I'm so tempted..........

R

ReeRay

Well-known
Local time
5:11 AM
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Chonburi Thailand
View My Gallery
..........To enter the Leica experience, but nervous with it.

I've been shooting a Contax G2 for years and love it but having never owned a Leica M I'm curious.

As a spectacle wearer and indeed a wider shooter I'm considering a used but cared for M6 ttl 0.58 with a 35mm lens. Seems about right for me as I'm constantly using my G 35mm.

But I keep reading about focus re-alignment, film loading, frameline difficulties etc- none of which I currently experience. And popping down to the local Leica specialist is a no-no over here.

What, if anything, would a Leica M provide that my G2 doesn't, and should I be nervous of the "build quality"
 
I started with a G2, then bought an M6TTL which was great. However, I ended up selling the Leica as I was using a Rollei TLR which provided all I needed in terms of high quality optics and manual everything.

I still use the G2 as it is super fast to operate, discreet, and not worth quite so much as a Leica. I'm not really talking about the quality of the G2 versus the Leica, but for convenience/speed I favoured the Contax.

Just my 2p worth, but maybe worth considering why you want a Leica. I'm not sure you would see an improvement in quality, but you WOULD get more out of focus/wrongly exposed shots (whatever people say about the Contax autofocus I've never had any issues at all...)
 
ReeRay said:
But I keep reading about focus re-alignment, film loading, frameline difficulties etc-
Click to expand...

None of these are issues if you buy the camera from a good place and plan for a CLA. Film loading for me is easier than with an open back door.

But honestly, there is nothing really, an M6 + 35 can do that your G2 cann't. It costs a comparative fortune, the viewfinder will be easier to use + it will be more manual in operation (i.e., slower).

The M6 will give you access to a spectrum of lenses the G2 cann't, but if you only care for one, that doesn't help.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ou can check out the R4a/m with AV Camera at Bangrak, Bkk besuide Robinson. Khun Mana (owner) is a knowledgeable person and will let you try in the store. he also have some Leica on display there but as you may already know. Leica is very expensive in Bkk. There are used camera store in Phirom Plaza in China Town, you may also want to check them out. Are you a Thai or an expat there?
 
Don't worry about your fears. As long as you get one in decent shape, you should have no problems. Film loading is easy as long as you follow the instructions. Framelines aren't perfect, but I can't imagine they are any worse than what you get on the G2. Not had a problem in 4 years with the RF going out of alignment.

That being said, getting an M6 probably won't really change any thing for you. But if you are feeling the itch and just want to scratch it, then go ahead.
 
ReeRay said:
..........To enter the Leica experience, but nervous with it.

I've been shooting a Contax G2 for years and love it but having never owned a Leica M I'm curious.

As a spectacle wearer and indeed a wider shooter I'm considering a used but cared for M6 ttl 0.58 with a 35mm lens. Seems about right for me as I'm constantly using my G 35mm.

But I keep reading about focus re-alignment, film loading, frameline difficulties etc- none of which I currently experience. And popping down to the local Leica specialist is a no-no over here.

What, if anything, would a Leica M provide that my G2 doesn't, and should I be nervous of the "build quality"
Click to expand...


I was in the very same position a year ago. Loved the G2 but was wondering about a "real rangefinder."

I sold my entire G2 kit and bought a Zeiss Ikon and 32/2 Biogon collector's set. (I think you bought my G 21mm Biogon last year btw.)

Not once have I regretted the move and not once have I thought I should have bought a used M6.

In terms of quality there is no difference IMO. What you get is "feel." You just feel more connected, more in tune with the camera. It's that feeling that you made the photo, not the camera.
 
Better photos. But that's just the way I see it. Someone else might say it's the other way around.

It's impossible to compare the two, and I've owned them both. A Contax G is strictly a system camera, but w/ a Leica you can use tons of different Leica lenses, as well as lenses from other makers. Then there's the manual film advance, manual focus, etc. Different beastie, and in lots of ways the Leica presents a lot more opportunities.
 
Gilpen we exchanged last year and I will get to the Philippines soon
Yes Paddy C I did buy your excellent 21mm
" But if you are feeling the itch and just want to scratch it, then go ahead."
Pretty much sums it up Tim. Itching like crazy.

What's brought this urge on is retirement. Tons of time on my hands to indulge in photography and of course the "dream film cameras" are somewhat more affordable.

But most of all, I've never owned a Leica!

Thank you all for your input which has been great and given me a lot to mull over.

p.s. brilliant forum.
 
A Leica M will give you more lens selection/variety/speed/size (both bigger and smaller) (but not better quality.) It will also reduce the size of your bank account, but if you buy right you can always sell and replenish that. 🙂
 
ReeRay, I went from a G2 to a Bessa R2A to an M6TTL and M7. The two Ms are both .58 finders (I wear glasses) and my favoured lens for 95% of the time is a 35/2. I have no regrets about selling the G2 gear. Initially I loved it but somehow never really felt connected with it. To be honest, I probably didn't use it enough and I came to it after a long absence from photo-taking. It gave me insufficient feedback. Oddly, after some years of constant M use, I'd probably now get on much better with as G2, even allowing for its limitations.

What I like about Ms: the viewfinder; the 0.58 variant especially -- a God-send; the manual focusing. I found after a while that the auto-focus of the G2, despite the pre-focus thumb button on the back, was something I was fighting against rather than learning to use intuitively; it didn't match what I wanted to do very well. There is no doubt that AF has its place and can help you secure pictures you might otherwise miss, and had the G2 coupled that with a REAL, genuinely useable manual focus process it would have been a great camera (with a less than great viewfinder).

My own opinion FWIW, if you can afford an M6TTL (or whatever) and have the time to really get to know, and have never owned a Leica, then frankly what are you waiting for? Buy and enjoy.
 
you may find a lot to mourn about with the Leica company, but not much with the Leitz/Leica classic cameras. build quality should be the least of your concerns!
 
Last edited:
I currently own both systems G1 and M2/M8.

If you're sticking with film I don't see much of a reason to switch over to Leica. Not sure if these matter to you., but you will lose all of the automatic features of the G cameras including AE and AF.

Optically, the Zeiss lenses are every bit the equals of Leica. I think you'll find many posts in the forum which attest to this. In fact, I actually prefer the Zeiss lenses in some cases.

Composing with either camera takes some getting used to. On the wide end of things (<50mm) I think you will find them much the same. I personally prefer the magnification afforded by the G on the longer lenses.

Build quality. Tough call. The Leica is probably the better built. This said, I've owned my G1 since 1998, pushed at least 1000 rolls through it, and NEVER had any problems.

As I said, IMO, if you're sticking with film I don't know that you're getting much. If Contax made a digital camera to take my G lenses I probably would not have bought my M8.

Best of luck.
 
Film loading is actually my favorite part of my M2 (and the big 50 frames). Wish my ZI would load like that.

That being said I'll trade my M2 for your G2 😀 Same digit, different letter? Please? :angel:

p.s: best viewfinder for spectacles is the ZI. All the Leicas were squinty for me. The ZI is just humongous and bright, a delight.
 
If it were me, I'd make my decision based on lens options. There are many, many threads here comparing G1/G2 bodies to Leica bodies, that's a horse that is beaten to death. 😉

Do you need something faster than f/2? Do you want something wider than 21mm (that doesn't cost a fortune and has reasonable speed?) Do you want to try older optics or are you looking for a different rendering than the Zeiss lenses offer? If so, then it makes sense to look into an M.
 
sprokitt said:
I currently own both systems G1 and M2/M8.

If Contax made a digital camera to take my G lenses I probably would not have bought my M8.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

Ironic that you mention this point and most relevant.

6 months ago I bought a Panasonic GF1 micro4/3rds specifically to use my G lenses. I've been using it extensively with my 35, 45 and 90mm lenses and other legacy lenses such as Kern-Switar C mount. I rarely attach the AF 20mm pancake. Of course, it's all manual focus with the enhanced benefit of image control and I've been loving it merely from a point of view that I and I alone am in control and totally aware of the selected focus point. Conversely it has a crap VF and frankly digital doesn't really do it for me because quite simply it's all over too fast. Very little processing needed and I'm retired with ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD. Immediacy is the last thing I need!

As much as I love my G2 I'm never really convinced I've achieved the differential focusing as sought and this bugs me.

I mulled over this and established that B+W film, manual focusing and RF shooting was for me. The Leica M series seemed the answer.

Now maybe I should also look at the Zeiss Ikon.

Once again, thanks to you all for the advice, guidance and realization of my "issues"

Much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom