Fraser
Well-known
or you could just buy a secondhand SLR with a 50mm lens from any of the big brands for £50.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
When the original Leica was created most cameras were still plate cameras or cut film cameras. The reason it became as popular as it did, small negatives and all, is that photography has been about the pictures and the experience, pretty much from the beginning.
:: Mark
Well-known
I do not think that anyone looking at a Leica today is wondering if they should switch it for a wet plate alternative. They will be comparing them with other 35mm cameras (or possibly 120).
The main photographic characteristic of the Leica is the viewfinder/focusing system. You can get that vastly cheaper with older fixed lens RF cameras, as well as Zeiss/Voigtlander bodies. And you can approximate it to some extent with Fuji xpros or similar.
When people talk about the “Leica experience” today, I strongly suspect that they mostly mean “shooting with an expensive chunk of extremely expensive finely made brass”, since that is really the only meaningful difference between a Leica and other rangefinder (or rangefinder like) cameras. And that has very little to do with the photographs that you can take...
The main photographic characteristic of the Leica is the viewfinder/focusing system. You can get that vastly cheaper with older fixed lens RF cameras, as well as Zeiss/Voigtlander bodies. And you can approximate it to some extent with Fuji xpros or similar.
When people talk about the “Leica experience” today, I strongly suspect that they mostly mean “shooting with an expensive chunk of extremely expensive finely made brass”, since that is really the only meaningful difference between a Leica and other rangefinder (or rangefinder like) cameras. And that has very little to do with the photographs that you can take...
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
So then, happy Leica owners pretty much a lot of stupid gits, if I read you correctly.
muser53
MUSER53
For God's and my own sake stop beating this dead horse and go out and take some photographs.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
You are either forgetting about or ignoring the prime reason for shooting with a Leica M camera: The lenses.
I will never forget the day several years ago when I was sorting through some of my Fuji Velvia 50 transparencies, most of which had been made using my Nikon cameras and lenses. Somehow, one of my transparencies made with my Leica MP (film camera) and 50mm Summilux lens (last pre-ASPH version) ended up mixed in with my Nikon made transparencies.
The difference in image quality was absolutely mind boggling. The Nikon transparencies looked sick next to that one Summilux transparency.
:: Mark
Well-known
Sorry if I was unclear - I was talking about the cameras rather than the lenses.
I personally shoot most of my photography with an M7, with a much less used M10 (formerly an M262) as the digital counterpart. The only reason - and it is a big reason - that I have stuck with Leica is because of the lenses.
I wrote two fairly extensive reviews of the M262 and M7 on my blog if you want to understand the reasoning.
And almost all the photography that I have online is taken with a Leica. That does not mean that I have to blindly endorse the company, which I would much preferred if it built and supported modern M series cameras as serious and professional photographic tools.
I personally shoot most of my photography with an M7, with a much less used M10 (formerly an M262) as the digital counterpart. The only reason - and it is a big reason - that I have stuck with Leica is because of the lenses.
I wrote two fairly extensive reviews of the M262 and M7 on my blog if you want to understand the reasoning.
And almost all the photography that I have online is taken with a Leica. That does not mean that I have to blindly endorse the company, which I would much preferred if it built and supported modern M series cameras as serious and professional photographic tools.
Huss
Veteran
The RF experience is the same with other cameras, in as much they are cameras as well. Having used Canon and Nikon RF cameras, I can tell you the viewfinders and RF patches do not come close to that on Leicas. Not remotely close. My Bessa R3a was close, but the rest of the experience was lacking from the clanky shutter to the coarsely made (in comparison) pieces. But I think I may be one of the few people that actually liked the manual frame line selection, as it allowed me to have just one LTM-M mount and I could use that on all my LTM lenses. But I digress...
Apparently the Zeiss Ikon ZM (which I have never used) is a worthy competitor but it's price now is more than an M6 and, from what I've seen, the same as an M7 (used). So the closest competitor costs the same money, but is made out of stamped metal pieces.
There is no fixed lens RF camera that is anything similar to a Leica M either. You know that too, but again, I guess because it is also a camera so it must be the same thing.
