Why Are Lecia 6MP cameras so damn Expensive?

Is Lecia the Lamboghini of everything photographic? I understand they
make the best of the best when it comes to film based equipment but
$300+ for a 6MP camera while a Sony Cybershot comes in around $100?
What am I missing?
What does Leica have that nobody else does? Name?

 

What sort of lens does the Sony Cybershit have?

 

oops Freudian slip.

But, many years ago, in a dim dark analogue age Leica made lenses and
cameras with those lenses and they were acknowledged as among the best. At
the same time Kodak made the Instamatic camera range. Both manufacturers
used film in their cameras which were (most likely) made by the same
manufacturer of film. Leica was much better. Now in the digital age Leica
makes a camera with their lenses and uses a digital medium (sensor) to
record the image. Sony make cameras and use a digital medium (sensor) to
record the images. Both sensors are probably made by the same manufacturer.

I suggest you go away and but a cheap Sony just like the likes of you did in
the dim dark analogue age.

 

So get the Panasonic version and save a few bucks.

 

All the Leica digitals, save for one, the M8, and rebadged panasonics. The
only diffeence that I can see is the warranty. So yes, you're paying for a
name and an extended warranty. Same lens, same sensor, same body.

 

I hear tell that the Leicas have slightly different firmware, or default
'processing' settings. The murmur is never loud enough to distinguish
any real signal, and I've never used either.

Myself, without hands-on experience, I am convinced that you are right.
The only thing to distinguish a Leica from a Panasonic is the red dot.
That has always been a ridiculously expensive bit of paint.

 

What is the differences between the Panasonic and Leica models? Does
Panasonic rebadge their cameras, or does Leica rebadge?
Or does Panasonic supply the bodies and use Leica lenses?
Does Leica have more features? I don't understand. I'm looking at
compact point and shoot cameras - the size of the Sony DSC-W70.

 

Panasonic owns Leica. The Panasonic and Leica cameras are functionally
identical. Typically the only differences are little things. A
Panasonic might have a molded plastic hand grip, have a black finish,
and some plastic controls, while the Leica will have a silver finish,
no handgrip, metal controls and cost $300 more.

See DPReview's comments here, for example:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2/

The Sony DSC-W70 and other cameras of that class are all almost
identical in function and performance. You can spend a lot more and get
no better picture quality. Unless some particular camera has a feature
you really need, shop on price.

 

Really? When did that happen?

I know Matsushita/Panasonic has licences to the Leica brand, and Leica
Camera AG are permanently on the verge of liquidation, but I don't remember
any announcement of a Matsushita takeover.

 

The Name

 

That last bit I have to disagree. I have a W70 and I bought an Olympus
FE-290 - the Sony kicked its ass. I took the Olympus back to the store.
I don't want to start a Sony vs. ** argument but that was my result.
I has a Canon SD400 - perfect performence but I gave it to a friend in
in Iraq (with a 2G card). Hope he brings a few interesting pictures home.
So right now to update my Cameras, I'm looking at the Canon A650is, the
smaller Sony's and now the Panasonic Lumix.
But I want something decent because nothing was worse than having lousy
pictures of an event that only happens once. These are my memories.

Regarding the Sony Vs. Olympus - the difference was night and day. I
actually went back home, grabbed the Some, and carried both around the
rest of the event taking a pic with each to compare.
So we'll see. I dunno, I probably opened a can of worms here.

 

What is the differences between the Panasonic and Leica models? Does

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leica may have had some hand in the design of the lenses, but absolutely no
part whatsoever in the design or manufacture of the cameras. It is said
that the software and firmware are a bit different, but except for the M8, a
Leica is a Panasonic in every regard.

EQR

 

You are correct. The largest shareholder of Leica is an investment
group run by an Austrian family.

It is a licensing arrangement.

 

Leica earned that name starting as early as 1913 when Leitz produced the
first practical 35 mm camera, the Leica. Leitz created the 24mm x 36mm
size for 35 mm cameras using 35mm cinema film.

The compact size and excellent lenses on Leica's made them unique and
also made Leitz change its name to Leica in 1986.

By the early 1930's Leica had interchangeable lenses in rangefinder
cameras. They had shutter speeds from 1/1000 to 1 second. Nothing else
came close to a Leica.

