Camera enthusiasts, why are Leicas so expensive?

[entremet]

I was checking out some cool pics from a blog I follow and they were shot with a Leica Q. I've heard of the brand, but was not too much informed about them. I decided to take a look at the price and wowza! 4400 bucks new and no ability to change lenses.

They do have a really nice design--retro, but stylish. I've been wanting to graduate from smartphone photography, but this is a non-starter just on sticker shock alone. And one of the best piece of advice I've always followed with hobbies is to start cheap or used since it may not stick. For example, a beginner guitar player should not a buy a brand new Gibson Les Paul.

But Leicas seem to have a cult following online, especially with pros who use it as a hobby camera.

 

[TronLight]

Brand. Don't get me wrong, they're great, especially the really pro stuff (apparently, never used one of course), but it's mostly the brand.

Go with a Sony, Canon, Nikon.

 

[entremet]

Brand. Don't get me wrong, they're great, especially the really pro stuff (apparently, never used one of course), but it's mostly the brand.

Go with a Sony, Canon, Nikon.

Click to shrink...

What do you thing of Fujifilm? I'm a bit enamored with that retro style. Still pricey, but not quite Leica lol.

 

[LProtagonist]

Fuji X100 series is a great place to be if you like the idea of a Lecia.

 

[TronLight]

What do you thing of Fujifilm? I'm a bit enamored with that retro style. Still pricey, but not quite Leica lol.

Click to shrink...

I'm not too knowledgeable on Fujifilm, but I hear good stuff on their front too. Still, don't buy a camera based on the look! Do some research, what lens they have available, for how cheap you can adapt older lenses to save some money, how are the performances... The look of the camera should really be the last thing you think about if you want to get into it for real.

 

[i like big butts]

Leica bodies are generally overpriced. They do hold some niches, rangefinders being one of them.

That being said, optics are generally the best in the world. I deal with their land surveying equipment more but Trimble, Sokkia and Nikon optics are worse especially if you're shooting long distances.

A lot of it is a wank factor, like a lot of things I've noticed in photography and videography, but their products, especially glass, are of great quality.

 

[julia crawford]

History and prestige i think. Leica kind of invented photographic journalism because of their rangefinders and honestly i kind of think they deserve the prestige. They are also extremely high quality cameras that are immediately ready for high end professional use. And honestly, if you have a Leica camera it's likely that you have one of the lenses you could have in you camera.

I still wish i could buy an M6 at some point in my life.

 

[entremet]

History and prestige i think. They are also extremely high quality cameras that are immediately ready for high end professional use. And honestly, if you have a Leica camera it's likely that you have one of the lenses you could have in you camera.

I still wish i could buy an M6 at some point in my life.

Click to shrink...

Damn, I saw a used one eBay going for 4200 lol.

 

[Deleted member 431]

heritage, build quality, a lot of them are handmade, no one else makes rangefinders so they can jack the price up accordingly. Also image quality and their small size of the manual focus M lenses.

with regards to the Q2... a 28mm f1.7 Summilux would alone cost $6000. The Q2 is actually a great deal for what you get.

 

[GuiltyGB]

Leica is also a German company, they produce most of their tech in their factory, Wetzlar, Germany. This will increase costs.

Not to mention they are a niche brand, just like Hassleblad and Phase One. these are more high end enthusiast/ pro tools. Pro tools normally come with pro process.

These brands aren't for a new starter in photography. Like TronLight said go for the mainstream brands to start with. I would also recommend Fuji if you are looking to really learn how the functions of a camera work.

 

[Aurongel]

Brand, legacy and history. But mostly brand. It's really no different than what Louis Vuitton is to fashion. Extremely overpriced but still a genuinely well made product in its own right targeted to pros and also and enthusiasts with deep pockets. Plus their rangefinders are second to none in an already niche category.

Also the company pretty much gets a pass for life given their extremely underappreciated history of subverting Nazis:

Leica Freedom Train - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[grmlin]

Some Leicas are expensive because of their name (especially the rebranded Panasonic, I think it's Panasonic, cameras). But other than that it's just exceptionally well made gear. Also:

• limited production numbers
• hand made in Germany
• build like a dream

Just try to get your hand on one of the M cameras for example. You feel it when you hold it. The lenses are expensive because many of them are just perfection. Easy as that.


Do you need one for good photos? Of course not, you are probably better suited with a different camera for most tasks. But damn are they fucking awesome to use. I would totally buy one if I was swimming in money.

 

[mattiewheels]

My dream is getting an old 35mm M6, but it costs as much as a used car. But everything about Leicas are just excellent. The build, the feel of the controls, the amazing lenses. Till then I just use an old $100 Pentax.

 

[julia crawford]

Damn, I saw a used one eBay going for 4200 lol.

Click to shrink...

Yeah.... maybe when i'm like sixty or something.

 

[chrominance]

It's a luxury brand. Like, in watches, I'm sure if you're a hardcore enthusiast and you really care about craftsmanship and mechanical perfection, you can find all sorts of things about a Rolex or whatever that make them worth the asking price, but 99.9% of people really just want something that will last a fair amount of time and will tell time properly.

Most people don't need to consider Leicas basically ever. Prioritize cameras that have controls you like and is something you'd take with you everywhere. Fuji is generally well regarded in this sense, but do your research, figure out your budget, and go from there. These days it's hard to go too wrong.

 

[captive]

What do you thing of Fujifilm? I'm a bit enamored with that retro style. Still pricey, but not quite Leica lol.

Click to shrink...

Fujifilm is what I would go with for mirroless camera


Leica is expensive cause they make really nice lenses and they have a prestige brand name so they charge like it

 

[EvilBoris]

A combination of low volume production, high-quality manufacture, and brand prestige which makes them desirable.
They are probably made in Germany, to incredibly high standards also.

I used to work for ZEISS who are similar in this regard and there were various processes and materials that could be used in the optics side of things that were really performant, but incredibly expensive.

 

[Deleted member 10612]

Insane quality control. A lot of stuff made in germany, limited production.

 

[mattiewheels]

Fun fact: When the Jewish population in Germany came under threat in the 1930s, Ernst Leitz used his company as a way to help them flee by issuing them fake work orders at foreign Leica factories.

Leica Freedom Train - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Astral Lovelace]

What do you thing of Fujifilm? I'm a bit enamored with that retro style. Still pricey, but not quite Leica lol.

Click to shrink...

Fujifilm is probably closer (or can be) to Leica than any other camera brand. Several of their cameras use physical dials that match older, analog cameras, so you can get away with a lot less going into menus or looking at screens. The recently released XT4 has a screen you can flip away for a more 'analog' experience, and the X-Pro3 straight up tries to be a copy of a Leica, to an attractive result.

 

[Deleted member 13370]

edit

 

[entremet]

If you are completely new to non-smartphone photography you should really go with one of the standard brands, you'll get a quality camera for a decent price.
I see that you're asking about Fujifilm, and they make fantastic cameras but you might want to start with a lower end Canon, Nikon or Sony. Even a low end DSLR will give you an amzing set of tools that smartphone cameras are still far from emulating.

Click to shrink...

I've considered DSLRs before but their form factor is too bulky. I've tested a few.

 

[EvilBoris]

Lots of people that want the Leica lifestlye , but don't want to spent the Leica money will go for one of the Fuji cameras now. Especially if you are less interested in editing, they have a bunch of film emulation filters built-in that give all of their photos a trendy retro look straight from the camera. I know a lot of people like that instant cool.

 

[Darth Pinche]

I died during the scene in Spiderman Far from Home when the teacher dropped his Leica into the water. Lol.

I used to have a Nikon D3100, it was nice but too bulky for my use. I'm happy with my Sony RX100. It is tiny, takes great photos and is a step up from a smartphone.