Interestingly, I have a Fuji GW690III which while has a fantastic lens, it's rf patch is such a tiny dot the Leica puts it to shame. One camera that I have that, IMO, matches up really well is the Hasselblad XPAN/Fuji TX. It has an excellent VF, an excellent RF patch, and a really nice feel to use. And it is huge money. More than used Leica money. I think there is a pattern here.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Lss
Well-known
I might actually consider one if it had 4k video.
d_c
Established
I'm not alienated by Leica's new prices. I simply can't afford them, and so they mainly serve as a minor source of amusement, particularly with regard to the price of some of the limited edition items.
However I figure that the quality of any Leica lens or camera that's one or two versions before the current products will far exceed my ability to take a decent picture, and so I buy the newest secondhand kit that I can afford.
However I figure that the quality of any Leica lens or camera that's one or two versions before the current products will far exceed my ability to take a decent picture, and so I buy the newest secondhand kit that I can afford.
Ronald M
Veteran
No better RF out there. Cost benefit ratio suggests less expensive DSLR.
steveyork
Well-known
In some respects the viewfinders in the rangefinders from the other companies were better.
The pre-war Zeiss has a massive rangefinder base with a larger finder patch.
Most Nikons are 1.0x viewfinders, an increase of 10% over an M3 and 40% over a 0.72 Leica, in a lighter, more compact body.
Some of the Canons had three magnification settings for the viewfinder -- wide-angle, normal, telephoto.
And back when they all made rangefinders, Leitz optics were not the best.
Each camera system has their own strengths and weaknesses. To say Leica Ms are clearly tops, shows lack of experience with other cameras.
I've shot Leica products exclusively for two decades, and their products are very nice, but all those companies produced nice products.
Huss
Veteran
I've had plenty of experience with other RFs. Those from Nikon and Canon have miserable rf blobs instead of defined patches. Most don't have parallax correction. Ones from Cosina in the Bessa series just felt substandard to use (I owned those too).
etc etc.
There's a reason Leica is the last RF mfg standing.
bcostin
Well-known
Leica equipment has always been expensive. So are Hasselblad, Zeiss, Canon L-series, and plenty of other high-end alternatives.
I have a vintage M3 kit that was my father's, a second-hand M8.2, some old Soviet glass, and two modern Voigtlander lenses.
I'm just a hobbyist. I'm just grateful to Leica for creating this amazing system and equipment for me to enjoy, and for the professionals and wealthier hobbyists who keep them in business.
I have a vintage M3 kit that was my father's, a second-hand M8.2, some old Soviet glass, and two modern Voigtlander lenses.
I'm just a hobbyist. I'm just grateful to Leica for creating this amazing system and equipment for me to enjoy, and for the professionals and wealthier hobbyists who keep them in business.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Steve,
Some were. Some weren't. To dismiss them all as "not the best" suggests, to use your own phrase, some lack of experience.
Cheers,
R.
Steve M.
Veteran
"For God's and my own sake stop beating this dead horse and go out and take some photographs."
Now what's the fun in that? All kidding aside, that's what photographers do, yes? It reminds me of what Tennessee Williams' wrote about the lowest of the low that circulated at cocktail parties....."writers that don't write, and painters that don't paint". We've all experienced that. The gear head and measure beater that goes on and on and on abut their uber expensive piece of Leica jewelry, while the actual photographer is no where to be found because they're out, shudder, taking photos. How common!
A photographer, and by that I mean a real photographer, doesn't need a hyper expensive piece o digital crap camera. They are quite content to use whatever they have to make the images that they like to make. If I am painting a picture, a $130 sable brush will not enable me to make a better painting, and buying an expensive digital or film Leica camera will not enable me to take better photos than my old $50 Nikkormat w/ 50 2 H lens made.
Now what's the fun in that? All kidding aside, that's what photographers do, yes? It reminds me of what Tennessee Williams' wrote about the lowest of the low that circulated at cocktail parties....."writers that don't write, and painters that don't paint". We've all experienced that. The gear head and measure beater that goes on and on and on abut their uber expensive piece of Leica jewelry, while the actual photographer is no where to be found because they're out, shudder, taking photos. How common!
A photographer, and by that I mean a real photographer, doesn't need a hyper expensive piece o digital crap camera. They are quite content to use whatever they have to make the images that they like to make. If I am painting a picture, a $130 sable brush will not enable me to make a better painting, and buying an expensive digital or film Leica camera will not enable me to take better photos than my old $50 Nikkormat w/ 50 2 H lens made.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
If you buy the Leica watch..for over 10K..you will tell better time..and be a better photog...lol..
muser53
MUSER53
We're still at this?
D