Why?

[maddoc]

Without sounding rude, what makes these cameras so special?

I see it this way, you can read the time from a 5$ digital watch and a 10.000$ (or more ?) hand-made all-mechanical automatic chronometer. The 5$ watch might be more exact over time and have more features but the hand-made chronometer has a different feeling ... 🙂

 

[windraider]

I would be surprised that someone proves scientifically that leica lenses give negatives with more density than other good lenses (sounds like a pseudoscientific assertion of a true believer [/I]

Well I don't know whether this is scientific but the Trix negatives look distinctly different when held to the light - those that are exposed with Leica lenses look more transparent and have greater contrast between the dark & light areas for the same scene. Colour of the Trix negatives (not the images) are also different, closer to black & white for Leica and a lttle sepia for other lenses (eg Consina & Minolta).

Perhaps I sound like a nut (don't worry no offense taken) but if anybody has an explanation or similar experience I would really like to hear it.

 

[bob338]

but...
There is a certain snobism in owning or showing a leica (and a lot of leica users are fed up with those snobs),

So basically a leica is a good camera with good lenses with a good network of reputation... but it's also a plain distinction object (in the sociological sens)...

snobism? so why do so many of us use electrical tape to cover up the name on the camera? i have never been asked about my taped up cameras. is there really more elitism in the leica world than the DSLR world?

and to say leicas are just 'good cameras with good lenses' is a little understated and a bit reaching. most of the best photographers of the last 50 years used leicas at one point or another.

if you feel comfortable with a leica, then use one. if you're not, buy a kiev, nikon, canon, ZI, voigtlander or whatever you want to shoot with.

my .02

bob

 

[tmfabian]

Colour of the Trix negatives (not the images) are also different, closer to black & white for Leica and a lttle sepia for other lenses (eg Consina & Minolta).

WHAT?!?!?!?

 

[oscroft]

The Voigtlander Bessa viewfinders are brighter!

No. ZI, maybe. Bessa: no.

Hi Roger,

I wondered if my brain had become addled there for a moment, so I just checked my R4A against my M6 and M2. And the R4A viewfinder *is* brighter - it's as simple as that. And the first thing I noticed when I got my M6 and compared it to the Bessa R I had at the time was that viewfinder on the R was brighter - it was quite a surprise.

Mr Gandy is also of the same opinion...

That's right boys and girls, the little Voigtlander Bessa R has a brighter finder than the Leica M3 or M2, believe it or not.

(from http://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm)

Best regards,

 

[oscroft]

Well I don't know whether this is scientific but the Trix negatives look distinctly different when held to the light - those that are exposed with Leica lenses look more transparent and have greater contrast between the dark & light areas for the same scene. Colour of the Trix negatives (not the images) are also different, closer to black & white for Leica and a lttle sepia for other lenses (eg Consina & Minolta).

Perhaps I sound like a nut (don't worry no offense taken) but if anybody has an explanation or similar experience I would really like to hear it.

At the time you noticed this, had you been consuming any unusual fungi given to you by a mysterious passing stranger in flowing robes and a pointy hat? 😉

But seriously, nothing a lens does can change the colour of exposed silver particles in a black and white emulsion, or the colour of the film base. However, small changes in development, fixing and washing can result in different shades of pale purple in the finished Tri-X film base.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I wondered if my brain had become addled there for a moment, so I just checked my R4A against my M6 and M2. And the R4A viewfinder *is* brighter - it's as simple as that. And the first thing I noticed when I got my M6 and compared it to the Bessa R I had at the time was that viewfinder on the R was brighter - it was quite a surprise.

Mr Gandy is also of the same opinion...
(from http://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm)

Best regards,

Sorry, you are both quite right. I don't know why I thought differently. It's very interesting that I remember the Leica as brighter, when this memory is completely incorrect. There must be some other factor at work, and I find it hard to believe that it is only wishful thinking, though it's hard to conjure up any other good reason. God knows I've used all three cameras enough (though I've not used the R2 much lately, and we had to give the ZI back).

Once again, my apologies.

Cheers,

R.

 

[windraider]

At the time you noticed this, had you been consuming any unusual fungi given to you by a mysterious passing stranger in flowing robes and a pointy hat? 😉

But seriously, nothing a lens does can change the colour of exposed silver particles in a black and white emulsion, or the colour of the film base. However, small changes in development, fixing and washing can result in different shades of pale purple in the finished Tri-X film base.

Nope no mystical experiences.
Took a look at the negs again and it is still the same.
The interesting thing is that the difference was noted even for negs developed in the same batch tank and cut from the same 100ft bulk roll - just different cameras and lenses.
Additionally on one occassion when I used a CV lense for a few frames of a roll of film where I was mainly using Leica, the color of those frames were different from the rest of the roll.

So I take it that I'm the only one who has this experience?

