Thread 4481813

Give it straight to me, /p/.

Are Leica M cameras a meme? Or are they worth it?
Mainly for portraits, and rock and leaves.

nice kigurumi and cute camera

>>4481813 (OP)
Meme for 95% of shooters
Ideal for 5% of shooters with specific niche preferences

They are a meme 100% of the time. Absolutely no one, zero people, need one. A leica is always a waste of money. It is always a bad decision.

No ifs or buts. It's pretty cut and dry. Asking this question is like asking if a different (more expensive) brand name on a leather purse can be "worth it". The answer is no. "But the brand name leather purse matches the brand name leather shoes, you cant have one without the other". The answer is still no. And nikon made a purse that matches the shoes 99% anyways.

The entire POINT of leica as a camera brand is wasting money. Google any leica model name+issues, they are BMW tier and need constant preventative maintenance. Every single digital leica has had severe issues and a limited lifespan. Leica will NOT improve this because the POINT is wasting money, and if their cameras were well made, people could just buy a used one with no real sacrifice which would defeat the point - owning a leica is demonstrating that lighting $10k on fire does not affect your life. It is literally nothing else. As for who that appeals to - guess. A lot of billionaires wear cheap watches... and there's a certain segment of society that will buy gold spinner rims despite living on food stamps.

>>4481817
>Ideal for 5% of shooters with specific niche preferences
>ideal for my autistic funko pop collecting meaningless feature entitlement where i make non-issues sound very important in my mind
avg milennial who spends $20k on hobbies, has no kids
just look at any car meet, any "gun guy", any electric guitar "collector", they are all like this
>but i have to have it THAT way
>you see despite everyone who does this for a living not giving a fuck, ___ is very important and i can rant about it all day
>its about MY PERSONAL experience LET ME DO WHAT I WANT (<-overgrown child)
millennials are disgusting and idiotic individuals

>>4481821
An awful lot of anger you have

Maybe one day you'll understand that other people like things differently then you

Maybe one day you'll stop being upset about what other people choose to buy

Maybe one day you'll grow up

>>4481820
>Absolutely no one, zero people, need one.
That doesn't make them a meme and you can extend the same low IQ line of thinking to apply to any product you don't like
>more dishonesty rambling

>>4481821
>stop having fun!!!

>>4481813 (OP)
They have the best form factor of any competing product, and whoever tells you otherwise is massively coping.

Their SOOC IQ is outstanding, even if they rely on the same sensor technology as their competitors. Leica glass is also top tier. That's just a fact, and again, whoever tells you otherwise, is massively coping.

As to whether they are worth the price that Leica charges, yes, they are because people keep buying them and that's what the market demands.

Are they good value for money? obviously not. You can get more dollar for dollar with Canon or Nikon.

>>4481820
>>4481821
These comments are more a meme than the cameras are at this point

>>4481820
>>4481821
Based as fuck. Consumerists need to grow up.

>>4481822
There is a such thing as a bad decision even if you enjoy it. Growing up is realizing hedonism is wrong. Not moving past criticizing drug addicts and servants of mammon. Hedonism is wrong, okay? It’s bad for you. It’s bad for society. It’s bad for people close to you. Your life will always be better without it.

>>4481826
Because you say so? Everything from measured color accuracy to mtf charts are mid, and subjectively the photos dont stand out. Leicas just aren’t good cameras.
Bad value is an understatement. A bad value is a fuji costing as much as a nikon despite being measurably shit. A leica lens can easily cost as much as a car, for the mtf chart of a $150 nikkor af-d prime. There is no real benefit.

Leicas are really just bad decisions and "liking it" and making shit up will never change the reality. Hedonism is wrong.

>>4481813 (OP)
The blown asshole autogynephile in a cartoon mask standing in an "adult" play room holding a leica tells you what you need to know about leicas

all the poorfag seething makes them worth it

>>4481831
Do cocaine instead

>>4481815
>>4481830
kiggas with cameras, my favorite subject

>ctrl+f kids college fund
>0 results
/leica

>>4481829
>more meme comments
>more dishonesty
Are you sure you aren't the one that hadn't grown up?