 

[grmlin]

Regarding Fuji:
I switched to Fuji years ago from Canon Full Frame cameras and they are fantastic little cameras. Recently got the X-T3 and I just love them. I do miss the full frame effect a little bit, but I don't miss carrying around tons of glass.

Anyway, you can't mimic a range finder camera with something that's not a range finder camera. The closes you can get (somewhat) is the quirky X-Pro series from Fuji. That said, modern Leicas are much more usable than old ones. I remember using the M8 (I think that was the first digital M?) and it was a whole different story using it compared to other DSLRs of that time. These days you get live view and all the other comfort. But the lenses will always be manual (in the M system).

 

[Mortal Mario]

The question has been pretty well answered above. I've never had a chance to use a Leica but I love rangefinder camera. I have a janky old Mamiya 6 which is amazing but I can't really afford to use these days at around £10 per roll of film with processing.

 

[chaostrophy]

Mostly the historic brand. They've always been expensive, but during the film era the price of a Leica was more justifiable because you could keep a camera a lot longer without it being obsolete. Film technology was always advancing like digital sensors are now, but unlike with digital you could take advantage of it without replacing cameras- just put a roll of the latest film in your old camera.

 

[Pargon]

Leica are a lifestyle brand for rich people.
Fujifilm make great cameras, and have been walking their own path with high quality digital cameras for a very long time now, rather than following everyone else - so they stand out from the Canons, Nikons, and Sonys of the world.

 

[Deleted member 431]

The "Leica is jewellery/prestige for rich people" never made sense to me. It's a very niche brand that the average person doesn't know about, unlike a Rolex or Louis Vuitton bag. The OP made this thread precisely because he didn't know about them lol.

Also who are these rich people that have the time to learn how to manual or zone focus

 

[grmlin]

I think they can charge whatever they want for parts of their lineup like the M Series because it's one of a kind you can't get anywhere else. It's like mechanical watches that cost insane amounts of money just because of the time it takes to manufacture them.

If I could decide between an expensive car and a M camera with some lenses... maybe, once the kids are grown up, I can afford one

 

[sixteen-bit]

I died during the scene in Spiderman Far from Home when the teacher dropped his Leica into the water. Lol.

Click to shrink...

That was a Leica Digilux, a crap mirroless digital camera from 2004 that is basically a rebranded Panasonic DMC-LC1. It's not like he dropped an MP or something, lol.

 

[345]

brand is part of it, for sure. but the only reason they can charge it is because there's no competition. no-one else makes digital rangefinders, and no-one else makes leica lenses. the shooting experience is not something you can get with another camera.

could they make a cheaper version of said experience? sure, but why would they? they have the capability to deliver on super high-end manufacturing in a way no-one else does, and that justifies the margins.

the leica M isn't overpriced for what it is, and the leica Q is actually very well priced for what you get by pretty much any standard. it's really only the rebranded panasonic compact stuff that counts as a ripoff.

personally i'd rather have my fuji x-pro2 and nikon DF even if the prices were identical because i need, like, autofocus for my work, but i'm sure i'll have a leica mid-life crisis at some point and enjoy the heck out of it.

 

[orava]

Successful marketing and stupidity.

 

[Deleted member 2328]

They're a historical brand known for their cameras reliability and superb customer service. They will service your M series regardless from when it was manufactured.
Speaking of the M series there's still a lot of manual precision work involved in its production which adds to the price and prestige of the camera. The film cameras variant which they still produce are built like tanks and tend to retain their value much better than their digital counterparts.

 

[JakeD]

Check out the canon M50...smaller than a usual dslr but still has interchangeable lenses and the ability (with adapter) to use EF lenses (huge amount of options)

 

[esseesse]

You need to think Leica as the Rolex of cameras.
Their lenses are second to none in terms of quality, in fact, a lot of Hollywood movies are shot on their glass. The bodies are all hand-made and have extremely good service attached to them.

