Official Talk Leica thread

They don't make lenses for £150, they aren't aiming at that end of the market. The Leica budget lenses start at £1,049. Go look at the way a Nikon supertele or Canon supertele is made and it is closer to the way Leica makes their lenses. It's partly why you're paying the money that you do.

As for the bodies it's comparing something hand built and hand checked to mass produced, it's not really comparable.

You are missing the point. I know they don't make lenses for £150, but if they did do you think their manufacturing processes would make a better lens for £150?
Do you think Canon or Nikon or anybody else can make the same lens as Leica for £5,000?
Do you think Canon or Nikon could make a like body for £5,000 if they wanted to?

Handmade is not automatically better and it is certainly not more efficient. Pay the cost all you want but don't pretend they are better because of it.
 
You are missing the point. I know they don't make lenses for £150, but if they did do you think their manufacturing processes would make a better lens for £150?
Do you think Canon or Nikon or anybody else can make the same lens as Leica for £5,000?
Do you think Canon or Nikon could make a like body for £5,000 if they wanted to?

Handmade is not automatically better and it is certainly not more efficient. Pay the cost all you want but don't pretend they are better because of it.

Leica don't make lenses for £150, it's a pointless question. Can Nikon make a f/0.95 for less than £7,500 that's as good as the Noctilux? Who knows because they don't make one. When Leica make a £150 M lens your question will be answered.

Leica will be as efficient as they can be using their method of production. The build quality is better because of the laborious process.
 
Jacobs remaining stock is being auctioned off, if you click on Day 2, and download the catalogue the last items on the list are a M8, M9 and selection of lenses if any of you are interested LINK
 
Jacobs remaining stock is being auctioned off, if you click on Day 2, and download the catalogue the last items on the list are a M8, M9 and selection of lenses if any of you are interested LINK

Shhhh... I was hoping nobody would notice.
 
Can Nikon make a f/0.95 for less than £7,500 that's as good as the Noctilux? Who knows because they don't make one. When Leica make a £150 M lens your question will be answered.

That can only be answered if they attempt it, though I doubt they will because of the minimal market for such an item.
Cosina Voigtlander have come close with a 35mm f 1.2 in M mount along with M4/3 versions of 17.5mm and 25mm with .95 aperture and a 50mm f1.1.

I'm not suggesting they are the pinnacle of optical resolution but how many users can actually justify the purchase of a £7500 Noctilux and do the results justify the expenditure?
Sure, anyone can buy a Ferrari,and why not, it's your money, but it doesn't make you Nikki Lauder.
It's your money, spend it as you wish and long may it bring happiness to you but please don't be a Leica apologist,their QC issues are often documented , to state otherwise is sweeping the facts under the carpet. A quick perusal of the forums will attest to this.
 
That can only be answered if they attempt it, though I doubt they will because of the minimal market for such an item.
Cosina Voigtlander have come close with a 35mm f 1.2 in M mount along with M4/3 versions of 17.5mm and 25mm with .95 aperture and a 50mm f1.1.

I'm not suggesting they are the pinnacle of optical resolution but how many users can actually justify the purchase of a £7500 Noctilux and do the results justify the expenditure?
Sure, anyone can buy a Ferrari,and why not, it's your money, but it doesn't make you Nikki Lauder.
It's your money, spend it as you wish and long may it bring happiness to you but please don't be a Leica apologist,their QC issues are often documented , to state otherwise is sweeping the facts under the carpet. A quick perusal of the forums will attest to this.


An m4/3rd lens isn't in the same ballpark, the CV lenses again f/1.2 lens vs a Noctilux isn't close either. The cost is worth it if you want that look @ f/0.95. As for QC issues you'll always get the odd Friday afternoon camera, but it is incomparable to disasters like the 1D MKIII AF or the current D800 issues. Go peruse the Nikon forums and see.
 
Leica don't make lenses for £150, it's a pointless question. Can Nikon make a f/0.95 for less than £7,500 that's as good as the Noctilux? Who knows because they don't make one. When Leica make a £150 M lens your question will be answered.

Exactly. That is why you cannot say Leica are better because of their processes if Nikon don't make (or even try to) make the matching product using their more efficient processes.

I don't care which lens is better at which price but it is highly likely that Leica are over priced because of their manufacturing processes. Not sure why you feel you have defend them so much?

If if was in a position where I needed or could justify an expensive camera, a Leica would be on my list as it does want I want it to and I would love to have one. However, I would still happily say that it is overpriced because of the reasons we are discussing. I own many things that are overpriced but I buy them and like them anyway.
 
Last edited:
As for QC issues you'll always get the odd Friday afternoon camera, but it is incomparable to disasters like the 1D MKIII AF or the current D800 issues.

