St3v3
Newbie
Well hallo, I'm new here!
I have a delema. I've been shooting digitlal for five six yeaars now (past time). Bought a canon EOS 350 a bit over a year ago, sigma lens...not that happy though, hardly take it out anymore.
I have an old Leica II from my deceased Gramps which I love to use but always find I don't get the results I would like lack of sharpness etc.(or is it my inability ?! ).
Now, yesterday I was in my local shop and had a look at the Leica MP, and I just cant stop thinking about it. I want one with a 28mm Lens. But I'm on a tight budget I'm only about graduate from Uni next week! But I've just got enough money. Now how can I justify it, I mean will the pictures be sharper than that of of Canon 5D etc. ... Which I was also thinking about, but once I saw it for real it was way to big.
I would also like to develop then in my basement (B&W), once I get the extra cash for that, and how much would I need to spend on kit to Justify the Leica lens or get the best out of it ? Please can someone take this bitting guilty feeling of spending this money!:bang:
Thank you for your time.
I have a delema. I've been shooting digitlal for five six yeaars now (past time). Bought a canon EOS 350 a bit over a year ago, sigma lens...not that happy though, hardly take it out anymore.
I have an old Leica II from my deceased Gramps which I love to use but always find I don't get the results I would like lack of sharpness etc.(or is it my inability ?! ).
Now, yesterday I was in my local shop and had a look at the Leica MP, and I just cant stop thinking about it. I want one with a 28mm Lens. But I'm on a tight budget I'm only about graduate from Uni next week! But I've just got enough money. Now how can I justify it, I mean will the pictures be sharper than that of of Canon 5D etc. ... Which I was also thinking about, but once I saw it for real it was way to big.
I would also like to develop then in my basement (B&W), once I get the extra cash for that, and how much would I need to spend on kit to Justify the Leica lens or get the best out of it ? Please can someone take this bitting guilty feeling of spending this money!:bang:
Thank you for your time.
R
RML
Guest
First thing I'd do is find out why the II gives poorly focused results? What lens are you using with it? And are you using it properly? I for one used my collapsible 50 without tightening it, resulting in poorly focused shots. 
It could also be that the rangefinder needs a bit of care.
Don't expect miracles from any camera. It's the way you use it that'll decide how the results will be. No MP can change that.
Any M mount body will do with a Leica M lens, be that a Bessa, or a Leica, or a Canon, or the digital Epson R-D1.
It could also be that the rangefinder needs a bit of care.Don't expect miracles from any camera. It's the way you use it that'll decide how the results will be. No MP can change that.
Any M mount body will do with a Leica M lens, be that a Bessa, or a Leica, or a Canon, or the digital Epson R-D1.
keithwms
Established
The purchase woudl be worth it, for sure. If you shoot b&w you will immediately notice that the captures have richer tonality and more personality. For one thing, you will right away have much better detail discrimination in the highlights. There is such a simple joy to working with a rangefinder, especially in available light.
On the topic of sharpness/detail, the 35mm RFs can still go toe to toe in b&w with the best DSLRs for b&w capture. The only issue with the smaller format is when you get into high ISOs and still want large enlargements.
Now, if I were to go for a film RF right now, honestly, it would be a medium format rig. The prices are very sweet. My personal preference for MF is mostly because I like wider landscape/scenic compositions, as opposed to impromptu street photography. So I favour 6x6cm format and occasionally use an old crown graphic in "press camera style", it has a dodgy but workable coupled rangefinder and you can shoot up to 4x5" format on it. Comparing to DSLR output, that thing just blows them to smithereens, especially for b&w work with lots of range in the scene.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I would stop, take a deep breath, and decide for yourself whether 35mm, 35mm pano (xpan), medium format, or even large format might be best for you. Certainly you will be totally delighted, whichever direction you take.
On the topic of sharpness/detail, the 35mm RFs can still go toe to toe in b&w with the best DSLRs for b&w capture. The only issue with the smaller format is when you get into high ISOs and still want large enlargements.
