Quoted By:
I have owned and shot with two different Leica M3s, the 21mm angulon, the 28mm Hektor, a Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon, The Minolta 40mm f2, a 50mm Summicron DR, A 50mm Summicron Rigid V1, and a 90mm Summicron.
>Are leica camras really worth the money?
For film:
The Leica M3 is a very nice camera, but, assuming you just need something to take pictures with, probably not worth the $800 the user condition bodies alone usually demand especially considering that you can get the best condition Minolta SRT 101 in existence with 55mm 1.7 for $45. Both will produce more or less identical results under all circumstances. A Leica feels more substantial but has virtually no real world benefits in terms of reliability, features, or ease of use. In fact, arguably it is worse in all these categories. Rangefinders have some benefits over SLRs, but being able to see the image you are about to produce, the actual focus rather than a approximation, and having a swing back instead of leica's stupid "take of the base plate then lift the door up and slide the film in" system is easily enough to outweigh those marginal benefits.
So why use Leica? Personally, I like to larp that I'm bresson, the lens rendering is really nice, and I have the money to buy it. Is that really enough of a reason? Frankly, no. And my shooting style usually requires more precision in the framing which precludes the Leica for any serious work. But, it is a "piece of history" and pushes me away from my usual shooting style so I guess it has value to me for those reasons.
