Are Leicas actually superior to mainstream RFs of the 60s and 70s?

[Bobbo]

Are Leicas actually superior to mainstream RFs of the '40s and '50s?

There. I fixed it for you. Nobody else really really made a lot of interchangeable lens rangefinders in the '60s and '70s.

The SLR revolution began in '59. By the mid-'60s, the Nikkormats, Spotmatics and Canon Ft's were supreme in the "mainstream" market, with the Nikon F obliterating the pro competition in the sheer numbers game. The Nikon SP and S3 were dumped in '64, with Canon's RF line the next year (I think). The Contax IIa/IIIa went bye-bye in '61 (as per the bartender's website).

 

[x-ray]

I've shot Leicas professionally since 1968 along with many other systems including Nikon RF and still use both film and digital Leicas. With the exception of the latest generation Leica glass shot wide open Leica produces no better images than Nikon RF or other quality SLRs of that period. In the 60's - 90's Leica had no real edge on anyone. The new asph glass does have an edge when shooting wide open. Nikon produced some remarkable glass for their RFs and are still regarded as optically superb when discussing along with Leica of the same era. The optical flaws that drove us crazy during that time have now been tagged as character and some see them as desirable.

Even today the edge goes to Leica when shooting wide open or a stop down but two stops down all are pretty much the same. As to actual image quality in modern SLRs vs the M9, I would give the edge to especially Nikons D800 and then Canon over the M9. There's much more to a superior image than just sharp glass. Dynamic range, noise and etc all play an equal part.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, I'm going to go with "yes" - superior. There. Now I feel better.
Actually, I think that the better way to say it is that the Leicas of that era _allowed_ you to take great photographs, but I don't think there was any camera of that era that could overcome sloppy technique.

 

[xayraa33]

There. I fixed it for you. Nobody else really really made a lot of interchangeable lens rangefinders in the '60s and '70s.

The SLR revolution began in '59. By the mid-'60s, the Nikkormats, Spotmatics and Canon Ft's were supreme in the "mainstream" market, with the Nikon F obliterating the pro competition in the sheer numbers game. The Nikon SP and S3 were dumped in '64, with Canon's RF line the next year (I think). The Contax IIa/IIIa went bye-bye in '61 (as per the bartender's website).

The last focal plane shutter RF Canons were last made in 1968 with the 7s (z) being the last model but some of the Canon LTM lenses were available new in some photo shops till at least the mid 1970s in the states.

 

[splitimageview]

Build quality, yes. But that is not an answer to the original question...I doubt people could view a photo and instantly discern that 'a Leica took that.'

 

[68degrees]

alright now we are getting somewhere. Thank you all for your insightful replies.

 

[Bar8barian]

The post-war Contax IIa and IIIa were superbly engineered and had some of the best lenses available at the time, with which Leica lenses couldn't compete, particularly the Zeiss Sonnars and Biogons. Zeiss lost it's way when it tried to compete with the Japanese SLR influx in the late 1950's with it's over engineered and too expensive Contarex SLR range.
Had they further developed the Contax rangefinder and the Contax Zeiss rangefinder lenses I am sure they would still be in business today.Please don't bring the current Zeiss cameras into the picture because they are Zeiss in name only being Japanese products and not the original German Zeiss Ikon firm.

 

[SakamakuAme]

Camera body, yes. Lens, no. Zeiss was considered to be better, and was better.

 

[Bar8barian]

Camera body, yes. Lens, no. Zeiss was considered to be better, and was better.

Had Zeiss Ikon put a vertical running titanium blind shutter into the Contax IIa & IIIa body and done away with the over complex vertical operating slat aluminium blind shutter in the original IIa & IIIa (the main downfall of these cameras) then Zeiss Ikon would have been top's in camera and lenses categories with the Contax, and not just lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What 'other things being equal'?

The Contax lens mount was a bad joke -- far too small a throat, doubled-up inner and outer bayonets, absurdly over-complicated focusing mechanism-- and the shutter was pretty nearly as bad; Canon never switched to a faster bayonet mount with auto frame selection; Nikon was mostly a somewhat improved Contax, still with a good deal of bizarre 1930s ergonomics; and the Kiev was basically a Contax, later minimally updated.

The Prominent was grievously limited by a behind-the-lens shutter, and the Retina series by relying on interchangeable front groups rather than interchangeable lenses. Most of the others appeared in tiny numbers -- the Hensoldt Reporter was one of my favourites -- with limited lens choice, sometimes of mediocre lenses (e.g.Paxette).

