Even a Micro Four-Thirds camera like an Olympus EM5 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5) is in some ways more a successor to the great Leica film cameras than the current Leica digital cameras. As DPR says: "The E-M5 is simply an awful lot of camera in a compact and attractive body. It's a nice camera to use and the images it takes are just as enjoyable. Without any reservations whatsoever, it deserves our Gold Award."
------------------
Edit: pesto88 links to his Flickr account in a daughter comment; here is some of my SFW work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91262622@N02. I'm an amateur and it shows, but I like to think I'm learning. I also mostly shoot with an EM5 and primes, but the surfeit of great cameras at low prices makes a lot of discussion around the choices into pointless dissections and narcissisms of small differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).
I don't really think they usurped Leica's market. Leica's market changed a while back.
Sometime, a decade or more past, Leica became the equivalent of Louis Vuitton or Rolex. It's a luxury item. Like a LV bag, is still a really well-made tool, but functionality is only secondary. The actual capabilities are less important than the ideas of craftsmanship and exclusivity.
Exactly. Leicas are Veblen goods.[1] Cameras that a lot of people, including A-list celebrities, like to be seen with.[2] Leica sells exclusivity, style, elegance. Fuji/Sony do not. You'll never see a $50k Fuji Edition Hermès. (Hell, Leica was even part-owned by Hermès for a little while.)
A previous version of this article was accompanied
by a picture of Emmy Rossum holding what was
incorrectly identified as a Leica rangefinder. It
was, in fact, a Fuji digital camera whose design
was inspired by classic rangefinders such as the
Leica.
But it's mot than a luxury item. It's a camera revered by pro and semi pro photographers because of its history in the hands of some of the preeminent photographers of the 20th century.
From Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, Nachtwey, etc. Lots of up and coming photographers want to imitate the masters of the past and present and see they use Leicas --so even though photography has changed to them the manufacturer of choice remains Leica, if they can afford it. So it's a bit of traditionalism.
>But it's mot than a luxury item. It's a camera revered by pro and semi pro photographers because of its history in the hands of some of the preeminent photographers of the 20th century.
Actually only the history of the camera and the company is revered by pros. The camera not so much, and hasn't been for at least 2-3 decades.
And the people you describe were mostly "art photographers" and high-end story photographers for LIFE magazine, NG and such, not the typical (99.99%) of photojournalists and photographers in the field.
Here's how Leica describes their expensive new Leica M-P digital camera: "For connoisseurs who appreciate the details." Not photographers, "connoisseurs."
I agree completely. I own a Leica film camera, the M6, and I love it. I think the industrial design is spectacular, the image quality is great, and the unobtrusiveness of the camera lets me get shots I couldn't with a bigger film SLR.
But I can't imagine ever buying a Leica digital camera. They're overpriced, seemingly underpowered, and a far poorer investment than, say, a house.
Also, I should mention that as I write this, my X100s is sitting next to me, and its memory card's contents are being copied into Lightroom. Fuji's making absolutely amazing cameras with superb optics. Are they Leica-quality? Probably not, but I'd rather spend $1000 on an X-series camera than $10,000+ on an M with a first party lens.
Ditto. I've got an M6 TTL (though I don't use the built in meter, in fact, I've never put the meter's battery in, I use an external incident meter since slide film is rathe unforgiving and ... I'm not very good) and I would never buy a digital Leica.
That being said, the Mamiya/Sony digital format rangefinder rumor [0] sounds interesting but what has really piqued my interest is David Hobby's [2] preview of the Fuji X100T's Classic Chrome (read: Kodachrome), Velvia and Provia modes [3]. If I go digital, that's probably the first camera I'd look at.
the built in meter is perfectly capable of metering accurately enough for slide film. If you're not sure what you're doing just set the iso to exp comp about negative half a stop to avoid (as with digital) blowing out the highlights.
the meter in the camera is obviously reflected light only, so adjust if you're shooting black horses or white dresses. Just use common sense and meter a stop either way to compensate for the deviation from 18% grey.
