Leica or Voigtlander Body?

Just to avoid the possible conclusion that I am an exclusive Leica snob, I get the same "quality satisfaction" from my Contax IIa and Hexar RF cameras, and I really like the CV lenses that I use. Same with the Canon VI-L and Nikon S cameras that I used to own.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
This view is way less judgmental than your post #11, which is what I reacted to.
Click to expand...

I'd chalk that up to the fact that you don't know me very well, and to my less than perfect powers of expression.

I tried to allude to the fact that I don't think of "irrational" as a pejorative. It's just that, much as I "love" them, there's a limit to how irrational I can get about a camera...and that limit falls somewhere below the price of most Leica gear.

As always, to each his own. :angel:
 
I you want to use the very fast lenses you mention you're better off w/ Leica bcs the focusing accuracy is better (rangefinder has longer base length)
 
As a toast to you guys, I just poured myself a glass of Laphroaig 15.

Thank you so much for everyone's input.

I love how emotional the responses, and the digressions that spiral off, get.

I'm an active poster on food-related websites, but your guys' intensity puts them to shame.

As for expense and quality, I suppose I'm trying to distinguish Intangibles from Technical Limitations. I totally relate to emotional attachment (i find the images produced by the noctilux to be moving and inimitable), but I just want to make sure that a Voigtlander won't somehow be shortchanging me as I build a lens collection.

I've handled both the Bessas and the M's and I have to say...I liked the Bessa feel better. But I haven't shot on either, so this was a completely superficial assessment.

Ferider - you say that having quality lenses on a Bessa is like putting a porsche engine on discount tires. But then you say the body is just about 'feel.' Maybe the analogy, then, is leather seats vs. lambskin? What about the Leica is bringing out more from these lenses? The focusing accuracy on faster lenses seems to be the thing I keep coming back to - why are the Leica's more accurate?

Aizan - you mention the R2a over the R3 and R4. Why?

If anyone likes food, here are some (a lot of) pictures I took of food while in Japan, on my Canon G7:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40019408@N00/sets/72157600159704122/

Have to go refill my scotch...
 
the r2a has framelines for 35mm and 50mm. you'd naturally use an accessory viewfinder for the 15mm. the r3a has framelines for 40mm and 50mm, and isn't nearly as nice to use with a 35mm lens. the r4a would be great for 25mm and 28mm, but doesn't really help with any of the lenses you want.
 
snausages2000 said:
Ferider - you say that having quality lenses on a Bessa is like putting a porsche engine on discount tires. But then you say the body is just about 'feel.' Maybe the analogy, then, is leather seats vs. lambskin? What about the Leica is bringing out more from these lenses? The focusing accuracy on faster lenses seems to be the thing I keep coming back to - why are the Leica's more accurate?
Click to expand...

First the rational stuff:

As a background I have used Bessa T, R, R2, R3a, M2, M3, and M6.

- the Leica EBL (effective baselength) is much longer than for any Bessa except for the Bessa T. The M3 has the longest EBL. The EBL determines how easy it is to focus a longer lens.
- Technically, theoretically, at least the Bessa R3* should have enough EBL to focus the Nokton, but not necessarily the Noctilux wide open. It will be more difficult than with a Leica (except for the Bessa T). When I use my M3 with 50/1.2 Canon lens, close up and wide open I miss occasionally. This would be much worse with the Bessa.

Now the "irrational stuff" (I admit the Porsche was a bad image):

- Other people will tell you the Leica is much quieter than the Bessas. Which is true, but not so important for me - it only really helps sometimes.
- But: Both Nokton and Noctilux are rather heavy lenses. The Bessa bodies are light. Knowing the feeling of the Bessas I just know that yours truly would not feel comfortable with such a body/lens combo.
- My Bessa R and R2 were very reliable. My T and R3a had alignment issues several times that were more difficult to fix than the Leica M bodies that I have.
- often it is argued that Leicas are so much more expensive than Bessas. In my experience this is not true: you can get a good used M2 or M3 for US 500-600 easily. I would be very comfortable buying more used Leicas, in particular if they have gone through a CLA. I would hesitate to buy a used Bessa again, and a new Bessa R[234]* is > US 500, too, so not much cheaper.
- The Noctilux is > 3000 US now. The Nokton more than US 800. It just seemed
"cheap" to think about spending > US 4000 on lenses and save 100-200
US on the camera body ...

Under the bottom line, if you like the Bessa: good for you. You will have more money for lenses. Not because the first Bessa is cheaper; but because - like Frank said - you don't catch the Leica bug ...

I am not a Leica brand fanatic. But I like my Leica bodies.

To use the Heliar effectively, any LTM/M body will do. I recommend a Bessa L for this lens only.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
No denying the advantages of a longer EBL. I would say though that I've been lucky focusing my J9 (85mm) at f2.8 with my R3A. In any case, the longer/faster your glass, the more you would appreciate the longer EBL.
Another thing I envy in Leica/Zeiss cameras is the 28mm framelines. I can get that in the Bessa, but only at the sacrifice of the longer lenses.
I would also point out that price comparissons between older Leica M cameras and new Bessas only hold water if you rip the meter/AE out of the Bessa.
On the basis of specs alone, since I've not even held one yet, I'd say the Zeiss is a very nice compromise and would cover all my needs.
 
