Why Is Leica So Expensive?

tkbslc wrote in post #9814459
I'd be surprised if anyone could really tell the difference between shots taken with a Bessa/Voigtlander kit vs a Leica kit. Quality rangefinders and primes are all quite good.

It's kind of like the Hasselblad vs Bronica debate. For most purposes people can't tell, but when the system is put to the test, the Hasselblad wins out. I think that Leica lenses are certainly in a class of their own and under some conditions (big enlargements, or high resolution requirement, or bokeh quality, or contrast), Leica's quality would show itself. But I do agree that for many shots one couldn't tell.

jetcode wrote in post #9815762
Scanning a 8x10 sheet of film at 1600 ppi produces a huge file and plenty of resolution. I have a 240mm Caltar that works great but is not quite as sharp as the Leica and Zeiss offerings in my DSLR kit.

If you take an 8x10 piece of sheet film, say Velvia, and cut out a 35mm section, it will be less detailed and less sharp than a 35mm Velvia slide (even if shot with a non-"elite" lens).

If you take a 35mm piece of film, or a "full frame" digital image and enlarge it to 8x10 inches, then it will be crushed in resolution by a native 8x10 image at capture size.

Simple optics, right? -- you need to enlarge the 35mm film roughly 8-fold to get an 8x10. So your 120 lp/mm Zeiss lens, which produced 120 lp/mm on the 35mm film, is now 15 lp/mm when enlarged to 8x10. Your 60 lp/mm Caltar is still 60 lp/mm at 8x10 because you haven't enlarged at all.

So if our measure is output / print resolution, then a 35mm will need to have 8-fold higher lens resolution than an 8x10 lens just to overcome the effect of enlargement.

DrPablo wrote in post #9828604
It's kind of like the Hasselblad vs Bronica debate. For most purposes people can't tell, but when the system is put to the test, the Hasselblad wins out. I think that Leica lenses are certainly in a class of their own and under some conditions (big enlargements, or high resolution requirement, or bokeh quality, or contrast), Leica's quality would show itself. But I do agree that for many shots one couldn't tell.


If you take an 8x10 piece of sheet film, say Velvia, and cut out a 35mm section, it will be less detailed and less sharp than a 35mm Velvia slide (even if shot with a non-"elite" lens).

If you take a 35mm piece of film, or a "full frame" digital image and enlarge it to 8x10 inches, then it will be crushed in resolution by a native 8x10 image at capture size.

Simple optics, right? -- you need to enlarge the 35mm film roughly 8-fold to get an 8x10. So your 120 lp/mm Zeiss lens, which produced 120 lp/mm on the 35mm film, is now 15 lp/mm when enlarged to 8x10. Your 60 lp/mm Caltar is still 60 lp/mm at 8x10 because you haven't enlarged at all.

So if our measure is output / print resolution, then a 35mm will need to have 8-fold higher lens resolution than an 8x10 lens just to overcome the effect of enlargement.

For me it always comes down to reliability. I've shot with Bronica, Mamiya both 645 and 6X7 and the blads are TANKS. I've found that hte Hasselblad to be more reliable than all the others. I dropped a 500 C/M back first on a marble floor from about 5 ft. Didn't have the quick release on the tripod full secured. Never made that mistake again. There was some paint chipped off the back and it was slightly bent but not enough for light leak and the camera and lens were both damage free. I once dropped a Bronica and the frames weren't advancing and I didn't know until I thought that this roll must be awfully long. All the images were piling up on one frame. I had to re-shoot the job so thats when I went Blad and I never regretted it. Leicas are tanks also and if I'm getting an M9 I'm also going to get that wonderful glass.

DrPablo wrote in post #9828604
So if our measure is output / print resolution, then a 35mm will need to have 8-fold higher lens resolution than an 8x10 lens just to overcome the effect of enlargement.

I normally print 5x7's. It would just seem sad to downsize my negatives for print.....

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9828796
For me it always comes down to reliability. I've shot with Bronica, Mamiya both 645 and 6X7 and the blads are TANKS. I've found that hte Hasselblad to be more reliable than all the others. I dropped a 500 C/M back first on a marble floor from about 5 ft. Didn't have the quick release on the tripod full secured. Never made that mistake again. There was some paint chipped off the back and it was slightly bent but not enough for light leak and the camera and lens were both damage free. I once dropped a Bronica and the frames weren't advancing and I didn't know until I thought that this roll must be awfully long. All the images were piling up on one frame. I had to re-shoot the job so thats when I went Blad and I never regretted it. Leicas are tanks also and if I'm getting an M9 I'm also going to get that wonderful glass.

I can attest to what you're saying, had the same thing happen with a Hasselblad back, it was bent but not broken. Many of the photographers I knew with other systems replaced them 3 or 4 times during the time I was using one Hasselblad system. It was regularly maintained but I never had to replace any part of it. Leicas are much the same although I can't say I ever dropped one to find out. One feature I liked about the Leica was the whisper quiet shutter, one reason it was so popular with street photographers.

What DrPablo had to say about resolution is so true, Japanese lenses had apparent sharpness due to image contrast, when enlarged that fell apart and the pure resolution of the Leica lenses was far better. He was right on the money regarding LF lenses as well, an extreme example I saw was when I enlarged a small portion of a glass plate from around 1912, the contact print of the plate looked sharp but when enlarged it looked like a fuzzy snowstorm. Naturally a glass plate from that era had more grain than modern film but to a lesser extent it was true with modern film, even a picture taken with a 121mm Super Angulon that was astoundingly sharp in a contact print looked like crap if a 24x36mm portion was enlarged.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9828796
For me it always comes down to reliability. I've shot with Bronica, Mamiya both 645 and 6X7 and the blads are TANKS... Leicas are tanks also and if I'm getting an M9 I'm also going to get that wonderful glass.

The blad is a tank, and it's a wonderful thing to use (and quite compact if you use a waist-level finder), but it comes down to optics in the end for me -- and the Hasselblad optics are as good as it gets.

tkbslc wrote in post #9828841
I normally print 5x7's. It would just seem sad to downsize my negatives for print.....

Heh, and it would be rough to try and find an 8x10 enlarger to optically print a 5x7!

breal101 wrote in post #9828984
an extreme example I saw was when I enlarged a small portion of a glass plate from around 1912, the contact print of the plate looked sharp but when enlarged it looked like a fuzzy snowstorm. Naturally a glass plate from that era had more grain than modern film but to a lesser extent it was true with modern film, even a picture taken with a 121mm Super Angulon that was astoundingly sharp in a contact print looked like crap if a 24x36mm portion was enlarged.

I've got a cool little Wollensak triple convertible lens, totally uncoated and uncorrected, built in 1919, which covers 8x10 with movements. It's probably a CRAPPY lens optically, but in an 8x10 contact print it will still outresolve anything in small format -- and it just looks cool

Here it is on 8x10 HP5+ -- you can see the little strands of spider webs coming off the head of the statue.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

1) Leica lost over 4 million euros last year. If anything, they aren't charging enough.

2) If I were an artist, the cost of my tools wouldn't matter. I would choose the tools that produced the art I wanted, and find a way to afford them. A Steinway is just another piano to you and me, but to a piano player who needs the Steinway sound, it is something that you pay big bucks for. There are musicians who have paid more for their instruments than they did for their houses.

3) I've never owned a Leica, and I've only handled one once. It is one heck of a nice tool. But I don't want one. It doesn't fit my needs. My art is entirely effable; adding a Leica will not make it ineffable, because that quality just isn't there to be brought out. But for a guy/gal with talent, the tool that amplifies that talent is the only option. If the artist decides that the tool is a Leica, and the photographs bear the fruit, then I won't disagree with the choice.

