M7 - Need Some Help

[lencap]

Hi All -

I recently joined this forum and am new to all things Leica. My needs are: (1) "candid" photos, shot with or without the subject's knowledge, often with little time to pose or adjust the camera - typical documentary stuff; (2) ability to shoot in low light when travelling - insides of churches without flash or other lighting; (3) landscapes - hills of Umbria, other scenic settings.

I also attend lots of sporting events, and have not used a camera to catch the action, but I'm tempted to start. I'm told by my Nikon/Canon friends that the Leica, fine as it is, was never meant to shoot much above 135mm lenses, and using a longer telephoto isn't feasible. Since this isn't a big part of my expected use I'm not too concerned, but could someone explain to me why this statement is true (or is it true)?

As I research the different models I tend to favor the M6/M7/MP models because of the TLL metering, a feature I've used in all of my other camera (all non Leica). Others use an external meter, but I've never been skilled at that art, and have had pretty crummy results. I also find that by the time I can get the reading, the shot is gone. One of the reasons I'm leaning toward Leica is that I've been told, again by the Nikon/Canon friends, that the Leica properly used and prepared can capture a shot faster than anything else, with less lag between shutter and actual image than almost anything else. Is this statement true?

The M7 appears to be my choice because they appear to be undervalued in the used market - can anyone explain why? Although not frequent, I've seen some M7s sell on EBAY, and some more enthusiast oriented sites, for as low as $1,600, and often $1,800 with the MP viewfinder upgrade - prices I consider very attractive, especially versus the price of used M6 camera. Can someone let me know if (1) the M7 pricing I've quoted is close to actual prices for high quality used M7s (Excellent on BNH rating scale); and (2) am I on the right track selecting a M7 given the uses I've outlined? Finally, if I am on the right track, any suggestions about where to find a near mint used M7?

Thanks to all for the help - a terrific forum with great information and friendly people - what more could anyone want?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I recently joined this forum and am new to all things Leica. My needs are: (1) "candid" photos, shot with or without the subject's knowledge, often with little time to pose or adjust the camera - typical documentary stuff; (2) ability to shoot in low light when travelling - insides of churches without flash or other lighting; (3) landscapes - hills of Umbria, other scenic settings.

I also attend lots of sporting events, and have not used a camera to catch the action, but I'm tempted to start. I'm told by my Nikon/Canon friends that the Leica, fine as it is, was never meant to shoot much above 135mm lenses, and using a longer telephoto isn't feasible. Since this isn't a big part of my expected use I'm not too concerned, but could someone explain to me why this statement is true (or is it true)?

Yes. However, for some Leicas, and probably for the M7 as well, there's a Leica gadget that turns the camera into an SLR and uses some Leica lenses. It's called Visoflex, and it can be adapted to all Leica M models except the M6TTL (AFAIK). I believe the longest lens that can be used with a Visoflex is the Telyt 460mm.

As I research the different models I tend to favor the M6/M7/MP models because of the TLL metering, a feature I've used in all of my other camera (all non Leica). Others use an external meter, but I've never been skilled at that art, and have had pretty crummy results. I also find that by the time I can get the reading, the shot is gone. One of the reasons I'm leaning toward Leica is that I've been told, again by the Nikon/Canon friends, that the Leica properly used and prepared can capture a shot faster than anything else, with less lag between shutter and actual image than almost anything else. Is this statement true?

Yep. At least, in my experience. With a Leica the shutter works without having to wait for a mirror to flip. This alone reduces shutter lag to a significant extent.

The M7 appears to be my choice because they appear to be undervalued in the used market - can anyone explain why? Although not frequent, I've seen some M7s sell on EBAY, and some more enthusiast oriented sites, for as low as $1,600, and often $1,800 with the MP viewfinder upgrade - prices I consider very attractive, especially versus the price of used M6 camera. Can someone let me know if (1) the M7 pricing I've quoted is close to actual prices for high quality used M7s (Excellent on BNH rating scale); and (2) am I on the right track selecting a M7 given the uses I've outlined? Finally, if I am on the right track, any suggestions about where to find a near mint used M7?

The M7 cameras you saw are probably being sold by people who want an M8. As for the uses you would have for a Leica... basically, any Leica M with a built-in meter should do. This circumstance broadens your chances, extending them beyond the M7 (M5, M6, M6TTL, M7 & MP).

