Best Leica learning kit (newbie question)

Nick R. said:
Don't forget to check photo.net's Leica list for ads. A M4-P was listed for $675 two days ago. I'm sure that's gone but keep checking.
Click to expand...
Yep, looks like that one's gone. I bough from that list recently, very nice folks.
 
Andy, if Dave (dcsang) is selling his M6, (see thread) I would go with this because you can buy with complete confidence from Dave. The M6 is a great camera (I have one) because it has a built in meter that you can use if you want, and it is a much younger camera and not needing CLA work soon. I've seen Dave's M6 and it's in super shape, and I know Dave takes care of his gear. If you're looking for a Leica M, this is the one. IMO
 
Given the equipment you already use, I don't see why learning to use a Leica should be difficult. Indeed, I do not see why you should even want a Leica. Ideally, a camera should become so much a part of the photographer that using it comes naturally and needs neither thought nor fiddling.
 
payasam said:
Given the equipment you already use, I don't see why learning to use a Leica should be difficult. Indeed, I do not see why you should even want a Leica. Ideally, a camera should become so much a part of the photographer that using it comes naturally and needs neither thought nor fiddling.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't wanting a Leica a natural/inevitable progression of things?-)) I guess I want to see what it's all about, that leica craze. More specifically, I want to see if using a camera whose imitation I've become very comfortable with, I can take better pics. Ultimately, I guess I am looking for "the one" camera/lens combination that I can live with for a long, long time. And, of course, I totally agree with your last statement - that's why I am hunting for the "one" - why learn to operate equipment that doesn't feel 'just right'?

And, i want to handle it before I buy it. Last year I went camera-shopping-nuts, bought a bunch of equipment based on technical specs, reviews, and pretty pictures, only to find out the what looked good on paper just didn't feel right in my hands. With the Contax G2, I played with one in a store, which convinced me to get it.
 
Nothing inevitable or natural about it, akptc: others feel the same about Hasselblads, Linhofs, Nikons, Contaxes, Alpas -- you name it -- with equal justification. Wanting to try the real thing after having used the imitation makes sense: though not so much if the imitation is close. As for "the one", that argument holds if your photographic work is of a limited kind. For extreme close-up and macro and micro stuff, for architectural work, for photographing lions in the wild, an SLR makes a damn sight more sense. Yes, Leitz made accessories for nearly everything: but for those same things, an SLR needs few or none.
 
Huck Finn said:
You don't have to be a purist to have viewfinder preference be an important factor in making a decision. To each, his own.

Huck
Click to expand...

"purist"wasn't meant in a negative sense, Huck. Just to point out that the differences are slight compared to the many other factors. As you say, everybody should his own decisions :)
I guess each and every rangefinder owner is a purist in his/her own way, btw
 
$850 for an M3+5cm Summicron+Leica meter+case?

$850 for an M3+5cm Summicron+Leica meter+case?

Finally had a chance to "fondle" a beautiful M3 (double stroke) with a 5cm collapsible Summicron and a Leica meter attached, at a local mom&pop photo store. The whole kit is in superb condition (to my untrained eye), the viewfinder is gorgeous, not a scratch on the lens (comes with a Leica hood). Only the Leica case shows some signs of wear but is still strong and functional. The guy who works at the store (it's his own camera) is asking $850 for the kit, does this sound like a reasonable price? Serial number on the body is in the 780,000 range.

(added) I am tempted to go for it but the black M7 I had a chance to play with recently is in the back of my mind, nagging... M3 vs. M7... get an M3 now or wait for the M7.. help, please :confused:
 
Last edited:
By either looking at it or by the serial number. The 1st series of M3's had a glass pressure plate. If you want to use the camera rather than get up your own bottom (on this side of the pond) with the minutiae of Leica collectables then forget all about it and see if the camera actually works properly. A lot of this is simple. Does the focussing action feel smooth, is the rangefinder image nice and bright, if you look at the lens is it nice and clear as it should be or hazy - in fact the odd spot or even tiny scratch will not affect image quality that much, haze will. Does it work on all shutter speeds, is the 1 second speed a credible one second and does it remain so when you repeat 5 times. If so and you are buying from a dealer you have a good camera at a fair price. The optics will make different images from 2006 gear, some people (like me) feel that the results are worth every penny/cent
 
That is a great price, especially with the clean viewfinder and lens.

The glass plate can cause static problems when rewind quickly in the cold. Most were replaced by Leica ages ago. Open up the flip-up back and take a look, or ask the seller. It's given pictures for 50 years with the one that it has, I would not let that difference stop me.
 
Answering the question properly - get the M3, it's a great camera for a fair price and even if you feel the need to trade up (?) to the M7 ($$$$) you will not regret it. I bought my M2 a few months ago and can truthfully say I have not enjoyed taking photographs so much for 15 years. Don't believe anything on this forum or elsewhere about Leicas and colour film either - for me the difference in the lenses is more apparent in colour than B+W. Try it and see.
 
I called the guy, the serial number is 786647. From memory - the focusing is very smooth, the rangefinder image is bright and sharp, the lens shows no haze, all shutter speeds seem to work ok.

Btw, when you say "The optics will make different images from 2006 gear, some people (like me) feel that the results are worth every penny/cent" I assume you mean that a current model is likely to result in better quality images?

(added) I looked up the S/N on http://www.cameraquest.com/mtype.htm - it must be a glass plate. Btw, I forgot to mention, it has the frameline lever for 50, 90, and 135(?)mm lenses.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by quality? The 1st film I put through the M2 was a revelation to me in terms of a 3D quality to the image, a depth of colour rendition, that made the Olympus zuiko images (50mm 1.4; 85mm f2, 28mm f2.8 & 21mm f3.5) just seem a little flat by comparison. BUT the older lens is definitely more flare-prone and is not as contrasty. I have taken pictures of the same subject in the same light with the 2 lenses, Hampton Court Palace, Henry VIII's old pad, west of London, and with the Summicron you can easily count the bricks in the building if you magnify the print. Not so with the zuiko 50mm, itself reckoned an excellent lens in the 1980's. The Summicron has a *very* flat field to my eye, so what is in focus at the centre of the frame is in focus at the edge. However, more modern lenses use a different compromise. The accent is not for drawing quality and flat field near full aperture but for high contrast and so apparent sharpness. It's different. Which is better? Depends on what sort of image you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom