Hodinkee LE Leica

JPE.88305

lol i've never in my life seen an avg person using a $15,000 Leica (though plenty of $15,000 watches), I must not hang around the people with that kind of disposable income!

J88 NOG

Hello!

Trust it to be a non-watch related thread that prompts my first post...

Anyway, my thoughts on Leica, as a long-time user (but by no means an expert);

Firstly, you are probably not a million miles away from the mark with your Rolex analogy, but I'll come back to that.

Historically, the Leica 'M' system has a track record of making reliable mechanical tools for photographers in a small and inconspicuous form. The camera bodies (usually) took the form of a robust chunk of brass housing the intricate, entirely mechanical, shutter assembly and precise rangefinder focusing system. This combination of usability and precision could then be paired with the 'M' mount lenses, which in themselves were engineering marvels of a sort. These lenses were regarded as being exceptional in the way that they translated light into images and were often the 'fastest' (i.e. allowing the most amount of light into the camera and therefore letting a 'faster' shutter speed to be used). These are some of the factors that attracted prominent photographers throughout the 20th Century to use Leica cameras as tools of their trade. Indeed, some of the most iconic photographs ever taken (a bold statement, I know!) have been taken using Leica cameras. It is this professional following that I think has, over time, trickled down to make them an attractive option for the well-heeled enthusiast.

To make a kind of comparison (apologies in advance if this is blasphemous!) - the way that Newman is associated with the Daytona, Henri Cartier-Bresson can be associated with Leica cameras. I've resisted drawing parallels with the Speedy Pro because it would be better compared with the Hasselblad V-System (which went to, and stayed on the moon!).

Fast-forward to the turn of the Millennium and film is starting to be superseded by digital cameras. Leica have historically been conservative in their development of the 'M' system (see the M5 for an attempted departure) and the technology did not immediately lend itself towards a digital 'M'. I'd say that at this time the system was becoming a fairly niche product. However, as the technology allowed, Leica were able to release digital 'M' camera bodies, though these were bulky compared with the film bodies and often compromised in one way or another.

In recent years, they have been able to shoe-horn a decent-ish full-sized sensor into a small form factor which is similar to the original form of the film cameras. A few years ago, I took the plunge and added a digital 'M' to go along-side my film body from the early 90's.

A few notes on ownership;

Just about everything on a Leica M is manual, or at least that is the underlying ethos of using one (some of the newer ones have automated features). Using one is akin to driving a fully manual car without power steering or playing golf with a set of forged blades. Neither is going to be easy and neither is likely to get the best results most of the time. However, when you do get it right it feels great - and that is the way with a Leica M. I've missed hundreds of pictures when I've been faffing around with the shutter setting or not managing to nail the focus on time before the scene changes and the opportunity is gone. But some of my favorite pictures have been taken on a Leica, and it certainly adds something just to know that you did everything that went into making it come together as a picture. For that reason, as well as the fact that the camera is extremely tactile, I find 'M's a joy to use.

It's a bit like purposefully constraining yourself in order to make yourself work a bit harder at your photography. But it does seem a bit odd to pay more (as they are a chunk more expensive than an equivalent Nikon/Canon etc) to get less - the sensor within the camera isn't even as 'good' as the contemporary DSLR sensors. For me, I accepted at the time that the premium was worth it for the ability to use Leica lenses as well as the enjoyment of using the small form factor.

As time goes on, however, I get the feeling that Leica is heading away from its original ethos where they were expensive because they were handmade and bombproof. Their cameras are starting to seem to be more in-line with the rest of the marketplace, with the 'expense' being built on its brand strength and marketing. I was really disappointed to read an article from them recently, where they were in the 'Highlands of Scotland' looking at people who work on the land. Coincidentally, I live and work in the Highlands of Scotland and spend most of my time working on the land. I just felt that the whole marketing campaign was BS - a 'guest' photographer, the subjects of the photographs were dressed by a stylist in 'partnership' with Belstaff, so farmers were wearing £500 jackets to milk their cows, which is absurd. The whole struck me as style over substance and the article lacked integrity. I'm starting to feel that the same might be true of their own products, and this latest collaboration seems in line with a strategy that focuses more on the camera as an object, rather than the object of the camera (i.e. the images that it produces).

In saying that, I would be lying if I said that I didn't covet the fundamental design of the camera, in fact I love it! Though, for me it has to always be about the end product and to some extent how it has been produced. There's an irony that whilst writing this post an email has popped up on my phone, announcing the release of a new Leica lens (a Summilux 90mm f/1.5 ASPH for those interested) and I just know it is going to be stellar. And then you get to the price...

Apologies for the long post - just some thoughts and an attempt to answer your question.

Archer

Indeed it's a nice looking version of the camera, but for me not $15k nice...