Is Leica all it is said to be

[jeremy rundle]

I was at the living coast the past week with my son and this chap was talking to anyone who would listen to him, he was extolling the virtues of the "best camera ever" the/his Leica digital.

 

Personally I have never seen anything in them and they are pointless for what I shoot but are they that good.

 

I remember an article (almost) where they were being run down, as film cameras, sometimes made by Minolta I believe.

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893157-USA/Leica_10803_S_Type_006_Digital.html

[Leon]

Bill Allsopp uses a Leica he's probably the best one to answer this 

 

(where is Bill not seen him on here for a long time)

[Black Pearl]

They are aimed at people who understand why build quality, minuscule tolerances and that taking your time over a photograph are all worth money. If you machine gun your subject in the blind hope that a few of the thousands of frames you rattle off will be reasonable then they are not for you.

Frankly if I had the money I'd be shooting with a M Monochrom with a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH on the front.

[jeremy rundle]

Why do people say that "machine gun" approach

 

One assumes that it is NOT aimed at sports photographers.

 

Single frame time taking may be ok for easy going landscape work but not fast sports.

 

Of course I could miss 9 out of 10 GOOD shots with the one shot approach but that was not the question I asked

 

 

Edited August 17, 2014 by jeremy rundle

[jeremy rundle]

Or this one of 10

 

 

[jeremy rundle]

What I wanted to know was are leicas all leicas or a mix of cameras

 

http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_Cameras/Pages/leica.htm

 

The R4 for example was part Minolta

[JamWheel]

I was at the living coast the past week with my son and this chap was talking to anyone who would listen to him, he was extolling the virtues of the "best camera ever" the/his Leica digital.

 

Personally I have never seen anything in them and they are pointless for what I shoot but are they that good.

 

I remember an article (almost) where they were being run down, as film cameras, sometimes made by Minolta I believe.

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893157-USA/Leica_10803_S_Type_006_Digital.html

 

To be fair JR - the only question you ask in your original post (which has a missing question mark) is highlighted above and that is what the answer was aimed at, I think.

 

You didn't ask whether they were a mix of cameras, you made a statement about it and posted a link. 

[jeremy rundle]

1.  Missing question mark, I think I am great for a dyslexic.

 

2.  What has the reply "machine gun approach" to do with the answer,

 

I remember an article (almost) where they were being run down, as film cameras, sometimes made by Minolta I believe.

 

never mind

[Black Pearl]

 

 

Personally I have never seen anything in them and they are pointless for what I shoot but are they that good.

 

Ok then.

 

If you machine gun they aren't for you.

If you like to take your time they are.

 

Simples 

[Leon]

1.  Missing question mark, I think I am great for a dyslexic.

 

2.  What has the reply "machine gun approach" to do with the answer,

 

I remember an article (almost) where they were being run down, as film cameras, sometimes made by Minolta I believe.

 

never mind

think he was saying to use the Leica you have to sit and think about the shot, things like landscapes?   with what we photograph you use motordrive and shoot many images?

 

AS i SAID EARLIER THINGS WRITTEN IN TEXT DON'T ALWAYS COME ACROSS THE WAY WE MEAN THEM, the use of smileys ect makes things more clear

[ChrisLumix]

I can help a bit with the Minolta connection (that's not an insult by the way - Minolta made damn fine cameras) : Minolta and Leica joined forces to produce a more modern style of interchangeable lens rangefinder, the Minolta CL, in the early 1980s. Minolta were geared more towards innovation (first TTL camera, first multi-mode SLR, first autofocus SLR, etc) while Leica were set up more for build quality and optical excellence.

 

It's the same kind of marriage you see now with Lumix cameras - Panasonic electronics and innovation allied to Leica optics. So the answer to your question is - yes, they are all they are cracked up to be, but whether they are the prime camera of choice for sports photographer, I haven't the faintest idea as I've never been one. However, if Leica make a shutter priority camera then yes, it will be among the best.

[Guest]

Leica are made to extremely high quality standards, much like the top end lenses you have just bought yourself Jeremy. As you yourself said in the 50mm thread top quality gear can produce far better images that is why Leica cost lots and are capable of taking very good images. I would also dispute needing the to use the machine gun approach to get the image you want, this is a single shot not burst mode

 

[Black Pearl]

First TTL (if memory serves) was a Konica not Minolta and the first with AF in a SLR was Pentax - first AF camera was again Konica. I believe the first true multi mode SLR was a Canon.

[ChrisLumix]

First TTL (if memory serves) was a Konica not Minolta and the first with AF in a SLR was Pentax - first AF camera was again Konica. I believe the first true multi mode SLR was a Canon.

 

Not quite right there - Minolta had some form of TTL innovation in the 50s or 60s, but that was before my time! Minolta's XD7 WAS the first multi-mode SLR; you may be thinking of the Canon AE1 which was the first to contain an electronic processor? And yes, Minolta's X7000 WAS the first (practical) AF SLR as the AF was in the body rather than a bulky clumsy effort built onto a lens which was what other SLR manufacturers had tried. Konica may have been the first COMPACT AF perhaps?