nice kigurumi and cute camera

>>4481813
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
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
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

File: 1761753555052273.jpg (513 KB, 2732x4096)

513 KB JPG

>>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

File: LeicaTrash.jpg (183 KB, 679x987)

183 KB JPG

>>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

File: E4WRjKyWYAA96o7.jpg (1.9 MB, 3024x4032)

1.9 MB JPG

>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

File: 20251106-DSCF1917.jpg (1.06 MB, 3943x2017)

1.06 MB JPG

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

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

File: 1761077816510910.jpg (3.13 MB, 8911x4319)

3.13 MB JPG

>>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

File: 20251023-L1001463.jpg (2.91 MB, 7295x4043)

2.91 MB JPG

>>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
>>4481835
>>4481872
These are men

>>4481892
>>4481875
and?

File: 20251108-B0000060.jpg (2.6 MB, 6770x3477)

2.6 MB JPG

>>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
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

File: file.png (1015 KB, 1024x768)

1015 KB PNG

>>4481813
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.

Nikon S line is criminally underrated as an alternative
Obviously limitations like lens selection, but the bodies are great, I loved my S2

>>4481866
Holy fucking melty!

I've got a Leica M4, I like it.
Is it the greatest camera in the world? No
Is it a great camera? Yes.
It's compact, quiet and I can shoot it at 1/6th of a second handheld.
It's also nice to know that it'll still most likely be working in 50 years.
I think the digital Leicas are pretty bad value.
>>4481922
This Anon brings up a good point, the Canon P is also a great rangefinder camera.
I'd even say the Kiev 4 is a good option

File: DSC03011.jpg (3.99 MB, 5496x4122)

3.99 MB JPG

>>4482240
Sample from my M4

>>4481820
This.
It's like buying a luxury watch.
It isn't more accurate or reliable. Its only purpose is to signal that the owner spent a lot of money on it.

I'd say don't waste your money if you won't make it back with whatever gear you buy
If you're going to take pictures of kitty cats and dick and ass shaped rocks don't overspend no matter how much you like this hobby
In fact be as much of a cheapskate as you can possibly afford

>>4481813
Yes, Leica is a real camera brand. Everything else is made in china trash mass produced for ndians.

>>4482244
I bought my nice watch because I like the look and feel of a nice watch. Just sharpie a sundial onto your wrist if you want communism.

>>4482302
My M10-M is my favorite camera to use for weddings definitely made it's cost back
>>4481917
I'll try to share some in a bit too
>>4481918
>a camera is only it's sensor
Nah

>>4481913
Like 90% of the A/B/C comparisons, and 99% of the big collages that get posted here come from me lol

>>4482242
man this looks like it was taken on a m43 camera

File: Leica-M5-featured-JPR-P61(...).jpg (198 KB, 1440x810)

198 KB JPG

What do you guys think about the M5

>>4482337
According to Sherry Krauter, one of the most well known Leica technicians it's the most advanced camera they ever made, and everything since has been downhill.
However, repairs for them are difficult to find and some technicians don't even touch them.

>>4482337
I own one as well as an m3,m4-2. The m5 is my favorite, for the reasons people usually say they hate it. The larger size feels better to hold, the big shutter speed dial overhanging the front is great and feels good to use. My meter works and it’s nice to have built in as well. Feels solid and sturdy. Like the other anon said the only concern really is parts availability for repairability, but as long as it still works I like it. And you can find them considerably cheaper than “proper” Leicas.

absolute meme for what you want to do. they're a journalists tool. you aren't journaling anything so get a medium format camera instead for your portraits

>>4482242
I get the impression that when people overspend on camera gear, they take flurries of mediocre photos to make the purchase feel more justified and like, hurriedly materialize a sense of ownership to get over the financial regret. Sometimes if its the 500th picture of your dog or another backs of heads photo, it may be better to let the camera sit in a drawer and do something else if you are not going to shoot something else.

This isn’t just a leica thing you also see it a lot if not the most with high end japanese gear which is actually in the same price bracket as used leicas ($2k and up) so it’s not the value for money, it’s just the money.

>>4482504
>people who buy cameras take lots of photos with them after they buy them!!!
Awesome nophoto AND poorfriend seethe. Get well soon <3

>>4482506
People who overspent take a bunch of generic mediocre photos of nothing (ie: dogs, backs of heads) to justify the expense and forget to take the good pictures

File: Gold200 (17).jpg (3.22 MB, 3840x2599)

3.22 MB JPG

>>4482504
>people who buy cameras take photos
No way

The only Leica worth getting is the Leica Monochrom

>>4482508
This is the part where you quantify what “good pictures” are without subjective descriptors, since you’re presenting it as an objective distinction.

Functionally they are a bit stupid desu, the only advantages they have over other mirrorless is the brightline viewfinder and possibly the optical rangefinder which imo is still the fastest way to focus manually. Everything else is substantially worse
but
They look cool

>>4481813
I'm not a rangefinder user so take this with a grain of salt, but for portraits with very fast lenses and thin dof rangefinders can be difficult to nail focus with, and for rocks and leaves (at least close up) parallax issues ruin things. If you get a digital one I suppose there's live view which would fix both of these issues but then why not get like, a Sigma BF which also looks cool at the expense of basic functionality? At least you'd have AF with that.

>>4482546
not a:
dog
cat
bird
back of head
underexposed sunset
building corner
egg

File: 472585808_128758944583736(...).jpg (79 KB, 1080x813)

79 KB JPG

>>4481934
>>4481931
>>4481922

7s owner here, pic related

Pretty much all of this, though I did keep my 7s after playing with an M6. I love the M6 and I get why people pay money for them, but I can get the same experience from a Canon 7s and not pay the cost of a decent used car.

I got lucky with mine and my copy has a good meter and I have it dialed in smack right on the nuts against one of my digital meters and not far off from my Luna Pro. It has a complete set of Soviet Khrushchev-era KMZ lenses which have all been calibrated to this camera, including the 20/5.6 Russar. The built-in finder goes as wide as 35 and as far as 135 but if you count the edge of the viewfinder it's really 28mm

I recently cleaned the viewfinder and it's a wonderful shooter now, this is the perfect rangefinder IMO it has the best of both worlds, old school screw mount compatibility and a nice modern viewfinder, though not as good as the Leica, still very bright and impressive, and accurate. It's a lot of camera for 300 bucks. Pro-tip, there's a small adjustment screw for the light meter on the top of the back of the shutter, it's a flathead. I figured out it has about a stop of adjustment on both sides.

>>4482508
>People who overspent take a bunch of generic mediocre photos of nothing (i
Thats everyone though

>>4481820
>>4481829
Thing is, these comments are always come from who have never used one. They might have tried one at a camera store but never have had one in their life for a period of time.

It's like the man children who never have been with a woman shitting on women how they are suck and whores as they've been told.
They are not entirely false but women still are not complete piles of shits either.

The point: they are not making any conscious decision for wise purchase but they are buying the narrative. It is a mere consuming a narrative about gear fagging.
They're the fox and the sour grapes in Aesop's fable.

I'm not saying leica is the perfect camera for all of you.
But you don't know if it's a truly suck camera or it works with you well oppositely the narrative before you try it.

Don't be the virgin incels that saying pocket pussy is better than having sex. Because there are more in having sex than just rubbing dick and pussy for cumming.


>>4481859
>its about fashion and clout
Actually it's legitimate in some area. You look at the model and the model looks at you and your camera. And it effects the model

>>4482696
>comparing a shitty camera to pussy and procreation
>surely women would like me more if i had a leica
fucking lol

>>4481813
this is true for any gear: does it make you want to use it?
if yes, then it's worth it

>>4481813
Maybe a fun second body since they're quite compact including the lenses.
Leica M has the serious issue of the throat diameter being way too small (worse than Sony E even, which is impressive) for full-frame, meaning that lens designers are limited in the maximum possible diameter of the back element. This leads to serious vignetting with many fast lenses which can get quite ugly in out of focus corners.
imo it's better to get a compact mirrorless camera and adapt the M lenses you like. Since many of them are so compact, if you value small size you might overlook the vignetting compared to the larger alternatives on other mounts.
I already use a full-sized mirrorless for these purposes but am holding out for a stills-oriented version of the ZR (or something like a non-Leica EV1) since the S9, A7C, fp, and bf are all kinda ass for adapting rangefinder lenses.

