This is a question that has plagued me for some time. I think that the technical difference between the SLR and the rangefider is understood, but what makes cameras such as the Leica so expensive? Is it the lack of mirror slap among other things? I'm beginning to understand the lack of mechanical (thus creative) control of some automatic SLR's but I'm still in the dark about the rangefinder. Thanks in advance. Bob

-- Bob Passage (bgpassage@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999

Answers

The Leica rangefinder cameras are so expensive because of the exquisite craftsmanship that goes into building them, and because the lenses are literally the best in the world, bar none. The expense is not because they're rangefinders, but because they are so well made. They are built to last forever. There are various reasons why some photographers prefer them--beauty, collectability, ease of focussing, precision of focussing (especially with short lenses), ability to utilize very fast lenses, relatively small size, etc. I love my M4 because it is beautifully made and takes really fine photographs. The thing I like least about it is the difficulty in taking closeups (I use the Visoflex reflex housing and my 90mm f/2--very sharp, but cumbersome).

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), October 01, 1999.

There are several possible reasons.

First, there is the economics of scale: Leicas are not manufactured in the same high quantities as most SLRs. There is plenty of demand, not enough product. Prices rise.

Second, exclusivity. Leica has the 35mm rangefinder market all to itself, so the company can set the prices higher.

Third, and IMHO most importantly, quality of material. Leicas are SOLID. Optically and mechanically, they are second to none when it comes to quality and precision. For durability and critical work, they shine above most other cameras.

If you compare Leicas to manual focus SLRs made to similar standards to Leica rangefinders you'll find very little price difference. Look at high-end Contax and Leica SLRs and you'll see what I mean.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 01, 1999.

Leicas are expensive because they CAN be. They have a customer base that routinely pays absurd prices for ridiculous "commemorative special editions" as well as their standard (already freighteningly expensive) equipment. Leica cameras are percieved as status symbols, and being outrageously expensive is part and parcel of that. (A friend of mine used to say, "Leica makes cameras for surgeons, 'cause nobody else can walk into a camera store and casually drop five or six thousand dollars for a body and two lenses.")

Now before I get bashed by the Lecia types on this list, let me state for the record that they are indeed, fabulous instruments. Their manfuacturing quality is unimpeachable, and they surely have an astoundingly right feel. Leica lenses are great - I'm not sure they're necessarily better than other fine lenses, but they sure produce wonderful pictures. And rangefinder cameras certainly still have their uses - for some things, they are ideal, and the Leica IS the Rolls Royce of rangefinders. I am NOT objecting to the quality or abilities of Leica products, just their absurdly inflated pricing.

Hey, if I could afford one, I'd probably get it. But in reality, when I'm ready to play with a rangefinder, something like a used Canonet QL17 G-III is more my speed...

-- Michael Goldfarb (mgoldfar@mobius-inc.com), October 01, 1999.

Hand-made and the strictest end-control in comparison the other brands.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), October 01, 1999.

you will spend as much on a "top-shelf" slr and lenses as you will on a Leica rangefinder. The only difference is leica reached the summit in mechanical rangefinders and they have not changed in 50 years as much as automatic slr's have changed in the last 6 months. This means that one camera can last you a lifetime with little or no obsolesence. There are a few holdout slr's that meet these standards also but they are leaving fast! What irks me is that you don't hear any critic harrangue a painter for spending 45 dollars on a single brush, but photographers that want the best equipment are chided with the standard "It won't take better photos". Well, compare the shots of the canonet to the Leica, and then feel the rush of inspiration that the leica gives! I've been critical of Surgeons and their cameras probably too much so, but only when they say, what is dof? or can I shoot scotch film in my leica? Take your time Bob, learn everything you can about the cameras.....and good luck

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

I'm afraid I don't own, and can't afford, a Leica, but I can tell you some things about maufacturing precision instruments. The tighter the tolerances on the parts, the more they cost. The better the finish, the more they cost. The lower the volume, the more they cost. The more exotic the materials (or the more tightly specified as to heat treatment and alloy), the more they cost. Building a really good SLR in high volume can be done for, well, check with your dealer. Now, raise the quality level of every part by a factor of 2 to 10, and lower the volume by a factor of 100 to 1000, and watch the price skyrocket! If I had to guess, Leitz isn't making as much as one might think on these fine rangfinders. One thing not mentioned is the difference between the CLACK of an SLR, vs the click of a leaf shutter. Very important in some situations.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), October 01, 1999.

Many people who own Leicas are very passionate about them so I'll try to be careful about what I'm about to say and hope that I don't open a can of worms.

I used Leica M cameras exclusively for about 3-4 years, including the M4-P and the M6. Yes- they are beautifully made, solid, and of superb quality (body and lenses). So is my Nikon FM2n which is basically a SLR version of the M6. As good as the Leicas are, I strongly believe they are severely over-priced, mainly due to the rediculous collectors market- these are people who value the box as much as the camera. The Leica is a great tool and should be accesible to all serious photographers. It is not, simply because of the price. In my eyes, the Leica M6 is truly worth about $800 and the 35 mm f2 lens should cost about $650. A new M6 costs over twice that (do I hear a can of worms popping open?).

