68degrees
Well-known
Or is it just marketing, the name, the status. is it a head game or do they really make noticeably better photographs ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
Are Leicas actually superior to mainstream RFs of the 60s and 70s?
- Thread starter 68degrees
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 3K
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
What other mainstream RFs existed in the sixties and seventies, besides Leica? Considering that everybody else (or at least their RF departments) had grown into a very minor player and left the RF game by the late sixties, that is. What's more, "besides" already is a bit of an euphemism - even Leica rangefinders had lost their maínstream status in the Leitz product line to the Leicaflex by the early seventies, and were actually discontinued for a while...
gb hill
Veteran
By the 60's & 70's all others like Canon, Yashica, Minolta, Oly. etc were putting out only fixed lens rangefinders. By mid 70's the SLR boom had begun.
chrishayton
Well-known
In short. Yes they are superior
I see cameras of this vintage every day. there are no rangefinders of this era built to the same quality of a Leica M2 / M4.
In all fairness there isn't an awful lot of competition in that period in the RF world as SLR's were becoming the area of most manufacturers interest.
The build of a Leica M is more solid than any other. The rangefinder/viewfinder is better and the lenses were for most (and often still are) spectacular.
Other types of cameras existed of equal quality, Linhof, Rolleiflex and Alpa are good examples of this. But if considering RFs alone then yes Leica ruled the roost in terms of quality
I see cameras of this vintage every day. there are no rangefinders of this era built to the same quality of a Leica M2 / M4.
In all fairness there isn't an awful lot of competition in that period in the RF world as SLR's were becoming the area of most manufacturers interest.
The build of a Leica M is more solid than any other. The rangefinder/viewfinder is better and the lenses were for most (and often still are) spectacular.
Other types of cameras existed of equal quality, Linhof, Rolleiflex and Alpa are good examples of this. But if considering RFs alone then yes Leica ruled the roost in terms of quality
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
There was nothing produced in the 60s and 70s to equal the quality of an M Leica.
The 7 series Canons come close but they were made till 1968.
The Nikon S3, a worthy contender, was assembled in small numbers in 1964 and the SP might have ended production even earlier with the demand for the Nikon F SLR being so strong.
Leica had that ever shrinking market all to its self it seems, certainly by the 1970s that was the case.
The 7 series Canons come close but they were made till 1968.
The Nikon S3, a worthy contender, was assembled in small numbers in 1964 and the SP might have ended production even earlier with the demand for the Nikon F SLR being so strong.
Leica had that ever shrinking market all to its self it seems, certainly by the 1970s that was the case.
benlees
Well-known
No such thing as "all things being equal". Better photographs?
As someone who didn't believe the hype and was plenty happy using a variety of fixed lens RF's (35RC for the win), I bought a beat up M4P and very quickly realized what everyone was talking about. They are a cut above without a doubt.
Film M's are very cheap these days. Try one out. The lenses, however, are priced out of my bracket so I can't comment on those!
As someone who didn't believe the hype and was plenty happy using a variety of fixed lens RF's (35RC for the win), I bought a beat up M4P and very quickly realized what everyone was talking about. They are a cut above without a doubt.
Film M's are very cheap these days. Try one out. The lenses, however, are priced out of my bracket so I can't comment on those!
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Noticeably better results? I guess it depends on what you count as noticeably better. Shooting lens test charts probably, but for general hand held photography, probably not. There are things that make Leicas better cameras than other cameras, build quality and design wise but that doesn't necessarily translate into "noticeably better" photographs.
FrankS
Registered User
Superior in build quality, yes.
Superior results? That depends on the photographer.
Superior results? That depends on the photographer.
V-12
Well-known
They don't necessarily make better photographs day in day out, but like any professional camera they allow you to make photographs more reliably and in more varied circumstances. So the lenses will flare less, have better quality throughout the aperture range, and they are often faster so can be used in lower light. The bodies work smoother longer because of the materials used. They will take a range of accessories that may be vital for getting some photographs, unlike many cheaper cameras of the period that may only have an ERC case and maybe a close up accessory lens.
hteasley
Pupil
I've been tempted by other rangefinder cameras, but the viewfinder quality is never as good as Leica. New Ikons are excellent, but in comparing older !Leica cameras to older Leicas, it's very obvious that the Leica viewfinder is superior.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
"Noticeably better photographs" Oh yes! Any Leica can make better photographs, on its own, the problems start when I pick them up.
68degrees
Well-known
This is why I said "All other things being equal" so that we can exclude the photographer who would be the SAME for the purpose of this comparison.
The question is about "Noticably better photographs" all other things being the same except its a Leica camera instead of a non Leica.
I do concede the comments about build quality were appropriate even though they infuriated me for not being relevant to the intent of this thread, because I did in fact ask two questions, one being in the title of the thread which I forgot about. I only meant to ask one question. Are the photos noticeably or remarkably better ALL other things (like photographer, lighting, meter, angle, film, processing etc)
Gid
Well-known
Simple answer is no. The camera is only one small part in the chain - the lenses will have the greatest impact IMO. However, I don't think you can dismiss the psychological impact that a particular camera may have on the user. If a photographer has an affinity with his/her equipment that may have an impact on the end result. Whether that arises because of some mystical belief in St Barnack or because of the impact of using what is said to be the best, is immaterial - in these cases the camera may well result in demonstrably better pictures.
dabick42
Well-known
Leicas have always been excellent cameras, highly regarded for their build integrity, versatility and lens performance, and were unquestionably the best rangefinders in the 60s and 70s.
However, they weren't necessarily the best in the early 50s, when the Voigtlander Prominent started its all-too-short decade of stardom.
This was a true classic rangefinder with a synchro-compur shutter, the Ultron and Nokton lenses for which are truly great even by today's standard.
The Prominent didn't have the lens range, versatility or the viewfinder brilliance of the M3, though, so died a lingering death at the end of the 50s.
I use my pair of Prominents as often as my Leicas of that era and they give equally satisfactory results.
Very under-appreciated cameras, IMHO.
However, they weren't necessarily the best in the early 50s, when the Voigtlander Prominent started its all-too-short decade of stardom.
This was a true classic rangefinder with a synchro-compur shutter, the Ultron and Nokton lenses for which are truly great even by today's standard.
The Prominent didn't have the lens range, versatility or the viewfinder brilliance of the M3, though, so died a lingering death at the end of the 50s.
I use my pair of Prominents as often as my Leicas of that era and they give equally satisfactory results.
Very under-appreciated cameras, IMHO.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Forget Leica and all that jazz.
Stick to a Yashica Electro GSN or a Zorki 4 that works and spend the rest of the money on film and travel allowance, you will be much further ahead photographically.
Stick to a Yashica Electro GSN or a Zorki 4 that works and spend the rest of the money on film and travel allowance, you will be much further ahead photographically.
Richard G
Veteran
The Three Billy Goats Gruff.
ssmc
Well-known
Well, since most "mainstream" RFs of that period had fixed lenses, it makes sense that with the immense range of lenses available for the M-mount (including adapted LTM lenses) then sure you could take better photographs, because the FOV/framing/aperture you require for a certain shot might just not be possible with whatever FL the fixed-lens camera happens to have. While there were some outstanding SLR lenses of that period, they're not RFs, so they don't count.
The very bright VF and accurate RF might well translate into a higher proportion of keepers, and the ergonomics of the M6 TTL I had made me want to shoot with it in a way that I was not used to, therefore I got more opportunities for shots that would otherwise remain untaken.
But I'm not sure that's precisely what you are asking - do you mean that if you had a test scene set up with a tripod and swapped a Leica (presumably with a Leica lens) for a generic 70's RF and took identically exposed and framed shots, would you be able to tell them apart? Based on my own experience I would say yes, but perhaps not dramatically, even under such tightly controlled conditions (I have done this type of testing using the same roll of film and a mid-roll rewind for 2 cameras, to eliminate film and processing as variables). The pre-asph 50/2 Summicron is notable for its contrast wide-open, resolution right into the corners and lack of distortion. However... there are so many other variables (which include things like ergonomics and the ease/speed with which you can get a shot in "real life") that can affect the image that it's really hard to give an answer to the question I suspect you are asking, which might be better stated as "are Leica lenses noticeably better" (maybe I'm worng about that interpretation). Sometimes definitely, sometimes not so much - it also depends on what you're photographing. For example, field curvature could ruin a test-chart or landscape shot but work in your favour for a portrait or PJ-style image. And so on.
Apologies if this is not the sort of answer you were looking for, but I have found that like many deceptively simple questions, the most appropriate response is "It depends..."
The very bright VF and accurate RF might well translate into a higher proportion of keepers, and the ergonomics of the M6 TTL I had made me want to shoot with it in a way that I was not used to, therefore I got more opportunities for shots that would otherwise remain untaken.
But I'm not sure that's precisely what you are asking - do you mean that if you had a test scene set up with a tripod and swapped a Leica (presumably with a Leica lens) for a generic 70's RF and took identically exposed and framed shots, would you be able to tell them apart? Based on my own experience I would say yes, but perhaps not dramatically, even under such tightly controlled conditions (I have done this type of testing using the same roll of film and a mid-roll rewind for 2 cameras, to eliminate film and processing as variables). The pre-asph 50/2 Summicron is notable for its contrast wide-open, resolution right into the corners and lack of distortion. However... there are so many other variables (which include things like ergonomics and the ease/speed with which you can get a shot in "real life") that can affect the image that it's really hard to give an answer to the question I suspect you are asking, which might be better stated as "are Leica lenses noticeably better" (maybe I'm worng about that interpretation). Sometimes definitely, sometimes not so much - it also depends on what you're photographing. For example, field curvature could ruin a test-chart or landscape shot but work in your favour for a portrait or PJ-style image. And so on.
Apologies if this is not the sort of answer you were looking for, but I have found that like many deceptively simple questions, the most appropriate response is "It depends..."
68degrees
Well-known
correct...............
Frontman
Well-known
If I compare a Leica M with a Nikon rangefinder camera, it is hard to say which is better. I have many Leicas, and happen to be carrying one as I write this, but a Nikon SP is a bit more advanced in design, and the one I shoot is smoother and quieter than the half-dozen or so Leica M cameras I have shot. I prefer the focusing patch of the Leica M, but that is the only thing which is truly better, and though better, the difference is not big enough to be a deal-killer.
Leica lenses are the at the top of the barrel, and priced as such, but I often shoot non-Leica glass, like the Canon 35/1.5, or Nikon 35/1.8. In real world conditions, the extra cost of Leica glass is probably not justified, no one other than gear-junkies would ever notice the difference, and even some of them wouldn't.
The more gear I use, the more I realize that it doesn't matter. The simplest camera in the hands of a good photographer will make better photos than the most expensive camera in the hands of Joe Schmoe.
Leica lenses are the at the top of the barrel, and priced as such, but I often shoot non-Leica glass, like the Canon 35/1.5, or Nikon 35/1.8. In real world conditions, the extra cost of Leica glass is probably not justified, no one other than gear-junkies would ever notice the difference, and even some of them wouldn't.
The more gear I use, the more I realize that it doesn't matter. The simplest camera in the hands of a good photographer will make better photos than the most expensive camera in the hands of Joe Schmoe.
Range-rover
Veteran
Yes, they are better, When I was shooting Nikons and Canons and I first switched
to a Leica it looked like someone took the window and really cleaned it.
Range
to a Leica it looked like someone took the window and really cleaned it.
Range
Similar threads
- Article