>>4481835
If you call a Kigurumi a Kigga again I am gonna touch you inbetween your toes when you go to sleep

File: G2VzH9_bMAIbzzd.jpg (1.14 MB, 1280x1920)

1.14 MB JPG

>>4482793
KIGGAS WITH ATTITUDE

>>4482799
that is a middle aged japanese man

>>4482800
yes, and?

>>4482696

This is also valid, I have a Barnack IIIb and I 100 percent understand why they are 200-400 bucks and every equivalent cost half as much. The fit and finish is 20 years ahead of anything else at the time.

>>4483356
Only autistic people like gun guys and car guys care about that crap

It doesnt matter if a smith, nikon, and toyota rattle and creak a bit and your overpriced german crap is a tight fit. Everyone who has been around the block has at least tried all that junk and most people who are sane don’t care. It’s not sour grapes. Its like dining at a five star and getting served the exact same food your wife cooks off youtube tutorials but with nicer looking sauce drizzles and smaller portions. Bitch even has a pacojet (ninja creami). Maybe this shit appeals to boomers who didnt have the internet to inform them, but if you’re under 40 you have no excuse to fall for the luxury industry’s gigantic scam unless trying to show off to other insecure people.

>>4483359
>autistic people
>your wife
where do you think you are posting rn?

>>4483359
What an insecure comment

>>4483359
The question is, have you ever used any leica camera? not necessarily a M but Q or SL or even D-lux toy or even some old vintage barnack slop.

And have you used one in a period? Not just grabbing one in a shop and dropping it down in a second because the overpriced meme camera narrative already has on you and your insecurity of inability of affording it?

If the answer is no, i would highly recommend you to acquire one and experience it for a while in your life. Because you seem to have somewhat attachment to the boomer's luxury camera.

It might expand your perspective.
And trust me, there will be no
>'other people's eyes on me and my luxury leica'
But only you and the camera as an extension of your hand.

It won't cost you much. Leica's second hands prices are almost always stable. You can sell it with almost same price if not little bit higher price.

>>4483459
Not him but nikon cameras and leica cameras are basically the same quality. You are schizo.
>you have to experience the leica man!
they aren’t anything special. just the odd rangefinder that’s made almost as well as an SLR, an oddity for a focus system typical to cheap cameras. a well made SLR like an OM4ti or FM3A feels much better than any leica period. they’re only favorable to auto everything blobs.

their digital cameras are just pure shit. some manual focused rock and leaf pic pixel peepers like them now because the m11 is the a7rv without e mount holding its corner/edge resolution back and without snoy firmware cooking the raws, but digital leica has always been genuinely awful.

>>4483359
>t. Sour grapes

>>4483359
They hate him because he told the truth

Except about nikon rattling. Did you mean canon or did you only buy the cheapest model? All luxury brand means is not having any cheap models. Not having better shit.

>>4481821
I'm a millennial with two Leicas, a Hasselblad, 20 or so guns up to and including a Sako TRG with Schmidt and Bender glass on it. Sorry you're poor, anon. It gets better.

>>4481878
J Herbin is hands down the best ink for left handed fountain pen users and it's not even close.

>>4483477
let me guess you also have many mechanical watches
why are they all the same..
>millennials when they make at least $25 an hour or get a salary: i will now buy everything i need to feel like james bond. i am very wealthy.
>their kids: *not born*

>>4481896
An M240 and a Thypoch 50mm was my gateway drug to digital Leicas following a few months of shooting with an M6 and two Voigtlanders. Now if i'm shooting digital it's my M10 and a 50mm Summicron and I just don't ever feel the need to take anything else out with me.

>>4483479
It gets better, anon.

>>4483481
does it? i know many people who are pushing 40 and still living in the same plain house or apartment still childless just spending as much money as possible on stereotypical geeky male hobbies like cars, motorcycles, and guns but also barely doing anything interesting or difficult, just buying progressively more and more prestigious things. but never too nice. it’s the reddit generation.

now post your tube amps? mechanical keyboards? fountain pens? multiple motorcycles?

>>4483483
We've all been there anon. You'll get through it. It does get better

>>4483485
You mean you’re always there? I’m actually wealthy myself and can’t imagine living like a consoomerist millennial with a greatest hits collection of hobby equipment. You are the modern f150 and boat boomer.

>>4483486
Of course you are, anon.

>>4483487
Mega cope

It must hurt if your only response is to accuse everyone else of being poor consoomer. You live a life that is less full than your man cave. Every childless millennial that considers themselves rich on a working family man’s income does.

>>4483483
>know many people who are pushing 40 and still living in the same plain house or apartment still childless
so what, are you their mom or...?

>>4483489
Other MIT grads. Aerospace, CS+finance, defense industry. No kids anywhere in the 30-40 crowd. LOTS of "photographers", seriously. Lots of gear collections for all the usual hobbies. Guessing by the people i’ve met its just not an MIT thing. It’s generational and forms of it permeate down to lower class clock punchers. 30-40 no kids much gear.

>>4483483
>>4483486
This sounds like it comes from an insecure person, not a wealthy one
If you are wealthy, you should spend some of that $ on therapy

>>4483529
>get btfo
>dodge and ad hom (reused ad hom because you’re crying too hard to think of a new one)
life emptier than your gear shelf lmfao

>>4483359

Sour grapes, the post

Are there better cameras than the IIIb? My god yes, most of the stuff I shoot on is objectively better. The IIIb viewfinder is tiny and if you wear glasses its even smaller. Any camera made in the last 30 years will BTFO it with no recovery.

The bottom-loading mechanism is a huge hassle and if you've never done it before you will almost guaranteed fuck up your first roll. Almost every one needs new leatherette by now. The lenses for them are hilariously overpriced except for the 90/4 and the 135/4.5.

I still love it. It forces you to slow down. You're not snapshitting on a Barnack Leica you gotta think about what you're doing. I took mine to Ireland and having something like that lets you get up close and personal with people, you're not some creep with a pervy DSLR you're an "artist who uses the camera as his medium" in the eyes of the public. You can get away with a lot of shit you couldn't do with most modern digital cams. I was able to get into Rammstein with it while pervs with their DSLRs were turned away.

It's just a personal preference I like them. If you don't, that's cool too. The great thing about my IIIb is if I pull the strap off and put the collapsible 50/2 on it, it fits in my pocket very easily.

Go out and enjoy shit, life's short.

>>4483559
>more projection
Good try

>>4483562
Unironically this, that is the reason I love my FED 2.

>>4483576

FED-2 is GOATed if you can find one in good shape or gone through by Fedka or Oleg Khalyavin, or me. I have one that was serviced in Ukraine by Fedka and it has the collapsible Industar and I absolutely love it. It almost fits in my pocket, it will fit in my coat or hoodie pocket though.

>>4483562
>sugar seethes
thats how you know he nailed it
>im so fat people think im a pedo if i dont use a film camera
hahahahaha

File: GettyImages-541320861-1024x683.jpg (164 KB, 1024x683)

164 KB JPG

>>4483597

That was hardly seething, he's right about a few things. Most people with Leicas buy them for the image not because they need something compact, there's a lot of cameras that do the same thing the Leica does and cost a lot less.

wait, hang on i'm doing this all wrong from the get go:

YOU DON'T NEED LEICA THAT COST MORE THAN AVERAGE SOVIET HOUSEWIFE

YOU DON'T NEED IMPERIALIST JAP CANNON OR KNEE-CONE THAT SHOOT 13FPS OF CAT ON AMERICAN LAZEEEEE-BOY SOFA

YOU DON'T NEED SONE-EEE MIRROR-LESS CAMERA OF VAPID YOU TUBING PERSONALITY

BUY SOVIET CAM. FED OR ZORKI IS FINE! IS MADE FROM BASTARD NAZI DESIGN AFTER SOVIET ARMY HUMILIATE THEM. BUY 5CM LENS. LEARN HOW TO FOCUS BEFOREHANDS. LEARN HOW SUBJECT MOVE IN AND OUT OF FRAME

SHOOT BLACK AND WHITE FILM. SMENA IS FINE! DON'T SHOOT SLIDE FILM AND DEVELOP IN DRUGGIST PHOTOMACHINE. THAT MAKES YOU HIPSTER ASSHOLE WHO RELIES ON MISTAKES. MISTAKES GET YOU KILLED LIKE BASTARD NAZI ARMY WHO DECIDE TO FIGHT IN WINTER OF GLORIOUS MOTHERLAND

YOU DON'T NEED TELEPHONE CAMERA OF INSTANT GRAM CAPITALIST RETARD GIRL. GO AND TAKE PICTURES LIKE GREAT SOVIET MAN.

>>4482320
How do wedding shoots on manual focus go? Also with more limited capabilities for telephoto, no zoom, no macro ring shots, etc
All the wedding shooters I know are using SLRs or mirrorless with big bruiser sports pro zooms, so you must be really good or have a different style.
DESU, I’ve only handled a leica once, but I really liked it, and it’d be nice to be able to pick up some gigs on the side and help defray the costs.
>>4483480
The temptation is definitely real. I know it’d make more sense to buy Sony or canikon and get hybrid options, good autofocus, etc, but I just want the rangefinder.
Been watching too many Cam Mackey videos, I guess. Shows that you can get nice portrait/fashion editorial style shots with full manual and now I’m feeling the vibe. Also the little itty bitty lenses are very appealing compared to the new Nikon stuff, optical perfection or not

>X-pro 2 + 35mm 1.4
Or
>m240 + 50mm Voigtlander

Fuji package is half the price, but it’s aps-c, but you do get autofocus
Leica would be $2500 for the combo, but FF, M-mount so all lenses are usable forever, and I kinda like using manual focus
Use would be for travel, portraits, and maybe fashion/influencer photography, I know some people at my gym.

Only real downside of Leica is spending that much money up front, and needing a whole second camera to shoot sports or action. Granted, the x-pro autofocus probably isn’t up to the task for that either

>>4481820
>>4481821
Got em

>>4481813
imagine living somewhere you can't go try one for yourself and decide. couldn't be me

>>4483477
lel

>>4483491
It's not that bad desu. I am a multi-hobbyist as well but a bit stingy. I like that there is a ton of second hand stuff to choose from. So I can have all this stuff for half price.

File: Capture.jpg (210 KB, 1573x1115)

210 KB JPG

>>4481820
lol sorry you're poor.

>>4489483
>i'm so rich
>i have the cheapest leica m
>it's not even digital

>>4489484
>visually impaired
No wonder you're a shit photographer.

File: HRS_9973.jpg (1.33 MB, 3000x2000)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4484749
the leica will probably be good since you're doing all slow photography. i have an xpro2, and had an M262 for a few months. i felt like the m was much harder to expose properly; it would burn highlights somewhat aggressively. but idk maybe that was user error. it was quite nice to shoot, at least. picrel is from the leica

>>4481820
You'd have a point if they weren't the only 35mm digital rangefinders in the market.

>>4489490
maybe leica should get proper sensors if you can't even read small print on those photos lol

>>4489498
well the leica M has better auto focus than fuji so there's that
also imagine using an overpriced piece of german marketing gaslighting trash to shoot pictures like that loool

>>4489499
they're the only digital rangefinders because no sane person wants rangefinders. the market is like evolution: ideas that work survive, shit that's useless piece of trash doesn't

>>4489500
gramps it's time you got your eyes checked

>>4489501
What kind of pictures do you take?

