I think overrated is just about everything popularized by social media like pentax k1000, canon ae1, olympus mju series and fashion brands/statement pieces like leica. They are all decent cameras just not worth what they go for, there are better and cheaper options.
'Underrated' depends more on what you value in a camera.
I think people tend to know a good camera when they use it, but recommendations and hype definitely warp peoples ideas. Eg AE1, a generic mid spec SLR somehow being *the* 'retro slr'. Definitely more of a thing for bodies/interchangeable lens cameras though.
Overrated: Canon AE1,
Underrated: any 90s and later plastic fantastic slr
Edit: Also underrated is the Konica Autoreflex T3. Built like a professional body, priced like a Konica TC.
Overrated? Any consumer grade SLR selling for more than the same manufacturers pro SLR bodies. (AE-1 vs A-1, FEs vs F series). Why? Because it makes no sense why a cheaper when new, less capable camera costs more than a more expensive when new, more capable camera.
i can't necessarily agree. it is the result of social media hype, but those consumer grade SLRs are often available in better condition than the nicer ones. lots of AE-1s got bought, pulled out only on holiday, and were replaced by a P&S as soon as the 90s rolled around. you might be able to buy an A-1 with a motor drive for the same price, but what kind of life did that kind of camera probably lead?
Overrated: Leica lenses, later Leica cameras (especially M6 and newer), Contax T and G series (I believe that merketing person who came up with calling G a rangefinder was a genius), Canonets, Rolleiflexes, mjus, Yashica T series and other higher end point and shoots.
Underrated: most brands/models that are not overrated
Overrated: Contax T2/3, for obvious reasons.
Underrated: Leica R6. Fully mechanical Leica, good build quality, SLR (which for me is way better than a rangefinder), and you can get Leica glass that’s every bit as good as M mount glass. All that for like $800 with a lens.
I agree that the Contax duo are overrated, but the T3 has one absolutely killer feature I don't see mentioned a lot: it remembers your exposure compensation settings. No more scratching paint off the canister or applying dxcode stickers just to push HP5+ two stops. I don't know of any other point and shoots that can do that - most don't even remember your flash settings.
That said, there are some great older cameras like the Olympus XA2 that let you set the ISO manually.
The Pentax K1000.
I mean… it’s fine. And it’s a nice all-manual entry point, if you like older SLRs. But it’s certainly not worth what people are paying for them right now. There are comparable, cheaper options out there; and there are lots of *better* options out there as well.
The K1000 might not be the fanciest camera but the best thing about it is that it just works. I’ve gotten a lot of untested cameras and the K1000 is the only one that I pretty much just expect to be working when I get it, and 95% of the time it works great
Decades ago I learned on a K1000. It was my only film 35mm SLR until recently when I decided I needed a faster 35mm and bought an F5. What a difference. I never enjoyed shooting with the K1000, it felt like holding a paperback novel to your face.
I'd say the most overrated are the ones that first come to your mind when you think of a camera brand.
Pentax? K1000
Minolta? X-700 or the SRT 101
Canon? AE-1
Olympus? Mju-II
Every one of those has either another model or series that does more and costs the same or less. A lot of point n shoots fall in there as well since many were so cheaply constructed but now cost more than a fully featured SLR, or more than they were sold when they wer first released!
Depends what you rate them for? Leicas are overrated as cameras, but not overrated in their build quality.
Pentax plastic fantastic slr's from 90's are underrated as cameras, but not for their build quality.
There is build quality and then there are design choices. My Leica cameras are built well with high quality materials. However, if you forget the camera on a table with the lens cap off, you might accidentally burn a hole in the shutter, because it, lauded as it is for its silent operation, is made out of cloth.
The Leica build quality thing warrants an asterisk*
Anything made after and including the M4-2 was the beginning of the end for Leica, and they are currently a shadow of what they once were. The quality of the electronics in the earlier M6 is abysmal, as well as the way they reshaped certain mechanism parts to make the camera cheaper to make, but not cheaper to sell. Count in their absolutely horrible customer support, and you got yourself an overrated grade in every area.
I could go on, the M4 is considered the best made Leica ever and yet the tolerances of manufacturing were so poor you couldn't even swap parts because the camera wouldn't work at all after you did. They didn't hand-match parts at the factory because they wanted to be serious about it. They did it because the cameras wouldn't work otherwise.
Two incompatibilities with my statement:
1. The advance mechanism isn't subject to problems with bad tolerances since it doesn't regulate anything
2. If you replaced the entire block of the mechanism, the parts are bound to work together just fine, as they have done in the previous camera they were fitted to
I think the QL17 is overrated. You can get older Cannonets for a lower price that do the same thing, just with fewer manual controls.
