[jtkratzer]

I've never handled a Leica camera, ever, but my complete lack of experience in the pro photographer realm beyond owing a few pieces of gear some pros use to pay the bills, I just can't comprehend what it is about Leica that commands $8,000 for a manual exposure, manual focus camera or over $20,000 for their medium format body.


I realize Pentax has a history of delivering high quality products, generally in a small-sized package, at pretty decent prices. Sure, the DA* zooms and some of their other lens pricing has been a bit weird to say the least over the last couple years, particularly the crazy sales, but is there something really that far above and beyond the rest of the photography brands from even Nikon and Canon that Leica just dominates in some area?


For the same reason I love shooting my LX or other 30-40 year old cameras, it would be nostalgic (can it be as I was born in the early 80s?) to shoot with a Leica from the 40s or 50s, but I can't see how, even if funds were unlimited beyond my wildest dreams, could I justify an $8,000 camera body that doesn't top the charts in every technological comparison?


I get the sports car thing - hundreds of thousands of dollars for essentially a street legal race/track car. I get the 7-8 figure yachts. Other than the name Leica, I don't get what puts their cameras at those price points. Is it just a grander scale of what Apple charges compared to the rest of the electronics world?


I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying one. I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing out on something that at some point in my life, should I have eight grand laying around, sell me on the idea of give those dollars up for a Leica.

[jogiba]

Conclusions

In our first impressions post on the M 240, we stated that we might not have a lot to add to our preliminary conclusions on the camera. We found it to be an exceptional piece of gear at that time, and we still feel the same way. Since we don’t really have much else to say, we’ll just repeat what we said in our first impressions post below. The only comment to add, maybe, is that we’d wish for a higher-resolution EVF, with better contrast and refresh rate. But that’s really it.

From our first impressions:

The Leica M Typ 240 breaks with tradition in several aspects. First of all, it is the first M-series Leica to ever offer a video mode. Secondly, thanks to its CMOS sensor, it supports live view and manual focusing with focus peaking, in addition to its inherited rangefinder focusing. And finally, it no longer sports a frame line illumination window, but rather opts for LED illuminated frame lines that come in two selectable colors.

All this might seem like blasphemy to the die-hard conservative Leica believer, but in fact it is the consequent modernization of a system that has a legacy which dates back to the middle of the previous century. The dedicated CMOS sensor makes as good use of Leica’s M-mount lenses as is currently possible, and delivers stunning images with lots of fine detail, superb clarity and amazing colors. In fact, the images have an almost film-like look to it thanks to the great dynamic range of the sensor.

Without the shadow of a doubt one can say that the M Typ 240 is the pinnacle of Leica’s rangefinder camera evolution, and most certainly one of the best digital cameras currently around. Granted, it’s way out of the financial range for most of us. But for those who are committed to the system and are ready to shell out the big $$$ for it, it will deliver the ultimate M-mount rangefinder experience.

Review: Leica M (Typ 240) - The Phoblographer

There are people on wall street that make a over a million $ an hour and pay $90 million for a condo on 57th Street so paying for this Leica would be like me or you paying fifty cents for a pack of gum.

[tele_pathic]

As an English professor making a paltry ~$55,000/year, would I buy a Leica M_____? No, I could not justify that cost. As the winner of a $300,000,000.00 powerball lotto winner, would I buy a Leica M____? You're gawd dam right I would.

With unlimited funds comes unlimited fun!

Would it be "better" than my K-5ii? No. Would it be "different"? Yes.

Watch Digital Rev's review of the Leica on youtube, and you'll see what I mean.

[stevebrot]

If you need to have answer, you obviously don't understand the question.


Steve

[jtkratzer]

Review: Leica M (Typ 240) - The Phoblographer

There are people on wall street that make a over a million $ an hour and pay $90 million for a condo on 57th Street so paying for this Leica would be like me or you paying fifty cents for a pack of gum.

I realize that and mentioned as much in my original post - what's the point other than it looks different? If I'm one of those guys that makes millions and demand the best of the best, this isn't it. To me, this camera screams of the hipster love affair with everything they love - Fuji X100 series, PBR, etc...nothing particularly special about it, but it bucks the norm of Nikon and Canon, it's not the popular craft and micro brews, etc.


Does it do anything spectacularly well that other cameras can't do that warrants the price tag? If it does, great. If it's because it says Leica on it and that's the only thing anyone can come up with, then pffff, I'll stick with Pentax and keep my $6,700.


If people make outrageous amounts of money and demand the best, I get that, but this $8,000 camera isn't the best by any standard other than digital manual focus rangefinder, and I'm guessing that isn't an incredibly high demand item.


