I have shot with a M3 for well over 35 years.I have a M2 and a new M6.I have used many of the lenses in the Leica arsenal.My question is it really better,or are the photographers who use it better..I'm not being arrogant.Merely Devil's Advocate!I have old Pentax Spotmatic and Takumar lenses.It way outshoots my Leica stuff against the light.The leica lenses do give more "reality" and "roundness",but unless You make large prints,8x12' and up,whats the point?The cost is horrendous.I lost two lenses in a mugging. On thinking of cost of 35mm Summicron,hell no way!Most manufacturers these days pay you to take them away...My 90mm Tele Elmarit was sharp but my Super-Takumar 85mmf1.9 is sharper,clearer ,faster and is really the better lens!So if Pentax could do it all those years ago,what the heck is Leica doing.I like the size,the viewfinder. The price though is really not worth it....i want only those folks who have used or still use other makes to write answers.They must own a Leica as well.Dreamers not wanted.Only practical photographers need apply!

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002

Answers

I began using Olympus OM equipment in the early 70's (I still occasionally shoot the OM equipment when I need an SLR) and started using Leica R in the mid 80's. I began using medium format (Hasselblad) in the late 80's. I have gone to the rangefinder predominantly because I like the mechanical/manual 35mm system of high quality and small size. I can honestly say that the Leica equipment provides superior results to the other 35mm equipment of my experience over 30 years as a photographer. I do not shoot macro or long tele lenses, so the rangefinder is what I prefer. I am at a point in my life where I can afford Leica and am satisfied with the equipment and the results. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), February 12, 2002.

Jason, If you feel the need to ask that question after shooing Leica for "well over 35 years" and you need others to tell you whether you'd be better off with a Pentax, or something else... I think you've answered your own question.

This forum is filled with testimonials. Read them. But if, after 35 years, you need the "forum" to make up your own mind... you'd probably feel better with an other marque. Best of luck.

Lawrence

-- lawrence beck (stork@lawrencebeck.com), February 12, 2002.

Jason,

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have asked "Of what use is a baby?"

A child costs way more than a Leica. Maybe we all ought to save a whole lot of money and not have kids.

The pictures I have of my children, taken by my Konica FT1 Motor and 50mm f1.8 lens, are way more important than my leica stuff. The pictures are everything. My kids will never be young again. My wife took all the pictures then, and I'm very glad she did.

I'm a really crappy piano player. I love to play. I have a Steinway. My daughter has learned to play on that piano, at 15 years of age she plays beautifully. She has a skill for life. She could have done the same on an old beater piano that had been in someone's garage. It doesn't really matter, the piano we have is a great piano. My daughter's education is worth way more than the piano.

I'm a really crappy photographer. I love to take pictures with my Konica C35 rangefinder, and my Hexar RF with Leica lenses. One cost $20, the other a Kazillion dollars. I'm crappy with either, but I really enjoy it.

If you enjoy what you are doing with your tools, it's worth it. No reason to end up the richest guy in the cemetery.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 13, 2002.

If you are using Leica because it says Leica on the camera and lenses, then the answer is NO. I use Leica because I like viewing the world through a M viewfinder PERIOD. The lenses are great but I have no illusions about what makes good photographs.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), February 13, 2002.

When you're dead and gone, like all of us will be someday, are people going to hang the photos you took or the cameras you used on the wall? I don't think there's much question about that.

The most important photographs in my home are the photographs of the relatives, especially the ones who are long deceased. No-one knows or cares what camera they were taken with, just that they are there.

It goes beyond relatives though. Who cares what any photographer used if the photographs hit your heart (or your mind) in the way you want?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 13, 2002.

Jason, a partial answer to your question is that Pentax made some incredibly fine equipment way back then; imho the lenses were often in the league of concurrent Leica lenses and those old Spotmatic bodies were very, very good. But performance at the time certainly isn't the whole story; as you note you've been using an M3 for over 35 years and I'm not the least surprised that the old Pentax gear has held up well.

None of these things were cheap back then; for a relatively correct cost comparison you must consider the Spotmatic in terms of a current top-of-the-line body, which is what it was at the time, and consider the cost of, say, an RTS III, F5 etc and comparable top-of-the-line lenses and you may find that it would cost as much if not more than current Leica gear.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), February 13, 2002.

I'm a true beleiver in the assumption that it's the photographer, but those M lenses are damn sharp anyway.

-- Thomas Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), February 13, 2002.

It's about you....not the tools!If you could only use one camera and one lens for the rest of your life which would it be? My choice would either be a Rollie twin lens or an M6 w/DR 50mm.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), February 13, 2002.

Personally I think Leica makes all the difference. It goes beyond performace. The performace is all there. Personally to me being able to go to 8X12 and beyond is important.

I have an image taken with a Minolta and one with a Leica. Both were handheld. Both were 50mm f2.0. Both considered to be good lenses. The image was taken of a B-17 Bombers landing gear. In the abstract image there was a part with FINE writing on it, about 4pts. In the Leica image the writing is completely legible and extremely sharp.In the Minolta image the writing is illegible. Now is writing on the part within the image important, NO. But it shows that things can be done with a Leica that cannot be done with other lenses, and vice-versa.

A lot of images that I see in magizines these days are VERY cold, hard looking images. They lack ANY finesse! They are of people, hard, cold, rundown looking people. The focus is almost always intentionally out of focus. I must say the mere sight of these types of images (the type I have tried to explain and have clearly in my head at this moment) cause very disturbing feelings. These images can clearly be achieved by any ordinary camera, as well as a Leica. But the qualitIES of a Leica, well simply inspires me. I am sure that some images that insprie me cause disgust in other.

Basically I think this is a question that should have been asked in another forum. If you like Pentax better that Leica GREAT. I am glad. If you like Pentax better then you should use it...no sarcasm intended. It just seems like you are in a Leica Forum tring to beat Leica up. I thank..."What's the point". If I have misunderstood...My appologies.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), February 13, 2002.

When you say your Super-Takumar 85mmF1.9 is sharper than your 90mm TE 2.8, we presume that you have checked that the TE is focusing correctly with your M bodies and that you have shot the same flat subject with both cameras on tripod and at the same time on the same film at f2.8 and f5.6, at 1.5m and 10m and 50m, and viewed the low speed neg or tranny film with at least x20 magnifier at both centre and edge of film.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), February 13, 2002.

Only the finished product matters, some say. But does it? If clothes were only about keeping the elements off, why don't we all wear plastic throwaway ones (not see-through though - well, only for some). And if plates were just for eating off, why not use throwaway plates? Or have disposable houses? And so on. Old Pentaxes aren't throwaway of course, they're great. But I still don't think there is ANY camera that competes with Leica in all criteria. It's all a matter of priorities.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), February 13, 2002.

Jason:

There is no rational end to this thread.

Like Harley Davidson Motorcycles, Rolex watches and Chateau Margaux wine, the magic ingredient that sells it is in the customer, not the product. I started taking pictures in 1964 with a third hand Practica and Tessar lens: Wish I still had it. I progressed (??) thru Nikons and still have a bunch, as well as Konica Hexars, a Rollei, 8x10 and 4x5s and a Coolpix 950. They all take excellent pictures if I do what I am supposed to do.

The reason I will still have a Leica on my last day is the mystique of the "Quality" and the history behind it. I am "gearhead" and like precision machinery, like 1970 homemade Rogers LS35a speakers, a 1900 vintage Knopf French Horn that was played in an orchestra conducted by Mahler and Richard Strauss, etc etc.

I understand how guys can cruise around in a 1959 Cadillac ragtop when there are new Volvo S80s, and Ford Taurus SHOs around.

