Getting prepared to make the leap to Leica...

[Ara Ghajanian]

Hi all,
First of all I want to say that I love this forum. I've been reading it in the background for a few months now and I really am enjoying everything especially the whole philosophy of rangefinder cameras in general.

I want to buy a rangefinder. I'm primarily a Nikon F3 user. I have 2 bodies and 3 lenses. I love my system. I also have a Hasselblad 500C/M which I've barely used in the last few years. I seem to really love 35mm even though it doesn't have the detail associated with MF. I bought a Nikon Coolscan V this past year and it's really opened up a new world for me in editing and convenience. I bulk load and process my B&W film also.

I have a few reasons for wanting a rangefinder:
1. I'm fascinated with street and documentary photography. I've never really done much with this style, but I have a feeling I'll love the challenge. I need a camera that is portable, quiet, simple, reliable... I know you're already thinking Leica. I'd love to have TTL metering, but I'd love to really learn the Sunny16 also.
2. I'm moving from Rhode Island to San Francisco so my street photography opportunities just increased 1000 fold. I want a camera I can take anywhere that will give me superb negatives.

I've thought about a Bessa, etc., but I'm a quality kind of person. I've held an M7 once and it felt like a brick (I like that in a camera). I'm thinking of selling the Blad to finance a Leica. I'm not going to buy new. I was looking at either an M3 or M4. I don't care if it's not mint, just a great user. I'm leaning towards an M4 at this point with either a 35mm or 50mm lens. I'm not sure which lens to buy. There seems to be so many variations of each size. I'm used to shooting with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4. My question is which lens should I go for? Also, can you recommend any Leica resources online to help with my decisions? Can any of you give me your insight on which camera you like better, M3 or M4?

Sorry about the long first post, but I wanted to spell it all out for you guys.
Thanks in advance,
Ara

 

[jaapv]

The classic Leica combo is 35-90. Maybe a good idea to start with a 35? Or avoid all choices and go with a tri-elmar: 28-35-50 in one!

 

[Doug]

Welcome to RFF, Ara! You might try using your F3 on the street first. Slim it down, put on a reasonably fast prime 35mm or 50mm lens, and go shooting. A faster zoom would be ok too, but try to avoid zooming while composing... pre-set it and other controls in anticipation of seeing what you're looking for, for the quickest response. You can work up techniques that work on the street, pick your film(s) and processing, all before making a financial leap into RF cameras. And there's a likelihood of this experience turning out to be valuable as you later proceed down the RF path! In any case, enjoy the journey. 🙂

 

[RayPA]

Welcome Ara,

When you get to SF, you'll have to lookup the Bay Area RFF group. We've had one meeting so far.

In addition to ManGo's suggestion about visiting CameraQuest, I've found Karen Nakamura's Photoenthnography . com site to be very helpful, as well. KBCameras has some nice Leica stuff too.

I have an M4P and I like it a lot. It doesn't have a meter, but I have a few nice handhelds, so it's not an issue. Generally speaking, you'd want a wide lens for street photography, so maybe a 35 or a 28. I'm fond of the 28, 40, 90 combination that my CLE gets me, but I've always liked the 50 length, too.

🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Just a word on behalf of the M3 (and this from an avowed W/A user): look through the viewfinder of the camera with a 'cron 50 on it, and you won't believe your eyes. With my M3, I really rediscovered the fifties. Give it a chance.

BTW, there are some old M models for sale at reasonable prices in Photo.net.

Welcome to our little corner in the web! 🙂

 

[hth]

If you lean towards a 50 and basically this is the lens you will have (perhaps adding a wide angle or a 90 for occasional use), take a look at the M3. If you wear glasses, be sure to look through the finder of the M3 as you may find that you cannot see the 50 frame lines (I could not, so I went for an M2 instead).

Part of the idea of a rangefinder (IMHO) is that you can also see a bit outside the framelines, which may be a resaon to avoid the M3.