I strongly recommend the m3 body with its vf of .91 for the 5cm FL, if you are going to use the 50mm framelines as your mainstay: there is no better vf for the 50mm lens in spite of what some mp owners will claim:)

On the other hand, if you don't mind using external vfs ---you will with the 15mm no matter which body you obtain--- then I would suggest a barnack body as a close second to the m3. they are obtained for good deals all over the place, too:D give these two options some thought....
 
Well, I won't be a hypocrite, and I am all of that ... just like I like other "nice" stuff.

It's not exactly being irrational, unless one seriously feels the pinch of buying a used USD 1000 to USD 2000 Leica body.

That's life, some people want Rolls Royces, some pay half a million dollars or more for a hifi system, etc. Some folks have more than two RFs, I used to be one of them, now I only have one.

I like my film Leica M a lot for streets and candids, but I like my MF best overall. No way will I buy an M8, I like my cheap Nikon D40 better, and I even like it over the highest Nikon DSLR. Irrational ? Well, life is full of it ... To roughly quote someone, "irrationality is a prerogative of humans/mankind".

Many folks would even say film RF users are irrational, when DSLRs are all over the place these days :)


dazedgonebye said:
In short, it’s all about the love.
Some people love the feel of precision and no compromise quality. Some people love the mystique of the name. Some people (no one here, I’m sure) love the status. Most people, I suspect, love all of the above…at least a little.
Love is irrational. That’s not a bad thing, I feel the same irrationality towards my wife and children. Certainly my life would be more “functional” without them, but I choose to be irrational where they are concerned.
I have a great appreciation for all of those things people love about Leicas, but they don’t move me to irrationality, so I own a Bessa (and maybe a Zeiss some day).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh, goodness...do you know just how many food-fights break out over issues like this, particularly gicen the additional M-mount options available these days besides Leica (CV, Minolta, and the late-but-sainted – by me, anyway – Konica)? I say, go with what works best for you in your hands and gut. (Ever the contrarian, what else did you expect me to say?) ;)


- Barrett
 
This is a good thread. I'm in the same position as the OP except that I already use a dedicated Bessa L body for my ultra-wide LTM 15 and 25mm lenses; and I already own a CV LTM 35/2.5 which I am very pleased with. I'm looking for a good quality RF body and a fast-ish 50mm lens.

My heart is telling me to take the plunge and buy the $4500 Leica M7 & 50mm Summicron "starter set" (I love that moniker :) ). After that purchase I might never need another peice of camera equipment. I certainly wouldn't have money for any more lenses. But I've always wanted to own a Leica and who knows when or if I'll get another chance?

My brain is telling me to buy the R2A & 50/2 Heliar classic. At roughly 1/4 the price of the M7 "starter set" I'd have cash left over for another lens, LTM adapters and seed money for my daughter's college savings fund. As a former Bessa R owner I also have an affection for Cosina/Voigtlander.

Should I listen to my heart or my brain? I'm not a pro and I've never sold a print. I'm merely looking for a reliable user RF that can be used for available light, travel and candid/family shooting.
 
Chris, if you don't need a new M7, you can find them for about $1800 these days, many of them lightly used. For example, there's one on the local craigslist for $3100 with 35mm f2 ASPH. Like other's have mentioned, the Zeiss Ikon seems like a great deal. If I ever wanted to use auto-exposure I'd check out the Ikon.
 
I'm with Mike. Chris you don't need to buy new - a lot of people are offloading their M7 to get an M8. If you really want new, you can even get bargains on new bodies if you are patient. I bought one of mine new on eBay and Leica threw in a Leicavit for free. I haven't used it and will sell it and that will bring the price of the cam well below $2K. Good job too as I found out recently that it didn't have the MP finder so Leica replaced it for free. Patience is the key to getting a good price.
 
Oh, heck, I'll "third" Peter and Mike. Getting a good used M7 frees up money for an additional lens (or the like). You get the camera you've really wanted without cleaning your bank account's clock quite so hard.


- Barrett
 
Barrett, OT but just noticed your signature. Did you see the Martin Munkacsi exhibit at the ICP? It was really amazing... I ordered the book but it takes weeks to come; why that book isn't in stock is beyond me. :confused:
 
peter_n said:
Barrett, OT but just noticed your signature. Did you see the Martin Munkacsi exhibit at the ICP? It was really amazing... I ordered the book but it takes weeks to come; why that book isn't in stock is beyond me. :confused:
Click to expand...
Peter: Oh, yes I did. Wanted to go a second time but couldn't schedule it in. A screaming shame how he's been neglected till now. I'll be ordering that book as soon as funds allow.


- Barrett
 
I'll "fourth" all those recommending used. It is the height of irrational to buy new :).

And ignore those black paint, or commemorative, or one-in-the-world kind, those are for collectors, who are presumed to have money, and will just shrink wrap it and keep it.

Sometimes, due to the number of used Leicas around, a Leica can be cheaper than a Konica Hexar or a Cosina !! It simply is no longer an excuse that a common Leica is more expensive. If one really doesn't have any money, lots of Yashica Electro GSN around :)

It's the Leica lenses actually that can cost. But the Voigtlander range is good, and good used ones will stretch the dollar further ...


.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom