Product Change Notice Form: Fill & Download for Free

Hello, Matt. Thank you for your question. I will attempt to detail some of what have been for me the most notable advantages and disadvantages of Leica digital rangefinder cameras versus DSLR’s from Nikon or Canon. I got started in photography several decades ago using Nikon film SLR’s and Nikkor lenses. When I transitioned fully into digital photography about 15 years ago, I dumped Nikon and switched to Canon DSLR’s + Canon “L” and Zeiss lenses (that’s another story for an entirely different thread!). About 10 years ago, I added Leica M and Q series rangefinder cameras and Leica M-series lenses to my stable. Today, I continue to shoot with both Canon and Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses (as well as several Zeiss MF SLR lenses in Canon mount). I would describe my style of photography as “fine art” landscape, travel, and “reportage.”Please note that in my opening sentence above, I wrote: “…for me the most notable advantages and disadvantages…” What matters most to you (or to other readers) may very well be different from what matters most to me. In other words, the relative value or importance of a particular feature or characteristic of one camera (or lens) versus another is a highly subjective matter. Accordingly, the following list of “advantages and disadvantages of Leica rangefinder cameras versus (D)SLR’s from Nikon or Canon” is very much reflective of my preferences and priorities as a photographer; how closely these mirror your own will vary from one to the next, sometimes dramatically. Please note, too, that my entire experience, and therefore, the entire analysis which follows, concerns exclusively the very best professional-grade cameras and lenses available from the respective manufacturer(s).Leica (M-series and Q-series cameras and lenses) ADVANTAGES:Image quality. “Image quality” is a phrase so loosely defined and so widely and wildly infused with hyperbolic marketing rhetoric and subjectivity, that I hesitate using it here as a Leica advantage, so allow me to qualify and to limit my remarks: it’s not so much that Leica M-series lenses are capable of such breathtaking resolution, clarity, realism, and “three-dimensionality” (which they most certainly are), but it’s the unique and somewhat subtle manner in which Leica lenses “paint light” that really makes them special, and yes, advantageous (especially if you’re looking to develop a photographic style that is uniquely and recognizably your own — an increasingly difficult feat in a world dominated by iPhones; social media; instant gratification; instant deletion; and a widespread inability to distinguish “excellence” from “sheer tripe”). If you believe that the voice carrying the message (or the manner, or nature, of delivery) has as critical an impact on how the end message is regarded and remembered, as the core message itself, then you understand what I mean here by “image quality.” If, for example, you believe that a message spoken by Morgan Freeman or David Attenborough has the same “quality” and achieves the same end result as an otherwise identical message spoken by Sally Struthers or Gilbert Gottfried, then my point here about “image quality” may be too subtle for you and the Leica is probably not for you. Leica lenses have a very long history of “painting light” in subtle and unique ways, as a direct result of their design engineering. Whether or not this “Leica signature style” of “painting light” is your preference or not is utterly subjective and highly personal, but, like the famous painters themselves (e.g Rembrandt; Picasso; Van Gogh; etc.), each has their own unique style and manner of rendering “reality as they experience it.” Perhaps one can begin to see, then, how each “painter” (Nikon; Canon; Leica; etc.) has their own unique “style” or “voice” in how they “paint light?” One of the major unaddressed problems in photography today is that fewer and fewer practitioners seem to be aware of these foundational realities. Another is that we’ve cranked the “noise level” of marketing hype (like megapixel count and lens AF performance) up so high that the ringing in our ears (which, alarmingly, we’ve become unaware of) prevents us from recognizing (much less prizing) what were once critically sought-after “non-technical” attributes of a lens (i.e. how it “sees light” and how — not scientifically accurately, but instead, artistically or interestingly — it records it!). In today’s digital era, most “photographers” peruse camera and lens manufacturer’s Technical Specifications, and, having wrapped their minds around the ever-expanding girth of objective, measurable quantities (e.g. megapixels; fps; ISO range; etc.), they utterly ignore the equally important subjective, intangible qualities (e.g. micro-contrast; bokeh rendition [e.g. “nervous” vs. creamy bokeh in an “equally blurred” background]; subject “pop” or three-dimensionality; tone and texture; and so much more) of a camera and/or lens system. Sadly, too many today believe that everything worth knowing about a camera or a lens can be found in an MTF chart or in a DxO