All of the reasons people say Pentax shouldn't or couldn't financially justify the cost of a manual everything or only including aperture priority DSLR in the form factor of an MX or LX - most of them are examples of why this camera exists with an $8,000 price tag, and slapping Leica on it surely helps that cause.

As an English professor making a paltry ~$55,000/year, would I buy a Leica M_____? No, I could not justify that cost. As the winner of a $300,000,000.00 powerball lotto winner, would I buy a Leica M____? You're gawd dam right I would.

With unlimited funds comes unlimited fun!

Would it be "better" than my K-5ii? No. Would it be "different"? Yes.

Watch Digital Rev's review of the Leica on youtube, and you'll see what I mean.

I saw his review and he seemed kind of torn on it - nice images, something special about working with it, but the updated FOV lines in the viewfinder were a negative.


Niche, goofy almost, and specialty with low demand don't normally come with $8,000 stickers and when you add in the lenses, you're scratching at $20,000 to put 4-5 primes in a kit with this camera.

If you need to have answer, you obviously don't understand the question.

Steve

No need to get Big Lebowski or Tao of Steve over a camera. I'd rather have a film Leica than what they're offering in the digital lineup these days.

[jogiba]

I realize that and mentioned as much in my original post - what's the point other than it looks different?

Right, I would love to see you go up to someone with a Leica M and say that.

[jtkratzer]

Right, I would love to see you go up to someone with a Leica M and say that.

Why? Because it's eight grand? How many times do Pentaxians get asked, "What's the point? Who is Pentax? Are they still in business?"

It's not an attempt to be insulting, I genuinely don't understand the rationale. This isn't a poor man's sports/muscle car vs an exotic super car comparison. I don't see what the Leica offers to justify the price tag. I was hoping to have someone answer that question. Perhaps no one owns one and hangs around here with the poor folks or it's like many things with designer price tags - just another item with an expensive name.

[jogiba]

Why? Because it's eight grand? How many times do Pentaxians get asked, "What's the point? Who is Pentax? Are they still in business?"

It's not an attempt to be insulting, I genuinely don't understand the rationale. This isn't a poor man's sports/muscle car vs an exotic super car comparison. I don't see what the Leica offers to justify the price tag. I was hoping to have someone answer that question. Perhaps no one owns one and hangs around here with the poor folks or it's like many things with designer price tags - just another item with an expensive name.

Are you for real or what ? How long have you been in photography ?

[jtkratzer]

Are you for real or what ? How long have you been in photography ?

That's irrelevant - does it matter how long I've operated a camera to question the merits, capabilities, and specs of a camera made/model? I believe every single person does this the first time he buys his (or her) first and every subsequent camera - evaluate features, specs, PRICE??!?!?, etc.

The fact you're getting as condescending as you are without being able to answer any of the questions I've asked kind of proves my point. It doesn't matter how much money I make or how long I've been making photographs. If the Leica crowd can't tolerate being questioned why someone would spend $8,000 on a digital camera that isn't superior - technologically or otherwise, then that reinforces my point that there must be enough people out there with the income to buy things because of the name. Honestly, I could say the same about Rolex. Nice watch, but plenty of options out there to accurately keep time without that price tag. If there's a market for it, so be it, but I ask how people justify the price tag if they aren't getting the best of the best. Is it a matter of wanting to portray a look or income that you can afford it? If that's the case, fine, I just wanted to know if I'm missing out on something. Same with women and their designer handbags. Loads of options out there to carry your stuff around without paying thousands for some brand printed all over the side of it.

I said earlier if I was going to buy a Leica, it'd likely be a film camera. There are unique qualities and characteristics that make it interesting and fulfill a purpose. Tiny package with quality lenses - got it. There's something special about the LX and its metering system on which people justify spending that kind of money. I'm one of them. Same with my FA limited lenses. There are multiple factors more people out there who think it's insane to spend $1,000+ on a single camera lens. I don't get the Leica bit when it specifically comes to their digital cameras.

If those questions or challenges rub your feathers wrong, sorry, but as you haven't offered anything to inform me any more than I'm already uninformed, don't bother reading the thread. If you'd like to enlighten me on what I'm missing out, I'm all ears.

[SpecialK]

Why? Because it's eight grand? How many times do Pentaxians get asked, "What's the point? Who is Pentax? Are they still in business?"

It's not an attempt to be insulting, I genuinely don't understand the rationale. This isn't a poor man's sports/muscle car vs an exotic super car comparison. I don't see what the Leica offers to justify the price tag. I was hoping to have someone answer that question. Perhaps no one owns one and hangs around here with the poor folks or it's like many things with designer price tags - just another item with an expensive name.

