[pentaxus]

Quality camera makers commonly stop repairing product. In the US, manufacturers are required to supply parts and service for 7 years after last date of manufacture. NOT date of sale. A co-worker bought a new canon 400mm 2.8. Four years after purchase it needed service. Sadly, it was more than 7 years after last date of manufacture and they would not service it. Vertical travel shutters are almost never designed to be repaired. If you need a shutter for your Leica R4, you are out of luck. Separately, Leica makes great product but some of the value is generated by perception of value. They still don't take good pictures if the person pushing the shutter button doesn't do their part.

[carlb]

I want Leica monochrome. But the price of this toy is out of my league, alas.

Same here, so I went for the next best option....a monochrome K3 converted by a PF member.

[StiffLegged]

I like the DSLR experience and the sculpted grip they mostly have. The M Leica doesn’t do either, so I don’t want one.

Problem solved.

[lotech]

I like the DSLR experience and the sculpted grip they mostly have. The M Leica doesn’t do either, so I don’t want one.

Problem solved.

You finally find out something Leica M can't catch up

[cpk]

Back in the seventies I started to photograph live flamenco shows in nightclubs. The rangefinder camera was best for focusing in that environment, fast moving action in poor light. My standard settings were 1/60 sec at f2, using the most sensitive film at the time. Metering was useless. That never changed over the next 25 years. I used two Leicas at a time with different lenses on them, usually a 50 and a 90. Nothing beat the Leica in those circumstances. Now not so. I sold my Leicas and lenses back in the early 2000s. Autofocus changed all that. Even my K-5s with their dim light focus problems can produce good results.

[gaweidert]

Way back in the early 1990's a National Geographic photographer showed up at the home of a person I knew through work. Clever neighborhood nerd engineer. He and a buddy had built a garage pretty big Tesla coil in his garage. National Geographic was there because they were doing an article on lightning and this was the best coil withing driving distance of their HQ. The photographer shows up with two Nikon F5's in tow. For you young whippersnappers here the Nikon F5 was theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee pro 35mm camera of the day.

They get the shot set up, he gets them posed and tells them to fire up the coil. The minute the coil fired up the electromagnetic pulse fries the two Nikon SLR's. They fire off the entire roll of film and would not stop trying to make more shots until the batteries were pulled out of the cameras. The photographer shrugs his shoulders and heads back to his car. There he grabs an old Leica M3 manually meters the scenes and gets the shot. The photo is in the July 1993 issue of the National Geographic.

[zapp]

Instead of bashing Leica for … whatever plus price tag, you better get one and play with it to understand the feeling. M2 was released approximately 30 years before the Bessa - do you realize what you try to compare here? The cameras are quite OK, the glass is awesome. Read about Leica history and the original Leicas, most of the new lines are made in cooperation with Panasonic. An M Leica is still an M Leica.

[lotech]

Instead of bashing Leica for … whatever plus price tag, you better get one and play with it to understand the feeling. M2 was released approximately 30 years before the Bessa - do you realize what you try to compare here? The cameras are quite OK, the glass is awesome. Read about Leica history and the original Leicas, most of the new lines are made in cooperation with Panasonic. An M Leica is still an M Leica.

It was electronics vs mechanical more than Leica vs other cameras of the same type, I did not surprise by the result, being working in the electronics field for so long time I can understand that. The same reason the Tesla will not survive an EMP attack, any vehicle running on fossil fuel with electronics control will also suffer, unless it was designed for battle use, and better stay away from the coil next time, you won't want any possible harm to the fragile human body ! Since it was 30yrs. ago there were almost nothing in the RF market other than Leica, and after 30yrs. of working and saving those started with Leica can afford and will still "live on" the Leica today. For those unfortunated human being like myself can barely afford an used M2 back then found alternatives today, "ergonomic" is one of the reasons I would invest on the Bessa, where I can still enjoy the excellent but over priced Leica optics if I wished to.

[arnold]

This camera below serves as my Leica, and is said to have been inspired by Leica. It is the very first Yashica rangefinder from the factory, and was produced in 1958. It is built like the proverbial tank and the rangefinder is prism based rather than mirror. The Yashinon lens owes no apologies to the more famous.

[IMG][/IMG]

[lotech]

This camera below serves as my Leica, and is said to have been inspired by Leica. It is the very first Yashica rangefinder from the factory, and was produced in 1958. It is built like the proverbial tank and the rangefinder is prism based rather than mirror. The Yashinon lens owes no apologies to the more famous.

[/url][/IMG]

There are few such look-alike cameras back then, the only thing missing was they are fixed lens so can't really compare with Leica.

[RobA_Oz]

One of the things that keep me with Pentax is their feel, including ergonomics as well as tactility, and the other is the optics (not how they look, although they’re mostly attractive machines to my eye, but the lenses). Having an instrument or machine that appeals to the senses is important to the user because they’ll use it more, and my Pentax cameras provide that for me. Others that I’ve tried, not so much.

My old Leica IIIf has, to me, the same sort of appeal. Some will say (as they do, who feel alienated by the in-affordability of some things) that a less costly equivalent is just as good or better, and if that’s truly the case for them, then more power to them, but there’s a lot of inverse snobbery when it comes to disparaging Leica. Not everyone, of course, but I reckon you can usually tell when that’s the case.