Check out the canon M50...smaller than a usual dslr but still has interchangeable lenses and the ability (with adapter) to use EF lenses (huge amount of options)

Click to shrink...

The M50 is not very good I'm afraid. You're better off with anything Fujifilm if you want mirrorless and APS-C.

 

[funroll-loops]

The "Leica is jewellery/prestige for rich people" never made sense to me. It's a very niche brand that the average person doesn't know about, unlike a Rolex or Louis Vuitton bag. The OP made this thread precisely because he didn't know about them lol.

Also who are these rich people that have the time to learn how to manual or zone focus

Click to shrink...

I think it's mostly people who are at least 60 years old and remember a time before SLRs were ubiquitous, when they may have owned a cheap rangefinder and when Leicas were still regarded as a somewhat practical camera.

 

[entremet]

I think it's mostly people who are at least 60 years old and remember a time before SLRs were ubiquitous, when they may have owned a cheap rangefinder and when Leicas were still regarded as a somewhat practical camera.

Click to shrink...

In my research, I saw a lot of pro photographers using Leica as a hobby camera--for travel, street photography, and so on. I thought that was interesting. The mega pricey Leicas were their "fun" cameras. I guess it was easier to turn off their pro photo brains with these things.

 

[grmlin]

In my research, I saw a lot of pro photographers using Leica as a hobby camera--for travel, street photography, and so on. I thought that was interesting. The mega pricey Leicas were their "fun" cameras. I guess it was easier to turn off their pro photo brains with these things.

Click to shrink...

Leica M forces you to take your time. No autofocus, manual FTW. So it's quite the opposite, the photo brain has to be on high alarm lol. It's probably a very different part of photo brain when you do photography for a living though. :)

 

[Fëanor]

The only Leica camera I would love to own is the M10 Monochrom. Who knew I would want a black and white digital camera.

As for 35mm photography, putting money to the side to get the greatest 35mm camera ever, the Nikon F6.

 

[GamePnoy74]

I tried out an M10 with their F.95 50mm lens at a Leica store once, the bokeh on the photos I took in-store look amazing fully wide-open. Even though it's MF and the UI is very minimalistic it's actually very intuitive and quick to learn. It's not intimidating as an MF camera, it makes you feel quite engaged once you figure out the controls.

But yeah, that kit I tried out is about $20k, an amazing setup but too rich for my blood lol

 

[BlueTsunami]

It's a mix of boutique sentiment and amazing engineering. Their lenses are world beaters but getting lost in those reeds is not a good thing. Photography is so much more than the best correction of light.

 

[Reeks]

I've considered DSLRs before but their form factor is too bulky. I've tested a few.

Click to shrink...

I have friends who love their Fujifilm cameras. They produce beautiful photos, but I haven't used one personally.

I have a mirrorless Nikon Z6, which I absolutely love. The s lenses for the Z series are sharp as a tack and really solid, even the F4 kit lens is legit. Hard to believe it's a kit lens. If you want a retro look you can always get good adapters and use vintage glass. I have the FTZ adapter and use it with my fast prime lenses to achieve dreamy depth of field. I also love Nikon because the color science produces the best colors. I've been shooting documentaries and use this for my BCam/BRoll on a slider or a gimbal. I usually match my A Cam to the Nikon color because their punchy yet natural. If you're going straight photography, you might try the Z7, bigger sensor, but not as good for video.

 

[PawPrints]

I now own a Leica Q and, I also own an fuji XT4 and Xpro camera, and former Canon and Sony shooter (but still use the RX100 mk6). The Leica Q is head and above everything else I use in terms of pure picture quality. I am always giddy by the picture quality it produces. My Fuji Xt4 I use if I want a more filmic analogue looking picture quality.

I really want a Leica M rangefinder style camera but those costs as much as a used car these days :( but I'm determined to get one eventually

 

[grmlin]

I now own a Leica Q and, I also own an fuji XT4 and Xpro camera, and former Canon and Sony shooter (but still use the RX100 mk6). The Leica Q is head and above everything else I use in terms of pure picture quality. I am always giddy by the picture quality it produces. My Fuji Xt4 I use if I want a more filmic analogue looking picture quality.