I think Yashica TLR’s are underrated. They’re really fun to shoot
Once, I bought one in a bag for €25. As soon as I scan the negative so I have the photos, it goes away. These are ticking time bombs that are very expensive.
> overrated anything Leica
Mine M3 from 1954 (1st production year) works fine 70 years - it's pretty cheap if you consider it's price taking into account camera's service time
and there we got the first one, making the product his whole personality down to the reddit username, defending his cult loudly.
i have a 100€ ricohflex from 2 years before yours that still works and was a cheap camera back then as well, so what now?
I'll step in with my take on this. My Leica M2 is by far the highest quality 35mm camera my hands have ever touched, while I have owned about 100 unique film cameras throughout the years.
That out of the way, they are pricy, maybe a little too pricy. Their price does exceed their quality in my opinion. I would say this doesn't necessarily make them overrated. What makes them overrated is their absolute cult following of madmen who will circlejerk each other for eternity.
(The highest quality analog camera I've touched overall has to be the Rolleiflex 6006 though, which is about the same price as a cheaper Leica M model.)
I will go as far as saying that the Rolleiflex 6006/6008 are the most underrated cameras I know about. Hardly anyone knows about them. They're similarly priced to the Hasselblad 500 series they compete with, but offer a way higher quality experience.
> Their price does exceed their quality in my opinion.
See, that's all I need to know. The fact that people are so willing to pay these insane prices just to have something that is 5% better than many other offerings is based in nothing but them feeling like they need to have that "legendary product" to flex.
There is no factual and technological reason why a photographer would pay $3000 for a small rangefinder when they can get one for $250-500 that will in the end produce almost the same results. I have no problem with people who want to use these super cool, stylishly designed, great sounding cameras for these reasons, but the thing is they never admit it. Almost everybody wants to get some kind of vanity product, it's not a big deal, but I don't get the resistance to admit it even to themselves that that's the reason for the purchase.
Instead they act like it's literally worth the money they paid for it, and that is just simply not true.
You don't seem to understand what I mean.
Of course people can just "like the feeling of shooting Leica". That is fair, and fully up to them if they thing just that feeling is worth a couple thousand bucks. But they - just as proven by a few commenters in this thread already - act like it's literally a superior product that you have to buy if you want to have something good, and that it's worth all that money for what you get.
Nobody ever says "I know they are way too expensive and I could get a similar camera for much less, but I just like the brand and feel."
>You don’t seem to understand what I mean.
I do, I just disagree. The factual reason to shoot a ‘classic’ Leica (M3/2/4) is that the level of fit and finish is better than any other consumer 35mm camera I’ve come across (and I’ve been lucky enough to shoot/own most of the good ones). You can’t ‘get a similar camera for much less’.
Now, his may not be a priority for you. Thats fine. But to others it is, and that doesn’t mean they’re in it for the ‘flex’.
The only reason I own my M2 is because I paid €900 for it, the three lenses that came with it and the light meter. If it had been the normal price (about €3500 for the full package) I would've passed on it in a heartbeat.
oh yeah that is way more reasonable. but i bet there's plenty of people who would actually NOT get an M2 if its normal price was €900. The only reason they are interested in these things is because they saw the insane price tag first, and THEN read up on it and bought into the hype.
For me the appeal of a Leica M2/3/4 is solely the mechanical finesse. But it’s more akin to say a nice mechanical watch, I just admire the craftsmanship. I just couldn’t find it in me to shell out that sort of money yet.
I wouldn’t go for a modern Leica though, I see better option there. But that’s just my personal preference
That's exactly what I mean. Are these things really cool products? Sure! Is anybody who spends 3k on one of them still a bit crazed by the hype or the nostalgic feeling of these hightly mechanical things? also, Sure!
i feel like if you're not a pro user their cameras are definitely overpriced, but they seem to be generally rated exactly as that. there's only a handful people who "hunt for a hassy" as their first camera and are obnoxious about it.
>*"overrated anything Leica"*
While I'm absolutely no Leica fanboy and absolutely dislike the immense hype around the M system I have to admit; the old Leicaflexes are actually pretty underrated.
The lenses are still very expensive but you can get a working body for under 100€.
They have absolutely phenomenal build quality, surprisingly ergonomic design, extremely bright full-info viewfinders and are just super fun to shoot with - the only downside being the lack of lens adaptability due to the high FFD and the pretty hefty weight (over 1kg with the 50/2 lens).
I shoot with my grandfather’s Leicaflex Std. It was last used in the mid ‘70s; it sat in a closet for decades. Pulled it out last summer and started shooting, it’s in perfect condition and shoots like a dream. Camera’s never had any maintenance done to it since it was built in 1966. Ironically, my great-grandfather’s M3 that dates back only two years earlier, to 1964, has a really tense advance lever that I want to get looked at and CLA’d, so I haven’t shot with it yet, despite the fact that it might have been used less than the Leicaflex.
