[Papa_Joe]

I do wonder a bit why the Leicas are praised for their compact size. I had a friend working at Leica in Wetzlar and she showed me her M6 - not her own, but the one given to her bei Leica to work with. I found it considerably more unwieldy then my chinon SLR with the Pentax 35/2.8 then. When I check the specs the Pentax MX is only higher then the M6 because it has a prism. And it is lighter. Beside the price that was the reason I never really thought of buying a Leica M - I just remember it as to heavy and bulky. Am I so wrong here with my recollection?

[martin42mm]

Leica is the best, simply because it's German, and what is German is unquestionably superior (even when it's not) . Same with Swarovski binocular in Austria, it's the best because it's made in Austria, and everyone's got a pair of Swarovski binos at the national park, even the tiny ones with 30mm aperture lens with which you can see nothing after sunset so dark it is.

Have you tried a pair of Swarovskis? I bought the little pocket 8x20's more than 30 years ago, and was staggered at how much light they did gather under exactly the circumstances you described-and I was comparing them against a pair of Optolyth 10x40's that are superb at dusk. And sorry, they're German as well....since then I have bought a second-hand pair of 7x42 Swarovskis that are quite superb, and better every pair of binoculars I have every tried, and I include EVERY make because I check everything I can lay my hands on , with the exception of my wife's Swarovski 8.5 x 42's.

Yes, I also have a pair of excellent Nikon Monarch's that are close to the Swarovski's in most departments, and far better value pound for pound. But I still wouldn't part with my Swaros.......

[AgentL]

I do wonder a bit why the Leicas are praised for their compact size. I had a friend working at Leica in Wetzlar and she showed me her M6 - not her own, but the one given to her bei Leica to work with. I found it considerably more unwieldy then my chinon SLR with the Pentax 35/2.8 then. When I check the specs the Pentax MX is only higher then the M6 because it has a prism. And it is lighter. Beside the price that was the reason I never really thought of buying a Leica M - I just remember it as to heavy and bulky. Am I so wrong here with my recollection?

Yeah, Leica bodies aren't all that small and light (though their form factor is perhaps more simple to manage into and out of coat pockets or bags), but the lenses are. And that makes a bigger difference as soon as you start carrying one or two extras. Pentax does have many small lenses, to their credit, but the overall size of the camera + lens is larger when the size and depth of the mirror box is taken into account. I think these are the main size advantages with the M ecosystem, but it is often oversimplified and repeated without any real knowledge by the denizens of the internet.

[martin42mm]

Yeah, Leica bodies aren't all that small and light (though their form factor is perhaps more simple to manage into and out of coat pockets or bags), but the lenses are. And that makes a bigger difference as soon as you start carrying one or two extras. Pentax does have many small lenses, to their credit, but the overall size of the camera + lens is larger when the size and depth of the mirror box is taken into account. I think these are the main size advantages with the M ecosystem, but it is often oversimplified and repeated without any real knowledge by the denizens of the internet.

My 1936 Leica 3 and collapsible Elmar are very pocketable, and quite light as well. But I wouldn't trade it for my K-S1 or my KP, although it is obviously well-engineered to still be going after the best part of 90 years. The KP and K-S1 produce photos that are light-years ahead of the Leica and it's trusty Elmar . I once owned a Leica 3 and loved the camera, but I still prefer an SLR/DSLR any day.

[Conrad Saya Reina]

I used a Leica M2 with a summicron lens. Both in mint condition. I took about 8000 photographs with it. Now I use a Nikon F2 with a 50mm 1.4 lens and an Olympus M1 with a 35-80 2.8 lens. Both cameras create photographs as sharp and crisp as the Leica. Japanese cameras before digital were as good as their German counterparts. The Japanese philosophy has always been to make something of top quality but which is affordable (although expensive) to the average person.

[Conrad Saya Reina]

Hi there,

I only played with one Leica the M2, it was super quiet and well made, but I would not have bought it if it wasn't heavily used and sold in affordable price, coz I don't think it worth so much when new, in comparison the Bessa R2M was more reasonably priced, and it had user friendly design at least the film loading. I am not anti-Leica, and I know one of the reasons Leica cost so must was hand made/assembly instead of mass produced by machine, and German optics are the best in the world, but Japanese made are not too far off these days. I don't know the changes in Leica after it switched digital as I did not follow, but I believe with the same lot of money I could get 2-3 sets of Japanese equivalent. I am a real photographer and will shoot with every piece of equipment I purchased, instead of to put them in the safe box most of the time like jewellery. I don't think modern Leica can live with rough use like the Pentax, I worked in a German electronic office equipment company when I was young, and I've seen too many of failure on the electronics part that uncommon to see in Japanese equivalent, and my Metz flash gun failed early while my Nissin one still ticking, I can say that German electronics are unreliable. I don't know if Leica produced the digital cameras all by itself or partner with Panasonic, but I would go for Japanese made instead of the Leica even if I won a lottery, sorry guys but I still respect Leica but it's not for me !