Now, if I were to go for a film RF right now, honestly, it would be a medium format rig. The prices are very sweet. My personal preference for MF is mostly because I like wider landscape/scenic compositions, as opposed to impromptu street photography. So I favour 6x6cm format and occasionally use an old crown graphic in "press camera style", it has a dodgy but workable coupled rangefinder and you can shoot up to 4x5" format on it. Comparing to DSLR output, that thing just blows them to smithereens, especially for b&w work with lots of range in the scene.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I would stop, take a deep breath, and decide for yourself whether 35mm, 35mm pano (xpan), medium format, or even large format might be best for you. Certainly you will be totally delighted, whichever direction you take.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
I would hold off on the purchase and take some of that money and have your gramps Leica ll cla'd. Then use the Leica to get a feel to see if you really like rf cameras before spending alot of cash. Sense the Leica is a family airloom it's worth the restoration, that is, if it needs it.
iridium7777
Established
i don't think there is a rational answer to this. you either want it or don't. i came from slr/dslr and bought my first leica and a 35mm lens this tuesday. already took two rolls of film and last night i've enjoyed taking pictures while out more than i ever did with my digital.
for me its worth it, and i doubt my film will ever be as crisp and clear as my digital, but somehow it's ok.
for me its worth it, and i doubt my film will ever be as crisp and clear as my digital, but somehow it's ok.
St3v3 said:
gb hill
Veteran
iridium7777 said:
Depending on what film you were using, I think in time you will see a dramatic improvement over digital. What lens do you have for the Leica?
-kk-
Established
i think what came across more (and i dont mean this in a rude way) is the lust for new/better gear, more so than the 'need' to fill any particular need.
slrs and rangefinders are pretty different animals. depending on what you shoot most of the time, the nature of your subjects etc... to me, that should dictate the type of gear to acquire. nowadays, i cant imagine trying to do sports photography on leica (or film for that matter!).
that aside, as someone else mentioned, when it comes to gear, its not always a rational choice. Id say to keep what you have right now, get the leica CLAd (or at least find the root of the prob).
for me, i do both film/digital, and digital SLR, and film rangefinders. the distinction is clear. digital/slr is what puts food on the table, rangefinders (for me) is more an artistic pursuit/ hobby.
slrs and rangefinders are pretty different animals. depending on what you shoot most of the time, the nature of your subjects etc... to me, that should dictate the type of gear to acquire. nowadays, i cant imagine trying to do sports photography on leica (or film for that matter!).
that aside, as someone else mentioned, when it comes to gear, its not always a rational choice. Id say to keep what you have right now, get the leica CLAd (or at least find the root of the prob).
for me, i do both film/digital, and digital SLR, and film rangefinders. the distinction is clear. digital/slr is what puts food on the table, rangefinders (for me) is more an artistic pursuit/ hobby.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I'd second the recommendation to move slowly. First get all you can out of the Leica II. There aren't any M mount Canons, by the way.
iridium7777
Established
gb hill said:
if that's true it'd only be an added bonus
my only lens right now is zeiss 35/2.
for my b&w i'm going to use tmax @ 1600 and i also have some 3200 iso film.
for color though, i like to shoot a lot of flowers (although i dunno how i'm going to do that with 35mm lens) and also scenery. could you suggest some films for this?
thanks.
bumgardner
Newbie
St3v3- I am in a similar boat to you. I graduated from college about in May and I too lust for a rangefinder. I curentley shoot Nikon SLR and DSLR cameras. I found a RF Minolta camera that was my Grandfather's a while ago, but it is inoperable because the film rewinder is broken. I want to start my venture into RF with a Voigtlander because of the price (still too expensive.) But when faced with reality and with the advice of my professors I would be better off going with a medium format camera because of the style of photography I shoot. Best of luck bro.