Perhaps Leica glass with the M6 meters significantly different from other brands?

Well if any of you have Tri-X lying around, a Leica & some other brand of glass - you might wanna try it out and let me know the results.

 

[tomasis]

Hi Roger,

I wondered if my brain had become addled there for a moment, so I just checked my R4A against my M6 and M2. And the R4A viewfinder *is* brighter - it's as simple as that. And the first thing I noticed when I got my M6 and compared it to the Bessa R I had at the time was that viewfinder on the R was brighter - it was quite a surprise.

Mr Gandy is also of the same opinion...
(from http://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm)

Best regards,

I dont know how r2 is different to Rd1, I checked rd1 against to M3. M3 vf is brighter, just slightly but focusing patch makes enormous difference for me. rd1 patch is rather much dull. No surprise Rd1 "third" window (next after illumination window) is much small. Larger lenses may block the light coming in the way, if you understand what I mean.

so it means it is much easier to focus with m3 than rd1.

 

[Ronald_H]

Why are Leicas so special? I wondered about that for years... so I finally bought one.

New ones are for fetishists with too much money. I really very firmly believe that. Even used ones are quite expensive compared to any other 'user' 35mm camera.

But it IS a thrill to use one. No camera I have used has the same feeling of craftmanship, precision and quality. Being all manual slows you down, but makes you think harder.

As for lenses, the same applies. My 45 year old Summicron is amazingly good. My cheap(ish) Voigtlaenders are also fantastic, several orders of magnitude better than most zooms.

The results are also very good (it is a tool after all). But really any better than a Nikon FM (which you can have for 50 dollars)?

 

[Roger Hicks]

New ones are for fetishists with too much money. I really very firmly believe that. Even used ones are quite expensive compared to any other 'user' 35mm camera.

But it IS a thrill to use one. No camera I have used has the same feeling of craftmanship, precision and quality.

So you are a fetishist with too little money? Re-read the second para above.

If you can afford a new Leica -- or indeed, pretty much a new anything compared with a second-hand version of the same thing -- then it makes sense to buy one. If you can't, or if you prefer to spend your money on something else, it is hardly polite (or indeed rational) to condemn those who can, or who prefer to spend their money on a new Leica instead of on something else, as 'fetishists with too much money.'

Carry on like this and I'll start calling you Ron...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ronald_H]

So you are a fetishist with too little money? Re-read the second para above.

R.

Basically yes, and quite unashamedly so.

Let me state explicitly that was never my intention to be rude. But although I spend a LOT of money on photography, I simply cannot justify buying a new Leica simply for what it is. Or rather what it isn't.

To be honest, I can afford an M7. But why should I when an M2 does the same? Sure, the meter and AE are nice, but the M2 is 'Leica experience' enough.

If people buy new Leicas, for whatever reason, fine. I adore my M2, it's a wonderful piece of machinery. But ultimately it still is just a tool, a means to an end.

 

[amoz]

This is getting tiring. To each his own priorities. Can't we just agree to disagree? (Except on the fact that an M is a pretty good camera...)

 

[italy74]

OT: Curious that despite the many replies, the op didn't showed up yet...

 

[photovdz]

snobism? so why do so many of us use electrical tape to cover up the name on the camera? i have never been asked about my taped up cameras. is there really more elitism in the leica world than the DSLR world?

and to say leicas are just 'good cameras with good lenses' is a little understated and a bit reaching. most of the best photographers of the last 50 years used leicas at one point or another.

if you feel comfortable with a leica, then use one. if you're not, buy a kiev, nikon, canon, ZI, voigtlander or whatever you want to shoot with.

my .02

bob

I agree with you... some need to put tape on the markings so the leica takes back his original function "a photographical function"...

secondly, I like understatemenst... and I use a leica too... but I'm not a "true believer"

But please never say that pros put tape on their leicas... otherwise they will produce special ones without any marks for special snobs of the snobs ;-) no marks, real dirt, dings on the body... but in a new humidor and at a special price... ;-)

and if you want to stay incoginto I have got a very nice noname contax... ;-)

 

[oscroft]

Actually, while I'm waffling on this thread, I should really give my answer to the original question.

I do think Leica rangefinders are special - I have an M6 and an M2. For me it's the solid feel and reliability of their precision mechanics, and that's something that no other rangefinder I've ever used has come close to. When I'm out shooting (usually in SA Asia), I can just sling one in my bag and not have to worry about mollycoddling it in case it goes out of adjustment, or bits fall off, or whatever (and that's actually moreso with the M2 than the M6 - I like and trust the feel of the M2 more).

But I don't approach Leica cameras with the almost religious fervour that some folks seem to, and I have other RF cameras that I also like and use. My Voigtlander Bessa R4A, with its wideangle VF frames, is an amazing camera - I often carry that with a 21mm lens and a Leica M with a 28, 35 or 50. But it's just not as solid, smooth and quiet as the Ms. That's not to say it isn't well made - it is - but I'd be less sure about cracking it over the head of any would-be thief who tried to take it off me than I would with my M2 ;-)

Some people have suggested the M bayonet is a great plus point, because it allows you to use a vast number of lenses going all the way back to the 1930s. And it is, but that's pretty much true with any M bayonet RF camera - including Voigtlander and Zeiss (though a small number of lenses won't fit properly on a Bessa - not sure about Zeiss).

Also, some people hold up Leica lenses as the prime reason to use Leica equipment. While I do think that modern Leica lenses are probably technically still the best around, some of the rest of the pack are so close that unless you're using very fine grain film and making big enlargements, most people just aren't going to tell the difference. Most modern Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are, at worst, only a shade behind Leica lenses, and some have characteristics that are often preferred over some Leica lenses (one of my favourite ever lenses, for example, is the Voigtlander 28/3.5). And they're a lot cheaper (especially Voiglander lenses, which must figure amongst the best value optics in all of history). Personally, I mostly use Voigtlander lenses, but I also have several Leica lenses (my only almost-current one is an Elmar-M 50/2.8, and I also have a Summicron-C 40 which is a favourite, and a couple of older ones). I've done "real world" lens tests, using the kind of films I use (mostly Tri-X) shooting the kind of shots I like. And though I see some differences in contrast and tonality, I've never found an objective "best" under those conditions.

Would I buy new Leica today? If I could afford it I would (I'd buy a modern MP), but in my actual situation I wouldn't - new Voiglander or Zeiss would, for me, be better value for money than new Leica.

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

Extremely rugged body, ultra high reliability, high simplicity of use, an incredible fascination, an incredible optical quality, testiomonials as Cartier Bresson, Capa, Erwitt, Duncan.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[Roger Hicks]

To be honest, I can afford an M7. But why should I when an M2 does the same?

Dear Ronald,

Well, in my book, it's not the same. I'd rather have an M2 than an M7, because I really don't like battery dependency, but I prefer my MP to my M2 because I like the meter and the 75mm frame-line and a camera that's 40-50 years newer. Oh: and the black paint. Until I got Tom's rapid-winder I'd have said that the Leicavit was decisive too, but he's solved that one.

Also, "I can afford" is a complex statement. I could buy a dozen M8s tomorrow, but it would mean forgoing a lot of other things and grievously depleting our savings. "I can afford" has always to be taken in the context of "I want XYZ enough to afford it."

If you don't want something, there's no sense in buying it at any price, and if you can't afford it no matter what you do, that rules it out too. The former is why I don't weak 'designer' clothes of 'big name' trainers, and the latter is why I don't drive the new Bristol Frighter.

But we've just bought two Leica/Leitz lenses, one a 50/2.5 Summarit (new) and one a 90/2.2 Thambar (not made in the last 60-70 years).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some people have suggested the M bayonet is a great plus point, because it allows you to use a vast number of lenses going all the way back to the 1930s. And it is, but that's pretty much true with any M bayonet RF camera - including Voigtlander and Zeiss (though a small number of lenses won't fit properly on a Bessa - not sure about Zeiss).

True, but if you want to use fast lenses, close up, at full aperture, the longer EBL of the ZI and Leica give them a useful edge over Voigtländer.

But then, a DR Summicron won't focus above about 12 feet/4 metres on an M8. Up to that, it's stunning, which is why I was so enthusiastic when I tried the combo in the winter -- indoors...

Believe it or not, I put it on with the focus on close, and never had the need to focus further away. Whoops!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From the perspective of a pro, Roger, will using the new 50/2.5 Summarit make your photos more salable than using other 50mm lenses you might own? I guess what I'm asking is, on what basis do you decide to buy a new lens that duplicates the focal length of an existing one.

Actually, my wife bought this one. She loves the handling and the compactness. I wouldn't have bought it, not because there's anything wrong with it (the very opposite) but precisely because it does duplicate the focal length of several other lenses I have.

What does it do that the other 50s don't? Well, the Sonnar is much more my lens; she'd rather have one of her own. The Color-Skopar needs repair, but is, in all fairness, nearly as nice in handling and image quality (though we both reckon the Summarit pics are nicer). The Nokton is an historical accident, replaced by the Sonnar which gives me a look that I prefer. The Noctilux and DR Summicron both belong to a friend, and have to be returned. The 1936 Elmar is uncoated and fiddly to set. And the Canon f/1.2; well, it's not worth enough to bother selling it, and there are times when I want that soft-focus look.

Using the Canon and the Summarit side by side (for a magazine article), the difference is, unsurprisingly, very significant.

Finally, there is always the point that even if you can't tell the pictures apart, some lenses are much more of a pleasure to use than others, and I've always firmly believed that you'll get the best pictures with the equipment you're happiest using,

Cheers,

R.