Get a rangefinder kit, its lighter

[Ben Z]

I do think it's time for leica users to come out of the closet and be truthfull as to how and why they actually use Leica's, and not beat around the bush with all these "arguments"

Shooting landscape/architecure with a Leica ? ... hey, daaaah

I've tried a number of different setups for travel photography, there's a compromise to be made with anything, but I find the Leica M suits my likes and dislikes better than anything else I've tried. I almost never run into anyone who knows what a Leica is or how much it costs, and in recent times if anything I get sneered at for "still" shooting film when "everyone has gone digital", so it's not like I'm impressing anybody with my Leica. My M6s cost me just under $900 apiece, and I don't have any of the exotic or ASPH lenses and all of my stuff was well-used when I got it. It didn't really cost me that much more than a high-end SLR outfit would have. Sure I shoot landscape and architecture with a Leica, and macro and birds too (with Visoflex). Whatever I encounter in my travels, I've yet to come across a subject where I was cursing into my beard that I didn't have some other kind of camera.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I think you are right that the weight argument is not always applicable. However, if you pair your Leica with the 40/rokkor 40/cron or 35 pre-asph, it is about as low profile as you can get. I think it is more the size (and speed ) of the RF advantage, rather than the weight. My FM3a and 45 pancake is about the same size as a Leica with 40/35. But I lose 1 stop from the lens, and 2 more from the reflex mirror.

The 75 cron, after all, is not exactly a 'petite' lens 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I didn't know rangefinders came with lighters. (?)

Nice shot, Roland.

 

[egpj]

I didn't know rangefinders came with lighters. (?)

Nice shot, Roland.

You know I thought about that before posting and made sure I was spelling things right with the dictionary.😉 Indeed Roland, that is beautiful image. I thought about making this a poll but thought better of it. Getting tired of all the voting going on.🙄

I use Leicas because they had the best optics and build quality of any 35mm camera. If I wanted the best medium format then the Alpa would most likely be my choice camera. Personally I can not seem to get myself to use the R9. Something about it that just does not fit me well. It is amazingly simple to use though and if you want to go full auto the camera does well. I do not like putting black and white film through it though. It just seems to lack the punch of the M line.

Using a Leica rangefinder camera I get ignored and that is exactly what I want. Occasionally someone comes along "in the know" and they make the comment "nice camera". But it is very rare and luckily there are not that many thieves with the knowledge. I am hoping that the M8 will be ignored as well.

 

[Trius]

The OM lenses are indeed larger than the RF lenses you list, but smaller than most other SLR equivalents. The OM system, however, feels smaller than it really is, IMO. Then there is the weight; inspite of pretty rugged construciton, overall it seems to be light. The Zuiko 40mm pancake was designed to be a tiny lens to make the sorta ultimate SLR RF-ish street shooting kit. That lens goes for large dollars/euros inspite of being non-spectacular by Zuiko standards.

My wife's late first husband had a Pentax ME which we sold on eBay. It seemed very OM-ish to me. If I'd had some good K mount glass, I would have kept it.

 

[waileong]

It's lighter...

It's lighter...

If you compared it to a 1Ds Mark II. Which you should, because that's full frame.

And compare a Canon 50/1.4 against the Leica 50/1.4 Asph, the 90/2.0 against the 85/1.8, etc.

I have seen it mentioned a few times here on the forum about how light the rangefinder kit is. Really, I'm not buying into that. I have an R9 with 35-70 lens and when I compare that to my MP with say the 75 Summicron attached it feels like the MP is made out of dark matter or some such element. If I were to load my L2 Alice down with 2 bodies and 3 lenses then I had better not fall into water that would be over my head cause I'm going straight to the bottom. You guys picking up what I'm laying down here?

The only thing that gets lighter after you buy a Leica is your wallet. My rant is not against the Leica brand or the high quality that it represents but against those who say, "get a rangefinder kit because it's lighter and easier to carry around."

 

[simplebot]

I just did a comparison of my canonet, bessa, *ist DL, and me super. I took some side by side photos and weighed them.
the photos:

larger versions can be found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=281862821&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=281863176&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=281863697&size=o

The me super has a 50mm lens on it in the photos, but when I weighed it I had the 40mm pancake on it, which is on the *istDL in the photos.
the weights are:
canonet: 649 grams
bessa w/ 50mm heliar: 729 grams
*ist DL w/ 40mm pancake: 712 grams
me super w/ 40mm pancake: 575 grams

The wieghts were measures are all loaded up and ready to shoot, with batteries film and memory cards, where appropriate.