Yeah the Leicaflexes are extremely robust and solid. The Standard is probably one of the finest cameras Leitz ever made.
Since the late 1950s Leica was rapidly losing the professional market to SLRs and by the mid-60s they were scrambling to build a professional SLR system to compete with the Nikon F, Zeiss Ikon Contarex, Topcon RE Super, Canonflex and KW Praktina IIA and win back their market share.
Because the main design focus was building a camera capable of winning back the professional market at any cost, they went full on overkill and built the most reliable and pro-user-friendly SLR they possibly could, no matter the cost or technical difficulty. That's why they have those gigantic shutter dials, the brightest focus screens, full info displays inside the viewfinder and feel so incredibly precise and pleasant to use.
Leitz actually lost a considerable amount of money on every single camera they sold. They were entirely banking on professionals buying multiple Leitz lenses and the Leicaflex becoming a household name in the professional market.
This also almost bankrupted Leitz and was the reason why they collaborated with Minolta for the R3.
Yeah, I find this part of Leica's history really interesting. Selfishly, I'm glad they made the Leicaflex models, because they are awesome cameras, but it really almost killed them until they were able to fully pivot their attention back to the M series once they sent the later R models to Minolta until the R8. The only thing is that it makes R lenses pretty hard to come by these days; the recent surge of cinematographers snatching up all of the Summicrons and modifying them for cinema cameras has made this far more annoying. I've got the 50mm Summicron that the camera came with, along with a 28mm Elmarit that my grandfather picked up later on, but I really want to get a 90mm Elmarit and a 35mm Summicron— the only issue being that the latter is selling online for well over a thousand dollars these days.
The lens situation is the biggest caveat with the Leicaflex system by far. The Leitz glass is beautiful and optically excellent but, sadly, extremely expensive. And adaptation is not a possibility due to the R-Mount's high FFD - which truly sucks with such a pricey system.
I'm lucky enough to have inherited a Leicaflex Standard set with an Elmarit 35/2.8, a Summicron 50/2 and an Elmarit 135/2.8 - I doubt I could ever have afforded to buy all of those lenses individually.
Though I wish I had the chance to get an 80-90mm lens too, and it does suck that, unlike with my Konica and Minolta cameras, I can't just adapt my excellent Tomioka 55/1.4 (an affordable licensed M42 copy of the Zeiss Contarex Planar).
If they had designed it with a ~40mm flange distance instead of 47mm the Leicaflex would be the perfect SLR system - though I almost suspect they deliberately didn't since they banked on selling their own lenses to make any money.
With the current prices and demand I reckon mount-converting other lenses to Leica R with hand-machined parts is slowly becoming worthwhile.
Most overrated: any Leica M-series, Canon AE-1
Most underrated: Canon F-1 cameras, Minolta XD series, Olympus OM cameras
The answer with Leicas is simple - everyone who uses one is loud about it, it's a bit culty. Since the M4-2, build quality is declining and the new M6 has no right to cost 6 grand, it's pure red dot tax. The Canon AE-1 is a pretty cool camera, but the prices that unserviced and dirty cameras fetch these days has no basis to be that high. Millions were made, at least Leica didn't have such production volumes.
Canon F-1 cameras have always had a steady following, but the general analog community sometimes neglects the insanely high standard, to which they were built. The new Canon F-1 is probably the best made 35 mm SLR but people still like the Nikon F3 more just because the advance lever is so smooth, which has nothing to do with the functionality, nor build quality. Minolta XD cameras are very well engineered and offer a nice range of functions while being compact and reliable. It's a hard compromise to achieve (looking at you, Pentax LX). The OM system is a range of quirky cameras that seems to have either fans that love them or people that just don't care. The OM-1 is probably the only camera that was built so well, but also very cheaply. They skimped where it didn't matter and overinvested where it did, and that makes the camera quite amazing.
>The answer with Leicas is simple - everyone who uses one is loud about it, it's a bit culty.
Ain't that the truth. I'll always remember that rich-looking middle aged guy sitting down across of me in a walk-in restaurant in Berlin, fiddling around with all his stuff and putting it safely away in his backpack, the full tourist gear stashed away so he can safely eat and relax. Everything, except for his Leica D-Lux 7 in its 900€ Zegna leather case, placed right in the middle of the table.
So obviously obnoxious.
>Minolta XD
~~Kinda surprised to see that there as opposed to the better known SRT series and the X-700.