iridium7777- Dude you can cerantley get much clearer pictures with the Leica system than with your dslr. It might take some pratice with the RF to get equally clear pictures but it will come. As for film unless you want real grainey results I would stray from the 1600 and 3200. Film wise I usually shoot HP5, FP4 or Delta 100 for BW. For color I usually use FujiFilm most of it is real good. Fuji is reintroducing their Velvia 50 in a few weeks which should yield some amazing results. In reality all of Fuji's Velvia line is excellent. Velvia has extreamley sharp and colorfull results especially when paired with an 81a filter.
iridium7777- Dude you can cerantley get much clearer pictures with the Leica system than with your dslr. It might take some pratice with the RF to get equally clear pictures but it will come. As for film unless you want real grainey results I would stray from the 1600 and 3200. Film wise I usually shoot HP5, FP4 or Delta 100 for BW. For color I usually use FujiFilm most of it is real good. Fuji is reintroducing their Velvia 50 in a few weeks which should yield some amazing results. In reality all of Fuji's Velvia line is excellent. Velvia has extreamley sharp and colorfull results especially when paired with an 81a filter.
gb hill
Veteran
iridium7777 said:if that's true it'd only be an added bonus
my only lens right now is zeiss 35/2.
for my b&w i'm going to use tmax @ 1600 and i also have some 3200 iso film.
for color though, i like to shoot a lot of flowers (although i dunno how i'm going to do that with 35mm lens) and also scenery. could you suggest some films for this?
thanks.
Sorry, I don't intend to rob the mans thread, but the zeiss lenses have a good reputation. You should start a thread asking these very good questions, because there are people more experienced than me that can help you determine good b&w films and such. I have read that some here don't care for T-Max, but a good color film is Kodak UC 400.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
St3v3, I always ask myself, do I want a camera to take pictures? or do I want a Leica. Although I am curious as heck to try out a Leica, I've come to the conclusion that I don't need one to take good pictures, pictures that I am happy with.
So my suggestion to you is to save up your money, and get a decent RF. Others here consider the Bessas as the entry level, I think they are still too expensive.
What I consider a good entry level RF is the amazing fixed lens classics from the 70's, namely:
Olympus 35 SP
Olympus 35 RD
Yashica Electro 35
Konica Auto S3
Canonet GIII QL17
Minolta Hi-matic 7sII
Kiev 4AM with Helios 103 or Jupiter 8
Any of these will produce B/W pictures that can go head-to-head against any Leica equipment used by run on the mill shooters (the really good "Leica" shooters will take good pictures even when using a Holga, I hope you see my point).
... and none of the above costs more than $150. Maybe add another $50-100 for a professional CLA job.
If you get yourself to be good enough to sell prints with these cameras, you'll then be able to get an MP *knowing* that you'll make even better pictures using it. How's that for satisfaction?
Btw, lens sharpness is only ONE of the criterias of being good.
So my suggestion to you is to save up your money, and get a decent RF. Others here consider the Bessas as the entry level, I think they are still too expensive.
What I consider a good entry level RF is the amazing fixed lens classics from the 70's, namely:
Olympus 35 SP
Olympus 35 RD
Yashica Electro 35
Konica Auto S3
Canonet GIII QL17
Minolta Hi-matic 7sII
Kiev 4AM with Helios 103 or Jupiter 8
Any of these will produce B/W pictures that can go head-to-head against any Leica equipment used by run on the mill shooters (the really good "Leica" shooters will take good pictures even when using a Holga, I hope you see my point).
... and none of the above costs more than $150. Maybe add another $50-100 for a professional CLA job.
If you get yourself to be good enough to sell prints with these cameras, you'll then be able to get an MP *knowing* that you'll make even better pictures using it. How's that for satisfaction?
Btw, lens sharpness is only ONE of the criterias of being good.
Last edited:
St3v3
Newbie
Thaks for your repleys,
first off the lens on the Leica is a Leitz Elmar f=5cm 1:35. As far as I know my Gramps had it "seviced" about 10 years ago and nobodys used it since.
