Switching to Leica

Yes.. It does depend on what you plan on shooting, but I believe it can absolutely be worth it. Leica’s hold their own in most shooting conditions, excel when lighting is ideal, and falter when lighting is poor. Leica’s are not designed to shoot concerts with crazy shutter speeds, or an incredible ability to rip iso like Sony, and Leica’s are definitely not designed to shoot sports on a 500mm lens (the longest native Leica lens is a 135mm). However, when shooting things like street photography, landscape photography, commercial photography, wedding photography, etc. Leica excels at delivering the highest quality photos while staying extremely compact and easy to travel with and set up (If you travel and are looking for a camera I 100% recommend a Leica). 

The financial problem with most modern gear is that it gets updated every 2-3 years, and depreciates quickly after a new model is released. While Leica does come out with new cameras, and their technology does get better, their past cameras don’t become obsolete in the same way that Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Fuji do. Many of the Leica M cameras are actually still worth what they retailed, or more, while the new models of other brands (Sony a7 iii, Sony A7r iii, Nikon Z7 ii, Canon 5D Mk iv, Canon M6) still take phenomenal photos, they will be updated and used less once better versions of their cameras roll around. This DOES happen with Leica digital gear, but to a much smaller extent, and it’s quite the opposite with their film gear. 

Absolutely, and in fact Leica is so popular with professional photographers that many consider it a faux cult, because of how much adoration professionals and users have around the brand. If you’d like to see some images you’ve likely seen before (but didn’t know were taken with a Leica) check this out. 

Yes. I will fully admit that I am not a 100% impartial judge (I’ve really only shot Canon/Nikon/Sony/Leica, and really only owned Canon & Leica), but I will give you a little bit of insight into why I think their lenses are SO much better. Leica glass for the M system is that much better than Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. because they don’t have to place any electronics inside the lens. The lenses are manual focus, and you set the aperture with a ring dial around the lens, so there’s no need for microchips and electronics because the camera body doesn’t have to control the lens in any way. That means that Leica has never needed to change their mount (for the M series), so any Leica M lens is going to work on any Leica M body. My Summicron 35 V3 was made in 1968 (and yea I can check the dates on every single piece of Leica gear I own because they archive all of their serial numbers because they put that much thought and care into every piece of gear) and in size it is approximately 1/5th the length of the Canon 35 1.4 II, and performs significantly better. Far less chromatic aberration, much clearer photographs, and much smaller and lighter. On top of that, because you don’t have to put any electronics into the lens to control it, you can put much more effort and money into the actual glass and elements you’re putting on the lens, allowing my $1.5K-$2k Summicron from the 70s to majorly outperform all of my canon lenses that came out in the last decade and cost the same amount. 

Leica is expensive for a multitude of reasons, but the two easy answers are quality, and prestige. Leica’s are made with some of the best quality parts and have been manufacturing cameras for decades. They are also highly prestigious because of the quality and level of photographers who use them, and their durability; Leica’s do not just break.  

It really depends on what you’re shooting, Sony dominates many photography spaces with amazing low light capabilities, eye detection auto focus, and the ability to capture a high number of frames per second. However, I prefer the quality, depth, and colors that Leica is able to deliver over the incredible electronics inside of Sony gear. 

Zeiss and Leica lenses are very interchangeable and many photographers would consider them incredibly equal. 

For film, the Leitz CL with a Summicron-C 40 f2. Other good options would be an M2, M3, or the Leica III series, each with different price points for various advantages/disadvantages over one another. Perhaps I’ll have to write another blog post about which Leica to get/how to jump into the world of Leica.  

For digital, likely the Leica D-Lux 7 Digital Camera, although I would definitely spend a little more if you can, and try and pick up a Leica M240 or Leica M262 used.

For film, the Leica M2/M3, for digital the Leica M240, or the Leica CL.

Leica lenses are so small because no electronics have to be placed into the lens. 

Leica and Matsushita, also known as the Panasonic brand, jointly develop digital cameras. These products are sold as both Leica and Panasonic but Leica Camera AG is 45% owned by The Blackstone Group.

A Leica 0-series no. 122 just sold at auction for approximately $2.8 million but the most expensive retail Leica currently available is the Leica M10-P “Reporter” Limited Edition which will cost you $8,795.00 (for just the camera body). The most expensive retail film Leica currently available is the Leica MP 0.72 Black which will run you $5,295.00 (again just the body). The most expensive M lens is currently the Leica Noctilux-M 50 f/1.2 ASPH. Silver Chrome going for $16,395.00.

From a technical standpoint, the Leica MP delivers absolutely everything that anyone could ever ask for in a rangefinder film camera. However, Leica purists may also tell you that the Leica M6 is the Best 35mm Film Camera Ever Conceived.

Focal length is a HUGE topic of debate, but both types of lenses have their strengths and weaknesses. With prime lenses, like a 35mm 1.4, or a 50mm 1.4, the lens does not extend or, “zoom” so if you want to frame your subject differently, or get tighter (closer to the subject) in the photograph, you have to move your actual feet in and close the gap between the camera and the subject. However, with prime lenses you also get a better aperture for the price, leading to better portraits typically being taken with fixed lenses like the 35, 50, or 85. 

With Zoom lenses you get more control of what’s in frame, without ever moving, because you can simply zoom in and out. However, zoom lenses usually have a “larger” minimum aperture, like a 24-70 2.8, or a 70-200 2.8. That 2.8 is a “larger” aperture than the apertures of typical prime lenses (typically 1.4/1.8/2.0). Those extra aperture steps can let in more light allowing prime lenses to be used in worse lighting conditions and create better separation and depth of field in photographs. I personally only use prime lenses because they’re also smaller and lighter than zoom lenses.