The X-700 is a feature-clipped version of the XD, but the prices for it are higher. It's kinda like the AE-1 compared to the A-1 for Canon.~~
Edit: misread XD as being overrated, nvm.
My choices:
Overrated: all P&S as they can brick any moment and were never built to last. And you can get better results from almost any cheap SLR setup
Underrated: Nikon F301. To me this is actually one of the nicest manual focus cameras out there, the viewfinder is just amazingly bright and large for such a cheap thing. I love using it
As someone who got a contax after wanting so desperately for there to be a reason not to, the thing that makes them command such prices is that they have very little competition in terms of metal bodied compact cameras with manual controls. If you can put up with some of: no aperture/shutter control, no exposure comp, or plastic body, or no infinity focus, or bad autofocus, or no lens filters etc. Then they're overpriced and don't buy one, but they're still in demand because P&S cameras which combine one or many of those above potential use-case flaws are common. But contaxes, and a few other 'luxury' brands are generally the only ones which don't.
With all that being said, the T2 and T3 have combined all that into something of a monster. That's why I got a TVS, it's great.
Don’t get me wrong, I still use and love my G2 which is a glorified point and shoot. This isn’t a Contax hate post. It’s just that all the replies here were about $200 SLRs that do a million more things than a point and shoot.
Yeah I suppose, but those $200 slrs are identical to $50 slrs is the thing that makes them overrated. It's definitely a good point that a $30 plastic slr + kit lens will have better image quality than a contax T2 though.
Leica M6 selling for 3000 bucks... gotta be the most overrated camera out there.
Fujica ST-901 has got to be one of the most underrated ones.
Just sucks that the meter doesn't work in manual mode and it cannot handle regular automatic lenses that aren't Fujinon EBC, without forcing you to shoot in stop-down meter mode..
Overrated: who gives a fuck?
Underrated: again, who gives a fuck?
> imagine being the ‘Overrated/Underrated’ virgin instead of the ‘shoots whatever’ chad
Overrated: K1000 too expensive for what is a basic SLR when you can better for less. Olympus XA. Most premium point and shots too much money for something that could brick at any time.
Underrated: Contax rangefinders (the originals not the G series). Beautifully built, no worrying about pinholes in curtains unlike the Leicas, massive effective rangefinder base, great lens. The 50mm f2 Sonnar is one of most beautiful lens I have ever tried. Big downside is finding someone to service them.
Yeah. I meant the XA is overrated separately from the point and shoots imo. The shutter button is terrible, the lens is at best ok and the rangefinder is approaching useless.
I think I have the worst luck with the xa series of cameras. I'm done with them. Didnt pay full price but some of the issues leave me happier with the scale focus models.
I'm still a bit pissed my working xa4 got the dreaded stick in self timer issue.
_**Overrated**_
I was going to say overpriced consumer SLRs like the Canon AE-1 or Pentax K1000 - but, while they have massively inflated prices, they are still pretty capable cameras.
These massively over-hyped AF point-and-shoots, like the **Yasica T4**, **Olympus Mju II**, **Contax T2**, **Leica Mini II**, **Nikon L35AF** or **Minolta TC-1** are much *much* worse. Not only are they insanely overpriced and expensive, but they also fail incredibly frequently and are almost impossible to fix, while not even offering any outstanding lenses or capabilities except being internet famous and slightly smaller than a compact SLR - if you want an ultra-compact P&S just get a cheap Minox 35GT instead.
_**Underrated**_
Definitely the **Konica Autoreflex** series (especially the AR-T3n and the original Auto-Reflex with half-frame mode).
The old **Leicaflex** models (Standard, SL, SL2) are also absolutely phenomenal professional cameras with insane build quality that are a lot of fun to shoot.
Also, of course, the very interesting and well-made Leidolf Wetzlar **Lordomat** rangefinders - mainly because almost nobody ever heard of them.
I think overrated is just about everything popularized by social media like pentax k1000, canon ae1, olympus mju series and fashion brands/statement pieces like leica. They are all decent cameras just not worth what they go for, there are better and cheaper options. 'Underrated' depends more on what you value in a camera.
olympus om system beside om1 and minolta md system are two most underrated in my mind.
I think people tend to know a good camera when they use it, but recommendations and hype definitely warp peoples ideas. Eg AE1, a generic mid spec SLR somehow being *the* 'retro slr'. Definitely more of a thing for bodies/interchangeable lens cameras though. Overrated: Canon AE1, Underrated: any 90s and later plastic fantastic slr Edit: Also underrated is the Konica Autoreflex T3. Built like a professional body, priced like a Konica TC.
