I'm debating a Q3 as an update. We shoot professionally and have for the last 30 years, the Leica is amazing and far better than my full frame DSLR's.
Idk I love my Q3. It’s my first Leica and I upgraded from a D800. Yeah, it’s not as versatile, but it feels good to shoot with and I like the pictures it takes. That 60MP allows me crop to my hearts content. Is it stupid? Sure. Should I have gone with a Sony ? Maybe.. but I like shooting with my Leica. The same way I enjoy looking at my watch to tell the time.
Good way to look at it for sure
I’m an amateur photographer. I have been for many years. I’ve spent a lot of money on equipment in my time. Over the last few years I realised that I wasn’t enjoying my photography. I sold all my gear, and had a break. Recently I bought a second hand Fujifilm X-E1 with a 27mm pancake lens. Suddenly I’m enjoying photography again, the old feeling of excitement when I go out with the camera has returned. I have one camera with one lens. That’s all I need. The X-E1 is brilliant. That said, if I had the money I’d have a Leica.. Outrageously expensive, but bloody lovely to use.. 🙂
At 80, I’m still using my M6 and my Summicron 50mm les, my only lens. Never shot digitally and probably never will. Life is a Kodak moment ! 📷 Thanks, fun video. Rick…..
My M3 is now 57 years old in my pro use and now love! I'm 80!
@@jasongold6751 My Leica is older than you are. My dad bought it in 1938 and it still works.
Leica and Fuji make great cameras. I own and use both.
I have been a Leica shooter for decades. My first Leica was an M1 that I used on a microscope in college. My second Leica was an M6 that I used for reportage, documentary, and street. The Leica M10 was my most recent Leica purchase. I use the following lenses on my Leica cameras:
90mm f/2 Leitz
35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon
21mm f/1.4 Leitz
I have been a Fuji shooter for decades. The ST750 was my first Fuji 35mm film SLR. The Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm medium format film rangefinders were next. The Fuji S5 Pro was my first digital SLR body. The X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 digital mirrorless were my most recent Fuji digital body purchases. I use the following Fuji lenses on my Fuji mirrorless bodies:
56mm f/1.2
23mm f/1.4
16mm f/1/4
16-55mm f/2.8
50-140mm f/2.8
My understanding is that Leica did *not* stop producing film cameras in 2002. They stopped making the M6 in 2002, and then introduced the MP in 2003. I don't know why so many people are buying Leica's, but I know why I own them: I like manually focusing with a rangefinder!
Definitely wanna make a full video on Leica range finder. Not sure how to package it all up, but it’s just so fun to shoot with
Leica has never stopped making film cameras. M6 to m7 to MP and MA now reissue of M6 classic added to MP/MA! Same craftsmanship and minimalism carried into Q and SL line! 🏆🙏🏼
@@vinnnyn32 Yeah I got my new MP in 2015
@@jeitoots one of the best film cams ever made! I got the M-A and use it religiously
@@vinnnyn32 yeah the M-A is lovely
I’ve been a Leica shooter for 25 years and everything else for 50 years. I currently own 15 Leica cameras and lenses. The one relevant thing that you said about the brand is that the files don’t require as much editing.
Even the non-monochrome cameras produce the best in-camera black & white images of any digital camera. The monochromes are next level of course, but you can get a lot of the way there with dialing in the right sauce.
I noticed that right away when shooting the Digilux 2, but the newer cameras all improve upon that. To me - this monochrome pleasantry is why I am a Leica fan.
I may give a slight edge for the SuperCCD sensors of the ancient Fuji S-model DSLRs (S2, S3, S5) - their in-camera color JPGs are pretty stellar, especially for green tones. But those are entirely different beasts, and image quality is always hyper subjective
@@GaryLangEngr sure - that’s why I agree it’s next-level. The non-monochrome Leicas still produce the second best b/w IMHO.
Wow how much do you earn? 😅
An S007 has 15 stops of dynamic range and also has a 6 micron pixel pitch. The medium format sensor has a ton of data in the files and converts beautifully to B&W. @@GaryLangEngr
I laughed so hard when he said 'technically inferior simple little camera' LOL
I have been a Leica shooter for more than 20 years and film shooter for 40 years. What you are paying for is all about experience. Their cameras are objects of desire at one level. They are also really fun to shoot. They are the only brand that delivers an authentic classic film camera experience in a digital format. I have a 10 year old M240 that I still use and the image quality still holds up. It will get retired to the shelf when I can no longer get batteries for it. Most of my photog friends have shot multiple cameras as and multiple systems chasing faster AF or higher MP in the same period of time that I have had the M. It is still as fun to shoot as the day I bought it. That is what you pay for. It’s not throw away technology for the sake of chasing competitors. It’s a really well engineered piece of kit designed to last a long time. That’s why so many folks who have been shooting other systems come to the brand. It’s a destination brand for enthusiasts.
I’m into B&W and it was a no brainier for me to save up for a monochrom. I can’t afford a brand new m10m or a second hand one…but I did manage to get a typ264 and I have NO regrets, worth every penny for the happiness it gives me
All the Monochroms perform very well. Much better than converting a color file.
@@AlamedaM8 way better than a colour conversion 🙏👍🙂
My Leica works the way I think. I capture exactly what I see with very little effort. No ridiculously complicated menus, just the basic exposure triangle with dials easily at hand. That my Leica is built like a tank is a bonus.
Crazy build quality for sure. Pretty sure it could double as protection in a pinch
@@bondgabebond4907yep. I sure as hell wouldn’t want my Leica colliding with one of those. Hard to think of a tankier camera than the Nikon F2-maybe Graflex Super Graphic.
@@bondgabebond4907 oh yeah, but Hasselblad moon cameras would crush those
It’s all about the lenses. They draw unique images on film and sensor. With an M6 since the 1980’s, today I shoot portraits exclusively with a SL2-S and the APO-Summicron-SL 2/75 and clients are mind blown amazed 😊
I’ll just get a 20 dollar adapter for my Sony camera if I want those lenses.