I really want a Leica M rangefinder style camera but those costs as much as a used car these days :( but I'm determined to get one eventually

Click to shrink...

Leica Q is full frame and also expensive in it's own right though, correct? Not really a fair comparison to APS-C cameras then I would say :)

 

[Fugu]

Leica makes high-quality cameras. Indeed, if your tastes happen to line up with their niche (like if you are a film photographer that likes rangefinders) it's very hard to do better.

The Leica fanbase is also incredibly irritating. They have a poor reputation that many would describe as well-earned. It is somewhat common to hear people tout the "virtues" of Leica cameras in ways that seem to show no recognition of what makes a Leica camera so good in the first place. There's also the fact that Leica cameras cost several times as much as other cameras of a similar quality, and that the peculiar Leica elitism must at all times be contrasted against the fact that a camera is fundamentally just a very dark box and what matters the most is the person holding it.

Ken Rockwell has a great article on "The Leica Man": https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm

To the Leica man, only the best shall suffice. Second best is an oxymoron to the Leica man. It is not in his vocabulary. Second place is worse than losing, because it might be noticed.

To the Leica man, a silver medal would be an unfathomable embarrassment.

The Leica man concerns himself only with excellence, supremacy and being number one.

The Leica man exudes quiet confidence in his every step. The Leica man is always the best at everything he cares to do.

The Leica man doesn't care, or even know, the trifling price of his cameras. This is not relevant. Just like a Porsche, no one buys a Leica because he needs it. He acquires the Leica because he is who he is.

To the Leica man, the only expense on his acutely discerning radar is the insurmountable price of being second-best. This is never acceptable, much less even considered.

Don't fret price when discussing photography issues with a Leica man. He doesn't know or care price; the only thing that concerns him is being the best.

The Leica man rarely takes his own pictures. He has others to bother with that for him if he is on holiday. If the Leica man requires art, he has it purchased for him.

This is why Leica men don't care about a Leica's picture-taking ability, and get so oddly freaked out if you mention cameras that are better for a fraction of the price. "Better for what?" asks the Leica man. Taking pictures? Who uses cameras to take pictures? Rarely the Leica man. You are personally insulting him and his vastly superior taste should you broach this topic.

Click to shrink...

 

[Lydecker]

If you like retro style and dials, and excellent image quality, buy one of the Fuji X100 models. If you want to use their great range of superb lenses, get one of their interchangeable models (some of them also feature Fuji's outstanding IBIS system, the X-T4 or the smaller and on the 15th of October to be announced X-S10).

 

[BlueTsunami]

I now own a Leica Q and, I also own an fuji XT4 and Xpro camera, and former Canon and Sony shooter (but still use the RX100 mk6). The Leica Q is head and above everything else I use in terms of pure picture quality. I am always giddy by the picture quality it produces. My Fuji Xt4 I use if I want a more filmic analogue looking picture quality.

I really want a Leica M rangefinder style camera but those costs as much as a used car these days :( but I'm determined to get one eventually

Click to shrink...

That thing has a 28 Summilux attached to it. So jelly.

 

[PawPrints]

Leica Q is full frame and also expensive in it's own right though, correct? Not really a fair comparison to APS-C cameras then I would say :)

Click to shrink...

correct. Leica Q is still super expensive these days, and I bought mine used. Prob not completely fair comparing the two but they are the cameras I have. Since the Q is a fixed lens, it can't do everything....so I have my XT4 to fill those duties. But my non photography friends always choose the photos I take of them with the Q even with portraits lol

If they make a Q ver with 35mm or 50mm I'll buy it in a heartbeat

 

[PawPrints]

That thing has a 28 Summilux attached to it. So jelly.

Click to shrink...

yeah the lens on it is pure quality for sure :)