The connection to these things is emotional. Some philosophers may say that attachment to things is a substititue for connections with friends: so be it. I still have family and frinds but these "things" are what, for me, help make the diference between living and LIVING.

Sound rational? I hope not. I am just very grateful that in this world I have the few extra bucks to afford a Leica.

If it feels good, and doesn't hurt anyone else, do it!!! Thread this to end rational, no is there. Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

(Okay, okay, I've already said this once before). Take an outstanding pianist and get him to play an instrument I wouldn't even want to own if somebody gave it to me free. He could still create beautiful music which I'd never be able to create even from the most expensive instrument I'd have bought with all my life's hobby money.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 13, 2002.

The vast majority on this forum say they use Leica for the lenses - for me this is not true, I absolutely adore using the M bodies, the ergonomics, feel and way of working is such a pleasure.

Many report being 'blown away' by Leica glass, sorry but I have not experienced this - the lenses are a pleasure to use and give good results, but I have never noticed a real superiority over good Canon or Nikon glass.

What did blow me away was an envelope of prints taken by my father in the 60's with his Super Ikonta (2.8 Tessar) and given to me yesterday - the sharpness, Bokeh and 'life' in the beautiful backlit prints is truly amazing.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 13, 2002.

The only answer to your question is to use what you are most comfortable with. BUT don't confuse contrast with sharpness.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), February 13, 2002.

I have done a personal, non-scientific comparison of the Nikon 85/1.8 AFlens, the Contax 90/2.8 G lens and the Leica 90/2.0 Apo lens on the same (distant) subject. The leica lens is, in my opinion, better than either than the others by a large margin. I am not a Leica fanatic, but I have owned practically all of the name brand cameras and lots of lenses, and I am convinced. Value for money is quite another thing, depending on how large your prints are. Why not go to 14 x 11 and see?

-- wayne murphy (wmurphy@powerup.com.au), February 13, 2002.

although my m6 is the only camera i use at the moment, i still consider my pentax mx the best camera. it is such a perfect allrounder. small, very reliable, highly ergonomic and very good quality. i have the m6 for a few months now. i would never be able to afford that system by myself, it was a very generous present.

i wasn't able to produce much better pictures with it yet, but i am not expecting it. (just by the price they would have to be at least 20 times better!) it is just a very different way to photograph. i really like the styling of it. it is one of the best industrial design i know of. it is a pleasure to cradle it.

i still don't like the way some people stare at you and your leica. it is often said, that a leica is seen as a cheap old camera and therefore unconspicious. i don't think so. enough people know. it is probably the same thing when i feel uncomfortable in a very expensive car. i don't like to be judged by that.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

Over the year I have owned complete Nikon and Olympus SLR systems. Now I own Leica rangefinder and SLR. Are my images any better? Technically not a whole lot. Asthetically - much. My 'Cafe Culture' series, two years spent in cafes and taverns, shooting on the 'sly' (don't hang me - these were all for exhibition and afterwords model releases were obtainted), un-noticed most of the time, shooting at 1/15 wide open. Could not have got the same shots with anything other than a rangefinder. The Nikon could have done the work - on a tripod - not really!! Bags of available light portraiture - natural settings, moods, all wide open at slow speeds - had to be handheld for spontaneous look. Again rangefinder or nothing. Lots of scenics and such that could be made with anything. As to the price, only you can make the decision. A brand new high end Nissan will dance around a Ferrari Boxer at 1/4 the price. If you're not the kind of person who sees the value of the old-world craftsmanship of the Ferrari, you'd probably be best off with your Pentax outfit.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

Jason,

Your argument shows up here every few weeks really and you do have a point. the Leica glass is good, very good, but they are not the only game in town. I own a M6 with 50 cron, a F100 with a complete array of zooms and primes and a Hasselblad with a 80mm planar. All take fantastic pictures but none have the balance of features that the Leica has and thus it's my preferred tool.