I know the built in reflective meter works, I think it's more of a case of I went on vacation and ruined a bunch of photos so until I get better at interpreting contrasty scenes with the built in meter, the incident meter will remain my crutch.
Fuji and Sony's latest cameras are pretty amazing, feature full cameras at cheap prices. I bought and used the Fuji line for the last year, always hoping it would replace my desire for a Leica.
But in the end I use my Leica M. For the simple reason that it is a camera that allows me to manually control it without compromise. I can focus it faster than any autofocus, I can feel the exposure and set it before I raise it to my eye, and the lenses look like butter.
Yes, their price is about double of the equivalent of my Canon SLR and lens, but that's a small premium to pay for a camera that melds manual controls with my mind.
For many buying a Leica is like buying a Louis Vuitton bag, but it is still the best working camera out there for it's specialized purpose.
Source, I'm a working photojournalist based in Egypt: www.DavidDegner.com
I have used an Olympus E-P2 and Sony RX100. These are good cameras, but not great, and not approaching a Leica M for one reason: the viewfinders (or lack thereof).
An optical viewfinder is an essential feature which connects the shooter to the subject in a way that cannot be matched by an LCD. And while the beloved Fuji X100(s) has an optical viewfinder, it has a pathetic 90% coverage and 0.5x magnification. This makes a big, big difference in the active, engaged, photo-journalistic work that Leica is known for.
For six years I shot with an Olympus E-1 DSLR. It's lame by today's digital standards, with only 5MP, but it was far better as a tool for making images than any of these no-, small-, or electronic viewfinder cameras.
Nice shots. I especially like the 2 pictures of the women in the rain, and I'm a sucker for nice cloud photos.
I wholeheartedly concur, the E-1 is as close to Leica-like quality as any camera I've used. In one way the E-1 is superior: the ergonomics of the E-1 surpass Leica RF. I say this from experience, I still own an E-1 and an M6.
Nowadays I mainly use an EM-1. With the 12-40mm attached, the experience comes close to the E-1 with 14-54mm. The EM-1 is more compact, lighter weight, and image quality is way ahead. Not quite the same "feel", but on balance excellent overall.
I had a film Leica and then bought an M9P, they're so vastly different in usage, it's almost hilarious.
Almost everything, except how the camera looks from the front, was lost. The shutter sound is atrociously loud and annoying sounding. Tons of firmware issues, I have missed many shots simply because the camera just hanged up, and needed a battery re-insert. The M9 is noticably bulkier than any of the film Leica's, also it's just as heavy as any fullframe DSLR.
You see Leica coming out with weird cameras such as the T, and you just have to facepalm. What they really need to do to combat the Fuji / Sony cameras coming out is to release a small fixed lens camera with a 35 summicron or summilux equivalent (like a digital Contax T3). I doubt that this will happen since whoever is in charge now has no brand vision.
With all that being said, this is a nice implementation of a timeline, it might be more epic if the site had a black or dark background, white text, and red accents.
I love my X-T1 and X100s. I think you'll be incredibly happy with the X-T1, especially with a 56mm ƒ/1.2. I dumped my 5D Mark II for it, and haven't had any regrets. My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst
You know, there's something about these damn Fujifilm cameras. My Finepix F100fd knocked out perfectly exposed shots, with fantastic color and skin-tones all day.
Even my GF1 can't seem to manage the same thing, though my D70 does pretty good.
The GF1 was good but it was a very early generation m43, any recent one from Panasonic or Olympus gives much better performance overall and will easily outperform your D70 (I moved from GF1 to E-M10 a few months ago).
>For decades Leica made expensive but advanced cameras suitable for use by pros in the field.
Actually it has been decades that Leica has done that. Their last period of relevance for "pros in the field" was in the seventies or so.
With the advent of proper autofocus DSLRS and similar advances in light metering etc, it hasn't been the right tool for photojournalists (and even travel photographers etc) ever since.