@@joshuathomas4934 That's a good argument. If it's a Nikon Z7II or so ;) But definitely not with the Sony colours and the magenta cast, low light situations enhancing it. - For your convenience, I tried the a1 and a7rm4, shooting those cameras for photojournalism, usually on camera flash, at about ISO 1600 to 6400 to avoid hard shadows bouncing the light bouncing from the walls and for getting sufficient light, at all ISO values > 100 all shadows get a reddish orange tint, making the people looking 20 yrs older. All speckles and wrinkles and other skin imperfections are most ugly enhanced. That's quite different with Leica and Nikon. Canon RAW has no details in the shadows. However, I envy all bird, wildlife sports and action photographers for the new a9III. It's a beast.
In the film days more so. Then the film stock contributed, & today the sensor/processor/firmware do the films part. The Leica lenses are very special IMHO. And if one could afford them, I say do it. I mostly shoot wildlife & nature but if my pockets were deeper, .... Heck, one day I might just say the heck with it & do it anyway!
Love the 35 and 75 SL Summicrons. The 16-35 zoom is amazing too. All the SL lenses are FUN.
No, unfortunately (or fortunately), it's not. It is also about the sensor (at it was also about film with film), and the algorithms on board.
My Leica Q3 is what I call, “ My Life Camera “. Never to be used for work. That’s what my Sony and canon bodies do. The Q3 is documenting life. Yeah it’s expensive but the satisfaction in using this camera in comparison to other brands is overwhelming. I also own a Fuji XPro3 and it too gives me a unique experience. My other brands just sit in their bags and are not released until a job calls. They are just tools.
Yep definitely agree!! Expensive, but documenting life is super valuable to me for sure!
Nicely, said. Feel the same.
Sony,Canon and Nikon all have cameras in the $6000 range. Leica & Hasselblad are instruments the other bands are tools.
@@Old-School-Liberal Indeed.
@@phillipbanes5484 something you will never understand. I was warned of people like you when I purchased my Leica. You obviously don’t or can’t own one and so would not understand nor do you appreciate the brand.
100% agreed. Own a fujix100v and LeicaQ..the Leica is next level and something I love to carry with me.
I had an M3 single stroke that I had overhauled, so it shot like new. With a 40mm Leica/Minolta 40mm Summicron, it was $1100 around my neck. I hated loading film into it, there really is no practical reason for that antiquated system. I sold it because I didn't find myself using it enough, partly because I hardly shot 35mm anymore. The Leica M3 wasn't that much lighter than my Pentacon 6 medium format camera: waist level finder and the wonderful Soviet Mir 65mm lens, and you will always have sharper images due to the size of the negative. The Canon P would be my choice for a replacement for the M3. Similar RF, easier loading, lots of sharp lenses available, and a really nice one can be had for a couple hundred bucks. For 35mm, a Pentax Spotmatic with a Super Multicoated Takumar 50 1.4 (or even the little 55mm f2) is a magnificent piece of machinery producing photos as nice as a Leica, maybe being edged out in microcontrast or some such nonsense.
For size/weight, an OM1 with a 50 1.8 is good too. Under $100 all day long for either.
Agree, as a starter, also just got my first Leica Q3 last week, enjoying & loving the experience
Spot on. I shoot with a Fuji X-T3 as a hobby and have no plans to upgrade. Swapping systems is expensive, especially if you have a lot of lenses. Today I am thinking about selling some of the lenses I don’t use very often. For me, I am noticing what lenses I gravitate to the most. I prefer to focus more on honing my own craft vs upgrading gear.
Very wise: Fuji X-T3 is already a great camera. Newer cameras don’t make better images, they just make it easier to make better images. I find I tend to only shoot at either 40 or 50mm nowadays; I suppose I’ve developed that as my “style”. It took me loads of lenses and money to realise that was the case, but it does make life easier (and lighter).
Upgrading gear sometimes helps honing one's craft.
One does not exclude the other. For many of us they go hand in hand (otherwise I would be doing daguerreotypes, which is fine, but limiting).
The Q3 seems like the perfect companion!
Definitely
It's not about Leica film CAMERAS, a film camera simply holds and advances film, has a shutter and a viewfinder. It has little effect on the image. But Leica LENSES do make a difference. The leica look, or for my usage, Zeiss pop, is real and when folks learn there is more to a lens than sharp sharp sharp, they begin to appreciate those lenses. After shooting film for 40 years, in 2000 I moved to digital and loved the clean images. But after 10 years, sterile images started to appeal to me less and less. So I now have 9 rolls of film in a half dozen cameras plus backs because of the look of film. Also, the older Nikon lenses or my zeiss, voigtlander glass is 5 to 9 elements, not 21 light sucking, reflecting modern lenses with flat rendering and muddy shadows. THAT is why folks like Leica... of course the "cool" or hipster factor can't be ignored. But in 1978 I ditched my range finder for my long coveted slr and you couldn't pay me to use one. Lighter? The cry of people carrying an extra 20 lbs of fat. Now I haven't gone mirrorless but the one reason I would consider it would be to adapt Leica glass to a nikon mirrorless. But, I doubt that will ever happen as my mamiyas, nikon, pentax film carmeras and lenses give me what I want.
One of my relatives was an engineer at Leitz Wetzlar who worked on the M Line. I remember him taking shots in family settings on Christmas. He was just standing with his back to a wall and the simplicity of his M6 forced him to wait for the right moment - to come to him, without forcing anything. The pictures were gorgeous and the man was in his 80s. I am far away from beeing in my 80s but the complexity of my brand new Fuji XT30-II is just making me nervous. I stoped taking pictures with a Canon AE in 1987. I don’t understand the overload in options, it takes me far away from concentrating on the most important task, taking a good photo….