If you know that you are one of those that suffer from GAS, you will eventually get a 35 lens, and in that case I would suggest either an M2 or M4. I am an 28-50 guy, but I eventually got a 35 lens too, so I am glad I got the M2.

I have both an M2 and an M4. I find that I use the M2 a lot and hardly ever the M4. I think the reasons are that I like the advance lever of the M2 better, my M2 in cosmetically worse condition and I am not bothered by the slightly slower film load system (which on the other hand is very reliable when you get the hang of it).

/Håkan

 

[aizan]

do yourself a favor and buy something with a built-in meter. you need a meter to determine exposure if you're going to remember it, especially in situations those exposure lists don't cover. might as well make life easier.

what lenses do you have for the nikon? do you intend to get the same focal lengths, or is it just the 35 of 50?

 

[Fred]

Welcome Ara,

I have 15, 28, 35, 50 and 90 of differing makes and mounts that via adapters (for the LTM) I can use on my M.

But!

I tend to use the 35, 50, 90 combo the most. The 15 and 28 are great for the more creative moments but the others are much better for me when about town, I can see all the framelines even with glasses on a .72 VF. The most used is the probably the 35, next is the 90 but for a single lens setup I'd definitely go for the 50.

Anyway If I was in your position and was not bothered about a meter and given my usual lens combo the choice would be either an M4 cos its newer or the M2 cos it allegedly has a better viewfinder.

Thats it, have fun choosing.

 

[peter_n]

Welcome Ara! Two years ago I came to Leica from Nikon F3 system use and have not used the SLR since! I bought an M6TTL + 50mm Summicron, because 50 was my most used focal length too. I would advise you to do the same as you'll settle down with the Leica quicker if you know what you can do with the lens. Try a 50mm with the M3 but remember that it doesn't have framelines for 35mm. My own inclination is to get the most modern camera I can, so that would mean the M4. Almost any Leica 50mm will give you excellent results, my current favorite is the current f2.8 Elmar-M, a collapsible lens. About $500 used.

Nikon & Leica lenses are opposite in the sense of the relative positions of the focusing and aperture rings on the barrel, and the direction of turn of both those rings. It takes a while to get used to. You also have to get used to the Leica viewfinder which has no DOF preview but does have framelines that represent the various focal lengths. The nice thing is that in most cases you can see outside the framelines in the VF and so that gives you information about what's happening outside the frame so you can anticipate more of what may shortly happen inside the frame while still looking through the VF.

Rangfinders are a different way of thinking from SLRs - no tunnnel vision, no blackout from the mirror, amazing focusing in low light - its a whole new world! 🙂

 

[principe azul]

Nikon & Leica lenses are opposite in the sense of the relative positions of the focusing and aperture rings on the barrel, and the direction of turn of both those rings. It takes a while to get used to.

Not necessarily. If you use a split-screen rangefinder in your F3, I think you'll find focusing intuitive. My eye's naturally drawn to the top image of the two in the split image, and I turn the lens in the direction indicated to align the images, just like a Leica. The apertures go a different way, of course, but you'll have this problem with Former Soviet Union lenses like the Jupiters. And having an M means you have to remember the aperture you set or set it by feel when your eye's in the finder. So it's often easier to set (by sight) and leave it there.

The F3 seems the perfect complement to an M. Similar footprint, weight within 100g or so of each other, and shutter speed dials, shutter release and concentric advance lever in exactly the same place. Unlike the M6TTL and M7, the F3's shutter speed dial goes the proper Nikon'n'Leica way.

So you could argue that it's easier to use and M4 and an F3 together than it is to use an M4 and an M6TTL. The only difficulty I have is mounting lenses... :bang:

I say this as someone who shot Nikon SLRs then moved to RF to have one system that was the optimum for me.

Then I saw a bargain malfunctioning F2AS and had to have it, black and brassy. I've sold that for spares and am looking forward to getting an F3 in the post to replace it. A nice compromise between the F2 and the F4 I had before. And I missed playing with the removeable prism and all the other toys Nikon give us...