There was of course the Alpa 7 which was both a reflex and a rangefinder, and had a modest choice of excellent lenses (with the option, via adaptors, or many more) but they were staggeringly rare and made Leicas look inexpensive.

In other words, we're left pretty much with fixed-lens RFs (in fact, ONLY with fixed-lens RFs by the later 1960s) so it's a bit apples-and-oranges already, and frankly, most fixed-lens RFs were built down to a price. A few were truly excellent -- Konica springs to mind -- but the Retina's glory days were over (treating it as effectively a fixed-lens camera) and (for example) Yashica Lynxes were really only on the good side of mediocre.

I came to RFs at the end of the 60s (when some Retinas and Prominents were still in professional use because of leaf shutter flash synch) and in those days no-one made the sort of overblown claims that are made today on behalf of quite a wide range of mostly obviously inferior cameras.

The Leica was generally recognized as the pinnacle, and the main reason not to buy one (then as now) was because you couldn't afford one or, if that formula didn't appeal to you, because you couldn't 'justify' one -- though it's hard to see, sometimes, how 'afford' and 'justify' are differentiated, because we have to 'justify' only what we can't really afford. As soon as I could afford an M, I decided I could 'justify' it. 'Can't justify' means either 'can't afford to buy it on a whim' or 'don't want it badly enough to pay what it costs'.

Results? Can I tell my Leica shots from Retina shots, Prominent shots, even Nikon F shots? Occasionally, but even then, I'm not sure whether I'm remembering which camera I used, rather than seeing the difference. But what does it matter? I'm still using the Leicas, and so are quite a lot of other people, whereas most of the rest have plummeted in value unless they are very rare and interesting (Ektra, Foton -- I know, not 1960s/70s). There may be a reason for this, and it ain't just snobbery. Yes, Leicas were and are better.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The post-war Contax IIa and IIIa were superbly engineered and had some of the best lenses available at the time, with which Leica lenses couldn't compete, particularly the Zeiss Sonnars and Biogons. Zeiss lost it's way when it tried to compete with the Japanese SLR influx in the late 1950's with it's over engineered and too expensive Contarex SLR range.
Had they further developed the Contax rangefinder and the Contax Zeiss rangefinder lenses I am sure they would still be in business today.Please don't bring the current Zeiss cameras into the picture because they are Zeiss in name only being Japanese products and not the original German Zeiss Ikon firm.

Disputable. Yes, there were some great designs -- especially the 21mm Biogon -- but if you wanted a fast 50mm you had the choice of Leicas (higher resolution, more even illumination, less focus shift) or Contax (higher contrast). It was more a question of which style you wanted. And, of course, by the late 1960s, Zeiss was out of the market, so their lenses certainly couldn't compete with Leica. Yes, they can still make lenses that are truly stunning -- I have a 38/4.5 Biogon on my Alpa, and have tried both the 15/2.8 and 85/2 on my Leicas -- but we're talking Leica money here, which hardly anyone wants to pay.

See also my comments above on the hopelessly restrictive lens mount, complex focusing, etc. A new Contax would have had to be a complete redesign, and would almost certainly have cost about the same as a Leica -- which was, by the early 1960s, far more firmly established than the aging Contax line.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aad]

When I read the sagas of people with old cameras-how many Feds should you have to buy to get one that works, my Contax is fresh back from a 10 year restoration and I have a whole year before I have to send it in for a tune-up, my (blank) cheap rangefinder fell apart when I set it on the table-I think about my IIIf and how it has needed pretty much nothing but film to keep going.

Lens be damned, if the camera doesn't work, it is junk.

 

[VinceC]

>>The Contax lens mount was a bad joke -- far too small a throat, doubled-up inner and outer bayonets, absurdly over-complicated focusing mechanism-- and the shutter was pretty nearly as bad; Canon never switched to a faster bayonet mount with auto frame selection; Nikon was mostly a somewhat improved Contax, still with a good deal of bizarre 1930s ergonomics;<<


The Contax introduced a useful albeit quirky bayonet-mount lens more than two decades before the Leitz M-mount. But agree that by 1960 it was outdated.