I agree with this. The overload of options is too much when all I need is a photo. I personally don’t like to see things I know I’m not going to use. I don’t even want to make extra inputs just to skip over an option I’ll never use. That said, this goes all out the window the moment I have to shoot something for a client haha
@@cb2721 … he did understand the technical aspect in all details including lenses… I think in this case the jump to take a good picture isn’t that big of a thing because god also gave him a detailed feeling for art… interesting was he wasn’t much hooked by the fact that he can create good looking photos. I think it was boring to him because it wasn’t a challenge. Sadly I don’t have any of his talent in me….lol
I’m using Leica for both my professional fashion/beauty work (next to Hasselblad) as well as personal work. I’d argue that over the years Leica has cost me less than some other brands I’ve used. First, you tend to buy only what you really need, but next to that, depreciation is often far less than what I’ve seen with other brands. In fact, some of my M cameras (both film and digital) I’ve bought pre-owned and sold them at the price 4-5 years earlier. Lenses hold their value even better.
I really respect your work a lot and don’t like to correct you. Leica never stopped making film cameras. MPs were never stopped. In 2002 they stopped the M6 and started m6 again in 2022. You are right but they never stopped making film cameras 😅
Kyle, Leica now has about 1% of the worldwide and ever declining camera market. For the most part, mainly the rich and name dropping habitually buy Leicas. Cameras are well built, but Canon and Sony offer way more stuff for the shooter. And as for lenses. Leica does not own the market for great lenses. They are good, but so are Sony, Canon, Sigma, and etc.
I use an M11 with the red dot blacked out, because the thing makes me slow way down and focus on the photography. Love the M11 it’s by far my go to camera. use a Nikon for shooting sports.
Great video. One thing I think you should have mentioned (which was one of the main reasons I sold my q2) is the worry of having such an expensive object on your shoulder every day, particularly when traveling.
Fair. But it’s much less assuming than just about every other camera. I always cover my logos as well to help a bit too
I took my Q3 on a recent six-week trip to Europe and had no worries about having it on my shoulder. The alternative - an A1 and two-three lenses - would have been bigger and more intrusive, still expensive, and guaranteed to always have the wrong lens attached when there’s no time to swap (theoretically I could take just one lens and crop, but I know I’d fail to resist the urge to pack another lens or two …)
Over the trip I certainly got my share of ‘nice camera’ comments from the dodgy guys you find at every tourist place, but no more than the people carrying Sonys or Canons - even old entry level DSLRs.
If I need my A1 for something that the Q3 does not do well, I have no hesitation in picking up the A1. Otherwise, my hand reaches for the Q3.
Agree with all of these points, Adam
Well if you start worrying, you end up wearing crap, eating crap, driving crap that, in the long run, will cost you more than any quality equipment you will keep for years if not decades (35 years for my M6 this day), not mentioning the potential frustration. Good walking shoes are expensive but last long. I have traveled world-wide always carrying it (sometimes being cautious, agreed) and never had a single problem. If I have one regret it is not to have bought the camera mentioned above earlier, from a friend, at a good price but that would have put me in the red (for a few months)... and I still regret it beside the point that I ended up paying more... But this is just a personal, and real, experience, it cannot become a rule. However, being real experience it is probably more conclusive than being just in angst about something that has not happened and may never happen to you. In the meantime I would have (and have) made a few hundreds thousands images with a well-crafted tool.
I started shooting with Leica in 1968. I've had my current M3 and Walter Mandler designed Summicron lenses for over 40 years. It would seem natural that I would go with digital Leica.
I actually spent a morning at Samys in Hollywood looking at the newly released M8. My wife was with me and was encouraging me to walk out with one. Unfortunately, I had read some information about the M8, plus discovered my dual range Summicron 50mm was incompatible. Since then I've examined the M10 and Monocrom. I could have (and still can) easily afford a digital Leica M, but I just couldn't justify buying one.
I have a degree in photography and worked for several years as a full time commercial/industrial photographer. I've used everything from 8x10 view cameras to 16mm motion picture cameras for both personal and professional work. I've shot with most of the iconic film cameras.
I don't think you have to use a camera with constraints to still enjoy shooting. I regard Leica's limitations as an artificial constraint. If you're not having fun, it's not the camera.
However, I do enjoy shooting with my Fuji cameras much more than shooting with my Canon DSLR. I regard Fuji cameras, especially the X-E series and the X-Pro series to be what digital Leicas should be. Fuji lenses are as good as Leitz lenses, both in technical performance (read the tests) and with the intangibles (bokeh, etc.) and cost far less. If I wanted to spend $10k+ on a system, I'd pick up the Fuji GFX-100 II and lenses in a heartbeat over any Leica.
The only difference is that the X series are APS-C and not as well built as the full-frame Leica Ms or Qs. Fuji has improved their greens since the X-pro1 and the X-E1 (same sensor). Best XPro colors are still the one the XPro 3 renders although I do not find the camera as practical (with the new design of the back) as the Pro2. In the end I prefer by far to use my M10.
i've never heard of hammers being stale before.. But I will say, I appreciate you tucking your ears under your hat. You're quite dapper.
Most people take boring pictures, regardless of cameras they use. Leicas are fine, other cameras are fine as well. Just our brains are wired to create myths. Kudos to people who enjoy their photos more than their gear.
Are we talking about "most people", whomever they might be? I am confused.
I really like how you laid this out. I also love how you addressed detractors ahead of time. Lots of great things to consider. Thanks for your post and for how you did it. (Loved the Jimi Hendrix sidebar about the Strat.)
Thanks Chris
Honestly Leicas are not a waste of money. If anything, digitals are a bigger waste of money. I’ve bought a couple mirrorless and dslr bodies from Nikon, Sony, and Fuji and can tell you from my experience, after doing the math, I lost a lot of money because of how much they depreciated. Even when they’re in great condition, I still lost 1-2k. With a Leica, the demand is so high that you don’t lose a lot of money selling it. That’s why people don’t mind investing if it means getting 90-95% of your money back. Another thing I notice is my GAS as in gear acquisition have died down. The only time I’ll buy a new piece of gear is if I truly want it instead of following the marketing.
