Tool Kit: Leica Cameras Have Eye-Popping Prices, With Photos to Match

Ridiculous? Perhaps. But the hard-core photographers who own a Leica swear by its craftsmanship, lens quality and lack of bells and whistles even as they acknowledge that their beloved camera gear is, well, not for everyone.

The question is whether your love of photography — and perhaps your skill — runs deep enough to justify dropping enough money to buy a car, on a camera.

“For most people, the Leica is absolutely the wrong camera. But if you’re really, really dedicated to the craft, then the pictures it can take are beautiful,” said Christopher Michel, a photographer and investor with Nautilus Ventures.

Leica, based in Germany, released its first high-end digital camera in 2006, the M8, but the company has been in the camera business for almost a century. In the 1950s, Leica rose to fame when it introduced the M-System camera.

Although it had a rough start crossing into digital, Leica now sells almost a dozen varieties of digital cameras, including some point-and-shoots. But the most coveted models are still in M-System series, with the range finder body that was introduced in 1932.

Unlike D.S.L.R. (digital single-lens reflex) cameras, in which a photo subject is viewed through a mirror, range finders offer crisper images because the lens is closer to the sensor of the camera. The shutter on a range finder is also incredibly still and quiet — unlike the D.S.L.R., in which the mirror flips up and down at the moment a photo is snapped — so little vibration is added to a photo when the shutter is pressed.

Still, focusing with a Leica range finder is not as easy as just snapping a picture with your iPhone.

First, the camera focus is completely manual. A Leica viewfinder shows two versions of the scene before you. The trick is to line up the images and make them overlap over the area to be in focus.

Leica offers several digital camera bodies. The Leica M-E is the lowest-priced model of the M-System. The bare-bones M-E body costs $5,450. It has an 18-megapixel sensor and can shoot at an ISO of 160 to 2,500 (the ISO number measures the sensitivity to light). Photos taken during the day will be flawlessly clear, while in very low light the images will deteriorate and become grainy without a flash.

The latest high-end camera from the company, the Leica M, was announced late last year and costs $6,950. It features a newly designed 24-megapixel CMOS sensor (CMOS stands for complementary metal-oxide semiconductor), which makes it possible for the camera to shoot in lower-light situations while keeping a crisp image. The Leica M is the only M-System camera that can shoot video.

Leica also offers the Leica M Monochrom, an 18-megapixel camera that can shoot only black and white. Some people might ask why anyone would buy a camera that cannot even take a color picture, but Leica has poured years of research and development into optimizing the sensor on this camera for the subtlety of black-and-white photography.

The results from the Leica M Monochrom are astounding. Pictures have the tonality and contrast that make them look as if they were shot with real black-and-white film. The M Monochrom can also shoot at an ISO up to 10,000, which allows pictures to be taken in extremely low light.

Keep in mind that once you buy a Leica camera body, it still needs a lens. But this, professional photographers say, is where Leica excels.

“Leica makes a lens the way it should be made, with metal and glass, while everyone else is making plastic lenses that are meant to be thrown away in a couple of years,” said Ken Rockwell, a photographer and expert on cameras and lenses. “The Leica lenses are so special because they are smaller, faster and sharper.”

Mr. Rockwell notes that Leica’s lenses, which are still assembled by hand in Germany, do not have the added features of modern D.S.L.R.'s, like motors, and that the company uses the highest-grade glass available.

“The Leica glass,” Mr. Michel said, “adds that special ethereal quality to the image that no D.S.L.R. can match.”

I have tested almost all of the company’s cameras and lenses. The control I have with a manual Leica makes me realize that today’s abundance of buttons and features on most cameras often makes people take poorer pictures.

Leica’s lenses can vary in price from $1,650 for the Leica 50mm f/2.5 Summarit-M, to the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M, which costs $10,950. Once you have recovered from seeing the price of the Noctilux-M, keep in mind it is considered one of the best low-light lenses in the world and has such a wide aperture it can shoot almost in darkness.

The company names all of its lenses based on the amount of light a lens can let in through the aperture; these include the Summilux, Summicron, Summarit and Noctilux.

If you have been doing the math, you might have noticed that the best Leica setup will cost almost $20,000. My personal Leica setup is half that. I own a used Leica M9-P with a Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux lens, which cost almost $10,000, and although the price might make you choke on your morning coffee, I would give up my iPhone before I’d part with my Leica.

This was true decades ago and is still true today. Henri Cartier-Bresson, considered by many to be the father of photojournalism, said in his biography, “The Mind’s Eye,” that when he discovered the Leica camera in the beginning of his career, “It became the extension of my eye, and I have never been separated from it since I found it.”

But be forewarned: Although Leicas are tough and rugged, if your camera does break, be prepared to wait a couple of months for it to be fixed, because the company’s repair facilities are only in Germany. If you do buy a Leica, it will also take a long time to become completely used to the range finder and manual setup. Leicas are in such high demand that there is a three-month wait to purchase several of the latest models.