If the QC is as high and costs as much to ensure as you say then no you don't get a Friday afternoon camera.

It is also a matter of scale, if 1 Leica user that would equate to 100s of Nikon users being upset

And my impression of Leica users is that they wouldn't shout about their problems anyway as it would be showing a 'mistrust' in their beloved product...
 
Equally, go peruse the Leica forum and read about the QC issues the users have themselves.
The question is, can users actually benefit from the £6,500 difference in cost from the A4 prints they look at or would you suggest that every buyer of a M9/Noctilux combo is actually a seasoned professional enlarging to barn door size or just a wealthy hobbyist who couldn't tell the difference?
I am bitter, I'll admit that, Leica betrayed me, my R6.2 body cost over £1,700 to buy, in Germany and now it's all but history, ditto the lenses, unless I arse about with adaptors and full aperture. Should have bought that M6 instead,I nearly did.

Leica make some outstanding examples of optical and mechanical excellence.They also make mistakes.: http://www.caliach.com/paulr/articles/html/leica/index.html
Whatever, you could also just put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala" until all the hurt goes away.:)
 
Last edited:
Equally, go peruse the Leica forum and read about the QC issues the users have themselves.
The question is, can users actually benefit from the £6,500 difference in cost from the A4 prints they look at or would you suggest that every buyer of a M9/Noctilux combo is actually a seasoned professional enlarging to barn door size or just a wealthy hobbyist who couldn't tell the difference?
I am bitter, I'll admit that, Leica betrayed me, my R6.2 body cost over £1,700 to buy, in Germany and now it's all but history, ditto the lenses, unless I arse about with adaptors and full aperture. Should have bought that M6 instead,I nearly did.

Leica make some outstanding examples of optical and mechanical excellence.They also make mistakes.: http://www.caliach.com/paulr/articles/html/leica/index.html
Whatever, you could also just put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala" until all the hurt goes away.:)

Yeah I had the feeling you had a grudge to bear. You've been told numerous times to get a Leitax mount for the R glass, it's not that hard to do. Leica can't be expected to bankrupt themselves to build you an R10. Instead of moaning about it go use the glass on something else. As for the link it was published in when, 1995? By someone else with a petty grudge no doubt.
 
I wish I could be one of you Leica High rollers ;)

But also, apart from maybe noise performance and suchlike what can Leica change on the M10, after all their whole appeal is in not moving with the times isn’t it? So I’m guessing a new sensor and thats about it.

I’m guessing this reply won’t be taken well in here but its alright, I love Leica’s, I just haven’t robbed the bank yet :(
 
Exactly. That is why you cannot say Leica are better because of their processes if Nikon don't make (or even try to) make the matching product using their more efficient processes.

I don't care which lens is better at which price but it is highly likely that Leica are over priced because of their manufacturing processes. Not sure why you feel you have defend them so much?

If if was in a position where I needed or could justify an expensive camera, a Leica would be on my list as it does want I want it to and I would love to have one. However, I would still happily say that it is overpriced because of the reasons we are discussing. I own many things that are overpriced but I buy them and like them anyway.

What more efficient Nikon processes? Using robots? That's why the quality of the Leica lens range is so high, because it uses humans finely adjusting each lens to a certain tolerance. Do you think Nikon and all their efficiency are doing that with all their lenses and bodies? I don't know why you need to attack them when I posted a video that clearly shows how they are made and why they would cost so much.
 
I wish I could be one of you Leica High rollers ;)

But also, apart from maybe noise performance and suchlike what can Leica change on the M10, after all their whole appeal is in not moving with the times isn’t it? So I’m guessing a new sensor and thats about it.

I’m guessing this reply won’t be taken well in here but its alright, I love Leica’s, I just haven’t robbed the bank yet :(

They will probably change to a CMOS sensor to give live view which will give better high ISO performance, maybe electronic viewfinder or framelines like the M9 Titanium. Rumoured to be 24mp with no AA filter. Who knows though, it will all become clearer at Photokina.
 
Robots making precisions items with very high tolerances, whatever next.

You seriously don't think Leica could automate/streamline/lower manual effort etc,. and lower their prices if they wanted to?
They are not making bespoke products here, they are churning out the same products, repeating the same process over and over again just in lower numbers than the likes of Nikon that is all.
 
Laudrup said:
Leica QC is way beyond any competitors, it's handmade and hand checked, the competition can't compete with that.

Tbh I don't see what the big deal about hand made is. Humans introduce errors very easily.

Tbf it's not jut Leica - any product that costs an arm an a leg compared to mass produced items that do the same job without the expense.

Would I own one? Maybe an S2 but never a rangefinder.

I'd never own a Ferrari, poor build quality, not practical for uk roads, you look like a **** driving one and
 
Just from watching the video it is easy to see where time is wasted and that time costs money, expecially when paying high labour rates;

- Man taking each lens out one by one and placing on table - slow and pointless
- Blackening of edges done by hand - less accurate that machine
- White embossing - can easily be done by machine to same or higher level

The reason they live with these inefficiencies is because they have no competition. If Nikon started to introduce more manual processes the price would no longer compare to Canon and they would price themselves out.

So good for Leica and good for the sense of satisfaction their owners get but let's don't pretend they are better because of it.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm full now.

Let me be clear though, I like Leica and I would happily buy one but the fact that some of the process is by hand is actually a downside to me which led to my original comment around not wanting to pay for inefficient processes.
I own a cheap camera with a cheap lens. Would I feel any better if the edges of the lens and the white writing had been hand done, would I even notice, would I want to pay £30 more for it - definitely not.
 
Just from watching the video it is easy to see where time is wasted and that time costs money, expecially when paying high labour rates;

- Man taking each lens out one by one and placing on table - slow and pointless
- Blackening of edges done by hand - less accurate that machine
- White embossing - can easily be done by machine to same or higher level

The reason they live with these inefficiencies is because they have no competition. If Nikon started to introduce more manual processes the price would no longer compare to Canon and they would price themselves out.

So good for Leica and good for the sense of satisfaction their owners get but let's don't pretend they are better because of it.

I think I'll side with Leica on how to make their own lenses rather than you if it's all the same.
 
Sorry, I'm full now.

Let me be clear though, I like Leica and I would happily buy one but the fact that some of the process is by hand is actually a downside to me which led to my original comment around not wanting to pay for inefficient processes.
I own a cheap camera with a cheap lens. Would I feel any better if the edges of the lens and the white writing had been hand done, would I even notice, would I want to pay £30 more for it - definitely not.

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
 
Tbh I don't see what the big deal about hand made is. Humans introduce errors very easily.

Tbf it's not jut Leica - any product that costs an arm an a leg compared to mass produced items that do the same job without the expense.

Would I own one? Maybe an S2 but never a rangefinder.

I'd never own a Ferrari, poor build quality, not practical for uk roads, you look like a **** driving one and

Because it is more precise if it goes through more expensive quality checks.
 
Back on Topic please....................this is turning into a slagging match between those that have and those that want to have
 
Back on Topic please....................this is turning into a slagging match between those that have and those that want to have


mmm, may not be helping your elitist cause there :)

But yes, I agree. I will stay out of it now, promise.

Apart from the next post....
 
Last edited:
I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

And I know that you don't. You have your head in the sand on this, as simple as that. A person painting black edging onto a lens is not more accurate or better quality than a machine and never will be. This is exactly the sort of thing that a machine can do better, more accurately and more consistently. Why pay someone to do it when a machine will do it cheaper?
 
Last edited:
And I know that you don't. You have your head in the sand on this, as simple as that. A person painting black edging onto a lens is not more accurate or better quality than a machine and never will be. This is exactly the sort of thing that a machine can do better, more accurately and more consistently. Why pay someone to do it when a machine will do it cheaper?

Because someone would still need to be employed to check that it was done right wouldn't they? So now you have the cost of buying and maintaining a machine as well as someone to check the quality control so where is the saving? Don't worry, Leica have it pretty sussed in the optics department.
 
Right, that'll do.

You two clearly have differing opinions so leave it there please.

This thread is getting spoiled by your bickering.
 
As an outsider with a background in electronics and manufacturing it's been interesting looking in...

Leica gear doesn't really appeal to me but I have owned Voigtlander and Canon rangefinders. The Voigtlander is interesting as you can mount a Leica lens on it and if you use the same film you'd use in your Leica you'd get identical image quality but at less cost.

There is a pleasure to be had from using metal mechanical equipment and it's a different experience from using electrical and electronic equipment regardless of the actual quality or precision of either approach. They're just different and maybe it comes down to gender and age to some extent with the young and possibly women too being more open to newer technology and electronics.

Personally, the arrival of MFT killed rangefinders for me as we now have cameras that are small, discrete, relatively quiet and capable of excellent quality plus you can mount MF or AF lens of pretty much any focal length (try that with a RF) and even with a manual lens in all but near total darkness you're going to be able to focus as quickly but much more accurately than you can with a RF, plus, with MFT you get the correct framing at any distance.
 
Disagree with you there, I have used m4/3, NEX and Ricoh GXR all with legacy glass, for me the Ricoh was the most accurate. The problem is if you want sharp focus you first focus and then magnify to ensure your in focus, I’m pretty sure a rangefinder would be quicker in that respect.