What you're saying is that digital camera's only depreciate and a non-digital Leica doesn't. This isn't the case. Look at the Fuji X100V. I can sell mine for more than I bought it, easily. The Sony RX1 series also barely depreciated. Then there's digital Leica's too, that don't depreciate that hard either.
It’s all supply and demand. Yes a Leica will also depreciate but with how much demand there is for one, it’s going to maintain their value relatively well. Yeah your fuji is going to retain its value and sell well because people still want your x100v and not a rx100. To give you an idea, I bought my fuji xt1 a year after it came out and needless to say, nobody cared about fuji because everyone wanted a canon back when dslrs were hot. Fuji finally got its moment in 2020 during the pandemic, and now everyone wants one because of TikTok. I can guarantee you that your x100v wouldn’t sell if it wasn’t for TikTok promoting it.
I've used Ms for many years now. Starting out with the M6 that I upgraded to an M7, which I still have. Then I bought an M9P and later an M240P and a Monochrome 240P, I closed the collection with an X-U (type113). So it is some years ago that I bought the last one. But I still use them occasionally when I feel the need of following my inclination to be a fotographer, since you have to do a lot of thinking - and most certainly also have the time - to get the proper results. But the cameras that I use on a daily basis is now Nikon Z (Zf, Z8 and Z9). In fact Nikon has been my favourite brand since the FA was launched many years ago. These are foolproof cameras with great lenses. They may lack the elegance of a Leica M, but they are, as Kyle says, workhorses/tools. We shall be going on a safari in Kenya soon, and I would be a fool if I only brought the Leicas with me with the 135 mm tele lens as the longest one. For me Leica is for fun and I chose the P versions where I could so that I use a camera, that does not draw attention. Are they worth the money? That depends on your attitude. If you are a fan of equipment from the top shelf and are able to feel the sheer joy of owning and using something unique, they most definitely are worth the money. But I now have retired and do not have the money to follow two branches. I have to stick to one. Kind greetings from Denmark, Klaus
Got my first Leica (SL2-S) a few months ago. Now, my Sony kit sits neglected (except the RX1). My film gear is also neglected - I seem to have lost interest in shooting film for now. The SL2-S is brilliant.
Got mine last year 😂😂 I love the SL system
I just sold my 5D mkiii and my new Fuji XT-30. Bought a mint Leica Q!!! I am in love... it's really beautiful !!!!!!
I have owned cameras from many brands. Among those cameras, M7 & MP have been top 2 cameras I’ve ever owned. That feeling of wind lever, that feeling of the shutter. So satisfying. I truly enjoyed it.
I have been thinking about buying a Leica Film Camera for a few years, but I kept talking myself out of it because of the price. After a while I just decided that I am going to get one. I wanted to get the new M6, but it was never available. Took the plunge this week and brought an MP. Love it so far. Is it overpriced and a waste of money? Yeah, it kind of is. But some of my favorite things in life have been that.
The MP is exceptional. There's a reason why it's been in production for the last 20 years. Buying used helps save a lot of money as the resale value tanks less over time.
@@slippinjimmothy The resale value was one of the factors I took into account when buying the MP. If I decide I don’t want it in a year, I’ll get most of my money back if I re-sell it. Right now I’m planning on keeping it, tho
A: They're not.
I'm a wildlife and landscape photographer with a premium Nikon Z system of gear. Yet, I just plunked down $2000 for a Leica CL / Vario-Elmar kit. The CL is a 24MP APSC camera that Leica discontinued 18 months ago. What's more, they have discontinued all of the APSC cameras. However, if you pick up the CL, put it on AF-S mode, shoot single advance, and add a piece of vintage M-Glass, you experience a back to basics feel that emphasizes simplicity above all other things. I've owned Leicas in the past, and they just feel good in the hand and embrace both a simple and elegant design ethos. Would I take this camera to photograph an epic landscape on Diamond Beach in Iceland... no, but it would be the camera I keep next to me as I speed through the Icelandic country side... My like inspires me to be serendipitous.
Yet 10/10 would fail to identify the Leica pics in a blind test against the likes of Fujifilm.
Tell us you can't afford a Leica without telling us you can't afford a Leica.
Are you sure hahahaha, i am a Fuji user and i can definitely tell you which one is from Leica bro. Rendering, 3D pop, bokeh and everything absolutely different than a Fuji sensor provides
@@nguyendaniel7042 Leica uses Sony sensor. Is the image the same as from a Sony camera with the same sensor? If it is, then why buy a Leica that costs more.
@@disadadi8958 are you saying Sony and Leica is the same camera?
I love my Leica cameras. I was a professional photographer in the analog days and a loyal Nikon user. When I came into some extra money as I contemplated going digital, I bought Leica's D-Lux 4. It was my gateway drug. Now I own and actively make pictures with it, a D-Lux 109, an M10-p, and a Q2 reporter. The Q2 never leaves my side. These are great cameras, even though they are very expensive.
1:04 this is so painful to watch, this is how the shutter curtain gets damaged 😅
man you can justify it as you want but the gist of it is: it's just fashion. Camera looks undeniably cool and sexy af, u end up wanting it you buy it, and than to feel a little less sorry for the pain you put u're ass through, spending a shit ton load of money on it, you try to shot the hell out of it and start making up excuses to try and escape the judgement of other people. But first, judgement of others shouldn't care to you, second just admit it, you're probably passionate about photography, you're (as most of us human) attracted to shiny things, you have the budget, you went for it, that's it. It's just an uber expensive adult toy (not the one u use down there, you pervs) and a risky super bad investment (i mean leica usually hold up well their value but i don't think you can get revenues out of it). But if u're a youtuber/content creator you can get away with it, because it buys you views and so your finances won't be too much affected (you're the sexy guy shooting around with a camera that looks like it went out from ww II photo-reporters). For an average person that doesn't have a photography related job, that maybe barely earn 1.5/2k a month buying one of these is just pure madness. I mean, i was barely able to justify the expenses i had for my xt-3, which, with lenses included cost 1/3 of a leica...
I made someone happy today. I chose not to buy the shiny new Q3 that had my name on it at Seattle’s best camera store, so it’ll go to the next person on the waiting list. I’d been on that list since mid-summer but when my name came up in the queue yesterday, I was torn. Do I really need this? Do I WANT it that bad? I have the money, barely. What finally tipped the scale all the way to no was the fact that I’d rather use that cash to pay for travel experiences, to go somewhere I’ve never been, or return to places I love. I already have a good camera with a 28mm lens, a Fuji X70. I’ve got film cameras and a couple of other Fujis, including an X100F that does a fine job. None is a Leica, and of course I’d really like to have that Q3. Maybe in a few months I’ll make a different choice; I had the people at the store put my name at the bottom of the waiting list. For now, I feel liberated from the constant debate in my head, and I’m feeling more motivated to use the cameras I currently have than I have been in quite a while.
And when you think about it, its your same eye and mind looking through either the Q3 or the X70; you carry that heart in to whatever tool you choose to use. Well done on your reasoning. I hope you are savouring that 'new' motivation.
@@alcedo_kf True, and I’m definitely enjoying the X70 these days. Our relationship is rekindled and better than ever.
@@DanFrizzell That liberation is a sweet feeling.
Leica : Camera :: Collings : Guitar
I got my first Leica brand camera - D-Lux 4 - after owning the Panasonic series equivalents prior to that. Even though the Leica D-Lux and the Panasonic LX series have identical components and sensors, etc, I always felt like the Leica processing had just a little bit more. We’re taking the exact same CAMERA just a Leica version vs Panasonic version. Minor design differences but otherwise the exact same camera.
Secret weapons that give you the entry into the excellence of image processing that Leica brings to the table.
Fuji is a terrific gateway drug, but having shot the X-Pro a lot before succumbing to the M hype, it just is a very different camera.I love things about the Fuji that are missing in the Leica. But I much prefer the M.
It is absolutely something you aspire to owning. There are limitations and constraints that you are presented with, and I feel like those challenges make you really step up your game.
The Leica Digilux 2 is one of my all time favorite cameras, yet I refuse to shoot it over ISO 200 (it only goes to 400). The EVF is not that great, and it’s a 20+ year old digital dinosaur. But the images I still get from that 5.2 megapixel sensor are still some of my favorites.
And that’s entirely the point. Use the tool or instrument that helps you capture and share the images you want to make, whether for business or for pleasure.
It’s truly hard to explain to someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to shoot many cameras in the Leica catalog but you do a good job explaining a lot of it.
Totally overrated. There are many other equally good choices for a fraction of the price.
When the hipsters get their eyes on something it usually becomes overpriced
Leica's have always been expensive, for a reason. I'd argue with how much inflation has gone up, that they are actually cheaper now than ever before, relatively speaking. That is, if you have any money left after buying groceries ;)
I totally agree with you Kyle. coming from the Sony A7C ecosystem, I dont feel inspired to bring that camera out. maybe its so clinical? maybe of its weight and size? maybe its the design? I dont know
but there is something special with my Lecia Q3 that just make me feel inspired to look for more creative moments in my life. its the simplicity and its build quality as well as its colours that really draws me in. kind of bring back the kid in me when I first started photography.
Hard feeling to describe in words
Fully agree on this points. Not sure if you’ve watched this vid yet, but think you might find it interesting as well
I Turned The SONY A7CR Into The LEICA Q3
th-cam.com/video/T_gdeRaCWGo/w-d-xo.html
A year ago I bought a new MP and wanted a second film body so I got a mint 60 year old M2. What a dream they both are. When I take photos with especially the M2 I feel like I'm driving a 60 yr old Porsche with the top down...
Ooof that analogy hits different
I love that the “elephant in the room” is someone I had never heard of. Someone new (to me) to check out who found Leica and thought “Hmmn, what’s this?”
Normally the elephant in the room is price. 😂
The best thing I ever did was to buy a few beat up old Leicas and shoot them (film, obviously) exclusively for ~2 years. That was particularly fun and challenging with a young and very active child. I had to re-focus on exposure, craft, and work around limitations of film and manual focus. even though I did miss shots due to poor exposure choices or inability to focus quickly enough, I got photos that still drop my jaw today. And what I learned has carried through every other camera I touch.
And I still love M’s and Leica glass. There’s some magic lenses that you can get, even today, for a lot less than a plastic Canikon lens.
Try it!
More Leica nonsense rationalizing why you spent some much on a camera, if it costs that much it has to be better, it just makes want to shoot. I made a living as a photographer for a very long time and having shot with most every brand of camera there is. At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the image, whatever tool that allows you to create the image you see is the best one to inspire you to shoot. Image creation for one's self is where the inspiration should come from not some overpriced camera jewelry.
The craftsmanship and thé design IS important the most of the Time. You see your camera more than the images in a day of shooting.
@@RobinMarplesI have a few friends that say people see the camera more than the pics it will produce. And to those jewellery aficionados Leica will always be the better camera.
Yup more nonsense. It's only the output of my camera that inspires me. It's never the tool that inspires me to shoot.
There are brands which are, if you can afford it, a nice and sustainable investment, like Leica, Rolex and others. I have many cameras beside of my 2 Leica's but always come back to just take the Q3 and shoot. The feeling and experince is unmatched, at least for me.
All these companies are living at their prime from all the free advertisement and hype they are receiving from the internet. Their products are not even hitting the shelves, they don’t even need to spend money on advertising anymore.
When was advertising free last? ;o) What would people advertise a product they do not like or they do not want??? Does not make much sense to me. As far as I know all Leica products mentioned have it the shelf and if they are absent (Q3 these days) it is because the demand is too high.
