Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

mrgooch wrote in post #14535061
Remember that Leica became famous in the 30's through the 50's. Rangefinder's ruled no SLR's yet

Again its a very different shooting experience than you get with a DSLR. There are real reasons why many of the great street shooters shot and still shoot with rangefinders and prefer them to DSLRs and SLRs.

I have two film RF and waiting for third one.
I want digital RF camera, would sell my 5Dc for it and most of EF lenses, but Leica is the only one who makes them now.
So the only reason why Leica is bloody expensive is obviously simple.
It is monopoly. Monopoly=high_price.

kf095 wrote in post #14535303
I have two film RF and waiting for third one.
I want digital RF camera, would sell my 5Dc for it and most of EF lenses, but Leica is the only one who makes them now.
So the only reason why Leica is bloody expensive is obviously simple.
It is monopoly. Monopoly=high_price.

Leica M used to be 3 times more than the top of the line pro Nikon and Canon cameras. Now they're about even....

At the time Canon F-1s were $500 the Leica M was $1500. So I would say the real increase is in the Nikons and Canons. over the years.

Q: Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?
A: Because enough people buy them.

Personally, I think they are nuts. Then again, I know there are people who think I'm nuts for buying the equipment I use. We all perceive value, based on our own personal traits, conditions and beliefs. Now if you will excuse me, I cant find my WATCH.

Like I said most people that are on a Canon forum that like all the stuff on their won't get Leica and that cool because most photographers that choose Leica do it for very different reason those that choose Canon do so. Like I said great to have choices.

One thing is even Leica digital M holds its resale value much better than anything Canon or Nikon produce.

joedlh wrote in post #14534539
Snob appeal. Pure and simple.

When was the last time you saw an iconic photograph in a medium known for excellence that was shot on a Leica and which could not have been duplicated on a Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc.?

Some people appreciate specialty items. Look at the Leica lenses. There is a nice youtube video showing the craftsmanship. A smaller camera has appeal for some, etc.

Snob appeal? For some sure, but that's not the only thing and not the reason for many. Some people can't appreciate something that's more expensive if there exists something that will do the same or close to the same job for less. To them the utility is the same, so why pay more. For others, it's the journey not the destination.

To your iconic photograph analogy...

When was the last time you saw someone on a sh!tfaced drunk from Dom Perignon which could not have been duplicated on Boone's, Mad Dog, or Night Train?

On a more serious note, a rangefinder can make certain photos easier because you essentially have a viewfinder that shows more than 100 percent of the frame. Not seeing the additional view, could make it hard to achieve some shots on a camera with a 100% or worse yet a 95% view finder.

Lot's of talented photographers still shoot Leica. Folks at Magnum and other top agencies, who could obviously shoot what they want.

Remember that Leica became famous in the 30's through the 50's. Rangefinder's ruled no SLR's yet


I still have a Kodak Retina III "large C", the last of the Kodak rangefinder folders made. I also have a full complement of lenses. At the time it was considered decent competition to the Leica. The interesting thing is it still works and about two years ago I entered an image (just for kicks) into a contest where you didn't need to specify the equipment used. The judges were amazed at the sharpness and detail; one initial comment was I must have spent considerable time in Photoshop. The crazy thing was it was Fuji ASA 200 film developed by the local CVS and made into a CD!

I think you are hard pressed to find a better camera than the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras. I dont care how good anyone percreives what the glass is, You print it on paper and no one will be able to tell what camera took the shots. The best camera i have ever used is my 1DMKIV. There is nothing i cant do with it and canon makes enough glass to keep me in the poor house for life. Pretty hard to beat an MKIV with a 35L for street work. I would imagine the new updated version 11 glass will rival anything any camera MFG puts out. Im took cheap to pop for the new 24L but on an MKIV it would rock the house for street work.

After working for 30 Yrs in the automotive industry i can tell you with 100% certanity, the most expensive cars on the market are not the best made automobiles. Mercedes, jaguar, rolls, bently, They are all crap when it come to technology and durability when compared to the top lines from Japan. Nothing better on the market. The reason i know this, i worked on all these lovely things. My own personal cars are Toyotas and Hondas and acuras. They dont break and you can get 200k on them before you have to be concerned. Try that with the perceived top of the line luxery cars,,,,not a chance in hell they get to 100K without breaking the bank. Most are a total POS when it comes to technolgy and reliability.

Marketing, its a wonderful thing. Leica knows this well. I will stick with canon.

its very simple

made for business
businessman at his meetings will not carry a camera as big as the 5DIII
LOoL
and he will never carry a small cheap compact camera
he is a businessman
his pen is made of gold LoOL

Leica are luxury items, pure and simple. They are built by hand by trained craftsmen, not factory workers. There is a guy inspecting every screw that holds together a Leica, sorting them between 'pass' and 'reject' piles while looking at them under a magnifying glass. True story. If you hold a Leica, feel the film wind, click the manual setting rings, you'll feel it.

I hate to make another car analogy in a thread full of sh!t car analogies, but it really is the Rolls Royce of the camera world. Hand built, no compromises.

DSLR's handle better, spit out more keeper photos, but you pay for it with their ubiquitous large black bulky ugliness. Shooting rangefinders I find is just a lot more satisfying. I only have fixed lens rangefinders, but I'm sure I'll own a Mamiya 7 or some Leica at some point.

That being said, there is no way I'd buy a digital Leica... spending 9K on a toy that will go obsolete? No thanks. A film Leica will never go obsolete, and that's how you should be shooting Leica. On film.

Here is my .02 cents.

I shoot both Canon cameras (1D3 and 5Dmk3) and a Leica M9 with 18,24,50 and 90mm lenses. I originally purchased the Leica as a very high quality travel camera as I could no longer stand carrying so much weight with my Canon on long trips not to mention the bulk. Learning to use manual focus quickly was one of the only downsides to using the camera in retrospect. I now find my self using the Leica far more than my Canon for day to day shooting and since it is so small and lightweight it is usually with me.

While what some have said here about higher ISO performance not being on par with the best of the Japanese cameras is true, much else is speculation by those who do not have both or have not used both.

The lenses Leica produces are not just slightly superior to Canon they are MUCH better. This is especially true at the very wide end where I am sorry to say Canon is not very good at all in comparison. My 16-35mk2 has a very thick layer of dust on it since getting the Leica. Now I would counter this by saying the current generation of Canon and Nikon bodies are superior to Leica bodies in many if not most ways except for simplicity and size. Unfortunately the Leica taught me quickly how much glass matters, garbage in to the sensor is garbage out of the sensor. Shooting a Leica lens wide open is a very different experience vs using Canon in the same manner.

If you are looking at cameras as a tool which is the only non emotional way to look at them, Leica is superior for pure image quality over anything Canon makes within the lens ranges Leica produces and up to about ISO 800 in my experience (if you are quick enough to get the shot . For very low light capability,autofocus and action/sports Canon is clearly the leader (not to even mention video). The other area Canon wins hands down is for long lenses (Leica stops at 135mm) and high fps shooting. I recently shot a wedding and brought both and the Leica only came out of the bag a few times due to the need to be fast moving and get every shot under a high stress shooting environment, this is where autofocus wins (at least with my Leica abilities).

Lastly I am not wealthy and I don't care if it is perceived as a luxury item by some, this is not why I spent the money. I appreciate the images I take with the Leica and it has made me a different and I would say better shooter because of being a prime only system and manual focus, I am far more contemplative as a photographer. There is also one very nice thing about Leica glass, it actually goes up in value over time so you only lose money on the bodies within a reasonable time span (5+years).

The answer as to why are they so expensive? Because they are made in Germany by hand with highly paid (vs asia) employees. The qualities and workmanship is second to none and people are willing to pay for it

Horses for courses. I love both of my camera systems for different applications and reasons.

Best,
Darrin

I would love to own a M6 (film) someday, but I will probably never find one that I could afford. Maybe a Fed 2 or Zorki 4K is in my future, they are a very cheap way of getting into the rangefinder/film world. A great way of getting Leica lens quality is to get a Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder with a M mount or LTM and a Leica lens.
...Terry

Have you seen the snazzy card board box that the M9 comes in? Totally puts Canon and Nikon to shame.

Sam6644 wrote in post #14533762
Superior craftsmanship.

Canon and Nikon are Japanese... like a Honda or Nissan.
Leica is Germany... like a Mercedes or BMW.

At the end of the day, they do pretty much the same thing, but anybody who tells you a Honda is made better than a Mercedes has never taken much of a look at a Mercedes.

Worth it? I guess. If it's what you're looking for that. I consider my Canons good enough, and better suited for what I do than a Leica. My Canons are also more disposable than a Leica. I'd care a lot less about where I parked a Nissan than a BMW.

Japanese vs Germany............
Lexus is built every bit as good as a Benz.
Goldwing is built every bit as good as a BMW.

for rich people the Leica
for poor people like me is the panasonic DMC-LX5