While the design and function of the Leica body is not to be dismissed, the real differentiator as far as I always understood it was the glass. The camera body is just a shutter and film carrying mechanism for the lens, and the Leica/Leitz lenses were what really made those famous images.
Lots of people say that cameras are just light-proof boxes :)
Part of the Leica/Leitz history is that they single-handidly popularized the 35mm format. Before that, if you wanted decent photos, chances are you were dragging around a large format rig with bellows, ground glass, etc all on a tripod.
Both really. A number of cameras can use Leica lenses with an adapter, and since it's manual focusing anyway, there is less penalty in doing so than one would think.
But until Fuji came with its X series, Leica was the only game in town for rangefinders. The use of a rangefinder arguably helps for some styles of photography, especially street shooting and portraits. This alone could be worth a lot depending on what one gets from photography. The was a good review by Steve Huff detailing all of that [1]
Also, until Sony pushed its more compact line up, full frame cameras were bulky ugly heavy tanks riddles with buttons everywhere (like the Nikon D3 [0] for instance). Leica cameras were the odd simple and straight to the point tools blessed by top notch sensor technology.
the fuji x series are NOT RANGEFINDERS! they are auto focus cameras and support manual focus with the EVF. They might look a little like rangefinders (in that they mostly don't have "hump" for the pentaprism which is an SLR feature) but they do not have coupled rangefinder focusing like the Leica does. Leica are the only rangefinder digital cameras (besides the now ancient Epson R-D1)
So much misinformation as usual anytime anything comes up about photography.
yes rangefinders are prefered (or were) by street photographers because the cameras and lighter and smaller, the lenses too, with the mirror box to overcome the lenses can focus much closer to the rear lens element which makes for lighter, smaller lenses. The main reason for their success in street and journalistic photography was because what is moving into and out of the frame is visible at all times, and in crisp clear focus, no matter where the lens is focused. if you shooting a tank rolling into the city center its better to know what else is going on around you and you don't want to have to focus the camera before realizing you're going to get run down by an M1A1 Abrams.
Please let's confuse retrostyled with rangefinder. That doesn't the Fuji X series aren't good, they are, for an APS-C sensor they are decent performers with some nice lenses.
Yes, the Leica is, unfortunately, the only digital rangefinder camera that exists at this point in time (I own both an M9 and an X100s. See my photography at <http://simongriffee.com>).
The great advantage of a rangefinder is this: With some practice and experience you can _reliably focus_ the camera _without putting it to your eye or pointing it at the subject_. You can do this because the lens rotation stops at both far and close focus points and you can judge the focus distance by feeling the relative position of the finger tab on the lens, or by looking at the distance markings on the lens.
The other advantage of the Leica is the simplicity of the manual controls necessary for photography: Aperture, shutter speed, focus, shutter release. Unfortunately Leicas are becoming increasingly complex with the addition of video and so on to the M model. Not that I mind new designs, but I think they should also make a more affordable model focussed on simplicity above all, something like [this](http://hypertexthero.com/logbook/2013/09/design-good-camera/).
When I am asked what camera is best to learn photography with I always want to and do recommend a Leica, but I do it with a heart weighed down by the knowledge of the price of the thing.
While I don’t have a mathematical formula to predict how well a given lens will work on a given camera, it should be apparent that wide-angle rangefinder lenses designed for film are going to struggle, especially on m4/3 cameras, but to some degree on other cameras. Longer focal length rangefinder lenses tend to have longer exit pupil distances and should do better. Stopping down to f/4 or f/8 should reduce the problem significantly, although it isn’t guaranteed to eliminate it near the edges of the frame.
SLR lenses may also have some troubles on m4/3 cameras, since there’s nearly a 2mm difference in stack thickness. They shouldn’t have as much of a problem as rangefinder lenses, though, since they are designed for a 2mm sensor stack and they tend to have longer exit pupil distances. Older lenses designed for film cameras will tend to have more issues, of course, since they were designed for no sensor stack.