Noise wise, the loudest to quietest are *istDl, me super, bessa, canonet. The me super and the bessa are close. The bessa is higher pitched. The me super needs the mirror foam replaced, so it might be a bit quieter when that has been done.

For the most compact DSLR package you can't beat the 40mm pancake lens on the *ist DL. It's an old manual lens, so I run in manual mode, using the digital camera as if it was an old manual camera. Then I fell down a slippery slope and now have the me super, canonet and finally the bessa! Now I'm about to embark on learning to develop B&W film.


Hopefully this comparison will be of interest to some of you.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I used to carry two SLR bodies with normal lenses, plus 35 or 24 and 135 mm lenses, a 2x converter, and sometimes one 200mm.
Even reduced to the minimum (one WA and a Tele) the weight of this is 40% higher than the same lens combination for a couple of RFs plus a handheld meter (and of course the bodies).
Lenses are lighter, and I accepted to sacrifice a little: the tele is f4, and weights only 30% of my 135 f2.8. The WA weights about 50% of the SLR type.
Price for the sacrifice was only to use ISO 400 as minimum allways.
Worth? Definitely yes.

Ernesto

 

[BillBingham2]

To save on weight my second body is a Bessa T. I carry two external finders a 35 and 105 brightline and it works fine. Most of the time a 25/4 is stuck on the body.

I do agree, weight can be an issue, but for me, it's size is the driving force. I use two small diaper bags one carries my Leica, the other my Nikon SLR kit. I do not mind lugging a bit more weight (the reason I am lugging a F2AS vs an OM-1).

B2 (;->

 

[sircarl]

No one has mentioned so far the weight issue for the Leica M8. I was at an Apple Mac expo in London a few days back and walked over to the Nikon booth, where they were showing the 10mp D80, which I found surprisingly light. In fact, it's only 78 grams, or 10%, heavier than the M8. And from the brief survey I just did of some comparable Nikon/Leica prime lens pairs with the same maximum apertures (35/f1.4, 50/f1.4, and 85/f1.8 Nikon with Leica 90/f2), in every case the Leica lenses were heavier! Of course, weight isn't everything, and the Leica M8 body and lenses are noticeably smaller. But I think a lot of potential M8 buyers who think they are going to be lugging around something much lighter than a comparably equipped "monster" DSLR are going to be mighty disappointed.

 

[Owen W.]

Light? You gotta be kidding!

Light? You gotta be kidding!

25 years ago, I carried a Tenba P-211 courier-type bag, in which I carried two CLEs, the 28 Elmarit, 35 Summicron, 50/2, and 90/2.8 TE (all late 70s or early 80s lenses). Today, I still carry the same model Tenba with an M6ttl and M7 and the 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 (current), and 90/2 AA. Man! Is my bag a WHOLE lot heavier!

 

[Ben Z]

No one has mentioned so far the weight issue for the Leica M8. I was at an Apple Mac expo in London a few days back and walked over to the Nikon booth, where they were showing the 10mp D80, which I found surprisingly light. In fact, it's only 78 grams, or 10%, heavier than the M8. And from the brief survey I just did of some comparable Nikon/Leica prime lens pairs with the same maximum apertures (35/f1.4, 50/f1.4, and 85/f1.8 Nikon with Leica 90/f2), in every case the Leica lenses were heavier! Of course, weight isn't everything,

If Leica made the M8 and their lenses with as much plastic as Nikon they would be a lot lighter. I agree, weight isn't everything.

Today, I still carry the same model Tenba with an M6ttl and M7 and the 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 (current), and 90/2 AA. Man! Is my bag a WHOLE lot heavier!

I normally only carry my 21 Elmarit, 50 Summilux and 90 Cron when I need low light shooting, and then it's usually with only one body. My travel outfit I carry 2 bodies but I use a 21 Voitlander, the 35/2 pre-ASPH and tabbed 50/2, and a small 90 T-E. The weight difference is noticeable.

But what I also find is that given an SLR outfit of equal weight to my Leicas, the SLR and the lenses are much more voluminous requiring a bigger bag and that puts the weight farther afield from my body's center of gravity, which makes it feel heavier even if it really isn't.