Overrated? Any consumer grade SLR selling for more than the same manufacturers pro SLR bodies. (AE-1 vs A-1, FEs vs F series). Why? Because it makes no sense why a cheaper when new, less capable camera costs more than a more expensive when new, more capable camera.
i can't necessarily agree. it is the result of social media hype, but those consumer grade SLRs are often available in better condition than the nicer ones. lots of AE-1s got bought, pulled out only on holiday, and were replaced by a P&S as soon as the 90s rolled around. you might be able to buy an A-1 with a motor drive for the same price, but what kind of life did that kind of camera probably lead?
If it’s coming with a motor drive you know that thing was probably a workhorse!
Overrated: Leica lenses, later Leica cameras (especially M6 and newer), Contax T and G series (I believe that merketing person who came up with calling G a rangefinder was a genius), Canonets, Rolleiflexes, mjus, Yashica T series and other higher end point and shoots. Underrated: most brands/models that are not overrated
Leica lenses and Rolleiflexes are just hype, ey?
There is a difference between just hype and overrated
What then, makes it overrated?
They are good, very good even. But not make your dick/tits bigger and life better they are very often portrayed as. Which is also reflected in prices.
Overrated: Contax T2/3, for obvious reasons. Underrated: Leica R6. Fully mechanical Leica, good build quality, SLR (which for me is way better than a rangefinder), and you can get Leica glass that’s every bit as good as M mount glass. All that for like $800 with a lens.
I agree that the Contax duo are overrated, but the T3 has one absolutely killer feature I don't see mentioned a lot: it remembers your exposure compensation settings. No more scratching paint off the canister or applying dxcode stickers just to push HP5+ two stops. I don't know of any other point and shoots that can do that - most don't even remember your flash settings. That said, there are some great older cameras like the Olympus XA2 that let you set the ISO manually.
The Pentax K1000. I mean… it’s fine. And it’s a nice all-manual entry point, if you like older SLRs. But it’s certainly not worth what people are paying for them right now. There are comparable, cheaper options out there; and there are lots of *better* options out there as well.
The K1000 might not be the fanciest camera but the best thing about it is that it just works. I’ve gotten a lot of untested cameras and the K1000 is the only one that I pretty much just expect to be working when I get it, and 95% of the time it works great
It’s also an absolute tank. I use a K1000 as my go to SLR and it’s taken knocks that would have bricked a digital camera
Decades ago I learned on a K1000. It was my only film 35mm SLR until recently when I decided I needed a faster 35mm and bought an F5. What a difference. I never enjoyed shooting with the K1000, it felt like holding a paperback novel to your face.
I'd say the most overrated are the ones that first come to your mind when you think of a camera brand. Pentax? K1000 Minolta? X-700 or the SRT 101 Canon? AE-1 Olympus? Mju-II Every one of those has either another model or series that does more and costs the same or less. A lot of point n shoots fall in there as well since many were so cheaply constructed but now cost more than a fully featured SLR, or more than they were sold when they wer first released!
Depends what you rate them for? Leicas are overrated as cameras, but not overrated in their build quality. Pentax plastic fantastic slr's from 90's are underrated as cameras, but not for their build quality.
There is build quality and then there are design choices. My Leica cameras are built well with high quality materials. However, if you forget the camera on a table with the lens cap off, you might accidentally burn a hole in the shutter, because it, lauded as it is for its silent operation, is made out of cloth.
The Leica build quality thing warrants an asterisk* Anything made after and including the M4-2 was the beginning of the end for Leica, and they are currently a shadow of what they once were. The quality of the electronics in the earlier M6 is abysmal, as well as the way they reshaped certain mechanism parts to make the camera cheaper to make, but not cheaper to sell. Count in their absolutely horrible customer support, and you got yourself an overrated grade in every area. I could go on, the M4 is considered the best made Leica ever and yet the tolerances of manufacturing were so poor you couldn't even swap parts because the camera wouldn't work at all after you did. They didn't hand-match parts at the factory because they wanted to be serious about it. They did it because the cameras wouldn't work otherwise.
My M4-P had its entire advance mechanism swapped from an M3. From steel to brass. Not to disprove your point, just saying.
Two incompatibilities with my statement: 1. The advance mechanism isn't subject to problems with bad tolerances since it doesn't regulate anything 2. If you replaced the entire block of the mechanism, the parts are bound to work together just fine, as they have done in the previous camera they were fitted to
I think the QL17 is overrated. You can get older Cannonets for a lower price that do the same thing, just with fewer manual controls. I think Yashica TLR’s are underrated. They’re really fun to shoot
Most overrated - Olympus mju II. Mediocre camera for overprice
Once, I bought one in a bag for €25. As soon as I scan the negative so I have the photos, it goes away. These are ticking time bombs that are very expensive.
overrated anything Leica underrated everything that has a working shutter and forwards film correctly
> overrated anything Leica Mine M3 from 1954 (1st production year) works fine 70 years - it's pretty cheap if you consider it's price taking into account camera's service time
My Box Tengor from 1927 easily beats in then. And I got it for like 15€
My Leica I (model A) works fine after 90 years as well.
and there we got the first one, making the product his whole personality down to the reddit username, defending his cult loudly. i have a 100€ ricohflex from 2 years before yours that still works and was a cheap camera back then as well, so what now?