Not sure I'm tracking the "bizarre 1930s ergonomics" of the Nikon. The interface and ergonomics of the SP and S3 were identical to the Nikon F, with the exception of the 10-percent smaller size and (obvious) lack of TTL depth-of-field preview lever. The Nikons also are not really improved Contaxes but cameras that seek to make the most of the Contax-style mount. RF mechanisms and shutters are much closer to Leitz than Zeiss. I've always found it captivating that, while postwar Zeiss complained about Nikon helping itself to Zeiss prewar lens designs, Nikon within a couple of years pioneered new faster designs (85/1.5s and 28/3.5s and 35/1.8s and 50/1.1s) that put Zeiss and Leitz on the defensive. Zeiss had the excellent 21/4.5, but the thing seems to have more chrome than a 1958 Cadillac.

That said, Japanese RF innovation took place mainly in the 1950s. By 1960, the Japanese companies were decisively pushing the photography marketplace into SLRs. Interestingly, many of the Japanese cameras of the 1950s seem to need much less service compared to similar vintage Leicas, and most acknowledge that the Leitz coatings of the 1950s and early '60s are much less durable than Canon and Nikon equivalents.

 

[Roger Hicks]

>>The Contax lens mount was a bad joke -- far too small a throat, doubled-up inner and outer bayonets, absurdly over-complicated focusing mechanism-- and the shutter was pretty nearly as bad; Canon never switched to a faster bayonet mount with auto frame selection; Nikon was mostly a somewhat improved Contax, still with a good deal of bizarre 1930s ergonomics;<<


The Contax introduced a useful albeit quirky bayonet-mount lens more than two decades before the Leitz M-mount. But agree that by 1960 it was outdated.

Not sure I'm tracking the "bizarre 1930s ergonomics" of the Nikon. The interface and ergonomics of the SP and S3 were identical to the Nikon F, with the exception of the 10-percent smaller size and (obvious) lack of TTL depth-of-field preview lever. The Nikons also are not really improved Contaxes but cameras that seek to make the most of the Contax-style mount. RF mechanisms and shutters are much closer to Leitz than Zeiss. I've always found it captivating that, while postwar Zeiss complained about Nikon helping itself to Zeiss prewar lens designs, Nikon within a couple of years pioneered new faster designs (85/1.5s and 28/3.5s and 35/1.8s and 50/1.1s) that put Zeiss and Leitz on the defensive. Zeiss had the excellent 21/4.5, but the thing seems to have more chrome than a 1958 Cadillac.

That said, Japanese RF innovation took place mainly in the 1950s. By 1960, the Japanese companies were decisively pushing the photography marketplace into SLRs. Interestingly, many of the Japanese cameras of the 1950s seem to need much less service compared to similar vintage Leicas, and most acknowledge that the Leitz coatings of the 1950s and early '60s are much less durable than Canon and Nikon equivalents.

Dear Vince,

You are of course very substantially right. I should have added the rider that it was a bad joke by the 1960s, and when I said "bizarre 1930s ergonomics" I was really thinking only of that awful lens/focusing mount and the saw-up-your-finger focusing wheel.

May main excuse is that I have a really filthy cold, arguably even 'flu -- fever, shivers, coughs so bad my ribs ache, etc. -- picked up in Spain last week. Good trip otherwise, though: Girona is a wonderful city.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When did the fast Canon RF 50mm lenses come to the market (50/1.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.2 and 50/0.95)?

Though now regarded specifically for its obvious flaws, the Canon 50/0.95 on a 7 or 7s body was an emergency back-up for many pros who were limited to shooting the available chromes of the era.

Superior to what, who else offered a system compatible 50/0.95?

The original Noctilux (f1.2) is so rare I have never actually seen or handled one, which shouldn't be construed as a criteria for global availability, but still... The Canon LTM 50/1.2 was far more affordable and used if far greater numbers than the first Noctilux.

Sorry: I was comparing the Zeiss options ONLY with the Leica options that 'couldn't match' Zeiss. Your point about other manufacturers' lenses, especially the fast Canons, is of course unanswerable. All I'd add is that while (as you say) the 50/1.2 was used in quite large numbers, the extra 1/2 stop of the f/0.95 was regarded as a modest advantage when set against zero depth of field, price, dire image quality and the fact that you had to buy a Canon to use it. Amongst those I knew in London in the 1960s and 1970s, when these were still reasonably new lenses, the f/0.95 was seldom seriously considered and was quite often dropped in favour of a f/1.2 if it was tried.

Cheers,

R.

 

[VinceC]

In some of its ads, Nikon used to enthuse about the ability to shoot using one hand and the "saw your fingers" focus wheel, a feature shared/borrow from with Contax. I actually did that a couple times while climbing trees and posts for a better view, holding on with one hand while operating the camera with the other.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

The camera history is plentiful with "good and great" products, some of them really outstanding in their time. I think the question is about COMMITMENT. Let´s see saxophones: Selmer is unquestionaby THE Saxophone, even if there are numerous good ones. Steinway THE grand piano, even if Yamaha etc try very hard. Leica was first out, took the time to get the M philosophy right and stuck to it. Of couse you can debate about details, but as a whole, you can be sure they will be around and provide photographers with shooting style of RF cameras a tool to comply with THEIR ideas, not the camera dictating how the photographer should respond. All the rest, capture media, lenses etc will evolve. I am looking forward to the forthcoming accessory for "M" grip to transmit the images straight to my Ipad/ laptop so I don`t have any urge to follow ite images on the rear screen. I can see them with one look, like a contact sheet and decide If I continue or quit shooting. I hate to stop following my subject to be distracted to judge images on that tiny screen. The worst part of Digital photography...

 

[Zopkuni]

Get a Shanghai Red Flag 20
"Red Generals and Party Chiefs "Ultra hyper Mega Leica M4"
from Maos China of the 70s! Most sophisticated rangefinder ever built!

This was built for highest ranking "Red Party Gods & Leaders"
in the China Airspace Optics Facility Shanghai...any camera was
more expensive in construction than an average Military Spy camera.

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/LeicaCopy/copieleicaM3.html

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/380659172_ca3a3017db.jpg

http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Shanghai-Red-Flag-20-Ausrüstung.jpg

it was and is the best Rangefinder Camera
ever built but its extremely rare, so it may cost 10 times as much as a Leica ;-)
If you want same Quality as a Leica but pay 1/10 get a Carl Zeiss Jena Werra 3.

http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/werra3/

best regards ;-)

 

[zuiko85]

Leica!
Big deal. You just can't beat a Miranda G, That was my first good camera and it's been all downhill from there.

 

[hepcat]

I've shot Leicas professionally since 1968 along with many other systems including Nikon RF and still use both film and digital Leicas. With the exception of the latest generation Leica glass shot wide open Leica produces no better images than Nikon RF or other quality SLRs of that period. In the 60's - 90's Leica had no real edge on anyone. The new asph glass does have an edge when shooting wide open. Nikon produced some remarkable glass for their RFs and are still regarded as optically superb when discussing along with Leica of the same era. The optical flaws that drove us crazy during that time have now been tagged as character and some see them as desirable.

Even today the edge goes to Leica when shooting wide open or a stop down but two stops down all are pretty much the same. As to actual image quality in modern SLRs vs the M9, I would give the edge to especially Nikons D800 and then Canon over the M9. There's much more to a superior image than just sharp glass. Dynamic range, noise and etc all play an equal part.

An even and well balanced response. I've been shooting Leicas professionally since 1974 off and on, and I too have used just about every brand and kind of camera out there at one time or another. I recently sold my DSLR outfit and returned to Leica digital after selling all of my analog Leica gear about ten years ago.

The difference for me is neither the build quality nor the superiority of the glass... in fact of my six lenses, four are Voigtlanders. The difference in using Leica is the consistency over time. It's easy to learn what the camera is going to do. The bodies all have essentially the same 'feel' with the controls in the same place from body to body. If you shot an M3 you'll be immediately comfortable with an M9. I like for my lenses to all have a similar 'feel' and tactile response. As a matter of fact, I chose my CV lenses in part because they 'feel' like the '60s vintage Summicrons and Elmarits. And my two Leitz lenses ARE a '60s vintage 90mm Summicron and a '60s vintage 135mm Elmarit.

As in playing golf, it's not the manufacturer of the clubs that is important; it's the familiarity the player has with his clubs and the consistency of the swing that makes the difference.

So, to answer your question, no there's not a great deal of difference between the output of a Leica and a Canon of the same era, but what IS important is how you are able to produce consistency with your camera. Being comfortable enough with your camera that the operation is second nature, being comfortable with and understanding how to capture light with a camera, and the consistency those bring to your images is what makes one photographer's images consistently better than another's.

I suspect that there are more photographers today shooting Leica who grasp that concept.