If you add it all up then it quite impressive. Small size, light weight, solid construction, silent, excellent glass, low shutterspeed handheld, cheapo look to the unkown. That total package is what you pay for. If you only take out the quality aspect you are making a one dimensional comparison, that could be very valid if the other characteristics are not important to you. If they are then I really don't know of any serious competitor other then the Voigtlander at this point. But that camera has only come to the scene recently.

I also don't agree to the fact that the Leica quality only comes accross on large prints. I have some 5 x 7 prints where the Leica print is very distinctive and beautifull. But I do agree that that only happens with some semi-backlight situations that don't occur often. If it does the Leica rewards you with a 3 dimensional look that it just awesome....

Regards Bas

-- Bas Wip (bas@baswip.com), February 13, 2002.

I think it is important and admirable that there exists manufactures who makes products which is maginally better or different from other manufactures. We may not all be able to see, afford, appreciate these differences -but luckily we can go elsewere to fulfill our needs.
Sometimes I too becomes fustrated over the price level of Leica products (especially when they charge 8 times as Nikon for a rubber ocular or when they put their name on a B+W filter and charge twice as much).
M users, like I, can handhold at 1/15, but we could also choose to push our film 2 stops and use a SLR.
Using Leica M is not essential for my type of photography, but I appreciate some of -what I consider- the finer points of the camera.
I can do with only one lens and one body, so I can afford it. If needed a full system I would be using another brand, and be just as happy (almost).

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 13, 2002.

but unless You make large prints,8x12' and up,whats the point?

I need a pocketable camera that will give me the best possible results with my standard 20"x30" full frame enlargements. Nuff said.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

I just had a ten days trip to Myanmar last month. And I shoot some 115 rolls of RVP, which cost me some US$820 for the films. I carried two M6/TTL and four lenses. Your remark "The price though is really not worth it". I think it does apply to those who just owned Leica but doesn't use it more frequehtly enough. The cost of Leica is OK, if you use it a lot. Actually, the films cost more than you can imagine, especially with some 35 years of history. It really makes little differentce whether you own a leica or Pentax, if you shoot many many films for such a long period. The price of Leica will have no comparison to the price of films, unless you don't shoot often and just for the pleasure of owning it. Of course, quilty is another issue, which I think people in the forum knows the answer.

-- VC (dds155@ms8.hinet.net), February 13, 2002.

Jason

I think you are wrong about the lenses. Many of us come from other cameras and have made the switch because of the demonstrably superior performance of the lenses. Other manufacturers make excellent products too, including Pentax, but I am highly sceptical about your claim that your Pentax lenses are in any real sense "better". Is the Leica difference detectable? Not always, but usually. Does this difference matter? To me it does, but to others it may not. I think you might as well sell the Leica, quite honestly. There is a little more to it (mystique, ergonomics), but if I really thought that spending all this money was a waste of time, I would sell up. It might still happen for me, but not yet. I love the results I get, but I don't love Leica per se.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Jason,

If my M4p was named NIKON or MINOLTA, I would still use it. Get my point?

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Would questions like these even arise if Leicas were priced differently? Would you have to ask, "Is it worth it?" if you could pick up an M outfit for about $1,000?

Would the rhapsodies about "magic" and the unquantifiable characteristics of Leica glass disappear if you could pick up THE EXACT SAME LENS for $300?

If it is really a cost-analysis issue, only the buyer can answer.

Really, it doesn't matter how much the stuff costs. If you like what it delivers, great. If you get similar (or even superior) results with different equipment, more power to you.

You (we) are able to deploy more high-technology, well-crafted, quality-controlled, precision photographic equipment in front of our noses than any other generation in history--from start to finish (body, lens, metering system, film, developing, printing, archiving). And most of us, thanks to the strength of the dollar, the mark, and yen--and our culture of debt-management--can acquire this equipment with comparatively little sacrifice.