>>4481838
Growing up is realizing hedonism is wrong. Not moving past criticizing drug addicts and servants of mammon. Hedonism is wrong, okay? It’s bad for you. It’s bad for society. It’s bad for people close to you. Your life will always be better without it.

>>4481838
literally nothing said there was incorrect or dishonest

is this your version of plugging your ears and going la la la or calling whoever disagrees with you a nazi?

>>4481840
>>4481839
> nothing said there was incorrect or dishonest
There's no point in engaging with people who won't be honest
>no! I won't grow up!

>>4481841
You can’t say what was wrong? Just that it hurt your feelings?

Let me guess, you made the aforementioned bad decision to the scale of starting a kids college fund, if you had a kid?

>>4481843
>You can’t say what was wrong
Again, no point in engaging with people who rely on dishonesty
If you don't know why
>There is no real benefit.
Is dishonest at best, no point in continuing

Notice how you have to resort to making assumptions to attack me? Not very grown up

>>4481844
>its wrong
>say how
>ITS WRONG
My assumptions were correct.

It is maintained that there is simply no valid reason to buy a leica. It’s hedonistic waste. An evil thing.

>>4481845
we are talking cameras m8, not about your made up mumbo jumbo

>>4481845
>My assumptions were correct
>I am right because I am right
Sounds very grown up to me bud
Valid reasons have been given, even in this thread, but are obvious if you even know anything about Leica to have an opinion
Would you like me to list some for you?
Then you can just cope the reasons away as not valid for whatever reason, because you are right

>>4481844
>uhm, dont you know its different? so to say there is no real benefit is to say the differences dont matter. OHHHHH…
Gearfags always get so close to btfoing themselves

>>4481845
See also, even in this thread
>specific niche preferences
Becomes
>my autistic funko pop collecting meaningless feature entitlement where i make non-issues sound very important in my mind

Sure you aren't the one plugging your ears in?

>>4481848
and Leica haters do nothing but cope and seethe

>>4481847
>>4481846
No, valid reasons were not given. Some retard made shit up about leica lenses being top tier.

They are optically the same as 1990s japanese shit. This was only top tier in 1950.

There aren’t valid reasons to buy a leica. It is beyond a bad value. This lens alone costs as much as a used car, a hefty medical bill, a semester of good private tutelage… and it’s optically low tier. On par with $150 nikon and canon lenses.

You are going to have to admit that there is a such thing as a bad decision even if you enjoy it
A decision your life would be better without if you simply decided that there were better things to enjoy

>>4481849
I didn’t write that, but I agree with it. Niche preferences for what? Putting the shutter speed dial on top? It’s meaningless differences that are as impactful as the brand name.

You could say cocaine is worth it because you think the paraphernalia can be pretty but it’s still justifying cocaine addiction. Not all reasons are valid even if "its preference". Preferences can be bad.

>>4481851
>They are optically the same as 1990s
Some are, this is an example of dishonesty
>There aren’t valid reasons to buy a leica
See, you are doing what I said you would do (and already did). No reason given will ever be valid in your eyes.
>On par with $150 nikon and canon lenses.
Should be trivially easy to share us some comparison examples from online to show us how very right you are
>You are going to have to admit
lol, sure thing once you admit your dishonesty

>>4481852
>Niche preferences for what?
>I don't care about xyz, therefore no one else should either
Stellar argument
Also, if the first thing you think of for why someone might want to use Leica is having a shutter speed dial on top, that just shows how retarded or dishonest you actually are

>>4481853
You may as well be screaming "no" on repeat. Verdict: you are unable to address the central point.