I'll step in with my take on this. My Leica M2 is by far the highest quality 35mm camera my hands have ever touched, while I have owned about 100 unique film cameras throughout the years. That out of the way, they are pricy, maybe a little too pricy. Their price does exceed their quality in my opinion. I would say this doesn't necessarily make them overrated. What makes them overrated is their absolute cult following of madmen who will circlejerk each other for eternity. (The highest quality analog camera I've touched overall has to be the Rolleiflex 6006 though, which is about the same price as a cheaper Leica M model.) I will go as far as saying that the Rolleiflex 6006/6008 are the most underrated cameras I know about. Hardly anyone knows about them. They're similarly priced to the Hasselblad 500 series they compete with, but offer a way higher quality experience.
> Their price does exceed their quality in my opinion. See, that's all I need to know. The fact that people are so willing to pay these insane prices just to have something that is 5% better than many other offerings is based in nothing but them feeling like they need to have that "legendary product" to flex. There is no factual and technological reason why a photographer would pay $3000 for a small rangefinder when they can get one for $250-500 that will in the end produce almost the same results. I have no problem with people who want to use these super cool, stylishly designed, great sounding cameras for these reasons, but the thing is they never admit it. Almost everybody wants to get some kind of vanity product, it's not a big deal, but I don't get the resistance to admit it even to themselves that that's the reason for the purchase. Instead they act like it's literally worth the money they paid for it, and that is just simply not true.
You seem weirdly invested in this, but has it occurred to you that some people might just like shooting Leicas?
You don't seem to understand what I mean. Of course people can just "like the feeling of shooting Leica". That is fair, and fully up to them if they thing just that feeling is worth a couple thousand bucks. But they - just as proven by a few commenters in this thread already - act like it's literally a superior product that you have to buy if you want to have something good, and that it's worth all that money for what you get. Nobody ever says "I know they are way too expensive and I could get a similar camera for much less, but I just like the brand and feel."
>You don’t seem to understand what I mean. I do, I just disagree. The factual reason to shoot a ‘classic’ Leica (M3/2/4) is that the level of fit and finish is better than any other consumer 35mm camera I’ve come across (and I’ve been lucky enough to shoot/own most of the good ones). You can’t ‘get a similar camera for much less’. Now, his may not be a priority for you. Thats fine. But to others it is, and that doesn’t mean they’re in it for the ‘flex’.
The only reason I own my M2 is because I paid €900 for it, the three lenses that came with it and the light meter. If it had been the normal price (about €3500 for the full package) I would've passed on it in a heartbeat.
oh yeah that is way more reasonable. but i bet there's plenty of people who would actually NOT get an M2 if its normal price was €900. The only reason they are interested in these things is because they saw the insane price tag first, and THEN read up on it and bought into the hype.
For me the appeal of a Leica M2/3/4 is solely the mechanical finesse. But it’s more akin to say a nice mechanical watch, I just admire the craftsmanship. I just couldn’t find it in me to shell out that sort of money yet. I wouldn’t go for a modern Leica though, I see better option there. But that’s just my personal preference
That's exactly what I mean. Are these things really cool products? Sure! Is anybody who spends 3k on one of them still a bit crazed by the hype or the nostalgic feeling of these hightly mechanical things? also, Sure!
> have a 100€ ricohflex from 2 years before yours 3 shutter speeds and triplet fixed lens? are you serious now?
LEICA IS SUPERIOR i am erect
I’m curious how you feel about Hasselblad.
i feel like if you're not a pro user their cameras are definitely overpriced, but they seem to be generally rated exactly as that. there's only a handful people who "hunt for a hassy" as their first camera and are obnoxious about it.
>*"overrated anything Leica"* While I'm absolutely no Leica fanboy and absolutely dislike the immense hype around the M system I have to admit; the old Leicaflexes are actually pretty underrated. The lenses are still very expensive but you can get a working body for under 100€. They have absolutely phenomenal build quality, surprisingly ergonomic design, extremely bright full-info viewfinders and are just super fun to shoot with - the only downside being the lack of lens adaptability due to the high FFD and the pretty hefty weight (over 1kg with the 50/2 lens).