It's only "worth it" if you enjoy the process and the result. No one asks the cost questions anymore about computers, automobiles, broadband Internet access, diamond engagement rings, professional football tickets, dress shoes, and steak dinners. They are all overpriced, yet we happily pay because we believe that such items are necessary or important, at least from time to time.

Why so much buyer's guilt when it comes to the Big "L"?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 13, 2002.

Virginia, February, 2002

Many of us come from other cameras and have made the switch because of the demonstrably superior performance of the lenses.

Unquestionably! Witness the above photo made with the 90mm Summicron-R. There is no other lens that will give me the feeling of roundness, of depth, the sheer lifelike quality of that lens. For me, it is reason enough to own the camera.

-- p (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 13, 2002.

Hmn, interesting thread here. I am a gearhead, no doubt about it! Will I own a Porsche boxster in the near future? Yes! Can a Mazda Miata deliver similar thrills for quite a bit less? Yes! But, for me, part of the passion for driving a sports car is in the subtle nuances, and not so subtle nuances, of the car. Anyway, the same goes for camera equipment. I enjoy the feeling a Leica imparts while operating it. I like the looks of it. And I appreciate its lasting quality and images it allows. I'm not saying it takes the photos for me, but when I do take one, I know it maximizes the image on its end.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Somehow this is related to the question... here's how someone has solved the radioactivity problem in his old Pentax lens:

http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html

I don't endorse this kind of repair, but can you imagine "fixing" an old Leica lens this way? I can't.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), February 13, 2002.

I use an M for the simplicity of it. I to have MANY pages of negs with shots taken with my old Pentax MX and 50/1.7 lens that in some ways are better "photographs" than stuff I've taken with my M6 and 50 Summicron.

As always, "Any tool in skilled hands will yield acceptable results."

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

I read this somewhere and wish I could attribute it, but for me it sums up the equipment thing very nicely:

Would you ask (fill in the name of a famous paiter here) what paint brush he uses? Would it matter?

But get a group of painters together and there would be passionate debate over which paint brush is best.

Or writers about pens, athletes about shoes, musicians about instruments, etc.

Maybe it does not matter what someone uses to achieve their artistic expression. But when you combine the talent of a great pianist, for example, with the artistry of a great piano maker, can anyone deny the sum may be greater than the parts?

This could be a discussion of Ferrari v. Porsche v. BMW. The driver, the course, and the crew matter, too. But so does the car, no?

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 13, 2002.

But get a group of painters together and there would be passionate debate over which paint brush is best.

I grew up around painters, I hang out with painters, I was once married to one.

I never once heard a "passionate debate (about) best". The discussion is always about what one finds works for what they are doing. I have known painters who have used dollar brushes because they like the effect and ones who spend lots of time looking for that one particular brush that does things exactly the way they want.

If you are serious about photography, "best" is far less important than getting what you want out of an image. My own favorite images come from my pinhole camera. It's certainly the "best" for the look I want. Unfortunately I can't use it in lots of situations, but the truth is that a Leica (or any other camera except my Zero 2000) will never give me the look I like most in my images.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 13, 2002.

the only people who sit here and type stuff like "There is a Leica look" are oldies that haven't used anything new in over 20 years. realistically, compared to a good lens like say a Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4, no one can look at that and tell me it doesn't have a "round look!"

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Over this last year and a half I have used a Holga, Contax G, Leica M, Voigtlander Bessa, Nikon slrs and an XPAN, as well a handful of point & shoots. They are all great in their own way.

Is anyone worth more than the other? Not really. But if you enjoy it and don't put a price tag on it, then it's worth it to you.

The main advantage of a rangefinder for me is size...an slr for versatility...a Holga and XPAN for uniqueness. The thing that they all have in common is that it's still up to the user to capture an image.

Aside from that, one lens I have that makes me do a doubletake is that 45/2 Zeiss Planar for the G system...absolutely stunning.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 13, 2002.