“Don’t think that if you buy a Leica you’re going to be taking the same photos as the world’s best photojournalists,” Mr. Rockwell said. “The camera doesn’t take good pictures; the person holding it does.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 8, 2013

An earlier version of the this article misstated when Leica first released a camera with its range finder body. It was in 1932, not in the 1950s, which is when the company introduced its M-System cameras. (The M-System cameras have the range finder body.)

State of the Art: Canon N Takes On Phone Cameras

Incoming waves: tablets, e-books, movies online. Outgoing waves: Desktop PCs, landline phones, anything on disc, tape or paper.

It’s fascinating to watch outgoing industries struggle to remain relevant. Take, for example, the outgoing wave known as pocket cameras. No wonder nobody is buying them anymore. Your phone takes pictures nearly as well and is far more convenient.

You always have your phone with you, and you can transmit the photos wirelessly as soon as you take them.

But Canon, the world’s No. 1 camera maker, has dreamed up an ingenious response to the phone-camera threat. It’s a camera designed to attack the cellphone threat on three fronts.

First, it emphasizes the features that a smartphone can’t match, like a zoom lens. Second, it imitates the workings and design features of a smartphone. Third, it can transmit new photos to your phone for immediate sending or posting online. The result, the Canon N ($300), is half pocket camera, half photo-taking accessory for your phone.

In the category of features a phone camera lacks, the Canon N starts by offering a powerful zoom lens — 8X, compared with zero X on a smartphone. Digital zoom, where the camera just enlarges a photo to make it seem as if you’re closer, doesn’t count.

The N also has a much bigger, more sensitive sensor and lens. Now, the N’s sensor isn’t very big for a camera — it measures 0.4 inches diagonally — but it’s much better than what’s in a typical phone. Finally, the N’s screen flips out 90 degrees, so you can take photos at interesting angles.

The second category, imitating a phone’s design and operation, is more intriguing. The Canon N is one of the weirdest-looking cameras you’ve ever seen. It’s a nearly square, nearly featureless block, in black or white.

It has only three physical buttons, all tiny: Power, Play and Connect to Phone. As on a phone, the rest of the controls are all on the touch screen.

Now, you might have noticed that that list does not include “shutter button”; this camera doesn’t have one. Instead, you take a picture by pressing up or down on the silver plastic ring around the lens, which budges slightly and clicks.

And what, you may ask, is the point of that design? Simple: This camera works equally well upside down or at 90 degrees. Like a phone, it detects which way you’re holding it and flips the screen image accordingly. Thanks to this ring-shutter system, you can take a shot no matter how you’re holding the camera.

Left-handers might also appreciate this setup; it frees them from the tyranny of right-side shutter buttons. The downside of the shutter ring is that it’s very skinny and right next to the equally thin zoom ring. Often, you snap a shot by accident when you’re just trying to zoom.

The upside-down feature also mitigates the limitations of the flip-out screen, which has a hinge that is far less ambitious than the ones on other cameras. When you hold the camera upright, the flipping out aids you only in taking photos of low-down subjects (that’s low down as in “children and pets,” not “yellow-bellied scoundrels”). But because you can use the camera in any orientation, the flip-out screen also helps you take pictures holding the camera over your head or even around corners.

Even so, the screen can never face you, so it’s no help when you’re taking self-portraits — a real shame.

There are other cellphone similarities. There is no external battery charger; you charge the battery in the camera, by connecting a USB cable to your computer or a wall adapter. The battery itself looks like a squared-off AA battery; it’s tiny. Canon says it’ll give you about 200 shots on a charge, which is very low.

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: Adjusting a Camera’s Image Quality Settings

The photos from my point-and-shoot digital camera definitely do not look at good as when I first got the camera. I clean the lens regularly, so what might have caused this?

One quick thing to check is the camera settings for file quality. “Quality,” in digital camera-speak, typically refers to the amount of compression the camera uses when saving the photos you shoot in the JPG format. (The photo files are compressed to save storage space on the camera’s memory card and make room for more pictures.)

The higher the compression, the less visual data is saved with the file. This means pictures with a high rate of compression will not generally look as sharp and detailed compared to those that are saved with a low level of compression. Files with higher quality/low compression take up more room on the memory card than images with lower quality/high compression, though.

Most cameras let you choose the level of compression in the Quality settings, although the terminology varies between camera manufacturers. Some use terms like “Normal, Fine and Superfine” or “Good, Better and Best,” but they are all relative to each other — the “Best” setting uses less compression and therefore makes for a richer-looking image. (The Image Maven site has examples of different quality settings.)

So it is possible the image-quality setting may have gotten changed inadvertently, which is not all that uncommon on cameras with tiny buttons and multiple menu screens. Changing it back could resolve the issue. Many cameras also include settings for image resolution as well, which affects the look of the pictures when printed. Photos that have too low a resolution for the chosen size of the print will look blurry and jaggy.

If a trip through the camera’s settings doesn’t fix the problem and the lens is clean, there could be a problem with the camera’s image sensor or another hardware issue. Check the support area of your manufacturer’s Web site for troubleshooting and repair information.

