Tell me about Leica cameras. (i know nothing)

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5301935
Apples to Orangutans, compare a 5D or 1 series prices to a Leica digital of similar capabilities.. not to a film range finder.

No doubt. If I want to go through the painstaking process of all manual and film, I can bust out the Pentax that I got with a lens for $100. And I even overpaid.

cdifoto wrote in post #5301866
You're failing to distinguish between great photographers...and everyone else. Those guys are great because of what they did, not what they used to do it.

I'm not remotely suggesting that they were great because of the cameras they used, so please don't condescend to my intelligence. Christ…

My facetious response was directed at people who are, albeit equally facetiously, failing to delineate between Leica users who are great photographers and those who use the camera for brand appeal only…

A Leica is a Leica, it is hard for one to imagine what it really is without handling it for some time. They are excellent cameras and the optics are without peer. I am talking about the glass though, as they do not have AF or IS. It is unfortunate that they cost so much, because this somewhat limits their ownership to the wealthy, which accounts for the snobby reputation. It is refreshing to see some photographers here in NYC though who wander around with beat up Leicas - workhorses that you know are being used for what they are and not for their price tag.

Leica for the snob? It's the same for major brands, Canon included.

cdifoto wrote in post #5301866
You're failing to distinguish between great photographers...and everyone else. Those guys are great because of what they did, not what they used to do it.

And they used Leica because it match well with there vision. They were great photographers because of their vision and used the best tools for capturing their vision.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5302090
And they used Leica because it match well with there vision. They were great photographers because of their vision and used the best tools for capturing their vision.

Or maybe simply the fact that they are/were reliable.

They're tanks. They out live their owners...

And they are much better at the types of photography these photographers are and were doing than an SLR. Much less imposing and a whole lot faster. The shots done and he's on to the next one before the subject even realizes hes been photographed.

The problem with Leicas is that they have to be CLA'd every now and then. Other than that, the bodies are really solid and as airfrog said, like tanks. Years ago when I was a sceawny kid I signified interest in photography and wanted to use one of my dad's SLR's (he collected cameras back then). He handed me an old manual camera that I didn't like because it didn't have electronics. I learned about exposure by taping the ends of the film box at the back of the camera, which contained pictograms of the sunny 16 rule- my own little cheat sheet. Film was precious so I put a lot of thought into each picture I took. Though I yearned to use the other cameras that had aperture or shutter speed priority (back then it was either or), later I realized how valued that camera was, it was a Leica IIIG, precursor of the M series, and they had screw mount instead of bayonet. I still have that camera today, and it has been a while since I last used it. I have an M3 too which I bought years later, and recently I have been seriously considering the M8 but it is just too expensive and they have to iron out some kinks in the system.

I have and R5 camera, and a few lenses that I love to use on my EOS bodies. The lenses are just amazing for image quality, and the R5 is a lovely camera, with a bright viewfinder (much brighter then the 5D). In short: it's great stuff, and you can buy it used for much less then L lenses. Issue is that have to give up electronic aids, and not all are willing to do that.