Discovering Leica - in reverse

[photorat]

I have come to be a real admirer of the purity and distinction of Leica's vision on photography in a strange way. My first Leica was a Digilux 3, back when I was looking for a DSLR with intuitive controls (like an aperture ring on the lens and not embedded in a menu). This lead me to wonder about what Leica were really famous for, namely the M system. Wanting to stay digital, for experimentation's sake, I bought a used R-D1 with a couple of used Leica lenses (50mm DR summicron and 35mm ASPH summilux). I have to say that I've so fallen in love with the character and distinction of these lenses (very different though each is), I am contemplating taking what I see as the "next" step in the chain of purification (or is it the first step?), namely FILM.

Giving up zoom lenses, auto focus, DOF in the viewfinder, etc. was already a huge step for me. Using the R-D1 has been like learning how to walk again. But the results have been so impressive and the experience of photography so much more inspiring, that I'm wondering whether the more elementary experience of film photography might even hold more in store.

So, my question: where do I go from here? Is the leap back worth it and what form would it best take? I have heard great things about the M3 as a good basic shooter (in terms of build quality especially). But maybe I should save up for a MP with presumably the same level of craftsmanship but with the added convenience of an internal metre. I thought about the M7, to keep hold of some semblance of "convenience" in the form of an aperture priority mode, but I think I'm ready to be stripped of all such mod cons in the search for the original, pure Leica experience. Or is the latter a mere Utopia?

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[pachuco]

The M3 is my main shooter now, I love it and I was surprised by how quickly I adapted to it. So far I do not miss the light meter (I have a hand held if I need one) and the quality of the M3 is just out of this world! Good luck with whatever you get!

 

[35mmdelux]

Why not the M6 Classic? There are incredible examples at circa $1000 USD. If you like it, then pony up for MP.

The neat thing about the small Leica, and it is quite compact, is that it doesn't shout "photographer is here."

Is it worth it? I think so, and comparatively speaking not all that expensive because of the film freefall. If ever, this is the time to snag an example.

 

[trittium]

I would suggest an m2 or m4. The M3 does not have vf lines for your 35mm lux. I personally love my M2. It is simple and sturdy.

Steve's site has an excellant write up on the different m choices
http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

 

[thomasw_]

I say go with a good user M2 and that way you won't have to spend the money to get a decent 5cm lens. If you are keen to buy 2 film bodies, then I suggest obtaining both the M2 and M3. You'd have a back up that way, and if you are keen to shoot the 5cm Fl, then the M3 is the body par excellence.

Have fun picking your L body

 

[drewbarb]

My main shooters are a pair of M3's. I have owned several other Leicas, metered and un-metered, and eventually sold all but the M3's. Leica got it right in 1954, and everything since is suprisingly little change. One caveat- my main lens is the 50mm, which is perfect with the M3. When I go wider, I tend to go much wider and use accesory finders. Longer lenses are great, too; the M3 is really about the fantastic finder for me (though the excellent build is nice, too). If I really liked a 35mm length lens, I might get an M2. Keep in mind how the crop factor with the RD-1 has changed your perspective. Each of your lenses will show much more on film, so if you are may have to re-learn the coverage; your favorite length might change.

The M7 is a great camera, but I would get a mechanical M since you seem to be interested in this excercise for the classic mechanical Leica experience. If you are perfectly happy to work without an in-camera meter, get a classic like the M3, M2, or M4. Otherwise, get an M6, or an MP if you find a good deal on one. If after a year, you are still really in love, spring for your dream a la carte M. By then, you won't need to know our opinions. Enjoy yourself, and have fun!

 

[MartinP]

As a manual-controlled contrast to, and improvement on, digital products (except for those unaffordable to ordinary users like ourselves) I would suggest also at least considering medium-format. There are plusses and minuses involved of course, depending on the aim of your photography.

The leap in quality is extreme, and there are both rangefinder-based as well as slr cameras in the same sort of price-range as a good M.

 

[sirius]

I'll chime in to suggest buying an M2 and a handheld meter. It's a great camera, very similar to the M3 and has the added bonus of the 35mm frame lines (and I've heard that the finder is brighter than the M3 as well). It would be a nice balance to having your RD-1 with it's digital convenience and internal meter. The M2 is a lovely mechanical picture making machine. It sounds like you already have a great kit. I find film fairly pricey to develop now that I also regularly use digital, but I have been enjoying it. I picked a pricey hobby!

 

[Vics]

I agree that if you want to use your 35 a lot, you should get a body that offers that finder built in. I only know about the M3, which doesn't offer that.
Now as for film being "more elemental" than digital, you may be in for some surprises. Or did you mean it in the chemical sense? Get yourself an M body and a bucket full of Trix, some Rodinal and go get 'em! You're in for an amazing ride!
VS

 

[thomasw_]

I'll chime in to suggest buying an M2 .........and I've heard that the finder is brighter than the M3 as well.......

Although my M2 is a smashing camera with a very fine VF, its VF is NOT quite the equal in brightness of my M3's VF. I imagine others who use both bodies would say the same.

 

[RML]

IMO the differences are slight, so it's worth checking th CameraQuest paged mentioned earlier. IIRC M2s are a bit cheaper on eBay than the much in demand M3s. When it comes to build they're equal.

I shoot an R-D1 mainly, and have been shooting my (long neglected) M2 since a couple of months again. I can't shoot both of them at the same time. They're too different. But when I have film and shoot the M2, I don't even think about the R-D1.