>portraits
Wide open portraits are overrated but when you do want to do them nailing focus can be impossible with the thin dof
>rocks and leaves
You're gonna want (real, 1:1) macro

>>4481813
gay. u are a poofta who smells like mens buttholes

>>4481817
The niche:
>3rd generation holocaust survivor who lives in a western metropol and hates it

>>4489594
More like omegalul, eh Tim?
>he doesn't even send catalogs to himself, what a poorfag

The glass is decent and crisp, but the price for that is extortionate.

>>4489598
Moophurt lmao

>>4481868
Casual observer here, you haven't done anything but scream "dishonest" about points you don't like and when pressed you've fallen back on "if you know you know, so I won't actually articulate a point bc I should have to" as an argument, which is more disingenuous than anything you've accused leicahateranon of. You are the problem here - it is clear and obvious to anyone reading this.

Thought you should know a bit about yourself since you're making a big stinky in here over your bad decisions.

>>4495613
Did you forget to include your direct criticisms in this post? Why not actually bring up the specific points I was saying were dishonest?

Kind of seems like you're doing the same vague posting you are complaining about me doing

>>4495613
Between question, what factual claims of anon did you see that I simply handwaved away as dishonesty? More than happy to go over each and every one for you

File: images (1) (4).jpg (33 KB, 455x439)

33 KB JPG

>>4495613
Hi, third party here.
I just read this entire thread you guys have been having and I really gotta say you are a loonie. No sane person obsesses this much over what other people use.

>>4495613
How talking about Leica goes here
>there are legitimate abc pros and xyz cons to shooting Leica
>I don't care about a, b is irrelevant or just bad, and caring about c is dumb, therefore Leica really has no pros
That's what happens and has happened here too

Most of the thread otherwise is just "buying stuff bad"

>>4495617
Because you refuse to explain WHY OP's points are dishonest. You just state that they are without providing a counterargument.

I don't care about the specifics of the discussion desu, I just want you to know that you're making yourself look like an asshat to anyone's outside of your inane back-and-forth with leicahateranon

>>4495621
There are no legitimate pros to using a leica. Just cons, and $10k pricetags for new money to feel insecure about. They don’t do a single thing better, cheaper cameras cant. They are fashion items for people who are too ugly not to look like pedos with normal cameras.

End of story. There’s really nothing else to discuss. Leica does not make good cameras. Just google around for all the firmware bugs and hardware failures they’re prone to. And realize what others spend on r&d, they spend on bribing brand ambassadors.

>>4495620
Its not that you use it, its that you propagandize it, defend it, justify it, and encourage others to join you in this misery you feel so compelled to loudly cope with. If you just used it, it would be fine. But that would be like a tranny just being a tranny and not trying to groom minors into castrating themselves apparently.

There is no reason to use a leica. Get a better sense of style.

>>4481820
/thread

Leicas are the bimmers of photography. Underwhelming status overcompensators that offer absolutely nothing of note but a currency vanishing trick and a brand name. Rarely used by actual wealthy people because anyone smart enough to get rich knows they’re junk as well as anyone smart enough not to get rich does.

Seems like a meme brand for rich people to latch onto to feel better or more special than the rest of us

>>4495644
except its not actually rich people latching on, its single and childless middle class uncs who would go broke if they had 2 kids instead of 2 dogs

Leica is the Apple of the camera industry. They have wisely marketed themselves as a top of the line boutique brand which attracts people with more money than common sense. Some things I've seen when selling Leica equipment are people obsessed with how the gear looks, as in "how does this lens look attached to the camera" and not "how does my camera perform with this lens attached" as if they are playing dress-up and not taking photos and others who have no prior knowledge of photography and just want the Q3 to go on a Safari.

>>4495672
Correct me of I'm wrong but I feel like that would be a terrible camera for that purpose wouldn't you want one with better af and big zoom lenses and not some meme prime

File: GsPKGcvaMAA3D33.jpg (699 KB, 2728x4096)

699 KB JPG

OP here, wew.
To be honest I just wanted to start a thread with a cute kig with a camera :^)
I use a FED 2 btw

Leicas are for rich people who are autistic enough to use a IIIc with a rare Serenar or for losers desperately wanting to buy into an in-group they’ve never got to be a part of all their lives. The 0.00000001% exception are gigachad famous photographers who could do whatever the fuck they wanted and were probably sponsored by Leitz.