Thanks for pointing this out. I've owned several Leicas, including pre-M models, IIIc and IIIf. Among M Leica cameras I once had an M-3, and have owned an M-6 since the 1980's ("Classic" according to the article).
Like many photographers, digital has been the medium for over a decade and haven't touched film over the last 10 years. When I see reminders like this article, I'm enticed to get the Leica out of storage. One of these days, I might even take some pictures with it. I do enjoy using the Leica lenses with my Olympus EM cameras in manual mode, it's great fun.
I agree with the comments that digital and film are distinct image-making methods. And because each has its unique esthetics, they really can't be compared. It's rather like oil vs. acrylic painting, one's not better than the other, just different, its own thing.
A store in town sells only film equipment, mostly used. I've visited the place often. One time I asked the owner about his customers thinking they were of more "mature" vintage like me. However he says most of the interest is among people under thirty who regard digital as "old hat".
Interesting. It makes sense though, artists still use oil paint (about ~700 year old technology), and egg tempera (>1000 years old), among many processes. On that basis it's safe to predict film will never die.
Though I'll likely never use it again, I'm glad film is still an option. With any luck, some day my M6 will again come alive, no doubt held by a photographer about as old as the camera itself.
The difference between film and paint is that with a little skill it is possible to make your own paints. Film? Not so easy.
Film sales have been in decline for over 10 years. Before that, prices were subsidised by huge numbers of people who developed one film a year: christmas trees at each end of the roll, beach balls in the middle. There may be a vinyl-like resurgence driven by the nostalgic but I tend to doubt it. At some point film will simply be too expensive to produce. If you want to shoot film I would suggest you buy what you can and keep it in the fridge against the day when it is no longer available.
Nice!! It's amazing how little the design has changed, really. I like the M4 with its protruding rangefinder. I wrote a thing the other day about the others that have been adopting the old aesthetic and why it's not just for looks.
Digital photography is not a replacement for film. It's a different technology, and a significant number of photographers prefer film for these reasons: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm. The best film camera Leica ever made was probably the M3, which it produced for 12 years. If you buy a second-hand M3 today, it will be the best camera you've ever owned and will last for decades. Leica has had a blinding infatuation with digital photography, like the rest of us, but has just released its first film camera in 10 years, the M-A: http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A/Det.... It's purely mechanical - no battery, no light meter. They've probably noticed the glaring gap in the market: the only option for photographers who want good quality film cameras is to buy them on Ebay. I wonder if this is the first sign that photography is going to start shifting back to its analogue roots?
> The best film camera Leica ever made was probably the M3, which it produced for 12 years. If you buy a second-hand M3 today, it will be the best camera you've ever owned and will last for decades.
For some values of "best". :) It's certainly the most iconic. Certainly not the most convenient, what with the cumbersome film loading (three-hand procedure) and the terrible film rewind (uncomfortable, slow knob instead of the M4+ rewind lever). And framelines only for 50mm and longer.
Last for decades? Perhaps. Watch out for finder separation and other fun issues. Hope that there are still capable Leica repair technicians around in 30 years. They are a dying breed.
I miss mine, though. Jungle wisdom says you should never sell a Leica, because you're only going to buy another one for more money later anyway.
> the only option for photographers who want good quality film cameras is to buy them on Ebay
There are still options if you want to buy new, like Cosina Voigtländer's Bessa R2M/R3M/R4M. Leicas they ain't, but they are of good quality and in many ways functionally superior. And I much prefer the R3M/R3A 1x finder to any Leica finder.
The pro camera of all 35mm pro cameras, the Nikon F6, is still in production. In 2012 they were making about 50 per month. Reportedly handled by two (2) people in Sendai!
Nikon FM10 (actually produced by Cosina) is also still being made. Vivitar still makes a similar SLR. I believe Fujifilm is still producing one or a couple of their premium compacts.
Leica never stopped selling film cameras. The M7 has been available since 2002, and the MP (not the M-P) since 2003. Also, I only own one camera without a built-in light meter, and that's my Hasselblad 501CM[0]. I specifically bought the M6 because having to bolt on extra hardware to meter a scene struck me as being ridiculous.
> I wonder if this is the first sign that photography is going to start shifting back to its analogue roots?
Not at $4,750+ for a camera it's not. If the future of film photography is all 35mm cameras that cost as much as a 2007 Honda Civic, you can keep it.
[0] And if I'm in a position to shoot with my Hasselblad, carrying around a light meter isn't a significant burden.
I have recently gone back to film. You can get pocketable cameras e.g. Ricoh GR1s which destroy almost every DSLR made today in the quality of the final result. Sure the top handful of cameras are better but they are also unwieldy for say street photography.
I think film will only truly serve no purpose in about 10 or so years once a few more technologies like Sony's curved sensor come into fruition.
"destroy almost every DSLR made today in the quality of the final result" why would you say this? The GR1 has a decent enough lens if you are happy with just one, but 28mm doesn't suit everybody, and f/2.8 is not always very useful, it does guarantee the lens performs reasonably well wide open though (it's not a very ambitious lens), but most (full frame) DSLRs have higher resolution that that camera. You need to use medium format to beat a D810 or Sony A7r today. I am not saying film isn't great, I shoot film, but it's just plain wrong to go through life, or try to convince others that your little GR1 can beat a Nikon D810 at anything. You need to use a lot of scanning technology to eek out much resolution from the 35mm negs, even dynamic range is better in the FF digital cameras now, and as for ISO performance, film cannot even dream about keeping up. The A7s can shoot in the dark, by starlight!!
A hasselblad 500c/m with its 6x6cm negative will have more tonality and even on a flatbed scanner will have slightly higher resolution that a D810, you'll need an imacon scanner to really get the full resolution of film.
The biggest challenge with film, besides the poor ISO performance compared to digital is the cost.
While I agree that Leica went off their rails, I don't think that's a good example, the Sultan of Brunei had a gold plated Mercedes made for him, I think a few cameras are easier to obtain :)
He also own 7000 of the most expensive cars and three full size airliners as private jets. (Posting this just because I found it hilarious. I knew about the gold plated car and I found this list when looking for a source)
What I find interesting about Leica is that there are now multiple independent companies that share the same name. Leica Camera, Leica Biosystems (rather new), Leica Geosystems and Leica Microsystems. They have a 'brand-sharing' agreement.
During the 80's Wild Heerbrugg acquired Leitz (which owned Leica) to form the Wild Leitz AG (and later part of Leica Holding B.V). For a couple of years, this was probably one of the global market leaders when it came to optical instruments. In 1996 Leica Camera AG was sold as far as I can remember. Leica Geosystems (which is basically a continuation of Wild Heerbrugg) is now part of Hexagon AB.
Interesting to see how many products they release every year. In the beginning they had a new model once every couple of years but after 2011 up to multiple each year. I'm wondering if this is just because of the improvements in the technology or because its expected by press/analysts to release sth at every major photo trade show and how this effects quality.
What Leica are continuing to do well is binoculars. They cost a huge amount more, but the difference between their products and others is usually gasp-inducing.
For decades Leica made expensive but advanced cameras suitable for use by pros in the field. By now, however, people who want small, light, and fine-grained control in a package similar to the early Leicas look at the Fuji X100S or X100T (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/) or to a lesser extent something like a Sony RX1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1.
Even a Micro Four-Thirds camera like an Olympus EM5 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5) is in some ways more a successor to the great Leica film cameras than the current Leica digital cameras. As DPR says: "The E-M5 is simply an awful lot of camera in a compact and attractive body. It's a nice camera to use and the images it takes are just as enjoyable. Without any reservations whatsoever, it deserves our Gold Award."
------------------
Edit: pesto88 links to his Flickr account in a daughter comment; here is some of my SFW work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91262622@N02. I'm an amateur and it shows, but I like to think I'm learning. I also mostly shoot with an EM5 and primes, but the surfeit of great cameras at low prices makes a lot of discussion around the choices into pointless dissections and narcissisms of small differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).