Used Leicas? Hmmmm... that's the 64 millions dolar question. Look into KEH, or google Tamarkin in NY. This forum has eventually some very good offers but you need to watch it constantly.

 

[mervynyan]

if you shoot sports, you can get an used eos 1v or nikon f5 at fraction of the cost and they perform extremely well. longest m lens can not do a close-up even if you sit in the front row. visoflex is too hard to find and never see anyone used it.

i think m7 is fairly valued, i have heard many electronic issues from time to time. that is why i am still holding out for this one.

if you want to be a fast shooter and properly expose every frame, some experiences in metering should be learned. in any case, among all ms, m7 is a good choice to meet your need. you will eventually move to mp-

 

[peter_n]

1) The longer the focal length, the more difficult it is to focus an RF camera. Leicas excel at 21mm - 90mm focal lengths.

2) Yes, once you become used to them, RF cameras are much quicker than SLRs.

3) The M7 is the most practical camera that Leica makes. You couldn't make a better choice. Popflash (an RFF sponsor) would be a good place to start looking for a used M7. Give Tony Rose a call and tell him what your needs are. He will look after you.

 

[erikhaugsby]

It's called Visoflex, and it can be adapted to all Leica M models except the M6TTL (AFAIK).

And the M5, and the CL, and the Leitz CLE. Other than that it'll work fine. The MD(a) is particularly well suited for the Visoflex in that it does not have a viewfinder.

 

[sepiareverb]

great info above- from a shooters perspective I find the M7 a great camera to use. Manual control is easier than the M6 classic for this user, and the VF is beautiful. I use the .72 and the .58 and they are quite nice.

Apeture priority has always been dead on, and the exposure compensation is easy, once you get used to it. I now really like that it can be used like a manual control with the simple physical dial.

Worth every penny.

drawbacks are some electronics issues around the DX reader- both of mine have this, I now set ISO manually and haven't looked back.

Good luck.

 

[lencap]

Sporting Events

Sporting Events

Thanks to all for the replies. When shooting sporting events, do any of you use the Leica, or do you rely on another brand with more telephoto ability?

As a general rule is the Leica unable to take longer focal length telephoto shots? If so, and with a limited budget, should I be looking at a more "universal" focal length 35mm format camera so that I can take everything from documentary no flash close range photos, to longer range faster shutter speed action shots?

As much as I would love to own a Leica, how do I justify a camera brand that has a limited utility (no longer length telephoto), even if the pictures are excellent for what it does? If I invest in a Leica with 35/50/90 lenses, and related accessories, I can easily invest a significant sum. It seems difficult to justify if I then have to get a Nikon F5, or similar camera, to take a shot of the left fielder that is more than 100 yards from me. A Nikon with telephoto not only adds expense, but a complete additional body, lens and accessory bag. Quite a load to carry to provide the flexibility to take any shot I may encounter.

What am I missing?

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[morgan]

You may want to try the voigtlander rangefinders first. The Bessa-R2A and R3A are m-mount AE cameras that will give you a feel for what using a rangefinder is like. Their bodies are significantly cheaper than an M7, although still well built. You could probably outfit yourself with an R2A, maybe a 35mm or 50mm, and get an slr with a long lens for less than the price of an M7.

 

[sirius]

You are not missing anything.

You don't buy a rangefinder to be the best all-round camera you can get. If that's what you want then get a modern DSLR with and external flash and a high-quality zoom and you're set for most situations you'll ever encounter.

The real question is what kind of photographs do you like to take and how do you like to work? Different tools do different jobs. The reason the rangefinder camera has lasted for so long is that they are fun to use and work very well for a certain type of photography. They are tool for a specific purpose rather than a hammer that will "fix" everything.

I don't find telephoto photography very fun. I would like to be close and involved with what I'm shooting. I don't like the way that telephoto flattens pictures.

If you do not want to "invest" then go buy a serviced Canon GIII QL17 or a Yashica GSN from eBay for $60-150 and try out the rangefinder way of working. You think you need every focal length on the planet, but there really is a benefit to simplicity and learning to work through one way of looking. Sounds rather zen doesn't it? Many of the masters of photography only needed one camera and one lens to artfully photograph every kind of subject matter.

 

[sirius]

All those Leicas that you mentioned are pretty much the same. It's minor differences and the quest for the ultimate that separate them in price and function.