Jason, In case you are not completely overwhelmed with the responses to your post; I just got the latest newsletter from Erwin Puts and thought I'd recommend it you to it. I think his analysis creates a good basis for comparison. As Germans aptly put it some 60 years ago: "jedem das seine" I could not express it better than they did. Thanks, Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

These same discussions come up often in the Medium Fortmat Photo.net site. There it is the Zeiss versus Pentax, Mamiya, & Bronica threads, and everone has an opinion. What I find interesting about these "Better" posts are the following: 1) The false assumption that a "better" lens/camera will make you a better photographer. 2) Along the same line, the idea that the best shots you ever took in your life with camera X Y or Z would have been significantly better if you had used camera H or L. 3) Assumptions that anyone who disagrees that one particular camera/lens brand is obviously superior just doesn't have the trained eye required to see the difference. 4) forgetting that cameras are tools of photography, (even though to me there isn't anything "wrong" in enjoying the equipment as well as the outcome of using it).

If you like the Pentax, use the Pentax. If you like Nikon use Nikon, if like me, you like Nikon and Leica, use them both if you are able to.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 13, 2002.

For me, I think it is worth it.

I have found the Leica lenses create sharper and somehow more vivid images than the same images shot with other cameras. I have no scientific data to tell me why that appears to be so.

I've shot Olympus (an OM 1), Nikon, Exacta, Hasselblad XPan and Rollei 35. The cameras that come closest to the image quality of my Leica are my old Rollei 35 and the Hasselblad XPan. Maybe there's something about the discipline of manual controls - maybe not. I have been very surprised by the sharpness of some of the images from my M6 TTL + 35mm Summilux that I thought might at best be marginal. Low-light, hand-held shots at 1/15 and 1/30 when enlarged are very sharp. I can only attribute that to less camera shake because of the very smooth mechanical release and shutter mechanisms.

I've also found that most people who realize I'm taking a shot with them in it figure the camera is not working or is a clunker because there's no double-flash for red-eye reduction and no low volume whirring of a lens zoom etc. They seem to relax and just get on with what they are doing.

All in all, I'm real happy with the results and the M6 TTL body itself is a solid piece of engineering and ergonmics that is difficult to find anywhere these days. I was in MicroCenter this afternoon and there is no comparison at all between what the M6 TTL and its lenses offer and the Woolworths-like quality of many of the point-and-shoot digitals. Their cramped controls and tiny viewfinders for me make many of the digital cameras (not the D1X or the Canon EOS 1D) a waste of money.

Certainly I find the images to be generally superior to those that I can get from my Hasselblad XPan. I think the lens quality is really the difference here plus the much faster lens of the f1.4 35mm Summilux vs the f4 45mm Hasselblad XPan.

Phil Allsopp

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@attbi.com), February 13, 2002.

I saw a nice, aesthetically done photo of Martha's Vinyard, taken for recreational hobby purposes with a Pentax, by a photographer who took news and human interest stuff for a living with a Leica. The photo was by Alfred Eisenstadt. He used a Pentax for his pictorial hobby work.

There is a saying: "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." I'm a fair-to-middling amateur cabinetmaker. I like my tools to be a little better than I am, so I can be sure it's not the tool that's limiting me. I say, "It's a poor craftsman who fails to recognize that his tools are nor equal to the job." If you can't cut a straight line with a saw that has improperly set teeth, it's only your fault if you don't know there's something wrong with the saw.

My M2 saw little use while I used my Nikons for 10 years. But when I went to Colorado each year to take landscapes, the M2 with 35mm Summicron went along with the Nikons, because I knew nothing could equal the results I got with that lens.

When I bought an R4 and took it out with its 50 Summicron, I was blown away with the color.

I have no complaints with the results from shooting my FE2. I think of it as "old faithful." Hardly ever a bad exposure. The 24mm Nikkor, 28mm Nikkor, 35mm shift lens . . . all very fine.

Erwin Puts says the 24mm R lens is no better than the 24mm Nikkor.

I like the feel of the Leica M in my hands better than my Nikons or Hasselblad.

I like to shoot with my Hasselblad anyhow.

"The price is not really worth it."

If he wants to use a Leica, Jason Gold is worth it.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 13, 2002.

For me, I think it is worth it... I have found the Leica lenses create sharper and somehow more vivid images than the same images shot with other cameras.

Let's try this again. Let's assume that this statement is true.

These are technical qualities. They don't make your pictures any better or worse than other technical qualities. If you use these characteristics for specific effects in your images, then they are useful for you.

That doesn't make the equipment any better. It only makes them different.

My pinhole camera isn't particularly sharp, and it isn't all that contrasty. It is very prone to flare. And I have made some of my favorite images with it. I'm doing a notecard line with images from it. I've been selling 11x14 color prints made with it for $250. It's no better or worse, despite the fact that it makes particularly unsharp images.

Photography is about the images, not about what is "best." Photographers are successful because they use the tools they prefer to make successful images.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 13, 2002.

Jeff,

Musicians are probably worse than photogs when it comes to gear, and J.J. Cale is a good example of guitar envy. Not only were his style and songs highly influencial (Clapton who..?)but Peter Frampton (among others)offered him thousands for his crappy, beat up Harmony guitar in the 70's!

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), February 14, 2002.

"The price though is really not worth it...." Since you mention specificially about price.

Your M3,M2 worth now more than what you paid for them 35 years ago, that is WORTH IT ! Try take your Takumar to dealer and ask how much you can resell

Few camera keep its value

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 14, 2002.

Thank you to all of you who wrote in,your differing opinions very welcome!If you read the question,i wrote "i was devil's advocate..." The Leica M3.We were joined in 1967.After all these years,he,the camera,as some of you already know,is called Ziggy.(Sigmund). I do have other cameras,for speific jobs,where the RF is at a disadvantage.The use of a M2,3,6...requires you are not only have agood eye for a photo,but most definitely,a good knowledge of the theory and practice of photography.In other word craftsmanship. The Japanese have built alll these wonderous features ino their cameras,but they have no "soul".A Leica in my hand becomes a 'living' thing.I respond to life,people,events,as a personal and professional diary of my life.Some of it is published,or lovingly treasured in wedding or family albums.I feel honoured to have been chosen for significant events like a wedding..Documentary and Publicity photos are where the M's really shine.I travel often only with one body,the 50mm and a few rolls of film.I "see" photographs with the Leica. I drag SLR around with a HUGE bag of lenses.I feel free with the M. It is small,quick and precise.After about 4500films,(guess could be more),the cost of the camera per roll so little!Hell work it out if I'd use a disposable!....Kodak is mighty smart.The leica photographer has to pick "his battles" carefully.One has to be reasonably close.No Nikkor 600mmm!!!It is true "less is more".I feel; alive with each moment.I carry a M every single day of my life.True days go by with barely an exposure.Then suddenly thre is an event to snap.It may be mundane and ordinary,but these are special moments.I am able to easily get close.There is something about a Leica.It forces you to get closer,shoot strangers.It demands it!I care for my camera,It is my eyes of memory.I was told when I use the Leica,I appeared as if I was a sort of musician of life with a special instrument!A great compliment to the Leica truly,it has made me able to travel to different countries and cultures.Due to its small size and not looking like those pro SLR's I am able to often talk and record absolute strangers.We leave as friends.To those who think a Leica is overpriced! Yes it is.Is it worth it..? Price cannot be placed on such an instument.as a guide. 35 years of photography has been made all the more fun and creative because of the Leica M.I do not need the sharpest best...but a camera that fit me.So to one and all,great light and get good exposures!

-- jason gold (leeeu72@hotmail.com), February 16, 2002.

A look at Christie's auction on Leicas

http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/02386/index_e.html

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 17, 2002.