00:01 Leica cameras are making a comeback in a digital age
01:13 Leica M6 re-released in 2022
02:16 Leica offers intangible qualities beyond Fuji
03:21 The importance of having the best tools for photography
04:24 Leica inspires art and simplicity
05:28 Leica gear reignites the desire to take photos
06:27 Peter McKinnon's influence on Leica camera
07:30 Leica cameras are expensive but offer a nostalgic and inspiring experience.
I own a Q2, Q2M and an SL2, cause, reasons 🫶
It inspires you to take pictures because otherwise you feel like an idiot for paying 6000 dollars for a paperweight.
It is the iPhone-Moment of the pro cameras. It get the newbies into photography and the quality is superb so you keep exploring and learning. I talk from experience, thats how it was for me. I then start discover focul lenghts, aparture etc.
Great video! I had a CL with 4 lenses. Then I added a X100V. Then I got tired of trying to figure out which one to take with me. So I sold them all and got a Q2. It’s the last camera I will own.
Leica Ms are beautiful cameras. On the other side: Q, S, SL.. not so much. Well, the said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I certainly still want one.
Considering the tech/price, for me Fuji GFX is the obvious #1 choice: more affordable used price, more modern tech, and obviously a medium format. Leica afficionados may think this camera is "too robotic/computerized/less soulful etc etc...". I totally get that. As much as I admire the minimalist, mechanical, all-manual film cameras, I also happily embraced modern tech.
But really. We don't have to rationalize choice, though. You like the Leica? Go buy one :D
The most "inspiring and fun to use" camera I've ever handled was the Fuji X-Pro2 and I had the 35mm f1.4 basically bolted to it most of the time. Should not have sold that camera. They are now hard to find in excellent condition and sell for not much more than they were new. Viewfinder wasn't all that great, AF was slow but it was just fun to use and got out of the way. I'm afraid I'm going to have to get another one..
you talk about it like it's ancient LOL. My current "main" camera is the X-Pro2. Dude, it's only like 6 or 7 years old. And that's current digital era where every two years your old gear isn't totally irrelevant. I don't see myself buying another digital camera for a good 4 or 5 years... maybe more. It's a really great camera.
When u talk about how when you first started photography as a creative outlet really hits me
I started doing photography 4 years ago I was bored and just wanted to get out to do something to not look at the PC 24/7
I dont know maybe its because of how it make me clear my thoughts or how it is so chill I was just hooked.
I was using the x-Pro 3 and just take picture and that is my first time owning a body system now i owned a Leica m11p and it just makes me want to bring it everywhere i go
Give me a fuji gfx100 anytime over a leica.
apples and oranges
I just saw your photos and I have to say that compared to others who review cameras and lenses on TH-cam, you are a really great photographer!!
Hah. Thank you so much. There’s some great photogs out there reviewing cameras too though!
Paid out the butt for a Q2 and a SL2-S. Which is a weird move considering I had a Fuji X100v and an R5C (still have it). They are by far the two best built cameras I have, but more importantly the two cameras I enjoy shooting most. Which has gotten me out to shoot more, and with the reps I've seen some improvement. Love that reporter Q2, had the opportunity to buy a Q2 mono a month ago, and Kind of regret not pulling the trigger.
Leica cameras were never just tools; they are premium equipment that offers outstanding performance. They hold their value and can become heirlooms for those who own them. It feels strange to compare them to Canon, Sony, Nikon, or Fuji.
I shoot with all sorts of brands, Sony, Nikon, Ricoh and Fuji. I agree they are just tools to get a picture.
5 years ago, I thought I would get a Leica Q to try,
It’s definitely worth it to me, absolutely loverly to use and the images I get are worth it. I cover it with black electrical tape so no one knows it’s a Leica from a glance and I just get out there and take pictures with it.
Cameras are tools but Leica is like a instrument, I agree with that.
Happy Shooting.
I love people covering the Leica logo... most probably the only people that will recognise it are the people who will recognise the camera anyway. I must concede that their black logo is subtler than the red one.
I started shooting with Leica R 6.2 after been with the superb Minolta SRT-101 for 30 years. When I had to switch to digital, I started out with Canon, later Sony, but I wasn't satisfied. I got the chance, to pick up a brand new Leica Digi Lux 2, a very slow camera, but it performed very well. Today, my professional gear for press photography is Leica only and even the cameras are 10 + years old, they do the job perfect. For video shooting I'm on Panasonic, but that's a different story. Keep on rolling.
Leica digilux Series are literally Panasonics
Not everyone is buying into this example of conspicuous consumption.
No, many go for a reliable well-made tool that makes their work easier and add to the quality of their production. Leicas are not Rolexes (to quote some responses above) they are actual tools for actual working photographers. Some may wear them as Rolexes, all the better for us who started by buying used Leicas. I had a few examples of buying from one of those consumers: pristine equipment, perfect price (and not just Leicas) ;o)
You are telling a wonderful story about the longing for silence and peace in our hearts. You don't need a Leica for that, but it tremendously helps.
I had several film Leica cameras. Then went the usual modern route. Eventually, I realised the camera was taking more of the image than my skill and experience.
Sold the lot and went back to Leica M11. I adore the simplicity.
I don’t use social media and I’d never heard of “PM” until you mentioned him.
"I’d never heard of “PM” until you mentioned him." is that good or bad?
Well he seems nice enough although a bit ‘alternative’ for my tastes. I find the internet attracts people good at being on the internet but often (though not always) much less good at being a photographer. I’m not really sure which he is.
The modern Leica hype is something for people who believe, their creativity depends on the camera they use. But it is their decision and money, they spend on it, others have oldtimers or travel a lot. So why not. It is subjective. For me i am very happy with my X-Pro 3 and the 18/f1,4, or my GX9 with Panaleica 15/f1,7 or my X100V or my Pana LX10.
Why do some people resort to old stereotypes and think that most Leica owners are klutzes?? It does not bode well for the conversation unless one sees it as an opportunity to empty one's camera closet (of un-Leica items of course).