As to "amazing focusing in low light," that's the main technical reason I went RF, particularly as I err on the wide side, where RF focusing shines. But SLRs vary in thie regard as much as an M or Bessa varies from an old rangefinder with a mucky finder and a rangefinder patch that doesn't have the split image, only the double image, and in a patch with ill-defined edges.

In the dead of night, with only a distant streetlight peeping through the blinds of my bedroom, I found that my F2 with H2 screen (hundreds of tiny microprisms all over the screen) and 50/1.4 focused on the slatted light on the wall opposite the window with greater accuracy than the M4. The image was also brighter than the M4.

On the other hand, in most situations where you're dealing with things rather than patterns, the M has a better purchase on focusing.

So I'd say the Ms and Bessas are generally better in low light, but a decent SLR with an appropriate screen can be nearly as good in many situations and better in some - all depends on your eyesight and how you get on, and the shimmering H2 screen isn't for everyone. But with the traditional ground-glass focusing screen in an SLR, the RF wins hands down pretty much every time, and the old Nikons like the F3 are among the best for enabling manual focusing.

I'd add that when I shot Nikon I didn't bother with DOF preview - and an H2 screen gives no indication of DOF, just what's out of focus. I also prefocused a lot and did spot metering to get an indication of the ambient light and left it at that until the light changed. The transition to an M4 and incident light meter couldn't have been easier for me.

Because the M4 has 35mm frames, it beat the M3. Because it has a quicker loading and rewind, it beat the M2. M4s are rarer and don't come cheap, but I waited till I found an excellent one that was half the price of an exc+++ one. Believe me, they looked exactly the same in the shop a couple of feet away from the shelf.

I couldn't have got a M6 for that price. The 0.72 M6 has the same finder mag as the M4, which means that the M6's 35mm framelines are slightly smaller than they should be so Leica could cram the 28mm frames in there. Don't know what difference this makes in practice - I haven't shot with an M4-2, M4-P, M6 or newer.

And the M4 has the proper Wetzlar engraving, of course.... 😉

 

[principe azul]

And Ara, you were worried about your long post!

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Shooting street? Most use a 35mm or wider, of course you should be comfortable with getting close to people, if not get a 50mm. I agree with Doug, take the F3 out on the street, it won't cost any more and you might find some things out about street shooting you didn't anticipate.

Don't sell the 'blad unless you have too, I went from Medium format to 4x5, to Rf's and back to Med. Format.

I would look for an M2, M4 or M4-P if you decide on a Leica, also look at the Hexar RF. Good luck!

Todd

 

[Ben Z]

I'm as much a Leica fan as the next guy, but I wouldn't have advised someone to sell a Hasselblad outfit for a Leica back when their prices were on a par. Now given the paltry return you can get selling a Blad, compared with its image quality above anything 35mm, I sure wouldn't advise it now. I got a 503CW+50/80/150 CFs and a couple of late A12 backs for less than a decent used M6TTL and 35 Summicron-ASPH could be bought for. If getting the Leica means selling the Blad, me personally I wouldn't do it.

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

Hey guys,
Thanks for all the informative responses so far. I tend to agree with the general concensus that I should keep the Blad and try the F3 on the street for the time being. I also agree that the M3 is not for me since I'm leaning towards getting a 35mm lens first. I'm probably just going to save up and get an M2 or M4. When I get out to SF next month I'll see how it goes with the F3. I know that camera so well that I may be able to get away with it on the street. I'm just not sure you guys will respect me if I use an SLR. 🙂
Thanks again,
Ara

 

[former member]

It's just enough for us to know that you want an RF...

Most of us use SLR's. Even autofocus SLR's. My F3 is autofocus, but I took the DX-1 off of it.

M2's are running a good bit less than the M4. $800 or so should pick up a decent user M2 that has been CLA'd. If the Leica has not been CLA'd in the past 15yrs or so, budget for one.That is in the $220 range these days. Leica price hikes have trickled down to the repair shops.