Leica Cameras?

[pdxflint]

Lots of great info here thanks everyone!
I feel like I know Leica now haha

The S1's look awesome.

One last thing, do Leica DSLR's hold their value as well as the film. Say I bought a Leica S2 or Digilux in a few years could I expect not to loose much on it?

My thinking is the film cameras will hold their value better than the digital, because in digital, the technology keeps leaping ahead, in function and image quality (speaking mainly of the camera bodies.) Film is film, and if a camera was an incredible film shooting tool 25 years ago, as long as it's in good shape it won't have lost any of it's capabilities when compared with other film cameras of today as far as image quality goes.

Also, for collectors I think the mechanical nature of the film cameras are more desirable than electronic circuitboards, batteries and flashing lights/displays of the digital gear, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: PS: Knomad, thanks for the background on Leica - nice report... I enjoyed reading it.

 

[LERsince1991]

'Tis what I thought, digital isn't a collectable really... shame but reality, I wouldn't pay big bucks for an old technology except film as they are very well engineered cameras and the tech has not far moved on.

Ooh, one last thing; If a lens was made of a better material than glass, it would produce a 'better' image. Is there anything better than glass.
What about a crystal (diamond haha)... surely that would be better depending on the condition of the crystal but it would be better than glass? what about a compound of crystals and glass etc... They would probably have to alter the strength of the lens though (forgot the name of it, did it in physics, starts with a 'D')

Am I right?

 

[toxic]

Ooh, one last thing; If a lens was made of a better material than glass, it would produce a 'better' image. Is there anything better than glass.

glass just happens to let light through with minimal loss. anything that does the same can be fashioned into a lens - but is it strong enough, and is it worth the cost?

a "better" image is determined by nuances in the design and coatings, and it's still somewhat subjective. Leica, Zeiss, Contax, etc., all have their own "look," and different photographers prefer different manufacturers.

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, not to bring you down or anything but I find you ask a very odd question indeed.

Ooh, one last thing; If a lens was made of a better material than glass, it would produce a 'better' image. Is there anything better than glass.
What about a crystal (diamond haha)... surely that would be better depending on the condition of the crystal but it would be better than glass? what about a compound of crystals and glass etc... They would probably have to alter the strength of the lens though (forgot the name of it, did it in physics, starts with a 'D')

This what just confuses me, as far as I know, all lenses (at least the quality ones) are made from glass, so why do you come up with this question? Canon L lenses, Nikon FX lenses, Leica lenses and etc etc. is all already very good, so it's not necessary to use crystal or even diamond. Besides, judging from your questions, it seems you are like hoping a better camera and lens will give you better images?

 

[panoz7]

This what just confuses me, as far as I know, all lenses (at least the quality ones) are made from glass, so why do you come up with this question? Canon L lenses, Nikon FX lenses, Leica lenses and etc etc. is all already very good, so it's not necessary to use crystal or even diamond. Besides, judging from your questions, it seems you are like hoping a better camera and lens will give you better images?

Some canon lenses have Flourite elements which are grown from calcium flourite crystals. For more info check out this site.

I'm a fan of Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape... I've found his reviews to be pretty good and his predictions to generally be accurate. He recently posted his thoughts on the S2: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s2-pre.shtml

 

[LERsince1991]

Hmm, not to bring you down or anything but I find you ask a very odd question indeed.



This what just confuses me, as far as I know, all lenses (at least the quality ones) are made from glass, so why do you come up with this question? Canon L lenses, Nikon FX lenses, Leica lenses and etc etc. is all already very good, so it's not necessary to use crystal or even diamond. Besides, judging from your questions, it seems you are like hoping a better camera and lens will give you better images?

I probably do ask odd questions lol, its just cos I'm interested in experimenting, learning new things and generally seeking knowledge, just an idea I thought I might ask about.

 

[pdxflint]

@Panoz7: thanks for the link...

@LERsince1991: Keep on asking questions... better to be ignorant and curious than educated and closed-minded.

 

[wheelhot]

I probably do ask odd questions lol, its just cos I'm interested in experimenting, learning new things and generally seeking knowledge, just an idea I thought I might ask about.

Ah okay, thanks for telling. I do wonder how expensive it is if some part of the lens is made out of diamond Xd

Some canon lenses have Flourite elements which are grown from calcium flourite crystals. For more info check out this site.

Thanks, I am pretty bad with chemistry so I never knew flourite elements is not glass Xd, I though flourite elements was some kind of coating on top of the glass. Thanks for educating me Learning something new each day in the forums

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To the OP, great thread, well done and never be afraid to ask questions. I am thinking of buying a Leica DSLR (in my dreams) and switching from my Nikon F100 film (great camera, but a beast to lug around everywhere); Leica film cameras (second hand) are actually affordable, and I have also handled the M8, which is simply a beautifully designed camera. My very first camera was an ancient Minolta rangefinder, - a gift from a relative - which took exquisite photographs, but as Knomad (great and informative post, thanks for it) and others have pointed out, maybe not so useful for any sort of photography which requires a rapid response.