Digital Domain: Wearable Video Cameras, for Police Officers

Now, some police departments are using miniaturized video cameras and their microphones to capture, in full detail, officers’ interactions with civilians. The cameras are so small that they can be attached to a collar, a cap or even to the side of an officer’s sunglasses. High-capacity battery packs can last for an extended shift. And all of the videos are uploaded automatically to a central server that serves as a kind of digital evidence locker.

William A. Farrar, the police chief in Rialto, Calif., has been investigating whether officers’ use of video cameras can bring measurable benefits to relations between the police and civilians. Officers in Rialto, which has a population of about 100,000, already carry Taser weapons equipped with small video cameras that activate when the weapon is armed, and the officers have long worn digital audio recorders.

But when Mr. Farrar told his uniformed patrol officers of his plans to introduce the new, wearable video cameras, “it wasn’t the easiest sell,” he said, especially to some older officers who initially were “questioning why ‘big brother’ should see everything they do.”

He said he reminded them that civilians could use their cellphones to record interactions, “so instead of relying on somebody else’s partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?” he asked. “In this way, you have the real one.”

Last year, Mr. Farrar used the new wearable video cameras to conduct a continuing experiment in his department, in collaboration with Barak Ariel, a visiting fellow at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge an assistant professor at Hebrew University.

Half of Rialto’s uniformed patrol officers on each week’s schedule have been randomly assigned the cameras, also made by Taser International. Whenever officers wear the cameras, they are expected to activate them when they leave the patrol car to speak with a civilian.

A convenient feature of the camera is its “pre-event video buffer,” which continuously records and holds the most recent 30 seconds of video when the camera is off. In this way, the initial activity that prompts the officer to turn on the camera is more likely to be captured automatically, too.

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto’s police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often — in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren’t wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

As small as the cameras are, they seem to be noticeable to civilians, he said. “When you look at an officer,” he said, “it kind of sticks out.” Citizens have sometimes asked officers, “Hey, are you wearing a camera?” and the officers say they are, he reported.

But what about the privacy implications? Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, says: “We don’t like the networks of police-run video cameras that are being set up in an increasing number of cities. We don’t think the government should be watching over the population en masse.” But requiring police officers to wear video cameras is different, he says: “When it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that.”

Mr. Stanley says that all parties stand to benefit — the public is protected from police misconduct, and officers are protected from bogus complaints. “There are many police officers who’ve had a cloud fall over them because of an unfounded accusation of abuse,” he said. “Now police officers won’t have to worry so much about that kind of thing.”

Mr. Farrar says officers have told him of cases when citizens arrived at a Rialto police station to file a complaint and the supervisor was able to retrieve and play on the spot the video of what had transpired. “The individuals left the station with basically no other things to say and have never come back,” he said.

The A.C.L.U. does have a few concerns about possible misuse of the recordings. Mr. Stanley says civilians shouldn’t have to worry that a video will be leaked and show up on CNN. Nor would he approve of the police storing years of videos and then using them for other purposes, like trolling for crimes with which to charge civilians. He suggests policies specifying that the videos be deleted after a certain short period.

A spokesman for Taser International said it had received orders from various police departments, including those in Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City and Hartford, as well as Fort Worth, Tex.; Chesapeake, Va.; and Modesto, Calif. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the police department of BART, the transit system, has bought 210 cameras and is training its officers in their use, part of changes undertaken after a BART police officer’s fatal shooting of an unarmed man in 2009.

Before the cameras, “there were so many situations where it was ‘he said, she said,’ and juries tend to believe police officers over accused criminals,” Mr. Stanley says. “The technology really has the potential to level the playing field in any kind of controversy or allegation of abuse.”

Mr. Farrar recently completed a master’s degree in applied criminology and police management at the Universiity of Cambridge. (It required only six weeks a year of residency in England.) And he wrote about the video-camera experiment in his thesis.

He says his goal is to equip all uniformed officers in his department with the video cameras. “Video is very transparent,” he said. “It’s the whole enchilada.”

Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.

Bits Blog: Drone Cameras May Be High Worry, but They’re Not High Tech

Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on drones Wednesday.

The contrast between fast-moving technology and slow-moving laws was on full display on Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on domestic use of drones. The issue was not arming them, because the Federal Aviation Administration bans weaponizing civil aircraft. (Several senators asked about drones outfitted with weapons, though, including nonlethal options like tear gas or stun grenades.)

Instead, the concern of the day was privacy, and the message was that the drones — or, more properly, unmanned aerial systems — raise new issues because they are small and unobtrusive and the technology they carry can be quite basic.

Harriet Pearson, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in privacy issues for 20 years, said it was time for a national conversation about the rules. “We have to say, how do we create the norms and the laws?’’ she said. The debate now, she said, could resemble the one in the 1870s and 1880s when cameras became common and the question was asked, when was it appropriate to photograph?

In that era, she said, a consensus emerged that what happened in public was fair game. This time it is slightly different — the definition of public is expanding, and the drones are so unobtrusive that people being videotaped may have no idea it is happening.