I used a Leica M2 with a summicron lens. Both in mint condition. I took about 8000 photographs with it. Now I use a Nikon F2 with a 50mm 1.4 lens and an Olympus M1 with a 35-80 2.8 lens. Both cameras create photographs as sharp and crisp as the Leica. Japanese cameras before digital were as good as their German counterparts. The Japanese philosophy has always been to make something of top quality but which is affordable (although expensive) to the average person. The photograph of the train station was taken with the Olympus and the photograph of the oil cars with a Leica. Both are of the same quality.

---------- Post added 07-26-22 at 09:34 PM ----------

I used a Leica M2 with a summicron lens. Both in mint condition. I took about 8000 photographs with it. Now I use a Nikon F2 with a 50mm 1.4 lens and an Olympus M1 with a 35-80 2.8 lens. Both cameras create photographs as sharp and crisp as the Leica. Japanese cameras before digital were as good as their German counterparts. The Japanese philosophy has always been to make something of top quality but which is affordable (although expensive) to the average person. The photograph of the train station was taken with the Olympus and the photograph of the oil cars with a Leica. Both are of the same quality.

[lotech]

I've been told long time ago the difference between Japanese and German optics, that Japanese made lenses super sharp just too sharp for human eyes, for example the Nikons, where German optics produced more pleasant images to the eyes with some sacrifice of sharpness. I am not sure about that, but I can tell the difference between my Pentax M 50mm/f2 and the Summicron equivalent, where the Leica one produced slightly warm tone with very little lost of sharpness than the Pentax. I also got the Pentacon 50mm/f2 and it produced very sharp but cool images quite unlike the Summicron, sorry I had very little time with the Leica I only recall from memory. I saw once the image taken with a Leica film P&S and it was jaw dropping, the skin tone was so real I can almost touch that, I rarely seen photos taken with other lenses produced such realistic image, so that I bought an used Summicon that I no longer have now adapted to my K3 via a conversion kit.

http://leitax.com/

I believe most people wanted the quality of the Leica lenses more than the body.

---

Last edited by lotech; 07-26-2022 at 10:40 PM.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, I also have a pair of excellent Nikon Monarch's that are close to the Swarovski's in most departments, and far better value pound for pound. But I still wouldn't part with my Swaros.......

Of course, what you describe is correct , or expected. The idea is generally to charge a premium price, position the products (Leica etc) as premium, and being a bit more rigorous on the engineering side of design & quality to justify the price point. But since I worked in Austria and Germany as an engineer, I've found that the superior quality is 90% in the mind, and maybe 10% real. Productivity yes, tends to be far higher in Germany/Austria compared to other parts of Europe, fortunately because wages are higher. About quality, I've seen better designed products, and sold cheaper, just not being a German / Austrian brand. The reputation is general , while actual quality is product specific. Some of the low-end German brand cars benefit from the reputation of the high-end, while they actually have only the brand name in common. And many times I've seen that for cost reasons, the products are designed and manufactured abroad (outside Germany , outside Austria) where the brand has subsidiaries, and the products are no better than anything else. The brand name reputation however plays a significant role on how the product is perceived by customers. The beliefs that product quality is national is an old cliché that was built long ago, but the world changed a lot in the last three decades from nationally centered business to globalized businesses without borders. We've seen how the global supply chain impacted so many of our products when China locked down due to Covid. I wonder how much in a Leica product is truly German nowadays, maybe not so much, and I even suspect the Leica glass basic material is from Hoya or Essilor.

[martin42mm]

Of course, what you describe is correct , or expected. The idea is generally to charge a premium price, position the products (Leica etc) as premium, and being a bit more rigorous on the engineering side of design & quality to justify the price point. But since I worked in Austria and Germany as an engineer, I've found that the superior quality is 90% in the mind, and maybe 10% real. Productivity yes, tends to be far higher in Germany/Austria compared to other parts of Europe, fortunately because wages are higher. About quality, I've seen better designed products, and sold cheaper, just not being a German / Austrian brand. The reputation is general , while actual quality is product specific. Some of the low-end German brand cars benefit from the reputation of the high-end, while they actually have only the brand name in common. And many times I've seen that for cost reasons, the products are designed and manufactured abroad (outside Germany , outside Austria) where the brand has subsidiaries, and the products are no better than anything else. The brand name reputation however plays a significant role on how the product is perceived by customers. The beliefs that product quality is national is an old cliché that was built long ago, but the world changed a lot in the last three decades from nationally centered business to globalized businesses without borders. We've seen how the global supply chain impacted so many of our products when China locked down due to Covid. I wonder how much in a Leica product is truly German nowadays, maybe not so much, and I even suspect the Leica glass basic material is from Hoya or Essilor.

I can see your point, and having an Austrian engineer friend I have known for more than 50 years, and who has worked both in the UK and back home in Austria in the same industry, I trust his take on their respective values and abilities. From his perpective the values of Austria are what took him back there again, and where he has been every since. Not that Austria is all plain sailing, but I am not going into politics with that one!