>>4481813
I like my M4-2 with the LLL Elcan. The Elcan might be the smallest 50mm f/2 lens ever, it's as small as a 35mm f/2. Really compact and fun to use. I used a Zorki 4k before, it made me realize I really like rangefinders but the viewfinder was trash (no parallax correction, no frame lines) and the rangefinder patch was really faded.

I love my M4-2 and it makes me go out shoot more so for me it was worth it. If you used some other rangefinders and then try a Leica, you'll understand. The viewfinder/rangefinder is just so good, the silent cloth shutter feels super smooth and there's so much amazing glass for it.

I am not sure I would spend 10k on a digital Leica tho, that's just obscene.

File: The Fox and the Grapes.jpg (71 KB, 350x545)

71 KB JPG

Leica is the biggest sour grape in the camera culture.

Those who have actually used have quite ironical opinions.
It's good in these departments, it's bad in these depts. They have the experience enough to break the illusion on it. So they have a rather realistic vision.

But those who never have used it are the ones who have the worst opinions. Leica sucks in all aspects because... just because (i can't afford it)!
And probably 90% of the haters are snoy goons.

It is still too expensive to buy just because of it's looks and aesthetics. And the optic performance is not the best.

I hope Zeiss resurrect their Contax and rape the leica's ass

>>4495849
I had one and it was an unreliable imprecise POS. And now they use a snoy sensor. Olympus film SLRs are better than any leica. The fm3a is better than a leica. Without an irrational attachment to the objectively bad PNS viewfinding system and the street tard cargo cult they fall flat.

I blame DSLRs fat ugliness, otherwise leica would be almost as out of business as pixii if nikon crammed d750 guts into literally an fm type SLR.

>>4495873
Can we see some shots from yours?

>>4495849
>it can't be bad! it's expensive! SOUR GRAPES!
it's bad and expensive. also, you're not rich. >>4495647
>>4495647 nailed it.

leica is not the apple of cameras. leica is not the BMW of cameras or even the mercedes of cameras. leica is the gibson electric guitar of cameras.

objectively, their products are bad. quality control is bad. the design itself is bad. the ONLY reason people use them is to imitate famous people from a golden age of the art - now a lame hobby - who had to use them or got them for cheap at the time, in the 50s and 60s, and struggled to find an alternative in the pre-internet world. anyone could make something better, and the dwindling minority of faux status signalers and boomers would say "it has no soul" and keep consooming limited editions.
-on leica, and gibson.

if the concept itself were worth a shit the pixii and pixii max would be outpacing leica in sales. everything leica releases is plagued with a very high rate of firmware bugs and hardware failures. not "you have to do regular services!" bmw unreliability, more like panasonic or sony unreliability where random electronics fail or the shutter disintegrates. leica's customers dont care because most of them don't actually use their cameras. bad concept bad execution, it's all about the cargo cult.
>rangefinder pros: i can uh, anticipate outside the frame
>everyone else: *opens their left eye and applies the bare minimum of visual-spatial intelligence*
>rangefinder cons: everything
for many photographers the selling point was "their focus rings have a shorter throw than other guys" which was artificial and easily fixed later. now it's just cork sniffing and finger fucking: the brand.

>>4495876
I know better than to cowtow to people in brand wars. Here I’ll pre-empt you. Oh duhhh i think your photo is bad guess ur not good enough to get it.

If you want more photos on /p/ go bump a photo thread instead of white knighting for leica when facts, logic and reason cant defend it anymore. It is ok to lose the gear argument.

>>4495881
>cope for being a nophoto
To be expected

>>4495894
you’d never post yourself, and if your ear were pulled until you did, it would be a collage from the past because you just live on /p/ and defend nikon/fuji/leica’s honor lately

File: leica-q3-kamera-vollforma(...).jpg (52 KB, 1024x623)

52 KB JPG

I went through fuji apsc, then full frame sony, then nikon. Several lenses, expensive and cheap. Sold everything and got myself a Leica Q3. Best decision ever and I can't see myself buying anything else. The best lens I've ever had, ability to crop easily up to 50mm and it still looks better than any 50mm prime for full frame that I've used (including GMs). The contrasts, sharpness and amount of detail is above anything. The images look much more alive, more 3D. Also small and compact, nice built quality and feels good in hands.

I don't see myself buying an M because I would miss the AF too much. But would be interesting to see other Leica lenses and how they performe.

>>4495899
You won’t post comparisons though because a mft sized crop of an a7rv sensor does not look as good as say, a z6ii with a normal ass 50mm. anyone can go to dpreview and other such shit sites and check this out, and even download the raws themselves. cropping the shit out of a sony sensor does not look nearly as good as an uncropped image except to people who think oversharpened hdr phone shots aren’t garish (ie: ken rockwell)
honestly the way you write makes you sound a bit dim too so im not surprised you actually have wrong opinions. less intelligent people have less complete perception and fill in the massive gaps in reality with expectations and bias (this is why smart people don’t make much modern “aesthetically innovative” art without a touch of genuine mental illness and high average IQ civilizations produce a lot of realism)

enjoy those firmware bugs and that busted autofocus viewfinderlet

>>4495900
If your lens isn't as sharp and there is an antialiasing filter infront of your sensor you will lose a lot of detail when cropping. Even at higher mp. If you crop to 50mm on the Q3 your image still looks better than most native 50mm lenses because they aren't as sharp as the Summilux. They only thing you may lose is depth of field.

>>4495849
I agree with you, but Jesus Christ that whole post sounded like nonsense.

>>4495904
the z7ii, a7riv/cr/v dont have AA filters

where proof an mft crop of a 28mm beats a 50mm gm/s line?

>>4495899
How's it's low light performance? I'm debating between a Q3/Q2 and a gfx100rf right now for travel and street photography. I've already got a z5ii and a gfx 100s I'm using for a project but I want something wide to carry around the city that's a little more palatable to normies.

>>4495915
If you have the funds for the Q3 go for it. It's better for low light as the Q2 had quite strong noise at higher iso. Reason I didn't buy the gfx is for its missing IBIS and rather slow lens. But I've seen some nice night photos.. so it can't be all bad.

>>4495873
>I blame DSLRs fat ugliness, otherwise leica would be almost as out of business as pixii
Totally agree.

>>4495880
>it's bad and expensive
and looks good.

>>4495899
>I don't see myself buying an M because I would miss the AF too much. But would be interesting to see other Leica lenses and how they performe.

I'm using a Q2 for 2 and half years and still don't see myself buying an M.
Many people say Q is just an entrance of buying M but i don't think so.
I envy your flippy back screen though.

>>4495904
>They only thing you may lose is depth of field.
Cropping doesn't change DoF. Only the distance between camera and the subject affects it.
Shoot a 28mm picture and crop it 100mm or 1000mm field of view then you'll see 100mm or 1000mm's DoF and compression and perspective whatever.

>>4495905
Thanks for your honesty. Should i take meds?

>>4495916
>Q2 had quite strong noise at higher iso
True. My q2 make quite a lot of bending noise from 12800, sometimes 6400. the horizontal strips. No, it's not flickers

>>4495849

I own one, a IIIb Barnack made in 1940. I do love it, I get why people buy them.

It is functionally eclipsed by every single camera I own and even the most spartan modern cameras will shit on every Leica made.

I get it though. It's a fashion statement, yada yada yada. The one thing I love about my Leica is I can stash it in my pocket and carry it. You can do the same with the Russian and Japanese knockoffs.

Mine stays in a bag with a full LTM system and usually has an UW 20 or 15mm lens attached to it. It's a lot of fun to shoot with but it won't make you better and most of the people who use them are LARPing.