I believe they have a very quiet shutter.

[reeftool]

I believe they have a very quiet shutter.

So does a cellphone.

[Byrd-2020]

That's irrelevant - does it matter how long I've operated a camera to question the merits, capabilities, and specs of a camera made/model? I believe every single person does this the first time he buys his (or her) first and every subsequent camera - evaluate features, specs, PRICE??!?!?, etc.

The fact you're getting as condescending as you are without being able to answer any of the questions I've asked kind of proves my point. It doesn't matter how much money I make or how long I've been making photographs. If the Leica crowd can't tolerate being questioned why someone would spend $8,000 on a digital camera that isn't superior - technologically or otherwise, then that reinforces my point that there must be enough people out there with the income to buy things because of the name. Honestly, I could say the same about Rolex. Nice watch, but plenty of options out there to accurately keep time without that price tag. If there's a market for it, so be it, but I ask how people justify the price tag if they aren't getting the best of the best. Is it a matter of wanting to portray a look or income that you can afford it? If that's the case, fine, I just wanted to know if I'm missing out on something. Same with women and their designer handbags. Loads of options out there to carry your stuff around without paying thousands for some brand printed all over the side of it.

I said earlier if I was going to buy a Leica, it'd likely be a film camera. There are unique qualities and characteristics that make it interesting and fulfill a purpose. Tiny package with quality lenses - got it. There's something special about the LX and its metering system on which people justify spending that kind of money. I'm one of them. Same with my FA limited lenses. There are multiple factors more people out there who think it's insane to spend $1,000+ on a single camera lens. I don't get the Leica bit when it specifically comes to their digital cameras.

If those questions or challenges rub your feathers wrong, sorry, but as you haven't offered anything to inform me any more than I'm already uninformed, don't bother reading the thread. If you'd like to enlighten me on what I'm missing out, I'm all ears.

I think most (though certainly not all) of the folks who purchase Leica digital cameras do so because they are already invested in Leica glass. And I suspect that most (though not all) still shoot some film. An M9 or M240 is for them he most logical way to utilize their (superb) lenses.

Leica shooters tend to be (though many are not) passionate about photography and committed to the "rangefinder experience". The outlay on photo gear seems to them not that extreme at all.

If you think this kind expenditure is irrational (at least for those of ordinary means) you might want to talk to the wife of a bass fisherman.

[maxxxx]

I've never handled a Leica camera, ever, but my complete lack of experience in the pro photographer realm beyond owing a few pieces of gear some pros use to pay the bills, I just can't comprehend what it is about Leica that commands $8,000 for a manual exposure, manual focus camera or over $20,000 for their medium format body.


I realize Pentax has a history of delivering high quality products, generally in a small-sized package, at pretty decent prices. Sure, the DA* zooms and some of their other lens pricing has been a bit weird to say the least over the last couple years, particularly the crazy sales, but is there something really that far above and beyond the rest of the photography brands from even Nikon and Canon that Leica just dominates in some area?


For the same reason I love shooting my LX or other 30-40 year old cameras, it would be nostalgic (can it be as I was born in the early 80s?) to shoot with a Leica from the 40s or 50s, but I can't see how, even if funds were unlimited beyond my wildest dreams, could I justify an $8,000 camera body that doesn't top the charts in every technological comparison?


I get the sports car thing - hundreds of thousands of dollars for essentially a street legal race/track car. I get the 7-8 figure yachts. Other than the name Leica, I don't get what puts their cameras at those price points. Is it just a grander scale of what Apple charges compared to the rest of the electronics world?


I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying one. I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing out on something that at some point in my life, should I have eight grand laying around, sell me on the idea of give those dollars up for a Leica.

I think it's like having a Rolex or another expensive watch. By most objective standards they are not that much better to justify the price. They just "feel" great and the buyers appreciate the workmanship. At least that's how I feel about my Rolex.

[SpecialK]

So does a cellphone.

Good point. I guess I should sell my gear - it's too loud.

[RobA_Oz]

The main thing with Leicas, it seems to me, is the quality of their lenses. You can talk all you like about the craftsmanship that goes into assembling, inspecting and testing each body by hand, but for a photographer, it's the image that counts, and most died-in-the-wool brand fanatics of less-expensive DSLRs will acknowledge the superb image-making potential of Leica lenses. People on comparatively humble incomes used to save for years to afford a film Leica, years ago, for just that reason. They still feel good in the hand, and to operate, and of course so do many other camera bodies, but the lenses are hard to beat. If you can afford a Leica, and want to produce the best images available in the 35FF format, why wouldn't you?