For me, there can only be one reason to buy a Leica: Robert Capa. Not only did I worship him as a child, but so did nearly every photographer whose work I like that came after him. And of course one could add Cartier-Bresson, et al., but that would be superfluous.
That said, I couldn't afford a vintage Leica 15 or 20 years ago when they were fairly cheap, and I certainly can't now. Last week I purchased a late-1960s Canon FT QL, just like the one I learned to take photos with as a child back in the mid-1970s, when I first found out about Capa. The one I learned on had a cool back-story; my father purchased it at the PX in Long Binh, SVN in early 1968. He was sent up to Huế, where among other things he took some photos with his new camera, mostly of Huế University, part of which was being used as a military command post at the time.
The one I have now doesn't have a cool back-story (at least not one I know), but they are still really excellent cameras. I thought then and still think now that the Canons of that era were just as good as anything Nikon (or Leica) was making, and happily for me they are much more affordable all these years later...
We all know that Leica has a great and deserving reputation from all these previous years ago..and gain "legendary" status among "famous" photographers" early on especially with street and documentary photographers with their M6 film cameras..etc...but in my opinion..these "modern times"..Leica has sadly become a "luxury brand"..and in some sense a "status symbol"..yes when you reach their level you can "justify" their price points but an "M6 film camera" still costing like what 5K for a Film Camera!!.C'mon their is something wrong with that..haha Yes..its German made, quality, design..etc..we all get that and what they are producing..but in all honestly its obviously not an "everyman/persons' camera..Is Leica "afraid" of losing their "status"..so thats why they don't price their cameras within a reasonable and comparable price point as like Canons, Sony's top of the line model?.
.It would be awesome if everyone got a chance to expereince a "Leica Cameras"..at a reasonable price and be able to grab them any time like the other camera brands..yes we all pay a price point to get the "latest techs and specs" on our camera's..but you can't tell me a Leica's specs..AF, color rendering, low light, processors, sensors etc..is "worth more" than the next brands hardware and software? German "design" are worth more than "Japanese" ones?..haha ..they get some of their sensors from other brands..and yet they put their camera at a higher price point...haha Leica digital cameras should never be around 10K+..only cameras that justify those prices are like a Hasselblad medium format stuff, Phase One and other cameras like that where its reasonable and practical for high end studio and commercial photography etc..hence they cost more because of their intended purpose ..but not a "regular" mirrorless camera.. Leica seems overrated for what they are..
No-one can deny that Leica has "broadened" its clientele by also advertising itself as a luxury brand. None the less it has not lost its original constituency whether they start with a used beaten-up camera or not. It is not an either / or situation as the annual Barnack Prize can testify (just an example).
I've been shooting for 30 plus years. Shot lots of cameras to your point of fun camera to shoot than aspires you. No one ever mentions Olympus and that's my go-to camera now or cameras. I love shooting with them. They are cameras that are made for photographers. They have a simplicity but they can still do the work you need. Want to get done awesome. Awesome! Awesome!!!
I guess you replied to the wrong video: this one was about Leicas. ;o) The nice thing is you can copy and paste this response for any video about any camera. Go ahead, awesome! ;o)
The Fuji Xpro2 did all you say for me, after 25 years as pro news snapper... Still does, it inspires me to shoot pictures, and I can carry it everywhere. Even if I had the money I wouldn't get a Leica. I like the look, hence the reason I like the Xpro2 as well, they look very similar..but I could literally get 8 or 10 Fuji's for a Leica M11.. Interesting debate though!!
If you've ever being done building work, you would find, that you do have a favourite hammer, you do have a favourite glass cutter or brick trowel. It's the way it feels in the hand. It's not just a tool, you are at one with it.
I disagree completely! - as a photographer for the past 30 years, I’ve shot with everything, the digital Leica cameras are maybe 10% better than FUJI due to the FF sensor and that’s only noticeable in lowlight …. Everything else is people trying to justify their overpriced Leica … same when people say that their off white jacket is better than a Nike jacket with a similar feature set 😂
Hype is hype, Leica was only in front in the analogue world
yep , a lot of rationalization for high status toy
As history has proved and continues to prove it, a Leica is not a toy or just an expensive piece of jewelry (which it might be for a few wealthy ones), for many of us it is a tool that delivers on its promises: reliability, quality, ergonomics (agreed not everyone does with the same ergonomical requirements), and it is to be mention the pleasure to work with a tool that has excellence as one of its requirements.
@@BrunoChalifour That's not what I said, fact is that if I take ANY Leica camera vs. ANY Fuji camera, take the same photo in good lighting, edit them in the exact same way, you would be very pressed to tell me which is which ... so pricing a Leica Q3 at 6000 usd. and an X100V for 1400 usd. you WONT get what you pay for with the Leica, no matter what you say.
The ONLY way you would be able to tell the difference was if we did a close up portrait or something where the bokeh from the larger sensor would be visible (and that would only count camera people) everybody else would see the same.
Exactly, I think this video explains the fetish effect very well. It is a commonplace to attribute magical powers to things. Those who need to believe it and feed their ego with Leica will have help.
Pure blah, blah, blah.
Leica M rangefinders have the fastest autofocus of any camera.
With your camera down in the resting position, eyes clear on the target. Right hand on the shutter, left hand on the lens focus tab.
Visualise the 3D zone of focus you want to capture.. and adjust its size for aperture and range.
See something you want to shoot - quickly raise the camera to frame the shot through the finder, and bang - pull the trigger.
Instant hit, no thinking required. All you need is a bit of practice, and your brain will automatically get your finger to put the focusing tab in the correct spot.
0ms latency, 100% accuracy every time.
It’s like steering a bike - clumsy at first, you fall off a couple of times, then it clicks, and your bike turns exactly how you want it to turn. No thinking needed.
"Sony/Nikon/Canon is a tool; a Leica is an instrument”!
This says everything!
silly semantics. if that was true in anyway, one might expect to see more great work from leica buyers, but one doesn't. Things become instruments in the right hands.
After shooting with every Mirrorless out there, I have to say that for personal work, my Leica M11 has been the most fun camera to shoot. And the best part it doesn’t have any video. A true photo camera with great image quality and resolution. However for commercial work my Sony A7R5 wins every time
I just got back from 2 weeks of hiking and photography the Grand Teton NP and RMNP. I brought my Leica Q2M and Nikon D850. Though the Nikon D850 yields very good results, the Leica results were stunning. Yes, it is limited with the 28mm, but it will make you a better photographer and want to photograph. Yes, they are expensive, but the sharpness, black, grey, and white tonality is very impressive! Plus, it becomes the camera you want to pick up and shoot. Just buy it.
Agreed on all fronts. I’ve had a TON of fun photographing Tetons over the last few months with the Q2. I’ve been 4 times in the last few months 😅
A M3 found it's way to me almost three years ago. I been shooting for over 20 years at this point and I got to say the Leica M3 is one of my all time favorite cameras. I enjoy the simplicity and slower workflow. I am seriously considering a digital M.
The issue with the M3 is that the range-finder coupling does not accept lenses shorter than 50 mm. The M4-P is probably as well built and remedies that, and then the M6 (I do love range-finder covering 35 and 28 mm lenses, and its rewind crank far more convenient than the knob on the M3.
@@BrunoChalifour I slapped a 40mm on my M3 and works just fine. I know everything in the 50 lines will be in the shot with a bit more. It not a SLR so I don't expect exactly what I see in my final image. No need for anything wider. The great thing about the M3 is the viewfinder is almost 1:1 magnification so I can shoot with both eyes open.
@@Being_Joe Yes a 40 mm on an M3 does not help the precision of the viewfinder but as long as it works for you. By the way. I have never had problem "shooting with two eyes" with my M6 (which I upgraded from an M3 decades ago without any regret).
Outhouse shot at 5:08 is crazy 🤩 I like the tool vs. instrument analogy - I would love to rent one for a short trip just to try one out. And super jealous of the double left kidney havers.
Appreciate it!
I had a leica, and frankly, focusing is a pain if you are getting older. not to mention the constant worry about damaging that expensive instrument. And if it was 6 times better than other cameras, I would venture to say I would want to use it all of the time. If simple is what you need, then set up the camera you have once, and do not change the configuration, but just your exposure, etc. I think people with leica are full of fashion, status, and self-importance, rather than the art of photography. What a joke.
I guess the old adage "a fool and his money are soon parted" still holds true today...
Cool video but I don't really agree :) Since you professional photographer guys use other high end brands such as Canon, Sony etc to do your work (because they are very good and easy to work), Leica feels an escape to you and remind you your hobby days. I am a hobby photographer and using my R6 Mark II gives me the same feelings, grab it and go out to create some art! It can do everything a Leica can do and more. I enjoy shooting anything, anything in between, friends, family or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I am not against Leica, I like it but I also think its a bit overrated. Kind regards.
If you have to ask it’s not for you.
I've got an SL2 and one workhorse L-mount zoom; Leica 24-90. But I really enjoy shooting with the M lenses. Got a 28mm and 50mm. Both Voigtlanders. I prefer manual focus - and way lighter lenses.
"Why is everyone turning to these inferior cameras?" They were broke and Leica offered them brand sponsorships is why.
im not sponsored by leica in any way
ehhh... one can always make an argument for being "overpriced." You can buy a rather well functioning 2005 Malibu for $4000 and with care, drive it until you need a nursing home. Such thinking makes nearly anything else "overpriced." Dollar Tree used to sell watches... so Timex, one can argue, is overpriced, etc. and consequently there is no end to such discussions.
No the elephant in the room is that leicas most cameras are built by Panasonic and should cost a third of the price but they go extreme lengths hiding the Japanese trail and charge an arm and a leg. A brand new leica q should cost max 3000 dollars. That's already not a small number. But 7000????? Where does this number come from? Especially that digital technology gets outdated so fast, and in it self is not as robust as manual mechanical technology. The moment Leica went digital first problem it hit is sensor rust which makes a 10 15 year old camera and overpriced paperweight. A good mechanical leica can run for 50 years easy. Leica is not about photography anymore it's about branding and gouging prices. I got a q 1 in excellent shape for 1800 dollars. Full frame 1.7 f lens. That's a good fair price. But 7000 dollars for pretty much the same camera with a bit more pixels. Now if it was real built in Germany by gnomes camera I would get the price. EU salary and regulations that special German touch. But most leicas are automated Japanese mass produced electronic products. Which by its nature should cost less as Asians always try to make something high quality at a bargain competitive price .You have to be an idiot to waste all that money on a red dot made in Japan assembled in Portugal.
Some old Leica lenses were built by this one guy in Germany who had magic hands. I totally get prices of 20000 to 200000 dollars for his work. But a Japanese machine grinded and assembled "summilux" lens???
I’m a long time Leica user. The M6 with b&w film for portraits is incredible. Now I have the M10 with the same old lenses (50 and 35 mmm). I also use Canon 5D III.
Canon is very practical and great camera. Leica not as versatile but photos are incredible. IMO.
Let's be real, there are only TWO reasons: they look pretty and convey wealth. They're aesthetically pleasing status symbols. Period.
Dont hate. I own Fuji 100s and 8 lenses. Fuji X bodies and 6 lenses and my LeicaQ2. If I needed a deserted island camera it would be the Q2.
What counterparts? They are almost completely alone with in making rangefinders. That’s why imo.
“Sony/Nikon/Canon is a tool; a Leica is an instrument”. That’s it. That’s the analogy I was searching for to describe it. That’s it. Nice video. Thanks.
Best I’ve heard as well
Absolutely true!
I can´t say better.
You can get into film with a Leica R and a good Summicron R lens for 500 - 700 bucks, if you‘re a little lucky. You can get into their digital APS-system for not too much money. You can get Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses for the M. You can get the first SL. If you know Leica, you‘ve got tons of options. I switched from Sony, and never regretted it.