I remember when I bought my first Hondas back in the 1970's, and compared their engineering quality with that of friends BMWs at that time, it was obvious I had cars engineered to high standards that at least matched that brand, but at a significantly lower price tag . I wasn't paying for the label, just the engineering, and why I stayed with Honda for more than 45 years. Sadly they have somewhat lost the plot in the UK as to what customers want, although their engineering remains as good, and why I am now a Subaru customer!

But back to cameras and binoculars. In the case of my Swaroskis, the 8x 20s started to fog in one side after about 25 years of use, and were sent for free to Austria where they were repaired and returned with no charge, and remain as good as they ever were. Later, after I had used my secondhand 7x42s for 5 years they also suffered from the same fate. Again, despite being secondhand, they were repaired and refurbished for no cost including shipping to and from Austria. This even included a new rubber-armoured skin! And these were not first-owner binoculars, and I know of no other maker who would offer such service without any cost . Yes, you pay for the product initially, but the ability of the product AND the after sales service have definitely proved their worth.

Regarding Leica, my experiences with them in the UK have not been so positive from a repair point of view, with an unhelpful service department and less-than stellar abilities when they returned a lens which had rquired a replacement element ( something I could have done, but they insisted had to be done by them at inflated cost), only to discover it no longer focussed because someone had inserted the element upside down, and then failed to check the results of the repair! Not impressive service....but I cannot fault the engineering of their cameras and lenses I have serviced myself, although that experience is limited to the earlier mechanical models from the screw-thread era in the 1930's to the M3 and M4. However that engineering is no better than that of Pentax, and personally I prefer Pentax because it does not suffer from the snobbery that so often surrounds the Leica name and , sadly, some of the users. When you see a potential buyer of a second-hand Leitz lens reject it because it has ONE speck of dust in it makes you wonder....but it is horses for courses. There is a market for 'badge-engineering ' where people are sucked in to believing the advertising over the reality, and why British Leyland could sell tarted-up models of standard products at inflated prices simpy because they had 'Riley' or 'Vanden Plas' badges on them. It is when the badge and the engineering coincide that you get real brand loyalty.

---------- Post added 07-27-22 at 02:20 AM ----------

I've been told long time ago the difference between Japanese and German optics, that Japanese made lenses super sharp just too sharp for human eyes, for example the Nikons, where German optics produced more pleasant images to the eyes with some sacrifice of sharpness. I am not sure about that, but I can tell the difference between my Pentax M 50mm/f2 and the Summicron equivalent, where the Leica one produced slightly warm tone with very little lost of sharpness than the Pentax. I also got the Pentacon 50mm/f2 and it produced very sharp but cool images quite unlike the Summicron, sorry I had very little time with the Leica I only recall from memory. I saw once the image taken with a Leica film P&S and it was jaw dropping, the skin tone was so real I can almost touch that, I rarely seen photos taken with other lenses produced such realistic image, so that I bought an used Summicon that I no longer have now adapted to my K3 via a conversion kit.

Leica & Pentax & Nikon | Leitax

I believe most people wanted the quality of the Leica lenses more than the body.

You are correct about the different philosophies of Japanese and German lens designers. I have a booklet published by Leitz back in the 1960's where they actually lay out their reasons why they do NOT correct their lenses to the 'n'th degree but deliberately leave in aberrations they could design and manufacture out. Hence the reason why some people become wedded to the 'Leica look'., wheras others chase 'sharpness' as a goal at all costs. Personally I use lenses that give ME the pictorial quality I want, and sharpness is not at the top of that list to the exclusion of all others. As someone once said , the right lens is the one you have on your camera when you most need it!

[Papa_Joe]

Yeah, Leica bodies aren't all that small and light (though their form factor is perhaps more simple to manage into and out of coat pockets or bags), but the lenses are. And that makes a bigger difference as soon as you start carrying one or two extras. Pentax does have many small lenses, to their credit, but the overall size of the camera + lens is larger when the size and depth of the mirror box is taken into account. I think these are the main size advantages with the M ecosystem, but it is often oversimplified and repeated without any real knowledge by the denizens of the internet.

Thank you for the clarification!

[lotech]

I dare the OP to go and post his comments over on Rangefinder Forum

Why bother, I don't have a good working RF other than those Soviet copies, until then I would not ask over there "why not a Bessa" !

[zapp]

Erwin Puts parted with Leica…
These days Pentax DSLR is as conservative as Leicas M Series, less iconic, but very well proven technology thriving for perfection as a well made tool placed in your hand.

[mlag]

For the same reason as I don’t drive a Lambo or a RR ...

[termy]

"Why you want a Leica?"

Since when i want a Leica, any Leica?
pfffft.
Never wanted, never interested.

Gimme something like a FM2, FE2, Pentax LX. I WANT these.