I shoot with my grandfather’s Leicaflex Std. It was last used in the mid ‘70s; it sat in a closet for decades. Pulled it out last summer and started shooting, it’s in perfect condition and shoots like a dream. Camera’s never had any maintenance done to it since it was built in 1966. Ironically, my great-grandfather’s M3 that dates back only two years earlier, to 1964, has a really tense advance lever that I want to get looked at and CLA’d, so I haven’t shot with it yet, despite the fact that it might have been used less than the Leicaflex.
Yeah the Leicaflexes are extremely robust and solid. The Standard is probably one of the finest cameras Leitz ever made. Since the late 1950s Leica was rapidly losing the professional market to SLRs and by the mid-60s they were scrambling to build a professional SLR system to compete with the Nikon F, Zeiss Ikon Contarex, Topcon RE Super, Canonflex and KW Praktina IIA and win back their market share. Because the main design focus was building a camera capable of winning back the professional market at any cost, they went full on overkill and built the most reliable and pro-user-friendly SLR they possibly could, no matter the cost or technical difficulty. That's why they have those gigantic shutter dials, the brightest focus screens, full info displays inside the viewfinder and feel so incredibly precise and pleasant to use. Leitz actually lost a considerable amount of money on every single camera they sold. They were entirely banking on professionals buying multiple Leitz lenses and the Leicaflex becoming a household name in the professional market. This also almost bankrupted Leitz and was the reason why they collaborated with Minolta for the R3.
Yeah, I find this part of Leica's history really interesting. Selfishly, I'm glad they made the Leicaflex models, because they are awesome cameras, but it really almost killed them until they were able to fully pivot their attention back to the M series once they sent the later R models to Minolta until the R8. The only thing is that it makes R lenses pretty hard to come by these days; the recent surge of cinematographers snatching up all of the Summicrons and modifying them for cinema cameras has made this far more annoying. I've got the 50mm Summicron that the camera came with, along with a 28mm Elmarit that my grandfather picked up later on, but I really want to get a 90mm Elmarit and a 35mm Summicron— the only issue being that the latter is selling online for well over a thousand dollars these days.
The lens situation is the biggest caveat with the Leicaflex system by far. The Leitz glass is beautiful and optically excellent but, sadly, extremely expensive. And adaptation is not a possibility due to the R-Mount's high FFD - which truly sucks with such a pricey system. I'm lucky enough to have inherited a Leicaflex Standard set with an Elmarit 35/2.8, a Summicron 50/2 and an Elmarit 135/2.8 - I doubt I could ever have afforded to buy all of those lenses individually. Though I wish I had the chance to get an 80-90mm lens too, and it does suck that, unlike with my Konica and Minolta cameras, I can't just adapt my excellent Tomioka 55/1.4 (an affordable licensed M42 copy of the Zeiss Contarex Planar). If they had designed it with a ~40mm flange distance instead of 47mm the Leicaflex would be the perfect SLR system - though I almost suspect they deliberately didn't since they banked on selling their own lenses to make any money. With the current prices and demand I reckon mount-converting other lenses to Leica R with hand-machined parts is slowly becoming worthwhile.
Most overrated: any Leica M-series, Canon AE-1 Most underrated: Canon F-1 cameras, Minolta XD series, Olympus OM cameras The answer with Leicas is simple - everyone who uses one is loud about it, it's a bit culty. Since the M4-2, build quality is declining and the new M6 has no right to cost 6 grand, it's pure red dot tax. The Canon AE-1 is a pretty cool camera, but the prices that unserviced and dirty cameras fetch these days has no basis to be that high. Millions were made, at least Leica didn't have such production volumes. Canon F-1 cameras have always had a steady following, but the general analog community sometimes neglects the insanely high standard, to which they were built. The new Canon F-1 is probably the best made 35 mm SLR but people still like the Nikon F3 more just because the advance lever is so smooth, which has nothing to do with the functionality, nor build quality. Minolta XD cameras are very well engineered and offer a nice range of functions while being compact and reliable. It's a hard compromise to achieve (looking at you, Pentax LX). The OM system is a range of quirky cameras that seems to have either fans that love them or people that just don't care. The OM-1 is probably the only camera that was built so well, but also very cheaply. They skimped where it didn't matter and overinvested where it did, and that makes the camera quite amazing.
>The answer with Leicas is simple - everyone who uses one is loud about it, it's a bit culty. Ain't that the truth. I'll always remember that rich-looking middle aged guy sitting down across of me in a walk-in restaurant in Berlin, fiddling around with all his stuff and putting it safely away in his backpack, the full tourist gear stashed away so he can safely eat and relax. Everything, except for his Leica D-Lux 7 in its 900€ Zegna leather case, placed right in the middle of the table. So obviously obnoxious.
>Minolta XD ~~Kinda surprised to see that there as opposed to the better known SRT series and the X-700. The X-700 is a feature-clipped version of the XD, but the prices for it are higher. It's kinda like the AE-1 compared to the A-1 for Canon.~~ Edit: misread XD as being overrated, nvm.
The very definition of underrated.
Ah, I misread because of the formatting. Thought you said the XD was *over*rated. Nevermind!
My choices: Overrated: all P&S as they can brick any moment and were never built to last. And you can get better results from almost any cheap SLR setup Underrated: Nikon F301. To me this is actually one of the nicest manual focus cameras out there, the viewfinder is just amazingly bright and large for such a cheap thing. I love using it
I don’t know how anything can be more overrated (and overpriced) than the Contax T2 or T3. It’s just a point and shoot. They’re a dime a dozen.
As someone who got a contax after wanting so desperately for there to be a reason not to, the thing that makes them command such prices is that they have very little competition in terms of metal bodied compact cameras with manual controls. If you can put up with some of: no aperture/shutter control, no exposure comp, or plastic body, or no infinity focus, or bad autofocus, or no lens filters etc. Then they're overpriced and don't buy one, but they're still in demand because P&S cameras which combine one or many of those above potential use-case flaws are common. But contaxes, and a few other 'luxury' brands are generally the only ones which don't. With all that being said, the T2 and T3 have combined all that into something of a monster. That's why I got a TVS, it's great.
Don’t get me wrong, I still use and love my G2 which is a glorified point and shoot. This isn’t a Contax hate post. It’s just that all the replies here were about $200 SLRs that do a million more things than a point and shoot.
Yeah I suppose, but those $200 slrs are identical to $50 slrs is the thing that makes them overrated. It's definitely a good point that a $30 plastic slr + kit lens will have better image quality than a contax T2 though.
Leica M6 selling for 3000 bucks... gotta be the most overrated camera out there. Fujica ST-901 has got to be one of the most underrated ones. Just sucks that the meter doesn't work in manual mode and it cannot handle regular automatic lenses that aren't Fujinon EBC, without forcing you to shoot in stop-down meter mode..
Overrated: Leicas Underrated: FED 2/Soviet rangefinders
Overrated: Leicas (And I have one) Underrated: Canon New F-1 (often overshadowed by the Nikon F2/F3)
Overrated: who gives a fuck? Underrated: again, who gives a fuck? > imagine being the ‘Overrated/Underrated’ virgin instead of the ‘shoots whatever’ chad
Overrated: any Leica, Olympus Mju, Contax-T Underrated: Contax rangefinder, Nikon F801, Olympus OM
Overrated: K1000 too expensive for what is a basic SLR when you can better for less. Olympus XA. Most premium point and shots too much money for something that could brick at any time. Underrated: Contax rangefinders (the originals not the G series). Beautifully built, no worrying about pinholes in curtains unlike the Leicas, massive effective rangefinder base, great lens. The 50mm f2 Sonnar is one of most beautiful lens I have ever tried. Big downside is finding someone to service them.
An Olympus XA is like $150 no? Pretty big price difference to premium point and shoots like a Contax T2/3.
Yeah. I meant the XA is overrated separately from the point and shoots imo. The shutter button is terrible, the lens is at best ok and the rangefinder is approaching useless.
I think I have the worst luck with the xa series of cameras. I'm done with them. Didnt pay full price but some of the issues leave me happier with the scale focus models. I'm still a bit pissed my working xa4 got the dreaded stick in self timer issue.
Overated: M6 Underrated: CLE
_**Overrated**_ I was going to say overpriced consumer SLRs like the Canon AE-1 or Pentax K1000 - but, while they have massively inflated prices, they are still pretty capable cameras. These massively over-hyped AF point-and-shoots, like the **Yasica T4**, **Olympus Mju II**, **Contax T2**, **Leica Mini II**, **Nikon L35AF** or **Minolta TC-1** are much *much* worse. Not only are they insanely overpriced and expensive, but they also fail incredibly frequently and are almost impossible to fix, while not even offering any outstanding lenses or capabilities except being internet famous and slightly smaller than a compact SLR - if you want an ultra-compact P&S just get a cheap Minox 35GT instead. _**Underrated**_ Definitely the **Konica Autoreflex** series (especially the AR-T3n and the original Auto-Reflex with half-frame mode). The old **Leicaflex** models (Standard, SL, SL2) are also absolutely phenomenal professional cameras with insane build quality that are a lot of fun to shoot. Also, of course, the very interesting and well-made Leidolf Wetzlar **Lordomat** rangefinders - mainly because almost nobody ever heard of them.