In the 1950's Leica had combined the rangefinder and lens into one unit
with a bayonet mount. This basic design survived up through the 2003
model.

In 2006 Leica released a digital successor to its popular and highly
successful film cameras. However, it is so sensitive to infrared light
that it needs an infrared filter under certain circumstances.

Leica also mass produced SLRs starting in the 1960s. In the 1970s
electronic SLRs were introduced in conjunction with Minolta. By the
1990s Leica was designing and producing their own SLRs. But they never
occupied the unique position of the highly successful Leica rangefinder
cameras though they shared the same excellent lenses. The Leica SLRs
were just as big and clumsy as the popular Japanese models.

In the 1970s, Leica briefly joined with Minolta to also produce a more
compact rangefinder camera. It used some Minolta made lenses, but could
also use most all of the M-series Leitz lenses.

The Leica rangefinder cameras occupy a unique position in the history of
cameras with unique quality and performance. This reputation is so
strong that the new MP camera is designed to resemble the original the
earliest M-series Leicas.

Leica innovations include:

The present 35 mm film standard
Range finder camera with interchangeable lenses
Aspheric lenses
Multicoated lenses
Rare earth lenses
One of the first SLR's (1935)
Excellent performance at large apertures for low light photography
The first combination film & digital SLRs

Several companies tried to imitate Leica but were never successful.

The original Leica digital cameras were rebranded Fujifilm models.
Today they are rebranded Panasonic Lumix models. Panasonic has
reciprocated by using many Leica lenses on their top of the line
cameras. This collaboration has improved both companies products.

 

Agreed that Leica has a rich history, but that doesn't change the fact that
you're paying for almost nothing on their digitals that are rebadged Pannys
save for an extended warranty. Doubtful it's worth the money.

 

Stephen Henning wrote:

Not quite true, there was at least one comercially available still
camera which used 35mm film and used the 24x36mm format before the Leiz
Leica camera.
The first patent for one was issued to Leo, Audobard and Baradat in
England in 1908.

In 1923.
Developed similtaniously by Zeiss Ikon and realeased as the Contax camera.

Pentax, with the Asahi SMC Takumar 15 mm f/3.5, in 1975.

That would be Pentax again with SMC 1971.

The Soviets beat Leica to the punch with that, several of the Zavod
Arsnel cameras came with rare-earth lenses during WWII.

You meant the Visoflex I, didn't you?
A clunky attachment to a Leica II which turns it into a primitive SLR
camera.
So what?
Zeiss Ikon also had the Flekstopp attachment for their Contax II for use
with an 18cm lens.

The first comercially avaivable SLR camera was made by Ihagee, the
Kine-Exakta in 1936.
The first "modern" SLR camera with pentaprism eye-level viewfinder was
the Contax S, in 1949.

Canon f1:0.95 5cm lens for their RF camera the "Canon 7" in 1961.

No, that would be Kodak with their DCS line of digital backs for Nikon
starting with the Kodak DCS-100 in 1991, for the Nikon FM3.

Several companies have overtaken Leica.
Ihagee - with the Kine-Exakta (the first comercially available SLR
camera) in 1936
Pentax - with SMC lens coatings in 1971
Pentax (again) - Aspheric lenses in 1975
Kodak - the Kodak DCS (or DCS-100) in 1991, the first digital back to
fit an SLR camera (the Nikon FM3).
Canon - the first true Digital SLR, the D30 in 2000.
There are many, many more which I really can't be bothered digging up to
throw at you.

 

Ihagee - with the Kine-Exakta (the first comercially available SLR

You need to change that to first commercially available _35mm_ SLR
camera. Don't forget that the Graflex and other cut-film SLRs had been
around a few decades before the Kine-Exakta.
Allen

 

Yes, that's 100 percent true.
Graflex SLR cameras were using 120 rollfilm in the 1920's, I have two of
the early ones with a matching rollfilm holders.

The "Adoration of the Leica" which Gary wrote was all about 35mm film
camera developments, and so were my responses with firsts which weren't
by Leiz Optical.

 

dj_nme wrote:


snip!

Cry havoc! and unleash the dogs of war!

 

I own a Exakta - Warex from Ihagee. With the lens. I want to sell it.
Like new camera. All is technically and optically okay.
van

Allen napsal(a):