Cheers and good luck

 

[LERsince1991]

Thanks, its in my nature to ask ridiculous (out of the box lol) questions haha.

I said diamond as an extreme BUT if fusion power is ever made efficient then people might be able to use massive amounts of energy to man-make diamonds of any shape/size. Won't affect the cost of real diamonds but will make energy cheaper and more available.

Just a snippet of imaginary future physics for ya

Well I do know one thing for sure, 'when' I'm rich I'll get a Leica S4
Before this I thought Nikon was top

Cheers,
Luke

 

[Knomad]

Lots of great info here thanks everyone!


One last thing, do Leica DSLR's hold their value as well as the film. Say I bought a Leica S2 or Digilux in a few years could I expect not to loose much on it?

Not much data to base an answer on. Educated guess is that they won't do as well as the film classics, but will retain value better than most DSLRs because there will be a limited number available on the used market and because of the perception (and hopefully reality) of quality build. I wouldn't count on a Digilux holding a lot of value though, too entry level.

But the still rapid pace of technological advancement in digital cameras will mean there might always be something faster and better around the next corner.

Someone above said the M8 can be found used for around $3,000 US... not easily, though... while the brand new cost of the body is just under $4,000. So 25 percent. For comparison, my year-old D300 is currently worth about 35 percent less than I paid for it new, and in another year or two it will almost certainly be worth much less than that.

You can pretty much count on Leica lenses holding or even gaining value though. At least that's what they've always done to date. Every Leica lens I own is now worth considerably more than I paid for it.. although I did buy them all used.

 

[Knomad]

...maybe not so useful for any sort of photography which requires a rapid response.

The paradox of the Leica M is that it actually can be faster for one shot. But only if you practice, only with lots of experience, only when the camera becomes an extension of your hands. The trick is to zone focus, to be close, and then to use the rangefinder to to get the last bit of precision. Then the fact that you can see not only the image but what's around the frame allows really quick composition, almost faster than you can think about it. And of course rangefinders are best with normal to wide angle lenses, not as good with telephotos, anything over 90mm is hard to use.

But they aren't fast for the second shot. Really they're no match for a DSLR with a fast motor drive, for sustained use. The Leica M is good at taking one quick shot. The DSLR is better at taking two, or 10, or a hundred in a hurry. So it depends what you like to photograph, and how you like to work.

The S system should be faster, although not nearly as fast as a top-end Nikon or Canon. I don't think they're intending the S to be used to shoot sports, if you know what I mean. Other cameras are already very good at that for lower cost. The S is intended to do things those cameras can't do so well.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks for that considered response. Actually, I had forgotten what a rangefinder was like until I held (but briefly - oh so briefly) and used the Leica M8 recently; it is a few decades since I had my old, battered, and very sturdy Minolta rangefinder after which I switched to SLR. However, I remember its advantages (excellent lens, razor sharp photographs) and drawbacks - not so good for school sports day for example.

It was pointed out in an earlier post that rangefinders excelled at photographing people, and I agree. Some of the portraits from that time - even when I shot in black and white - were incredibly clear and sharp, and yes, you are right, backgrounds tended to come out exceptionally well. I remember a holiday in London as a teenager, and background shots of Tower Bridge, 10 Downing St (yes, the public used to be allowed right up to the steps of said building), the Tower of London, etc all came out superbly. Once again, thanks for an excellent, and informative thread.

Cheers and good luck

 

[Knomad]

Want to get a good close look at an S2? Hop on over to Paris on June 8-9:

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/forum-du-moyen-format/

And, there are examples of an actual fashion shoot posted on the Leica site:

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/robert-grischek/

which tells you what market they're after... that and the pro-level support described on a related page.

What's interesting, looking at the image of the photographer with the S2 in hand, is that it appears to be not a lot bigger than a Nikon D3, yet it has a 37MP sensor designed to compete head to head with the Hasselblad H series. So it's smaller and maybe lighter than the medium format digital competition, probably in a similar price range ($30K?), probably with a similar quality sensor, and with Leica glass... and note that they show more lenses in the picture than are identified in the text, so obviously they plan to grow the system.

Very interesting...

 

[wheelhot]

Yup, you got a point there, maybe the S2 is aim towards the studio or modeling market and not for those photographers who want a camera body that can do everything?

Dang, I should have tried a Leica M8 when I was at a photo convention