rating. Nothing could be further from the truth, as these tell one nothing of the true character of a camera or (especially) of a lens. A resumé details one’s technical qualifications for a job, but the interview is where the character and the suitability of a real human candidate are actually assessed. The “voice” and the “character” with which most Leica M-series rangefinder lenses “paint light” is rightfully legendary, and the erosion of awareness and appreciation for the core “elements of character and style” (i.e. how the image “feels,” viscerally) previously considered central and fundamental in judging “lens quality” by serious photographers the world over, but largely lost in a sea of saccharin-sweet fads in our modern digital era (like MP wars; “scene modes”; and pink camera bodies) does not lessen the value or the importance of “voice” and “character” in assessing “image quality.” It only means (sadly) that such discernment and subtlety have [largely] fallen out of fashion. Rent a Leica Q for a weekend (and leave the aperture ring on f/1.7 the whole time) or a Leica M10 with 21mm f/3.4 and 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux lenses for a month, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It may not turn out to be your cup of tea, but I guarantee you’ll find a whole new level of respect and admiration for a way of seeing and rendering the world around you in an arresting and previously unimagined way;A more deliberative, more thoughtful (and, unsurprisingly, in many cases a slower) approach to the process and practice of photography, which can be at once cathartic, liberating, and creatively productive. Most of us choose to live-in and buy-into the innumerable pitfalls of a largely mindless, hurry-up, rush-rush, instant-results, immediate gratification, live-for-the-moment society today. If you want something, just take it. Change your mind? Delete it. Got an itch? Push a button and self-administer a dose of dopamine. The Art of Photography with a Leica M-series rangefinder camera is a completely different way of approaching and practicing the craft. You really ponder aperture selection. You really ponder shutter speed selection. You really ponder focal length (no zooming!). And beyond those “dry mechanics,” you really start to ponder matters that today seem arcane by today’s pop culture standards; you know, “trivial stuff” like light quality; shadows; movement; form; lines; color; perspective; and texture. In other words, using a Leica rangefinder tends to really focus your eye and your creative mind back towards the fundamentals of photography which seem so lost today: Subject; Light; and Composition. Many who enjoy using Leica rangefinder cameras feel that this very deliberative, very thoughtful manner of approaching the photographic process is not only inherently enjoyable in its own right but, additionally, that such a disciplined approach which emphasizes constant attention to fundamentals and minimizing technical distractions yields unique and visible results in one’s photography. Whether or not you might come to agree with this sentiment, only you can say;Build quality. Canon 1-series and Nikon D1/2/3/4/5-series bodies — their flagship products, ostensibly representing the very best that these companies are capable of producing — have always been excellent, tough, solid-metal precision instruments, able to rise to almost any challenge. The quality and durability of “lesser” Nikon and Canon cameras have generally been reflected in their much lower price points. Ditto for Canon and Nikon lenses: the very best Canon and Nikon lenses have excellent build quality and are capable of very high-quality imaging performance in a wide variety of applications and conditions. Leica, however, takes this marriage between insanely-narrow engineering tolerances; build quality; and imaging performance, to another level entirely. Just pick up and handle ANY modern Leica M-series lens. It will command respect and even awe just sitting in the palm of your hand! Sound like I’ve fallen victim to the very “marketing hyperbole” I was just criticizing a few paragraphs earlier? I know it must, however…just go to any authorized Leica Store and try it for yourself: ask to see ANY Leica M-series camera and lens; feel the incredibly solid mass of cool steel, magnesium, and brass in your own hand(s); turn the focusing ring and revel in a level of engineering precision and build-quality that not even one single Canon or Nikon lens can imitate (and I still own and use almost all of Canon’s “L” lenses, including the highly impressive and highly innovative MF TS-E’s, and of course, the fabulous super-tele’s). Go actually handle Leica cameras and lenses for yourself, and you’ll immediately understand. Leica M-series cameras and lenses are 100% solid steel, magnesium, and glass; no plastic; no rubber! Even the focusing rings are metal (not rubberized). (Note: Zeiss MF DSLR lenses [especially the astonishing “best we’re capable of making, price be damned” OTUS lenses] in both Canon and Nikon mount (made by Cosina, Japan, under strict German specification and oversight) come