Guys I've been following this thread and just had to comment. I am amazed at how often someone is accused of "eliteism" just because you are passionate about something that is not mainstream. Kudos to you guys for keeping the thread sane.

Also, on topic, an associate just emailed me that he had bought a Leica D-Lux 4 -we travel a lot and he needs the portability. Just wondered what you guys thought of the Leica Digital Compact cameras. And this one in particular. How do they compare to the Canon/Nikon equivalents?

Mosca wrote in post #9835768
1) Leica lost over 4 million euros last year. If anything, they aren't charging enough.

2) If I were an artist, the cost of my tools wouldn't matter. I would choose the tools that produced the art I wanted, and find a way to afford them. A Steinway is just another piano to you and me, but to a piano player who needs the Steinway sound, it is something that you pay big bucks for. There are musicians who have paid more for their instruments than they did for their houses.

3) I've never owned a Leica, and I've only handled one once. It is one heck of a nice tool. But I don't want one. It doesn't fit my needs. My art is entirely effable; adding a Leica will not make it ineffable, because that quality just isn't there to be brought out. But for a guy/gal with talent, the tool that amplifies that talent is the only option. If the artist decides that the tool is a Leica, and the photographs bear the fruit, then I won't disagree with the choice.

Exactly. Well said.

Just to add to what you said, I had a D40 (same 105mm macro all the way) for several months when I first started shooting diamonds. As I progressed, I thought about upgrading to D90 because I just didn't feel that the D40's quality was high enough for my particular setup and work flow. Now, I'm trying to upgrade to AB800's and some other little things for a nice studio that I'm soon going to build in the garage. I'm one for going beyond the necessities quite often and find that it still works for me in the end. Whatever works for someone, let them do it I say.

I have had a couple of M3's over the years. Used them for wedding work. The shutters were super silent. I would get pictures during the cermony without the disruptive flip-flap of the slr mirror. Not to mention I could always whip it out at family functions and get great candids without people running or kids mugging. Honestly I'm thinking about getting a Pen or a DC2 to fill this role now.

sjones wrote in post #9816457
Yes, five years ago, a US$500 P&S would have been a pro-sumer model, like the Canon G-series. The fact of the matter is that most folks are relying on their camera-phone for shots, whereby even a US$250 P&S is, in comparison, a bit pricey.

No doubt. Plus, we have Facebook and the like today in which people can snap a few party pictures and automatically upload them (although I'm talking more of my generation, and not older ones).

People, obviously, will still buy more expensive/higher quality (depending on your wants/needs of a status symbol or nice camera because you're a good photographer), but camera phones are decent and even $200 P&Ses are nice. But neither compare to any modern SLR in terms of functionality.

holy smokes this thread is still going?

friz wrote in post #9838395
Not to mention I could always whip it out at family functions and get great candids without people running or kids mugging.

That's great to know

360° wrote in post #9843403
holy smokes this thread is still going?

LOL. You just had to make it keep going, didn't you?

I don't know how LARGE their R&D resources are, but they've been doing R&D since they produced their first cameras in 1909.... a bit longer than most of the other folks on the block. I guess they just have a lot of historical expertise then.

I had the opportunity to use part of a Leica collection back in 1971 when I was in school.... the collector had one of everything produced except for a couple of the models produced for the really bad guys in WWII. I "settled" for an M4; simply wonderful .

JEC wrote in post #9811709
Though I appreciate Leica's fine quality, I simply doubt they have the vast R&D resources that would outwiegh any other optics giants in the industry.......

sapearl wrote in post #9844079
I don't know how LARGE their R&D resources are, but they've been doing R&D since they produced their first cameras in 1909.... a bit longer than most of the other folks on the block. I guess they just have a lot of historical expertise then.

One just has to look into the company enough to see but you could say that yes, they were around longer so they don't even need as much money to know what they're doing. In a way, it's kind of like a veteran photographer that doesn't make much money but knows an unbelievable amount of stuff vs a noob with lots of money. The money will help but only so much