That exact lens is notable for having virtually identical performance vs the EF 35mm f2. There are minor differences in a give and take relationship but not enough to make it top tier… it underperforms modern mirrorless, its on par with cheaper voigtlanders. Refute this instead of throwing a toddler tantrum with "no" subbed with "dishonest"
>*stomps feet* dishonest dishonest dishonest!

>>4481854
Yes, meaningless cosmetics are not a valid reason to waste thousands of dollars on taking the same pictures as vastly cheaper equipment that is as but usually more capable. Just because you "like" it does not mean it is a good idea.

Part of adulthood is realizing and accepting this. Just because you like it does not mean it is a good idea.

>>4481855
>you are unable to address the central point.
Which is?
> is notable
Cool, so you can link me to people talking about this or articles about the two together then? If it's that notable...
> meaningless cosmetics
Again, retard or dishonest, take your pick

>Part of adulthood is realizing and accepting this.
Same for understanding other people have different preferences than you. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is a bad idea.

leicas are different but the differences are not enough for 99.99999% of photographers to want one

its about fashion and clout, like a mechanical rolex is different sure but keeps worse time than a $150 citizen ecodrive and shits itself if worn while golfing while the $150 watch does not
it just says rolex and lets you look at it while feeling like a greedy materialist jewel hoarder

Also, please notice how these goalposts shifted
>OP asks about Leica M cameras
we move to
>Leica lenses suck
and then to
>This specific Leica lens sucks

>>4481857
>leicas are different but the differences are not enough for 99.99999% of photographers to want one
Honest
>its about fashion and clout
Dishonest

Good try

>>4481856
Another post from you that is essentially a toddler stomping his little foot and screaming no on repeat.

I am sorry child, but you wasted enough money to buy three used cars on a janky bauble that takes the same photos as a 5dIII. Or an a7c. I have no idea why else you would be throwing this hissy fit of yours.

>>4481859
I said want, not need. Eventually there will be some idiot who wants to make a bad decision. That doesn’t mean it’s a good decision. It means someone somewhere is stupid.

>>4481860
>I know I'm losing so I'll just insult you, wont even engage your simple questions
Sounds very grown up
>I have no idea why else you would be throwing this hissy fit of yours.
Yeah, that's the problem when have no ability (or desire) to understand where other people are coming from, maybe just autist not retard, my bad

>>4481861
>I said want, not need
You didn't need to make that comment, but you did
>It means someone somewhere is stupid.
Awful lot of that here in this thread it seems

>>4481861
Also
>I said want, not need.
In that case, if you think only 00.00001% of photographers even just "want" a Leica, you are great retard

>>4481862
You haven’t refuted a single point or explained anything. You’ve just been saying "dishonest" at everything you can’t deny.

Your only real argument this far is "but i like it"
And we’ve been over that too

Just because you like it doesn’t mean it’s a good decision. Exercise some free will and like a better decision instead.

There is no situation in which sinking extra thousands into taking identical pictured with a different brand name is better for you or anyone than other uses of that money. It is undeniably a waste.

Now say dishonest again, bitch.

You lose. I’m done with you. Whatever you say everyone else already knows you’re just crying. If you reply again it’ll make you look even sadder than the usual foot-stamping "dishonest dishonest dishonest!" fits everyone recognizes you by, pothead dog snapshitter. Sell your junk, get off 4chan, and live a better life.

>>4481866
>You’ve just been saying "dishonest" at everything you can’t deny.
I've said dishonest when you've been dishonest.
If you know about Leica enough to have a worthwhile opinion on them, you would be aware of what people genuinely (and honestly) like about them, and wouldn't need those reasons spelled out for you.
So you either don't actually know the cameras that well, or you are retarded, or maliciously dishonest.

Again, you just say xyz doesn't actually matter for you, so it shouldn't matter for anyone else, because you are right. Then resort to random attacks like before.

>Sell your junk, get off 4chan, and live a better life.
Is shitposting about a camera brand you don't like living a better life?