perilously close in both build quality and optical performance to Leica’s M-series lenses (which is why I favor and use Zeiss lenses in Canon mount over Canon’s own “L” lenses, in many cases, when using my Canon cameras), however, they’re also (1) every bit as expensive; (2) 2–4 times larger; and (3) 2–4 times heavier, than their equivalent Leica lenses);MUCH smaller cameras, lenses, and accessories. I can easily carry 2–4 times more Leica M-series cameras (and especially lenses) in an equivalent amount of space, versus Canon (or Nikon) cameras and lenses. Example: A Leica M-P (Typ 240) FF rangefinder camera with 18mm; 35mm; 50mm; and 90mm Leica M-series lenses will easily and neatly fit in a photo briefcase or a small backpack/photo bag. Conversely, a Canon 5-series body (much less, the behemoth 1-series bodies) with equivalent 18mm [Zeiss in Canon mount] (or 16–35mm Canon, alternatively); 35mm Canon; 55mm [Zeiss Otus in Canon mount]; and 85mm Canon (much less, the astonishing-but-gargantuan 85mm Zeiss Otus in Canon mount) lenses will require more than twice as much space. Most of this is due to Canon (and Zeiss in Canon mount) lenses being MUCH larger than Leica M-series lenses of identical focal lengths;MUCH lighter cameras (and especially lenses). Despite having 100% glass and solid-metal construction (no plastics or synthetics), Leica rangefinder M-series cameras and especially Leica M-series lenses are MUCH lighter than their Canon or Nikon lenses of comparable speed and focal length (because they’re much smaller). The ONLY Leica lenses which come close to “skirting the line” here are the remarkable Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux, and the new Leica 75/1.25 Noctilux, which are each thicker and heavier than any other M-mount Leica lens, yet still remain about the same weight as Canon’s 85/1.2L-II, and lighter still than either the 55mm or the 85mm Zeiss OTUS lenses;MUCH quieter cameras (in fact totally silent, in the case of the Leica Q, especially when shooting wide open). Whether you’re shooting landscapes; public gatherings; social events; travel; almost any kind of photography benefits from the photographer and his gear being as inconspicuous as possible, and the violent, rapid, and repeated retraction and release of a mirror assembly into the viewfinder of a camera (impressive a feat of industrial engineering though this may be — and it is!), along with the clickity-clack of the shutter assembly firing and recocking, creates quite the conspicuous cacophony, utterly defeating your purpose, disturbing your subject (or your own concentration!), and drawing attention to yourself and your “unnatural” disruptive activity. The more socially conscious a person you are, and the more aware you are of the relationship between you and your subjects (even if they’re vast, human-less landscapes!), the more you’ll appreciate the value of quiet camera operations;MUCH less conspicuous, MUCH less ostentatious, and MUCH less intimidating cameras and lenses to use in public places. By conspicuous, I mean that police and security personnel are MUCH less likely to take an interest in you or what/why you’re photographing (I could write a book on just that subject!); and pickpockets and street criminals won’t be nearly as tempted to target you (they’re much less likely to recognize a Leica for what it really is, than a Nikon or Canon). By ostentatious, I mean that ordinary people will not take a second look at you and your camera gear, thinking “Wow, that’s a big, expensive camera!” or “Wow, who’s he [think he is]?” Trust me, your Leica M-series camera and lens look utterly archaic and uninteresting to all but the most serious photographers, and even then, only “the gray-haired purists and [very rare] keen young beatniks” might possibly sneak an admiring or inquisitive glance. And by intimidating, I don’t mean intimidating for you to use, I mean intimidating for your living subjects to stand before! Try pointing a Canon 1DX-II or Nikon D5 with a hooded 70–200/2.8 lens at someone (even if they’re across the street!): instantly, you (not your subject) become the focus of attention and everyone within visual range is aware of your presence and of your “clandestine activity.” The moment is spoiled. Non-human animals respond the same way. Not good. Do the same thing with a Leica Q or any Leica M-series body and a Leica 90/2 lens, and no one will notice or care. The camera and lens are just so small and plain-looking that they’re not taken seriously by bystanders (and that’s a good thing!). I’ve personally taken the extra-step to cover the small red “Leica Dot” logo on both of my Leica cameras with a neatly-cut piece of black Gaffer’s Tape, which truly makes my cameras look like unremarkable $20 Vivitar knock-offs — perfect!Leica (M-series and Q-series cameras and lenses) DISADVANTAGES:EXPENSE; Leica cameras and lenses are notoriously expensive. Even Leica accessories (batteries and chargers, etc.) are very expensive. Leica’s flagship M-series rangefinder camera, the M10, currently sells for $8,000 USD. Leica M-series lenses range from about $2,500 at the low-end, to about $13,000 at the high-end (again, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I’m focusing primarily on the super-premium Summicron, Summilux, and Noctilux line of Leica M-series lenses). Some eye-watering examples of my point: Leica APO 50/2.0 ASPH Summicron lens: $8,000; Leica 21/1.4: $8,000; Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux: $12,000; Leica 75/1.25 Noctilux: $13,000. On the other hand…I, along with thousands of others, shelled-out $8,000 for Canon’s flagship 1Ds Mk-III body-only in 2007 (which is equivalent to a dizzying $9,800 in 2019 dollars!), and have many tens-of-thousands of dollars tied up in Canon “L” series (and Zeiss-in-Canon mount) glass (the 600/4 is a $12,000 lens, for example; and the Zeiss OTUS 28mm; 55mm; and 85mm trio pile on another $14,000). So, paying $8,000 for Leica’s flagship M10 camera; and another $14K for a couple of really interesting lenses like, say, a Leica 21/3.4 and 50/0.95 Noctilux, suddenly doesn’t seem quite so outrageous, at least relatively speaking. In other words, if you compare “apples-to-apples” and consider the cost of the flagship Nikon or Canon cameras and 2 or 3 of their “best, most interesting lenses,” you’re very quickly getting well into the 5-figure (i.e. $10,000+) range, and can easily double that if you have very specific or very expensive tastes. None the less, Leica photo gear (or anything Leica, actually) is very expensive; generally (though not always) even more so than the very finest offerings from Canon or Nikon;Steeper learning curve (particularly learning how best to manually focus an m-series lens through a Leica M-series rangefinder camera). Today (hard as it is for me to ponder the thought!), a great many — perhaps most? — photographers have never used (or even been aware of) a manual focus lens. Accurately and promptly focusing an optical lens is absolutely a learned skill. Anyone can do it, but very few do. And why would you, with today’s AF technology being as good as it (usually) is? Well, for one thing, choosing precisely what to focus on in a frame is of fundamental importance to the success of the image. Indeed one of the many reasons so many images from cell phones and other cameras with tiny sensors look so painfully banal and predictable is precisely because everything is in focus when it shouldn’t be so (or, rather, when it would have been far more powerful and effective to have used selective focus to render a narrower DOF). Moreover, manual focus can be a lifesaver when you’re trying to focus on a very low-contrast scene and your cameras AF system is unable to attain focus lock. How many people out there with $1,000 cell phones even know that today, most of those phones (and even the most basic cameras) have a manual focus override option that is available at all times, for exactly this reason. If you’ve ever tried making an image of a cloudless sky, or a very gray, foggy landscape, you may appreciate my point here. Another way in which the Leica M-series rangefinder cameras and lenses require a more intense and a more concerted effort to learn and to master is that they generally lack some of the most-touted, high-tech “crutches” that modern digital photography has brought to us, like Optical Image Stabilization (or “VR” in Nikon-speak). With the Leica M, you must learn to become aware of your breathing; of your shutter release technique; of the weight distribution in your hand between body and lens. On the Leica M, your fancy VR or OIS lens cannot do these things, nor can it compensate for your own lack of attention to them (Note: the stunning Leica Q and its brand-new successor, the Leica Q2 do have OIS and AF available to the photographer);No AutoFocus (traditional “M-series” Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses do not have autofocus capability. This is not a technical limitation, but instead a conscious design choice by Leica. Manually focusing with the engineering marvel that is the Leica Optical Parallax Viewfinder feels very sloppy and imprecise to the uninitiated, however, as with everything, diligent practice makes perfect. Alternatively, the optional electronic viewfinder accessory available for the Leica M rangefinders will feel much more familiar and reassuring (albeit somewhat crude, by today's EVF standard) for most “modern digital photographers,” and this method will add some very big advantages, to boot, such as allowing focusing directly from the camera sensor; electronic focus magnification for precise focusing; exact and accurate focal length representation in the viewfinder, regardless of lens installed (the optical viewfinder in the Leica M is only “accurate” for focal lengths between 28mm and 135mm); and perhaps best of all, if using the optional electronic viewfinder, lenses do not need to be manually and individually focus-calibrated to each specific lens-and-camera-body/optical viewfinder combination, as they otherwise would, an impossibly cumbersome and time-consuming task if, like me, you use several different lenses of varying focal lengths with the same Leica M body. The stunning Leica Q, on the other hand, does have an