I currently use a Contax G2, which is NOT a "Japanese Leica" as many people believe. It is beautifully made, titanium clad, has excellent lenses, and essentially all the benefits of a RF. It is very different from the M6. The only commonality is really the absence of a mirror. I still benefit from the advantages of using a wide angle lens on a RF, and from continuous viewing etc...

Also, I would not equate the lack of mechanical features to a lack of creative control. The G2 has aperture priority AE, auto-wind and AF. However, I still control the exposure/image management entirely. I am simply empowered to do so more efficiently because I read the camera's instruction manual and practiced with it for about 30 minutes prior to the first use. The same is true of the M6 (i.e. efficiency of control, with practice) although I always found the method of changing a roll of film to be cumbersome.

This is a very personal and subjective choice. I prefer RF format because it suits the type of photography I enjoy i.e. spontaneous, hand-held, wide-angle, up front, unobtrusive etc. Others would find this format limiting if for example they are into landscape or wildlife photography. Like everything else with equipment, they're all simply tools used to optimize the photographers vision.

If you're at all curious about RF photography, go on EBay and spend $40-60 on a Canonet or Yashica Electro and see if it suits you, knowing in advance the situations that are conducive to using the RF format.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), October 01, 1999.

If you are in the market for one, why not look at the minolta line? Minolta and Leica made several cameras together and Leica uses some of minoltas lenses as their own. The rangefinders are practically identical and the Minolta is alot less in price.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 02, 1999.

BTW, there is no need whatsoever to buy a Leica new, so I wonder what's bothering you about the price. A second-hand M4 is cheaper than a Contax G2 and it is holding its value, even becomes more expensive in 5 years time, which is absolutely not the case with a Contax. Financially speaking it's the same as with cars: buying an old-timer is cheaper than buying a new one.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), October 02, 1999.

The real question is not why are Leicas so expensive, but why isn't everything else. Because of their proven reputation for reliability and longevity, as well as the camera-snob appeal, people will pay that much for Leicas, where the Nikon F2, Canon F-1, and Pentax LX are all gone because the makers couldn't keep the prices below what they could be sold for in adequate quantities to economically maintain production. There's no doubt that Leicas are made to higher standards than other cameras, and there's certainly excessive profit in the supply chain. Lets just hope they don't kill off us golden geese who buy and use them.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 02, 1999.

Why isn't everything else so expensive?

Excuse me, have you checked the price of the Premier Print Dryer? $83.95 for the 12" X 17" model from Calumet. Not that I use the buggers but at that price who would want to? I've picked 'em up for $20.00 at yard sales.

Or the Beseler Motor Base?

The Zone VI out straight negative carrier goes for $200.00 and I got an old Elwood one for 4 X 5 for $30.00.

Some things, like the Leica or a SINAR or a Wisner are worth what you pay, at used prices they can be the best thing that ever happened to you. But the profit margin for photo gear varies widely and wildly - I imagine in some cases it worse than women's clothing. Schneider lenses are worth every penny but the folks there aren't going to buy out Bill Gates any time soon.

Don't forget the medium format range finders though, like the Mamiya Press and Universal and the 6 X 9 and 6X7 fixed lens ones.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), October 03, 1999.

I can't let this thread pass without taking exception to Asher's remark that the Contax G-2 has all the features of a rangefinder camera.

The viewfinder of the Contax sees essentially what the lens sees -- nothing more. The Leica viewfinder contains bright lines which show what the lens sees, and also allows one to see things which are outside the lines and outside the lens' field of view. This is one of the very best and most helpful features of a true rangefinder -- you can see not only what is in your picture, but also what is around it and which may at any second come into it or be brought into it by a slight shift.

To me, cameras of the G-2 type combine the worst features of SLRs and rangefinders.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), October 03, 1999.

Dave:

To quote myself, The G2 has "ESSENTIALLY all the benefits of a rangefinder"- no mirror, much less vibration, bright and continuous viewing, no need for "retro" design optics for wide angle lenses, smaller size, lighter weight, extended base length RF (G2 only, not G1). For the times I want to see outside the viewfinder on the G2, I just keep both eyes open, just as I always did with the M series. Like I said, the G2 and M6 really are not comparable because they are designed for somewhat different purposes; i.e. I would never attempt to determine whether one is better than the other.

It's totally reasonable that some photographers have reservations about the G2 (and RF cameras in general). As with all other cameras, the G2 is just another tool which, with a bit of practice, can be utilized to optimize certain photographers' visions. I am confident in my ability to use the G2 in the manner in which it was designed to be used. Many others like Dave understandably do not feel this way, which is why there are so many excellent, yet different types of cameras available. Yet I could not disregard Bob's original statement linking automation to lack of creative control, as I have now had a very practical education on the benefits of certain automatic features in an RF format.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), October 03, 1999.

Correction: "effective base length", not "extended". I meant that the G2 has a longer EBL than the G1...

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), October 03, 1999.