Coping gearfags lost
Leica IS a waste of money

>>4481870
>Leica IS a waste of money
Waste no, but not a good choice for most photographers, and possibly most Leica owners
No need to add to the dishonesty

>just wanted to know if a Leica M would be a worthy upgrade from my L39 camera
>absolute autism meltdown
why are you guys like this

>>4481872
ignore the autists and go for it. you deserve nice things in life!

>>4481871
its just a waste

>>4481872
thats a man

>>4481813 (OP)
I own both a Leica M11 and a Hasselblad 907X & CFV 100C.

I like both. You should buy both if you can afford it.

>>4481878
Although I really only take tripod stable still lifes.

>>4481879
that's some black magic shit on the table anon is that how you got rich?

>>4481878
We all know you don't go outside. Did you get tired of posting your Vacheron Constantin's on /fa/?

Some day, I feel like you're going to get unmasked and we're all going to have a good laugh about it.

The only good thing about leica is their autism about a thin sensor stack and special microlenses at the edges in order to perform the best with film lenses, and actually making good glass thst doesn't need corrections

>>4481882
perhaps he is a joo ?

>>4481884
you cant tell at all unless using a snoy

>>4481882
Yes.

Would you like me to take a photo of the cards (and divine your future at the same time!).

>>4481889
i'm a bit skeptical but just this once let's do it.

>>4481813 (OP)
>>4481835
>>4481872
These are men

>>4481892
>>4481875
and?

>>4481891
>Hasselblad 907X & CFV 100C w/ XCD 38mm f/2.5

Anon, I... wanted to give you good news. Perhaps the promise of a positive ending to the year. But will not be the case. Now, and into your immediate future, I see conflict, tension, and disagreement.

Right now you're fighting battles that, even if you win, the victory will not be worth the cost. You need to ask yourself, do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? If you instinctually said "I want to be right" that's fine... but know that you could make all the right decisions and still be lead to a bad outcome.

Is it worth being right even if it costs you peace and connection with others?

Counterpoint to the whole immense expense, overpriced lenses, etc issues
What about the m240 and Voigtlander, thypoch, etc lenses? Comes out to like $2.5k for the body and one prime. Still a silly ass amount of money, but not used-car in exchange for a single lens level nonsense.
Ngl, at a certain point you’d be better off shooting a manual film camera for a similar experience

>>4481882
>is that how you got rich?
She's a well known trip fag on /fa/ and a few other boards/generals.

All we know is that her family is extremely wealthy, she is or cosplays as some sort of academic, and spends an insane amount of money on trinkets and gear. Everything from watches, to guns, cameras, etc.

Outside of being a typical attention whore (likely the result of being a shut-in or completely isolated from normal human society), she's pretty harmless.

>>4481896
you’d be going in for the price of something cool and unique like an old ccd mf setup like a hassy 39ii or some cobbled together leaf shit (fuck, if you can go higher there’s a few hy6 rigs on ebay for $5k) for the same fucking moderately blurry jpegs as any other aps-c to full frame camera… and arguably worse everything than a film camera. it would be hard to tell from a snoy really.

leicas are pure fashion/"experience" snobbery, worse than fountain pens

>>4481897
why does every 4chan consoomer converge on the same trinkets
>watches guns pens keyboards cameras guitars pedals synths

>>4481886
>It doesn't matter, except when it does matter, but I don't care about when it does matter, so it never matters
Good job keeping the retard momentum going

>>4481895
that's okay... it's a bit eerie how accurate of a divination that is but i guess in this geopolitical situation and overall complicated times we live in many others could also resonate with it. but hey at least the photo is nice. i played around with that same model at yodobashi akiba not too long ago and i must admit i'm a bit jelly.

>>4481896
>why not?
Its just a shitty digital in a branded box. Only film leicas make any sense whatsoever. Some fag here took a picture of his dog on every camera and fuji, sony, gfx50, leica, nikon all look the same. Because digital always looks the same. Pixel peep and underexpose 4 stops to see the very valuable differences! Film leica is at least historical. Digital leica has all the soul of a licensed airsoft replica of a military issue sidearm.