[AgentL]

The most important thing about Leica isn't the camera, it's the lens ecosystem. M mount lenses are some of the best optics in the world, in incredibly tiny form. With the fastest manual focus possible. Manually focusing an SLR is fine, but it happens at a quarter the speed of a rangefinder and a lens with a focus tab, when you're familiar with it. This means the lenses don't need to have any electronics, meaning they never break, nothing to fail, and no extra bulk. They are tiny, clockwork feeling marvels.

Now, that said, they are very expensive. I wanted to get into the M system via the more affordable Voigtlander lenses, but even they are not cheap at all beyond a couple of decent bargains. If you want to get into Voigtlander's best optics the price climbs back up there. I decided it's not for me at this point in life and finances, when the K1 Mark II offers the top of the line Pentax experience without compromises, and the are so many good Pentax lens options out there. One day I might revisit the M world.

[StiffLegged]

Instead of bashing Leica for … whatever plus price tag, you better get one and play with it to understand the feeling. M2 was released approximately 30 years before the Bessa - do you realize what you try to compare here? The cameras are quite OK, the glass is awesome.

I have played with Leica, and I fully understand how good the glass is, but the M system doesn’t suit what I do nor how I like to do it. A Linhof 5x4 would get me extraordinarily high quality results too but that wouldn’t suit me either. It’s horses for courses, not snobbery.

[eric1965]

Having used and still use the Leica M system for nearly 50 years.
Leica has always been expensive!
It is the only FF rangefinder in production (film and digital)
It is one of the rare cameras were the photographer is in full control as there is no auto-focus, until recently, only center weighted metering, AV or manual, no fancy gimmicks, less is more!
It was the de facto press camera until the mid-late 60ies when gradually the market moved to SLR cameras.
Leica M glass is excellent, and you can use most M lenses and m39 lenses as far as the early 30ies, although other players are catching up e.g. CV with their APO Lanthar VM mount.

You are limited to focal lengths between 28mm-135mm, unless you want to use R glass with an adapter and the EVF. Not very suitable for birding or when longer focal lengths are required.
Minimum focal distance is 0.7m and yes there is a macro lens with goggles or you can use the optional EVF with a close focus adapter.

One of the major assets is that it is a very compact FF camera for general photography work.
It is a fairly discreet camera compared to the modern DSLR cameras.
Is it worth the current pricing, you have to decide, go and rent one and see if it fits your use case.

You have to compare the move from rangefinder to (D)SLR as the current move from DSLR to EVF cameras.

Why do we like Pentax, because it is still the only camera company who actively develops optical pentaprism systems and we like seeing through an OVF.

There is a legacy of optics dating from the M42 period up until now which can be used, with some caveats, on current Pentax cameras.
Pentax glass is price quality wise excellent. A Pentax DSLR paired with the FA/DA Limited optics is still a fairly compact system, with a very nice rendering, at least for me.

[lesmore49]

I have a number of different camera brands and one of them, is a Leica rangefinder.

I bought mine in 1982. It is a llf (screw mount) with a Leitz Elmar collapsible, 50 mm F 3.5. The camera is of 1951 manufacture, the lens, well before that. Perhaps made in the '30's or '40's.

I've used it an awful lot in the more than 40 years I've had it. The leatherette is peeling off the body, there is a dent in the top, it's not pristine. The lens cap is off an old binocular of uncertain make and vintage.

I use my hand held light meters, all Sekonic, either my '60's L 86, or my more current L 398 Classic.

Focusing this old camera/lens even in very dim light is wonderfully easy...easier than any other manual focus system I've used. The pix are great. Very clear, great colour rendition...and there is something I can't describe in the pix....something extra. I can't explain it, but it is a certain Leica RF 'look'. I know it probably doesn't make any sense, but there it is.

I've run a lot of film through this old workhorse, over the decades...and given that it cost me about $ 330 CAD, back in '81, has required no repairs since I've had it...well that seems like a bargain to me.

Would I like a new Leica M11, with the Leica 35mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M lens. Sure, but at a little under 20 grand CAD, not likely unless I win the lottery.

Ergonomics...my old Elmar lens moves so smoothly, the focus engages so well...it is a pleasure to use it, every time I take it out.

I know my llf is sort of a Leica RF decontented model, no slower speeds, screw mount (I originally wanted an M3, couldn't afford it)....but all the Leica basics are there.

I'm a bit of a hot rodder...and back in the muscle car days of the '60's...we used to call, plain jane, stripper (little in the way of options) except for a big engine, and a manually shifter transmission (4 speed)....a sleeper.

My Leica llf and Leitz collapsible combo , I would say is a 'sleeper'. Nothing special to look at, a basic model...but even so, it makes surprising, crisp, sharp images....and it is lovely to feel how well all the controls work, given that the body has been around for over 70 years and the lens, longer than that.

I guess it has all the essential necessaries, nothing more, nothing less.

Somewhere in this long winded, personal assessment of my llf/Elmar....is my rationale of why this old, beat up rangefinder, works so darn well.

Well, that is my take on the Leica camera/ lenses....after 40 plus years of photography with this tough, little camera.