I used an Ilford 100 film. I dident write the speeds and aperture settings when taking the initial pictures so i think the lack of sharpnes is probebly down to not holding the camera steady enough in the dark conditions which they were. I also dont realy trust the developing procedure which most shops use I assume they put the film in a huge machine and out come the pictures without any human interface. Thus my desire to at somepoint get myself a little setup. And what I also found there wasent much constrast in the pictures - the whites werent that white and blacks not that black it all had a sort of greyish look- is this the Machine developing shop thing?
I also thought about medium format, had a go with an old Rolleiflex, which was for sale for about 400 euros. But then I wouldent know what to look out for when buying one, although I suppose there isent that much one could do wrong for that price? But then you have the Developing costs.
Yes it is having a Leica, the weight and build, but what I love about the MP is that its inconspicuous, no red dot nothing on the front to give it away.
I'll have a look at all the alernative RF modells you've named thanks for your input.
first off the lens on the Leica is a Leitz Elmar f=5cm 1:35. As far as I know my Gramps had it "seviced" about 10 years ago and nobodys used it since.
I used an Ilford 100 film. I dident write the speeds and aperture settings when taking the initial pictures so i think the lack of sharpnes is probebly down to not holding the camera steady enough in the dark conditions which they were. I also dont realy trust the developing procedure which most shops use I assume they put the film in a huge machine and out come the pictures without any human interface. Thus my desire to at somepoint get myself a little setup. And what I also found there wasent much constrast in the pictures - the whites werent that white and blacks not that black it all had a sort of greyish look- is this the Machine developing shop thing?
I also thought about medium format, had a go with an old Rolleiflex, which was for sale for about 400 euros. But then I wouldent know what to look out for when buying one, although I suppose there isent that much one could do wrong for that price? But then you have the Developing costs.
Yes it is having a Leica, the weight and build, but what I love about the MP is that its inconspicuous, no red dot nothing on the front to give it away.
I'll have a look at all the alernative RF modells you've named thanks for your input.
aad
Not so new now.
If your pictures aren't sharp with the II and the Elmar, they won't be any better with the M camera.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
aad said:
That's most likely the case, practice makes perfect.
Or as close to perfect as us mortals can get.
Anyway, this is a world where Film and Digi can live together...splurge, by the MP and a good lens and spend time with it. Not only is it so much fun it's just a matter of time before the pictures look great as well.
HSI
The Fourth
Theres always the option of a MF RF is you want the best of both world.
St3v3
Newbie
I guees its Practise and some patience, I'll shoot my second film with the Leica II tomorrow as the forcast is HOT I'll head for country and see what I can find!
nikon_junkie
Established
Get grandfathers camera CLA'd and enjoy it!
If GAS is taking hold then venture into medium format. Bronica systems with multiple backs, multiple lens, can be had for a third of the cost of the MP. Mamiya of all varieties are bargains.
Nothing Leica produces will compete with the real estate of any medium format system. Bronica, Mamiya, 'blads al have their share of great glass as well.
If GAS is taking hold then venture into medium format. Bronica systems with multiple backs, multiple lens, can be had for a third of the cost of the MP. Mamiya of all varieties are bargains.
Nothing Leica produces will compete with the real estate of any medium format system. Bronica, Mamiya, 'blads al have their share of great glass as well.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I have to agree - get the old Leica CLA'd. I don't know where you are located but a good CLA can be gotten for less than the cost of a new Bessa R* camera. Then practice until you know it and your lens(es?) before deciding that you need anything else.
Good luck & good light!
William
Good luck & good light!
William
maddoc
... likes film again.
Hm ... For sure it is a good idea to have the Leica II serviced (and maybe the lens to ! Fogging or hazing might result in low contrast photos) but also the RF of a screwmount Leica is not that easy to use, resulting in quite a lot out-of-fous photos. If you like the concept of RF cameras and prefer a Leica, I would suggest to start with something like a used M6 or M4-P (meter-less), which show the 28mm frame-lines. You can get these for 50 % of a used MP and invest in a used 28mm Elmarit.