Leicas are a niche product, and have been since the invention of the 35mm SLR. They deliver very high-quality results in a very small package, and this has its advantages in certain applications. I can certainly see how they would be useful for a professional who needs the maximum quality and minimum bulk.

Any professional photographer will inevitably have a number of cameras. There is no one-size-fits-all camera, nor should there be. If you need to shoot in a monsoon, you probably should choose a different camera. Henri Cartier-Bresson’s M3 was presumably not weather sealed, either.

Whenever the topic of Leica comes up, someone inevitably complains that it’s unfair that the cameras cost so much, and that Leica should, out of the goodness of its heart, offer a more affordable option. But Leicas have never been “affordable”. The closest they ever came was the Leica CL, which cannibalized the market for their main rangefinder line.

The luxury branding and price point are what enables Leica to continue to exist where others have failed. There is no huge market for affordable rangefinder cameras. Epson proved that. As Mike Johnson has said: most people say they want an affordable rangefinder, when what they really want is a Leica.

For the record, all of my Leica gear was bought used. As I see it, Leica’s R&D was subsidized by the first user, and I got the gear at a very reasonable price. I don’t see how suggesting you should buy a used M8 is some kind of insult.

Again, the X1 is hardly a pro camera. The IQ is the best in it’s class due to the APS sensor and the ergonomics are excellent, but at the end of the day it’s a very expensive point and shoot.

If Leica wants to offer a lower cost alternative that appeals to professionals, they should produce an APS-C rangefinder in the mold of the CL. Unfortunately S. Daniels is on the record saying that Leica has no interest whatsoever in producing such a camera and if you can’t afford an M9, too bad, buy a used M8 or look elsewhere.

2) Yes, there is the occasional pro shooter with an M9 in the field, but they are a drop in the ocean. Although the camera is built to very high tolerances and the fit and finish is very tight, it is not sealed. I would not risk shooting with one a downpour, nor would I feel comfortable using one in a desert with dust as fine as talcum powder. A working pro can’t afford to take that risk, because if the camera fails due to environmental impact and they don’t get the shot, they don’t get paid. They will also have a very expensive and very dead camera on their hands.

Often the comparison is made to the unsealed analog bodies that were used through out the Vietnam War in jungle condition. This really isn’t a good analogy. A analog M will not short circuit if water enters the body. Instead it can be dried out and will probably continue to function. This is not the case with the M9.

Throughout the industry it has been the norm for close to 20 years that pro bodies are sealed against rain and dust. Yes, people work with unsealed bodies, but we are mostly talking about consumer or prosumer cameras that cost considerably less and who’s loss would not be a financial disaster (and a 2nd backup body is cheap)

3) I’m not even sure if the Epson RD-1 is still in production. We’re also talking about a camera with a 6MP sensor that traces it’s roots to the Nikon D100. I’m not even sure if publications will accept images of such low resolution for assignments.

4) I understand that the M9 uses a CCD vs CMOS. But ultimately the only thing people care about is how clean the high iso performance of the camera is. That’s what counts and the M9 just cuts it at 2500asa. I’m also pretty certain that the vast majority of people out there do not care nor notice the difference in character between an image taken with a CCD and CMOS sensor.

I have to cut Leica some slack on this subject, because they do need a sensor with the offset lenses. Kodak is one of the few companies that will make a relatively small run of custom sensors, so they do not have much of a choice as to where they can go. Sensor development is incredibly expensive and Leica is dependent on 3rd party suppliers. Therefore Leica will probably always lag behind companies like Nikon and Canon.

But Leica justifying the high price tag of the M9, because of the supposedly industry leading performance of the sensor is a little disingenuous. The M9 IQ is very high, but it’s hardly benchmark setting.

5) As I said, I think Leica is catering to pros with the S2 and the features it offers. If they can build a support network similar to Hasselblad etc. it has a good chance of succeeding. It is a very nice camera and if I was in the market for a MF system it certainly would be something I would look in to. I just wish they would adopt the same mentality, when it comes to the M-series.

My only question in regards to the S2 is how do you upgrade the sensor 3-4 years from now? Will Leica offer an upgrade program or will buyers have to toss the entire body? With Hasselbald you simply swap the back. I guess they are counting on people writing the camera off on their taxes and dumping them, when they are ready to upgrade.

6) “Photographers here in NYC do well.”
Maybe people who work in fashion or advertising, but most photojournalists (who supposedly are the bedrock of the Leica mythos) are barely scrapping by.

7) “Lots of Leica customers aren’t only “well heeled.” They are people that sacrificed for a long time. Many students shoot with Leica’s, you’d be amazed.”

BHphoto:

M9 $6995
1.4/35 Summilux ASPH $4495
1.4/50 Summilux ASPH $3695

You are looking at roughly $10,000 for an M9 with a single 35mm or 50mm lens. Make that around $8500 if you get a single Summarit, instead of the Summilux.

Any student with a $10,000 camera is hardly poor or even middle class. I would call a student with a used M6 “dedicated”, but the sale of that camera didn’t put a nickel in Leica’s pocket.

