Anyone lucky enough to own a Leica camera, was it worth it?

Also, I am looking at the digital series, like the M8.

If you’re like me, there’s no such thing as a camera you can love till you die. The technology is ALWAYS getting better so that the best camera you can buy today will be outdated six months from now.

That is where I do think that I differ. Wooden 8×10 large format field cameras still produce mind-blowing images even though technology has certainly “surpassed” them.

Although the medium is digital, I want a camera that makes images I’m happy with; images that are not dependant on the latest technology to make them more valid.

I’m curious if anyone else has found this happy medium.

with leica, you are paying more for the name than anything else. if you can comfortably afford it, at that point it’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it or not

i understand that there are times a ‘name’ does not really indicate quality, but other times the 2 are almost synonymous.

so, @icky suggests that leica’s name outweighs its quality, therefore you are paying more for name than quality – not both.

has any photographer out there really fell in love with their camera system, or
are you constantly figuring out a way to get something better/newer?
this is what i want to avoid.

is it avoidable?

With me, it’s more like something “different”. I have a camera that fits in my pocket, another one with a lens that goes from zoom to wide angle, a video camera that takes stills, a 35 mm. film camera…they all are for different purposes. My next one might be an underwater model.

Although it’s possible to fall in permanent love with a film camera, when you’re talking about a digital, I can’t see how. It would be like falling in love with one computer forever (not talking about the brand, but the actual computer). The technology keeps getting better and better. Next year’s model will do things this year’s model couldn’t.

I’ve been coveting a Leica for awhile. I have a friend who has the M8 and another with the D-lux, and both absolutely love them. I’ve had a chance to play around with them and I’ve also seen the pictures they generate, which can be pretty stunning. There’s something about the way that capture light that really sets them apart from the rest.

In this case, I don’t think you’re paying for the name brand per se, although I’m sure that adds a lot to it. From what I’ve experienced the lens is well worth it, if you’re a serious photographer. Also, take a look at reviews like this – there are a lot of them out there!

@Quagmire – I completely understand what you are saying, and this certainly is how things tend to unfold. But, also, I think the concept of “falling in love with one computer forever” is really a charming, yet perhaps impossible, idea; esp in a digital world.

@figbash – Thank you, and excellent link. I will enjoy reading it.

Leica arguably makes the best optics in the world, and you will pay for that quality. The brand is synonymous with quality. But will you be able to tell the difference between a Leica lens and a Canon lens when used in the manner that you will be using the camera? Perhaps the Canon’s or Nikon’s controls will allow you to take better photos because of the way you interact with them. And you’ll be more likely able to afford a wider variety of Canon or Nikon lenses than Leica lenses, which will allow you to be more versatile. So, weigh the cost of the optics vs. handling, performance in your environments, versatility, and visible quality of your final images.

I don’t have a Leica (I wish), but I do have a simple Panasonic, point-and-shoot-for-idiots Lumix camera – which has a Leica lens. I’m an artist, and this is my “sketchbook” – the camera that’s always with me. The lens is fantastic.

I understand your love for trad cameras that stay with you “for life”: My cameras of choice are an old Graflex 4” x 5”, and a simple analog Hassleblad 501c.

Bearing these “prejudices” of mine in mind, and my “snapshot” experience with the Lumix, I say to you: If you can afford a Leica camera, go for it. I sincerely doubt you’ll regret it.

Oh my, a Leica! Wow. Well, I have a 1969 Pentax film camera and a small digial point and shoot Canon. I love them both. The Canon is so much more convenient, but nothing will ever beat film.

Absolutely – nothing beats film, and the old “wet process” of developing and printing (sigh).

@deni and @littlewesternwoman: Not dumping toxic chemicals down the drain beats it. And not hitting the end of the roll just as the action starts beats it. Seeing your results instantly beats it. The ability to alter the exposure of your RAW file after the fact beats it.

As for the quality of the final print? Digital is different, not better or worse. Each has its own characteristics. Like the difference between movies shot on video and film. You might prefer the look of a rich, full-value BW print, but digital prints can be just as lovely.

There is something to be said for the conventional processes, however. I think students learn more deeply when they are engaged with mechanical operations, chemical reactions between time and temperature, and so forth. Those skills engender cognitive process that can be transferred to other knowledge areas. I’m trying to think of ways that those aspects of conventional process can be brought over into the digital environment.

@simpleD Obviously you don’t dump toxic chemicals down the drain. There is a way that they are disposed of safely, and that is how the camera store I worked at got rid of them. It’s inconvenient maybe, but I’d say it’s worth it.

Yes, it’s nice to see the picture that you’ve taken right away, but taking a roll of film and anticipating what they will look like and being excited to see the end product and then finally seeing a great crisp image is not comparable to anything that happens with digital photos.

Don’t get me wrong, digital cameras are GREAT. I rarely use my film camera, because it IS inconvenient! But also because I have little experience with taking them myself and I often mess them up. It’s frustrating, but when they turn out good, I don’t think there’s a comparison.

@deni: I’ve found myself arguing both sides of the coin for years now. There are differences, similarities, pros and cons, and each has its place.

For years as a freelance darkroom technician I did, regrettably, dump chemicals down the drain. And still, today, hundreds of schools around the country do it too. There was no easy, affordable way to dispose of them otherwise. The regulated retail labs and universities are, thankfully, required to dispose of the toxins properly and reclaim the silver. High schools, small businesses and individuals are not. Digital is, arguably, much better for our health and the environment.

@simpleD Well, I suppose I took for granted the fact that we were able to dispose of the nasty chemicals the right way. I never did dark room stuff by myself, though I’d like to.

I guess film isn’t for everyone though, or most people really. But maybe its better that way, I think that makes you appreciate it more when you see it put to great use :)