Intrusion by government agencies is governed by the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. (The Constitution is intended to protect against government abuses, not private abuses, and in any case does not explicitly contain a right to privacy.) Disputes involving drones operated by companies or private individuals would fall under common law, a body of precedent that goes back to English tort law.

“I’ll call this the possible renaissance of privacy tort law,’’ she said.

But how would the courts rule on such a case? Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican member of the committee, and others pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police needed a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to a drug dealer’s car, because the device was a physical intrusion. A drone involves no such physical intrusion.

Nor do small drones even use technology that would be considered particularly novel nowadays.

In a New York Times video, aerial shots from a fixed-wing plane (a modified version of the Chinese-built HobbyKing plastic foam radio-controlled airplane) were shot with a GoPro Hero 3, which sells on Amazon for $300; shots captured from a hexacopter used an older model of the camera. The Times video journalist who produced the video, Erik Olsen, says both models are popular with extreme sports enthusiasts.

The hexacopter and the fixed-wing plane in the video, both belonging to Prof. Benjamin Trapnell of the University of North Dakota, have a maximum flight time of about 15 minutes, and run on electric power. Slightly larger drones with gasoline engines can fly for far longer periods, but many pilots of drones prefer the electric models because exhaust can obscure the camera’s view.

Benjamin Miller, of the Mesa County, Colo., sheriff’s office, brought to the Senate hearing a two-pound helicopter, a small, sleek plastic pod at the center of three arms; each arm carried two rotors. Arson investigators had used it, he said, to take pictures with “a point-and-click camera available at your neighborhood Walmart.”

Welcome back, Candid Camera.

State of the Art: Android Cameras From Nikon and Samsung Go Beyond Cellphones - Review

But yes, that’s what it has come to. Ever since cellphone cameras got good enough for everyday snapshots, camera sales have been dropping. For millions of people, the ability to share a fresh photo wirelessly — Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, text message — is so tempting, they’re willing to sacrifice a lot of real-camera goodness.

That’s an awfully big convenience/photo-quality swap. A real camera teems with compelling features that most phones lack: optical zoom, big sensor, image stabilization, removable memory cards, removable batteries and decent ergonomics. (A four-inch, featureless glass slab is not exactly optimally shaped for a hand-held photographic instrument.)

But the camera makers aren’t taking the cellphone invasion lying down. New models from Nikon and Samsung are obvious graduates of the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” school. The Nikon Coolpix S800C ($300) and Samsung’s Galaxy Camera ($500 from AT&T, $550 from Verizon) are fascinating hybrids. They merge elements of the cellphone and the camera into something entirely new and — if these flawed 1.0 versions are any indication — very promising.

From the back, you could mistake both of these cameras for Android phones. The big black multitouch screen is filled with app icons. Yes, app icons. These cameras can run Angry Birds, Flipboard, Instapaper, Pandora, Firefox, GPS navigation programs and so on. You download and run them exactly the same way. (That’s right, a GPS function. “What’s the address, honey? I’ll plug it into my camera.”)

But the real reason you’d want an Android camera is wirelessness. Now you can take a real photo with a real camera — and post it or send it online instantly. You eliminate the whole “get home and transfer it to the computer” step.

And as long as your camera can get online, why stop there? These cameras also do a fine job of handling Web surfing, e-mail, YouTube videos, Facebook feeds and other online tasks. Well, as fine a job as a phone could do, anyway.

You can even make Skype video calls, although you won’t be able to see your conversation partner; the lens has to be pointing toward you.

Both cameras get online using Wi-Fi hot spots. The Samsung model can also get online over the cellular networks, just like a phone, so you can upload almost anywhere.

Of course, there’s a price for that luxury. Verizon charges at least $30 a month if you don’t have a Verizon plan, or $5 if you have a Verizon Share Everything plan. AT&T charges $50 a month or more for the camera alone, or $10 more if you already have a Mobile Share plan.

If you have a choice, Verizon is the way to go. Not only is $5 a month much more realistic than $10 a month, but Verizon’s 4G LTE network is far faster than AT&T’s 4G network. That’s an important consideration, since what you’ll mostly be doing with your 4G cellular camera is uploading big photo files. (Wow. Did I just write “4G cellular camera?”)

These cameras offer a second big attraction, though: freedom of photo software. The Android store overflows with photography apps. Mix and match. Take a shot with one app, crop, degrade and post it with Instagram.

Just beware that most of them are intended for cellphones, so they don’t recognize these actual cameras’ optical zoom controls. Some of the photo-editing apps can’t handle these cameras’ big 16-megapixel files, either. Unfortunately, you won’t really know until you pay the $1.50 or $4 to download these apps.

Gadgetwise Blog: Wide-angle Cameras for More Pop on TV

Now wide-angle cameras that pop onto large-screen televisions are on the market; they capture high-definition video and a generous stretch of the living room sofa, too. Several devices, including the TV Cam HD ($199.99) from Logitech, are already on sale, with at least a half-dozen others expected in time for the holiday shopping season, said Richard Doherty, research director of the Envisioneering Group, a market research company in Seaford, N.Y.

The new TV cams are for people who want to add an Internet-based feature to their  high-definition TV’s. “You can add this capability for a few hundred dollars or less,” Mr. Doherty said. “Lots of people have HDTVs they’ve bought in the last few years, and they aren’t going to get rid of them for Internet TVs.”

Internet-enabled TVs have software for video chatting, but many models require viewers to buy a suitable add-on camera.

Logitech’s TV Cam HD works with any high-definition television that has an available HDMI port, a common connection. It comes with connectivity to the Internet by way of Ethernet or Wi-Fi, and Skype software that supports high-definition video calling. To control the camera, you use a small remote control to zoom in or pan during a call, or to enter text on the screen.

Mr. Doherty says the new cams have crisp images and an enlarged field of view. “It can pack a real emotional punch when a loved one’s face appears on the big expanse of an HDTV,” he said. “And when you can watch sitting on the couch with the rest of your family, it’s a pleasant, relaxing experience.”

To try out the Logitech cam, I asked a neighbor, Li Wah Lai, a Manhattan-based graphic designer who has tested earlier generations of webcams, to use it for a video visit with her son Ming Alterman, a marketing manager for Coca-Cola in Shanghai.

“It was a totally different family experience from our usual laptop talk,” Ms. Lai said. She and her husband, Daniel Alterman, as well as their younger son, Mickey, all joined in for the Sunday-morning video chat with Ming. “I thought it would be the same,” she said. “But it wasn’t.”

There was no jostling in front of the camera, as there typically is when using a laptop, to guarantee that everyone could be seen and heard.

“It was very relaxing,” she said. They did not have to constantly ask Ming: “Can you see us? Can you hear us?”

And Ming became more comfortable, too, she said: “It was more of a family event.”

Clifford I. Nass, a Stanford communication professor, said the sight of familiar faces in high definition was especially appealing.

“It’s not just the pixels,” he said. “It’s the ability to detect facial expressions more accurately. The brain loves having this kind of information.”

THE wide-angle lens could also contribute to the emotional impact of video chatting, said Jeremy Bailenson, director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford. A generous field of view, he said, “plays a big part in creating the feeling that the digital other you are talking with is actually in the room with you.”

The wide field of view permits more glimpses of nonverbal interactions, he said, like the exchange of glances during the chat.

With the Logitech device, all calls are placed and received by using the remote control. Because there is no keyboard, entering text can be tedious: you have to click up, down, right or left on the remote, for example, to select each letter of the name of new Skype contacts from a keyboard projected on the screen. Ms. Lai started off slowly with this skill, but within minutes her fingers were flying.

You can also use the remote to adjust the image you are projecting, zooming in, panning or tilting.

The device requires users to have Skype service. which is free for calls between its users. Incoming calls to the cam will ring out even when the television is turned off — you’ll need to grab the remote and turn on the TV.

And if you are still in your bathrobe, you can also leave the call for voice mail.

E-mail: novelties@nytimes.com.

In Europe, Speed Cameras Meet Their Technological Match

BERLIN — When Marc Guerin, a software salesman, drives the 38 kilometers from his home west of Paris to Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport, he seeks out the fastest route for his Audi Q5 crossover and powers up his Coyote, a radar warning and traffic service that alerts him to the locations of France’s 3,000 speed cameras.

When Mr. Guerin comes within four kilometers, or two and a half miles, of a speed camera, his Coyote screen warns that he has entered a “risk” zone, and he closely monitors his speed.

Since he began using Coyote three years ago, Mr. Guerin said, he has not received a speeding ticket. He said he used to average three or four tickets a year which cost him about €400, or about $515.

“For one thing, I no longer get caught by the speed cameras, which are all over France,” Mr. Guerin said. “For another, it advises me constantly of the legal speed limits and traffic conditions, so I am better informed and much more relaxed when driving.”

Smartphone applications have been developed to monitor sleeping babies, open garage doors and analyze the nutritional content of a restaurant meal. Now in Europe, where the police in many countries use stationary and mobile radar cameras to catch speeders, the smartphone is being honed into a highly effective — and controversial — mobile radar detector.

“This type of technology is going to soon be standard in most vehicles,” said Serge Bussat, the vice president of sales at Coyote, a company based in Paris whose driving applications are being used by 1.7 million people in Europe, a third of them in France.

Mr. Bussat said that 6 percent of all French drivers now use radar driving apps.

Tolerated in many European countries, the use of radar-detection services like Coyote’s, which also monitors a driver’s speed against posted limits and advises of traffic jams, was applauded last year by the French government as a useful driver education tool, which helped legitimize the service.

While a law prohibiting radar-detection technology remains on the books in Germany, it is rarely enforced and may be amended to permit some driver alerts.

Only in Switzerland, where border guards are trained to spot and seize radar detection consoles, is the ban still strictly enforced. In the United States, where speed cameras are not as widely used, services like Coyote’s, which costs $63 a year or $185 when purchased by the month, are harder to justify. Also, receivers that can detect the Doppler radar waves emitted by police speed guns — like the original Fuzzbusters — are legal in the United States.

But in Europe, Doppler receivers tend to be outlawed and hidden, and permanent cameras are prevalent, so the market for app-based speed camera detection is growing. The two biggest makers of auto navigation devices, Garmin and TomTom, both bundle speed camera alert services with most of their latest products. A string of specialty services has also sprung up, including Coyote in France, Blitzer.de in Germany and Radardroid in Spain.

Most of these companies rely on their users to scout and report the locations of speed cameras, which are then forwarded to others using the same application. Drivers passing the same points are asked to confirm or amend the sightings.

Across Europe, at least 25,000 speed cameras are in use, said Arpad Nemeth, the owner of Poiplaza, a firm in Budapest that manages a database of 4.7 million points of interest logged by their precise geographic coordinates. Mr. Nemeth, a retired television news editor, said the locations of mobile and fixed speed cameras in his database had been compiled by the 80,000 people who had downloaded and used his free application.

Governments in many European countries, Mr. Nemeth said, voluntarily publish the locations of permanent speed cameras, which tend to be installed at sites of frequent accidents. Like Coyote and Radardroid, Mr. Nemeth’s Web site warns users that the use of radar detection databases is illegal in Germany and Switzerland. But enforcement, especially of apps on smartphones, is difficult if not impossible, he and others said.

Coyote, while warning of the legal ban in Germany, still provides data on German fixed and mobile cameras to users of its European service. So does Radardroid, a €6 application sold through Google’s Android app store that is made by Ventero Telecom of Madrid.

“Our app is being used in Germany right now,” said Felix Ventero, the software engineer who created Radardroid, which is used by a million people, mostly in Europe. “The reality is, people are using these services because the technology makes it possible.”

Regardless of how prevalent they are, radar detection applications remain controversial and services like Radardroid, which report the exact locations of mobile speed cameras, may have to change to satisfy the concerns of the law enforcement authorities, who view the services as enabling speeding and increasing the risk of injury and death.

Leica Cameras, Favored by Celebrities

The latest status symbol in Hollywood, it seems, is not the 8 p.m. reservation at the Tower Bar, but the Leica M-system range finder, a retro-chic camera that has become the accessory of choice for the celebrity class on red carpets, film sets or vacation.

Let hoi polloi snap away on their iPhones. In an era when full-size cameras are supposedly becoming obsolete, stars advertise their cognoscenti credentials by being seen with a war horse of 20th-century photography that many design fans now embrace as an art object, one that you seemingly need a movie star’s budget to afford.

“If celebrities are going to be seen with a camera, for better or for worse, Leica does lend a certain cachet,” said Michael Holve, a professional photographer on Long Island who runs a Leica enthusiasts’ blog called La Vida Leica! “It seems a Canon or Nikon is somehow bourgeois, or even pedestrian, by comparison.”

The swelling ranks of famous M-system devotees reach beyond those with a well-chronicled affection for the camera, like Brad Pitt. In recent years, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Louis C. K., Miley Cyrus and many other celebrities have popped up in paparazzi shots toting Leicas.

For stars seeking to prove that they are more than just a pretty face, the allure is obvious. Perhaps no camera says “I’m serious” like a Leica range finder. With its midcentury contours and minimalist chic, the M system has changed little in appearance since Henri Cartier-Bresson, a Leica patron saint, was photographing Gandhi. (Digital models, starting with the M8, were added in 2006.)

The rugged camera, hand-built in Solms, Germany, is still a pro’s tool. With a minimum of automatic features, it demands expertise to master.

But it is also a luxury item, as evidenced by the special-edition Hermès models sold over the years. This past week, the company introduced its latest flagship model (simply called the M) at a splashy unveiling at the Photokina show in Cologne, Germany, with a list price of $6,950 for the body alone; lenses cost $1,500 to $11,000. As if the base model is not exclusive enough, Jonathan Ive, the Apple designer, reportedly will produce an ultra-limited edition (one unit) to be sold at a charity auction by Bono, the company announced.

As an objet, then, the Leica is bling without the bling. No wonder it is the perfect accessory for in-the-know Hollywood actors, who tend to favor a low-key, sporty, Malibu-style elegance (the Land Rover, the Rolex Submariner) over flash.

“It is a restrained fashion statement: the black body, the beautiful red dot that says ‘Leica,’ ” said Edward Earle, the curator of collections at the International Center of Photography in New York. “I liken it to the wonderful Lacoste shirt. They last a long time, they are precision made and they simply don’t go out of style.”

The Leica’s totemic allure reaches beyond the film world. Audrey Tautou brandished one in a Chanel No. 5 advertising film. John Mayer snapped away on a Leica in his recent “Shadow Days” video. In June, Mr. Mayer rhapsodized about his vintage Leica M4 on his Tumblr page, One Forty Plus. The camera, he wrote, has no light meter and no automatic focus, shutter, ISO or aperture settings, meaning it’s all on him.

“I’ve learned that the guessing — maybe the intuition — of the settings is what makes a photograph special,” he wrote.

Mr. Mayer’s post inspired a spirited dialogue about Leica chic among celebrities on rangefinderforum.com, an enthusiast’s site. “If Paris Hilton is packing a DLux does that mean I’ll have to dump my trusty carry-everywhere lest I be labeled a fashionista?” wrote one commenter, in reference to another Leica model.

It is easy for cynics to sniff, but many Leica-toting celebrities take their photography seriously. Brendan Fraser, an aficionado, has had his work featured in the prestigious Leica Gallery in New York. And Mr. Pitt, who has appeared on the cover of Interview magazine holding a Leica M7, earns praise from photographers in Leica forums for his work, including a cover shoot of Angelina Jolie for W a few years ago.

While some purists scoff, others do their best not to generalize about their famous Leica brethren. Mr. Holve, the camera blogger, divided the celebrity Leica class into two camps: “shooters,” like Mr. Pitt, and “carriers,” like, well, they know who they are.

“Carrying a Leica around can be a little like driving a Bentley,” Mr. Holve said. “Just because you can afford it doesn’t mean you’re a good driver.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 20, 2012

A previous version of this article was accompanied by a picture of Emmy Rossum holding what was incorrectly identified as a Leica rangefinder. It was, in fact, a Fuji digital camera whose design was inspired by classic rangefinders such as the Leica.

Bicyclists Using Cameras to Capture Accidents

But the video camera Mr. Wilder had strapped to his head caught the whole episode. After watching a recording of the incident later, Mr. Wilder gave the license plate number to the police and a suspect was eventually charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

“Without the video, we wouldn’t know who did it,” said Mr. Wilder, 33, who was bruised and scraped in the crash.

Cyclists have long had a rocky coexistence with motorists and pedestrians, who often criticize bike riders for a confrontational attitude, and for blowing through stop signs or otherwise exempting themselves from the rules of the road. Now small cameras — the cycling equivalent of the black box on an airplane — are becoming an intermediary in the relationship, providing high-tech evidence in what is sometimes an ugly contest between people who ride the roads on two wheels and those who use four.

Video from these cameras has begun to play an invaluable role in police investigations of a small number of hit-and-runs and other incidents around the country, local authorities say. Lawyers who specialize in representing bicyclists say they expect the use of cameras for this purpose to increase as awareness of the devices goes up and their prices, now starting at around $200, come down.

Some riders even argue that the technology will encourage cyclists to keep themselves in check during dust-ups with drivers.

“I know my actions before and after some event are going to be recorded if I’m the one being a jerk,” Mr. Wilder said. “It makes me want to be careful.”

Bicyclists say cameras can also deter motorist harassment, a problem that many complain about and that cities like Los Angeles and Berkeley, Calif., have sought to combat with new laws.

“It’s a fact of life that on American roads that you get punked, cut off purposely, harassed, not once but on a regular basis,” said Bob Mionske, a former Olympic cyclist who is now a lawyer representing bicyclists in Portland, Ore. “If motorists start to hear about bikes having cameras, they’re going to think twice about running you off the road.”

Gary Souza, a cyclist in Sacramento, said something like that happened to him. He wears a camera on his helmet during his 50-minute commute each way between his home and office. He began riding with the device this year after buying a $7,000 velomobile, a three-wheeled recumbent cycle with a shell around it.

“Even though it’s insured, if anything happens I figured I wanted to get it on camera,” said Mr. Souza, who works in information technology for the state of California.

A couple of months ago, Mr. Souza said, a motorist became upset after the cyclist crossed in front of his vehicle to make a turn. The driver got out of his car to confront Mr. Souza, who pointed to the camera on his head.

“I said, ‘Don’t be stupid,’ ” Mr. Souza said. “He quickly ran back to his car. I’m certain I avoided a couple blows.”

The new cameras, which have started to catch on in the last few years, are meant for shooting video and photos while skiing, surfing and doing other sports. Likewise, many cyclists use them to memorialize their rides.

GoPro and Contour make popular models; GoPro says sales through bike retailers have nearly doubled so far this year from the same period last year.

One of the most prominent bicycle crash videos so far was recorded in April by two Brazilian riders who were climbing the hills of Berkeley when a black car knocked them down and sped off. Neither bicyclist was seriously injured, according to the Berkeley police. The video of the crash has been viewed more than 362,000 times on YouTube.

The Berkeley police identified the car’s license plate and later found the man the vehicle was registered to. They believe he falsely reported his car stolen to cover up for the driver of the car and are still investigating the incident, said Capt. Andrew Greenwood, a spokesman for the police.

On a recent Friday evening, as the streets of downtown Washington were jammed with cars heading home, Mr. Wilder pedaled away wearing a camera on his forehead, looking like a spelunker wearing a headlamp. He scooted between parked cars and traffic on the road, sometimes with less than a foot of space between him and moving vehicles.

The video Mr. Wilder shot of his crash in Washington, which occurred last August, at first did not seem as if it would help much in tracking down the motorist who had struck him. But Mr. Wilder, who works in the photography department of National Geographic, examined the video frame by frame until he discovered a clear picture of the vehicle’s license plate, captured while he was lying on the ground.

The District of Columbia’s office of the attorney general charged the motorist, John W. Diehl, with leaving the scene of an accident. Federal prosecutors, who handle felony cases in the district, are also looking into the case.

Mr. Diehl’s lawyer, Adam R. Hunter, declined to comment. Mr. Diehl has pleaded not guilty, said a spokesman for the attorney general.

Mr. Wilder said, “Most cyclists don’t use cameras so Mr. Diehl may have assumed he could assault and drive away anonymously.”

Bicyclists Using Cameras to Capture Accidents

But the video camera Mr. Wilder had strapped to his head caught the whole episode. After watching a recording of the incident later, Mr. Wilder gave the license plate number to the police and a suspect was eventually charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

“Without the video, we wouldn’t know who did it,” said Mr. Wilder, 33, who was bruised and scraped in the crash.

Cyclists have long had a rocky coexistence with motorists and pedestrians, who often criticize bike riders for a confrontational attitude, and for blowing through stop signs or otherwise exempting themselves from the rules of the road. Now small cameras — the cycling equivalent of the black box on an airplane — are becoming an intermediary in the relationship, providing high-tech evidence in what is sometimes an ugly contest between people who ride the roads on two wheels and those who use four.

Video from these cameras has begun to play an invaluable role in police investigations of a small number of hit-and-runs and other incidents around the country, local authorities say. Lawyers who specialize in representing bicyclists say they expect the use of cameras for this purpose to increase as awareness of the devices goes up and their prices, now starting at around $200, come down.

Some riders even argue that the technology will encourage cyclists to keep themselves in check during dust-ups with drivers.

“I know my actions before and after some event are going to be recorded if I’m the one being a jerk,” Mr. Wilder said. “It makes me want to be careful.”

Bicyclists say cameras can also deter motorist harassment, a problem that many complain about and that cities like Los Angeles and Berkeley, Calif., have sought to combat with new laws.

“It’s a fact of life that on American roads that you get punked, cut off purposely, harassed, not once but on a regular basis,” said Bob Mionske, a former Olympic cyclist who is now a lawyer representing bicyclists in Portland, Ore. “If motorists start to hear about bikes having cameras, they’re going to think twice about running you off the road.”

Gary Souza, a cyclist in Sacramento, said something like that happened to him. He wears a camera on his helmet during his 50-minute commute each way between his home and office. He began riding with the device this year after buying a $7,000 velomobile, a three-wheeled recumbent cycle with a shell around it.

“Even though it’s insured, if anything happens I figured I wanted to get it on camera,” said Mr. Souza, who works in information technology for the state of California.

A couple of months ago, Mr. Souza said, a motorist became upset after the cyclist crossed in front of his vehicle to make a turn. The driver got out of his car to confront Mr. Souza, who pointed to the camera on his head.

“I said, ‘Don’t be stupid,’ ” Mr. Souza said. “He quickly ran back to his car. I’m certain I avoided a couple blows.”

The new cameras, which have started to catch on in the last few years, are meant for shooting video and photos while skiing, surfing and doing other sports. Likewise, many cyclists use them to memorialize their rides.

GoPro and Contour make popular models; GoPro says sales through bike retailers have nearly doubled so far this year from the same period last year.

One of the most prominent bicycle crash videos so far was recorded in April by two Brazilian riders who were climbing the hills of Berkeley when a black car knocked them down and sped off. Neither bicyclist was seriously injured, according to the Berkeley police. The video of the crash has been viewed more than 362,000 times on YouTube.

The Berkeley police identified the car’s license plate and later found the man the vehicle was registered to. They believe he falsely reported his car stolen to cover up for the driver of the car and are still investigating the incident, said Capt. Andrew Greenwood, a spokesman for the police.

On a recent Friday evening, as the streets of downtown Washington were jammed with cars heading home, Mr. Wilder pedaled away wearing a camera on his forehead, looking like a spelunker wearing a headlamp. He scooted between parked cars and traffic on the road, sometimes with less than a foot of space between him and moving vehicles.

The video Mr. Wilder shot of his crash in Washington, which occurred last August, at first did not seem as if it would help much in tracking down the motorist who had struck him. But Mr. Wilder, who works in the photography department of National Geographic, examined the video frame by frame until he discovered a clear picture of the vehicle’s license plate, captured while he was lying on the ground.

The District of Columbia’s office of the attorney general charged the motorist, John W. Diehl, with leaving the scene of an accident. Federal prosecutors, who handle felony cases in the district, are also looking into the case.

Mr. Diehl’s lawyer, Adam R. Hunter, declined to comment. Mr. Diehl has pleaded not guilty, said a spokesman for the attorney general.

Mr. Wilder said, “Most cyclists don’t use cameras so Mr. Diehl may have assumed he could assault and drive away anonymously.”