Also focus peaking will only get you so far, always found on the NEX that it will get 95% of the way there but you still need to magnify to get it spot on.
 
Disagree with you there, I have used m4/3, NEX and Ricoh GXR all with legacy glass, for me the Ricoh was the most accurate. The problem is if you want sharp focus you first focus and then magnify to ensure your in focus, I’m pretty sure a rangefinder would be quicker in that respect.

Also focus peaking will only get you so far, always found on the NEX that it will get 95% of the way there but you still need to magnify to get it spot on.

That's very interesting, thank you. I've given up on M43 because the process of magnifying with MF is rather slow. I was planning to go for a GXR so I could use Ricoh's version of focus peaking but may have to reconsider.

Btw, as an unashamed Leica fanboy, I've found that when people don't get "it" (I don't know what "it" is but I know I love it to bits), words will never bring them round. Even so, this thread will be my first stopping place on TP from now on and, especially now that I have "ignored" the rude naysayers, I'm looking forward to many genial discussions to come.
 
Some people don't get rangefinders in general but I love shooting with one. The compact camera and lenses, the ability to see what is coming into frame and the swift manual focus are all great. I tried to use my lenses with a NEX 5N but never really got on with it. The peaking was fine but not always accurate and I didn't get on with the look of the sony files.

If only I could justify an M9 (afford, yes but really cannot justify at present!).
 
Disagree with you there,...in focus, I’m pretty sure a rangefinder would be quicker in that respect.

Well, both systems have their little time consuming foibles. If you've used a rangefinder then you'll know that what you look at is a small image within the main image and what you do is combine two images to achieve focus (in a rather limited focal length range.) Concentrating on the small image and achieving focus takes time and there may also be some brain processing time for any convergence issues which you're bound to get at some time. With MFT you have to activate magnified view and then focus but on the positive side I find I use less concentration and alignment issue brain processing time.

It's a personal thing but personally after decades with RF's and years with MFT I'm sure that to get the focus accuracy I'm happy with I'm as quick with MFT as I was with a RF.
 
Last edited:
I use Leica lenses on the NEX, but it just isn't the same as using them for what they were designed for. The colour casting etc is pretty annoying too with the wider lenses and a MFT just can't compete with 18mp full frame and no AA filter. If you are seriously into Leica I'd suggest subscribing to Reid Reviews & Diglloyd. A lot of Leica used lenses seem to be stacking up at dealers now as people wait on what Photokina will bring. If it is a 24mp CMOS with live view I'm not sure I'll bother upgrading.
 
I use Leica lenses on the NEX, but it just isn't the same as using them for what they were designed for. The colour casting etc is pretty annoying too with the wider lenses and a MFT just can't compete with 18mp full frame and no AA filter. If you are seriously into Leica I'd suggest subscribing to Reid Reviews & Diglloyd. A lot of Leica used lenses seem to be stacking up at dealers now as people wait on what Photokina will bring. If it is a 24mp CMOS with live view I'm not sure I'll bother upgrading.

It depends what you want to do with your images but for many people and at many image and print sizes for sure MFT can compete.
 
That's very interesting, thank you. I've given up on M43 because the process of magnifying with MF is rather slow. I was planning to go for a GXR so I could use Ricoh's version of focus peaking but may have to reconsider.

Btw, as an unashamed Leica fanboy, I've found that when people don't get "it" (I don't know what "it" is but I know I love it to bits), words will never bring them round. Even so, this thread will be my first stopping place on TP from now on and, especially now that I have "ignored" the rude naysayers, I'm looking forward to many genial discussions to come.

For me it’s not so much about the red dot but more that I want a digital rangefinder. Unfortunately no one else makes them, trying to get hold of a decent second hand Epson R-D1 is difficult as it is, hence why I’m interested in an M as it’s more readily available.

.....It's a personal thing but personally after decades with RF's and years with MFT I'm sure that to get the focus accuracy I'm happy with I'm as quick with MFT as I was with a RF.

As you said it’s a personal thing, I found having to magnify slowed me down. I do intend to keep my E-M5 as my normal camera but add a rangefinder to spice thing up!
 
I'd probably just get the Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux if I was shooting on a small sensor like MFT. Once you're used to full frame quality and the other advantages it's hard to go back.
 
Laudrup said:
Leica will be as efficient as they can be using their method of production. The build quality is better because of the laborious process.


Sorry, that does not follow.

Leica is, comparatively, a small company that does not have the benefits of scale that Nikon or canon do. They can only be competitive in producing speciality items for a niche market. Their scale of production dictates manual assembly and so a labour intensive.

Such production models can often be less consistent in quality.

Do not confuse small scale/high cost with necessarily automatic high quality.
 
Back
Top