The real question you should be asking us is, "what lens should I get for my new Leica M?" [insert an evil laugh here...]

 

[toyfel]

As sirius and others have pointed out, the camera that fits all needs doesn't exist yet. And a Leica M camera really is somewhat more limited when compared to slr's. For sporting events, for example, it would be a bad idea to use a Leica. Even if u use longer lenses with the visoflex system you'd still lack AF which I believe is essential for sporting events. If that application is important to you I'd go for a DSLR like the Canon D5 (which is also very good for low light shooting). At least that's how I would see it, though I haven't used either the Canon or the visoflex system myself. BUT .... the Leica's do a very good job for some of the situations you mentioned. For people and candid shots I consider M cameras as exceptionally good! Same goes for street and documentary. A small, quiet Leica body and fast M lenses are very hard to beat at that. Aperture priority can be a big advantage for people and street (which is why I would prefer a M7). Whether a Leica is faster for taking shots than other cameras I don't know. In terms of shutter lag I guess there's no real big difference. Perhaps when you are good at scale focusing you might be faster than the other guy with the slr. When it comes to landscape I guess a Leica can make do but there are other cameras that would do a better job (probably at the cost of size and weight).

 

[lencap]

Thanks to all for the help, even those posters that may have felt I was being difficult initially - that wasn't my intention.

After "playing" with some actual cameras, speaking with real photographers and giving some serious thought to how I'll use the camera, I've decided on a M7.

Any comments on lenses is appreciated. Tonight I was at a recital, no more than 15 feet from the performers, a perfect task for a Leica - silent and no flash. In that circumstance what lens would have been appropriate? The lighting was stage lights, aimed at the performers, stage and instruments. Unfortunately the flourescent ceiling lights were also left on - a color temperature nightmare, but one that I'll probably come across often.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

 

[MCTuomey]

I second Peter's suggestion to contact Tony Rose at Popflash. He really will serve you well. Great merchant!

I shoot youth sports quite a bit and also rediscovered rangefinders recently. My Leica path led to the M7 for its flexibility. My sport shooting has gone digi, but if you wish to stick with film I would suggest the very capable EOS 3 and grip. The pair can be had for $400ish at KEH and on boards like p.net and fredmiranda.

For what it's worth I don't use my M7 with anything longer than a 90. I have shot a bit of sports with the leica, but it's like playing a violin at a Chili Peppers concert. Come to think of it, maybe I should do it more often ...

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks to all for the help, even those posters that may have felt I was being difficult initially - that wasn't my intention.

After "playing" with some actual cameras, speaking with real photographers and giving some serious thought to how I'll use the camera, I've decided on a M7.

Any comments on lenses is appreciated. Tonight I was at a recital, no more than 15 feet from the performers, a perfect task for a Leica - silent and no flash. In that circumstance what lens would have been appropriate? The lighting was stage lights, aimed at the performers, stage and instruments. Unfortunately the flourescent ceiling lights were also left on - a color temperature nightmare, but one that I'll probably come across often.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

15 feet? 50 or 75 or 90 mm and as fast as you can afford ... and remember that the shorter FL's will allow you to handhold at lower s/speeds.

color balance trouble? shoot B&W )

 

[sirius]

How's your budget? From the way that you have been talking, I think you might like the Voightlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton, $399. It's a lovely low-light lens and I've seen some great images from it. The 50mm f1.5 Leica Summilux is one of the most famous 50's out there, but it's 10x more expensive than the Nokton. You can do a search on Flickr to see examples of these lenses. It depends what you would like to capture at that concert. If you want the sweat on the brow you might have trouble. If you like to get a bit of the environment and suroundings than a 50mm or 35mm will be the most versitile. The fast glass is nice because you can work more easily in low light and you can isolate the subject with sharpness. Good luck. You're beginning a love affair with rangefinders, I've certainly enjoyed this style of shooting emensely.

 

[peter_n]

15 feet? A 50 or a 75. If you want to stick with Leica glass the pre-ASPH Summilux (widest aperture f1.4) will give you a classic Leica look. Leica makes an incredible 75mm lens, the f2 Summicron which unfortunately is not cheap. However it is one of the modern ASPH lenses and really the negs look like they were taken with a 50 - you are just a bit closer in. And I would second Mike, stick with B&W film.