 

[40oz]

going to film from digital isn't a "leap back," it's a step forward.

Framelines and metering would be the only criteria I'd think you need to consider in choosing an M body. As has been said, an M2 would be a good choice if you like a wide lens, but an M3 would be perfect if that's not your intention. A handheld meter is nice to have, but a meter is certainly not necessary. Some good options are the Leica MR meters or a Voigtlander shoe-mounted meter.

 

[JNewell]

My first "real" camera was an M3. I bought it just after the M5 was introduced. If you really want to thrust yourself backward, get an M2. However, I'd strongly urge considering an M6. The meter is there if you want it - and isn't if you don't (remove the battery). Having the meter doesn't mean you have to meter every shot six times before you take the shot, but sometimes it is a huge plus.

If you really want to get rid of all mod cons, get a Leica standard or a I and forgo "modern" conveniences such as the coupled rangefinder... 😉

Welcome, jump in - the water's just fine these days!

 

[colinh]

OK, So you've had recommendations for the M3, M2, M4, M6 classic and even MF.

You were wondering about the M7 and MP.

So, all are agreed (so far) : leave out the M5 🙂


As pointed out, the M3's widest framelines are for the 50 (which take up almost the whole VF, and are there permanently). This is good if you shoot 50, 90 or 135. Not so good if you might like to try 40, 35, 28, 25, 24, 21, ..... etc. Or even 75.

The "best" ie. brightest, clearest, contrastiest VF I have (of M2, M3 and M7) is, of course, the M7. The AE is nice to have - but you don't *have* to use it.

As usual, it comes down to how much you want to pay, and what you want to do with it (ie. which lenses).

The comment about MF is interesting. The nice thing about the Leica M, is that it's unobtrusive (at least, that's what everyone says - and the important bit is *believing* it). My Hasselblad, while well-built, and making niiice negatives, is not exactly quiet, or unobtrusive.

I did once see someone doing street photography with his Hasselblad - a bit obvious to me - but no one else seemed to notice him. Maybe that's worth trying out!

colin

PS. So, now you know what to get, don't you? 🙂

 

[sebastel]

since i own a "classical" M6 and owned (and used) an M4-2 for some years, i never considered one of the CV bessa ...

... until recently, when i could put my hands on a friend's bessa R3A.
it's a very nice tool, and compared to leica, quite cheap (new).

also i'd seriously consider the zeiss ikon (though i never had one in hands yet). from what i can read, a black ZI might be my choice probably.

just to mention: currently i use the R-D1 exclusively. M6 waits in a shelf.
cheers
sebastian

 

[photorat]

So, now you know what to get, don't you? 🙂

Actually, all your comments have been extremely helpful. Thanks so much! I now at least know *how* to decide even if I'm not yet sure which way to go. Question of prioritising now I guess.

I am intrigued by the suggestion of medium format as I'm keen to experiment with some studio portrait photography. But for the moment, the advantage of exchanging lenses with the R-D1 wins out. So a Leica M it is. But which one? I love the 28-35mm fl on the R-D1 so I don't think I'd be troubled by using 50mm exclusively on an M3. (In fact, you could almost argue with just keeping this one lens for use as a portrait lens on the R-D1 and as a standard lens on the M3.) But some more framelines would be nice for versatility. I think I could get used to a handheld meter although the idea of incident metering is a bit scary at first. The jury's still out I fear. I'll definitely post what I end up getting and hopefully some pics as well.

Thanks again for all your insightful comments.

 

[photorat]

M2 on the way, but what kind of film?

M2 on the way, but what kind of film?

Well, I have what looks like a nice CLA'ed single stroke M2 on the way with a CV light meter. I could not bear to have it arrive and have to wait to use it, hence the question:

WHAT FILM to use on my Leica M2?

Situations: B/W outdoor street/landscape stuff, maybe the odd indoor portrait/architectural shot (cause I can get even wider with my 15mm heliar on the full frame than on my R-D1).

I'm thinking something in the range of 400 ASA but as I have hardly any experience with film, your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking to create the Leica b/w negative wow effect right from the very first shot.

Thanks for your suggestions!

 

[maddoc]

If you want the "classic Leica look" and you can develop film yourself (which is easy) then go for Tri-X / D76 / 1:1 / 10 - 12 min. If you don't want to develop yourself and don't know about any good lab, where they can still develop B/W in good quality, I would choose Ilford's XP2.

BTW, congrats to your new M2 ! I went the same way as you, DSLR -> RD-1s -> M6 (some more Ms) -> M3/M4/M4-P (all manual meterless cameras) + a nice Hassy 500 C/M and a Rolleiflex 3.5E. Film rules !

 

[mfunnell]

If you want B&W and you're not developing yourself then the logistics of colour-process (ie. take to a minilab, just like colour neg film) might be easier. That gives you Ilford XP2 and Kodak BW400CN, both of which are ISO400 box speed. If you're developing your own or have a convenient lab for real B&W, the options expand endlessly. I like Ilford Delta 400 but there are lots of others.

...Mike

 

[photorat]

I went the same way as you, DSLR -> RD-1s -> M6 (some more Ms) -> M3/M4/M4-P (all manual meterless cameras) + a nice Hassy 500 C/M and a Rolleiflex 3.5E. Film rules !

Awesome. Thanks for the tips and reassurance that I'm moving in the right direction! Looks like medium format is the next step in the evolution process. 🙂