excellent AF system along with an outstanding Electronic Viewfinder. The Q also has the smoothest, most professionally-dampened manual focus implementation and “feel” of any AF camera I’ve ever used. Extremely fast, precise and impressive in both AF and MF modes;The computing power of Leica M cameras is not as “brisk or powerful” as that of the flagship Canon or Nikon cameras. Hence, if you’re highly proficient maneuvering through the menu system of your camera body or your style of shooting has you frequently and rapidly changing modes or making other manipulations to your camera, you may find (as I have) that Leica M cameras aren’t as immediately responsive to your rapid inputs and demands as a Nikon D5 or (in my case) Canon 1DX-II is. I’ve never sat waiting for my Canon 1DX to finish processing an image, or to otherwise complete some internal computer operation. With my Leica M, this is a pretty common occurrence. The Leica M is not a “sports” camera, so this occasionally “laggy” or “plodding” behavior is usually not a major irritation. But it is noticeable. The Leica Q, by the way, is MUCH improved in this regard. The only time I’m sitting around waiting for my Q to finish processing is when I shoot a sequence of shots and fill the buffer with large, RAW files. The Nikon D5 and Canon 1-series cameras are rightfully legendary for many reasons, one of which is that it’s difficult to reach their computing (buffer) limit, and if you do, you probably should be shooting a video rather than 300 still images in 20-seconds!Available support, technical and otherwise. Leica will professionally repair any and all Leica OEM equipment, and my warranty service experience with them (while limited) has been excellent (they’ll routinely repair or replace items that are clearly damaged/disabled due to manufacturers defects, without cost to the owner, and without demanding receipts or warranty cards), however, the turnaround time can be protracted (weeks, sometimes even months). Additionally, support resources like online forums (which do exist) or a diverse international network of dealers and repair facilities are, nonetheless, far less extensive and generally less prompt, than those of the big Japanese brands (Canon; Nikon; Sony; etc.);Diversity of lens selection. Currently, only one “zoom” lens (16–18–21mm) and only one “macro” lens exist in the M-series lens range. Again, not a technical limitation, but a conscious manufacturer’s choice about what the M-series is all about: purity and simplicity. There is also a lack of telephoto lenses beyond 90mm (the only longer tele in the M range is the slightly awkward and often bypassed 135/3.4). No super-tele’s. No Tilt-Shift lenses;Sometimes quirky, illogical camera menu interface and functionality (although this seems to improve with each new camera Leica releases). Leica menu design varies from model-to-model (which can be very vexing in its own right!) and still isn’t as streamlined or slick as Canon or Nikon, in my opinion. It’s absolutely useable, and (fortunately) as you won’t actually need to be diving deep into the menu system too frequently, this shouldn’t be a major impediment. Still, though, the Canon and Nikon interface is superior;I hope my comments helped shine some light on your question, Matt? I love “the look” rendered by my Leica gear, but it probably also says something important that I’ve not sold-off any of my DSLR gear. The Leica Q is also particularly stunning, and for about $5,000, it’s probably the nicest “complete camera system” I’ve ever used (with its outstanding Leica Summilux f/1.7 lens and within its fixed focal range of 28–50mm, it easily outperforms my Canon 1DX-II; Canon 5D-4; and Canon 5DsR cameras when fitted with my Canon 24–70/2.8L-II lens (a good but not a great lens); when pitted against one of my Canon bodies and a Zeiss OTUS 28/1.4 or Zeiss OTUS 55/1.4 lens, the results are much closer, although the Leica still has a way of “painting the light” in a way that’s much more unique (and to my eye, pleasing) than the typical Canon or Nikon lens does. As I elaborate in my comments above regarding “image quality,” it’s not that the Leica M lenses are so much sharper or so much contrastier than their Canon or Nikon counterparts (although they often are), it’s more about how they draw; and the “feel” of the image which is so unique (micro-contrast; tonality; shadow and highlight rendition; color; etc.).As it currently stands, If I could design my own, “perfect” camera, it would be a marriage between the beautiful EVF and AF of the Leica Q (and now Q2), along with the lens interchangeability of the Leica M10. I see zero advantage to having a severely-dated (albeit quaint), optical parallax viewfinder (despite the towering engineering achievement that it was 80-years ago), while the advantages of EVF (even without considering AF!) are just enormous. Throw in lightning-fast, intelligent, configurable, and multi-mode AF (with MF override, as in the Leica Q), and you’ve got an unbeatable combination. Alas, Leica (or Canon; or Nikon) camera and lens development lay well outside the microscopic sphere of my influence…