>>4481906
>it doesnt matter unless adapting film lenses to soulless snoy mirrorless instead of the joy of reflex or at least a niggon zee
ergo it doesn’t matter

>>4481908
>Some fag here took a picture of his dog on every camera and fuji, sony, gfx50, leica, nikon all look the same
You must have memory problems too
>>4481909
>ergo it doesn’t matter
for you

>>4481911
Do you know how many fags here have taken borderline identical photos of their dogs on different cameras? It’s going on 20 I’m sure

Whats with gearfags and dogs?

>non-stop Leica hate
>like, literally, non-stop for years

Is this the TRUE power of Leica?

>>4481914
>literally non stop audi hate, literally, for years
Seriously fuck audi. Garbage shitboxes. BMW in a suit, sony in a suit, used to be unique but shit, german but actually chinese, what retards buy because they dont know sweden exists, leica is audi.

>>4481915
>BMW in a suit
Oops
*VW
If they were BMWs in suits they would actually be good

>The one anon who owns a Leica.
>I like it. It's great. Here are some fun images!
>The rest of /p/.
>Leica is SHIT fuck that my Canon/Sony/Fujifilm with Voigtlander lens is just as good okay!! IT JUST IS!!!

>>4481917
The rest of /p/ is right

Snoy sensor is snoy sensor, simple as. One must shoot real medium format (not snoy dx "medium" format) or a vintage digishitter for digital to have any character.

The leica m8 and m9 are the only digital leicas that aren’t just tweaked snoys and they’re usually broken

>>4481813 (OP)
rangefinders are good for street and doc photography. poor for rocks and leaves, poor to good for portrait, depending on the style. if you have leica money, medium format will be more suited for those subjects

>>4481813 (OP)
You can get the entire Leica experience for less money by shooting on a Canon P. The only thing you don't get is the status and fashion accessory a Leica brings. You can even use Leica or Voigtlander glass on it of you want. It's basically the best possible iteration of the earlier Barnack Leicas, sharing some characteristics of M models such as lever advance, singular parallax corrected finder and single speed dial. It also has some extra goodies like a normal film door rather than the bottom plate removal Leicas have. You are stuck using LTM glass, but thanks to Voigtlander there is relatively modern LTM glass out there.

>>4481922
not much more expensive to step it up to a canon 7s which is a nicer camera imo.

>>4481931
The reason I didn't say 7s is mostly because they haven't aged as well, and the viewfinder. The 7s, while being the final, and top of the range model has a few flaws. Having more electronics inside it, with the built in meter is a bit of a worry considering the cameras age, and even though they switched to a CDS meter rather than the selenium in the 7, the function of that meter is still tied to the value of the camera. With the P, the meter is external and mechanically coupling. The bigger problem though is the finder. The 5,6 and 7 all have that selectable finder and while it does seem like a good idea in theory, in practise I find it to be not as good. The edges of the frame are really vague, and makes it difficult to frame up perfectly, especially on 35mm mode. The finder is also darker than the P, which in contrast just has an ultra-clear, ultra bright finder with frame lines for 35, 50 and 100. Due to the brighter finder, the rangefinder patch comes through a lot brighter on the P too. The other thing about the selectable finders on the 7, is that you negate some of the benefit of using a rangefinder, which is that you can see subjects before they enter your frame. In some regard it feels more like a proto-SLR to use than a rangefinder. Admittedly I always thought the 7s would be the better camera, but I sold mine after not using it much and just assumed I didnt really like rangefinders. However, I recently found a P for cheap and I love it.

>>4481934
Fair enough might very well be a different strokes thing, I love my 7s and the switching viewfinder. And the meter still even works accurately enough on mine.

>>4481937
>very well be a different strokes thing
I would say so yes. A stand-in for a leica M I think the P is closer, but some, especially those used to SLRs may prefer the shooting experience on the newer 7s.