Personally I own a bag of Leica gear, half of it purchased new. So, yes. If you make saving for one a priority it is doable.
But I’m fortunate to have a well paying job. Prices on Leica gear has gone up considerably over the past few years and unlike
digital cameras the analog bodies did not have an “expiration date”.

While the M9 is a big improvement over the M8.x, the lack of proper sealing makes it a difficult choice for photojournalists, who often have to work under adverse conditions. Sounds trivial, but it’s a big deal in practice, especially when we are talking about a camera this expensive. If you are working with two M9 bodies in the rain you’re playing Russian Roulette to the tune of $14,000. Most people are not willing to take that risk.

There is no tiered product line. Leica is the only camera company in the world that does not have a diverse product lineup with different price levels. Either you can afford two M9 bodies for $14,000 or you don’t play at all. S. Daniels is on the record saying that Leica has no interest whatsoever in producing a second lower spec’d camera at a lower price point. He quite bluntly stated that if you can’t afford an M9, too bad, buy a used M8 or look elsewhere. Right there Leica gave the middle finger to the vast majority of working photographers and a large portion of their loyal base of enthusiasts, who have been shooting analog M for years and can’t afford the jump to the M9.

That said I understand why the M9 is expensive. Production costs in Germany are very high and they are made by hand in relatively low numbers, so you do not enjoy the benefits of the economy of scale. But the arrogance that belies the excuse for not making a lower priced alternative is staggering and says a lot about how the company now sees itself.

In general Leica has moved to present itself as a luxury lifestyle brand and not necessarily a high-end manufacturer of professional camera gear. Maybe they were forced to do that in order to survive as a niece player. But Leica’s marketing of the M series sounds more like they are selling Mont Blanc fountain pens, than high end pro cameras. In comparison look at the approach they are taking with the S2. That’s more what it should be.

Thanks for visiting the blog. Your comments are appreciated however, I do have to respectfully disagree.

I’ve used the X1 before when I was at Photography Bay: http://www.photographybay.com/2009/10/26/leica-x1-hands-on-review/ I didn’t notice shutter lag at all. The X1 is still a competitor to the Micro Four Thirds system and others like it as well. Is it expensive? Yes it is, but the X1 is still a wonderful camera with excellent image output and it is also still very discrete, simple and straightforward. I had a pleasure using it.

As for M9′s, I guess you don’t go to Gizmodo at all. They regularly interview a photographer in Iraq that uses nothing but Leicas. Those cameras are very, very tough. If someone tried to rob me of mine, I would beat them with it and not worry. Additionally, they have a very long lifespan. When you buy the cameras you’re paying for that, servicing, warranty, and replacements if needed from the nearest dealer. For the price, it’s not bad. I’d buy one if my work didn’t demand more from me.

I had hands-on time with the S2 during their road show but haven’t blogged about it due to other things taking more priority like the field reviews.

Photographers here in NYC do well. If you can justify the expense, then purchase it. That’s really about it. With a Leica you will probably never buy another body again saving you over the long term quite a bit of money.

Lots of Leica customers aren’t only “well heeled.” They are people that sacrificed for a long time. Many students shoot with Leica’s, you’d be amazed.

Yes, they are a luxary brand, I’d agree with that. But with their marketing they also show themselves as very open, kind and caring as a company that fiercely hold onto their traditions. They are to be respected for that. When Canon went to the EOS line, they lost a lot of customers. As did Olympus when they went digital due to both companies almost abandoning their past. Nikon, Pentax and Leica didn’t.

Epson also makes digital rangefinders. You’re right about the D3s, but consider the fact that they use a CCD vs CMOS sensor. Also, they have the most film-like look to their images. Hence, black and white does well with them.

Please explain how they turned their back.

Also please keep in mind that I’m trying to be balanced here and not attack any one side.

-Chris
Editor, ThePhoblographer.com

Want proof?

What professional in their right mind would buy a $7500 M9 body that isn’t weathersealed? You’re going to take that thing to Iraq or Haiti? Good luck.

They seem to be trying with the S2. I’ll give them credit for that.

The X1? That’s for the country club crowd. The shutter lag alone makes the camera close to useless for anything but static subjects. It doesn’t even have a viable viewing system and lacking that, it’s controls for zone focusing are primitive at best. They may sell a lot of them, but most of those people are taking pictures of their pets or vacation snaps.

They may be able to point to a handful of famous shooters among their M customers, but for starters the average working photographer can barely afford a Leica lens hood these days.

Leica should just drop the act. They are primarily after the well heeled enthusiasts. They see themselves as a luxury brand and that is reflected by their marketing and general attitude.

Yes, their lenses are second to none, but priced beyond the reach of 90% of the market. The M9 is a nice camera (and the only game in town if you want a digital RF), but in terms of IQ it’s hardly in the same league as something like the Nikon 3Ds.

Actually it’s a shame. I’ve been a longtime M shooter, sometimes as a professional, most of the time as an independent. It’s sad to see Leica turn their back on their true customer base and more than 80 years of their history.