Need convincing to buy my first Leica

[siracusa]

I'm happy to convince you to buy a camera, but I wouldn't try to convince you to buy a specific model. I ended up using Leicas for a range of reasons. But if I were to take the same photographs with my Zenit, my OM10, or my Petriflex 7, they'd pretty much look the same. If you feel comfortable with the camera, and if you can afford it, then by all means buy it. Using different 35mm cameras might change how you go about taking a photograph. But they won't dramatically transform the photographs you take - unless, that is, you are going from having a very bad camera to one that operates as it should and has a good lens.

 

[FrankS]

Before buying it, pick it up, wind it on, focus and compose a few scenes dry firing it (no film) several times, then decide if its for you or not.

 

[Pablito]

... is it worth it?

Certainly not, if you have to ask.

 

[thegman]

If you're thinking about it, you'll end up with one sooner or later. It tends to be an itch which at some point will be scratched. The good thing is that you'll likely be able to sell it for what you paid for it. And you very likely will sell it, either to buy an M-series Leica or to get a more "sensible" SLR.

If you like classic cameras, you'll "do time" on Leica, you may move on from that, or you may not, but you *will* do the time.

Are Leicas worth the money? Almost certainly. Generally, they're free or cheap compared to digital, as you hand over your money, and any time you want the money back, you just sell the camera. Compare that to a "cheap" digital camera.

So it's not really a matter of whether to buy one, it's *when* will you buy one. I say all this slightly tongue in cheek, but also, pretty sure I'm right...

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you're thinking about it, you'll end up with one sooner or later. It tends to be an itch which at some point will be scratched. The good thing is that you'll likely be able to sell it for what you paid for it. And you very likely will sell it, either to buy an M-series Leica or to get a more "sensible" SLR.

If you like classic cameras, you'll "do time" on Leica, you may move on from that, or you may not, but you *will* do the time.

Are Leicas worth the money? Almost certainly. Generally, they're free or cheap compared to digital, as you hand over your money, and any time you want the money back, you just sell the camera. Compare that to a "cheap" digital camera.

So it's not really a matter of whether to buy one, it's *when* will you buy one. I say all this slightly tongue in cheek, but also, pretty sure I'm right...

Nicely put!

Cheers,

R.

 

[yossarian123]

I agree. They're *almost* free, if you don't invest in a CLA. Which you almost certainly will, because you would have read about how a CLA is an absolute necessity. From personal experience it's mostly true - always put aside money for a tuneup - even if the person you bought it from swears up and down that "it was recently overhauled by DAG". Because even if the camera is working smoothly, you'll end up noticing tiny little things that (in your head) would totally be fixed by sending it in to Youxin. And if you then decide sell it, you'll never make back the CLA money. So figure on losing about $150-300 on your Leica.

If you're thinking about it, you'll end up with one sooner or later. It tends to be an itch which at some point will be scratched. The good thing is that you'll likely be able to sell it for what you paid for it. And you very likely will sell it, either to buy an M-series Leica or to get a more "sensible" SLR.

If you like classic cameras, you'll "do time" on Leica, you may move on from that, or you may not, but you *will* do the time.

Are Leicas worth the money? Almost certainly. Generally, they're free or cheap compared to digital, as you hand over your money, and any time you want the money back, you just sell the camera. Compare that to a "cheap" digital camera.

So it's not really a matter of whether to buy one, it's *when* will you buy one. I say all this slightly tongue in cheek, but also, pretty sure I'm right...

 

[swoop]

You should need convincing to not buy a Leica.

 

[siracusa]

The point about value is important. I've a friend who bought an Olympus dslr in around 2007. At the time he chided me for throwing money away on "expensive" film equipment which as it happened was probably cheaper than his dslr and lenses. Fast forward to 2012 when he came to upgrade to a Nikon dslr that met his needs and he was complaining that his expensive Oly was basically worth a fraction of the purchase price.
The IIIf is available at decent prices but will hold its value. There are few other things about which this can be said in the modern age of disposability and the hamster wheel of constant technology upgrading.

 

[Vics]

I wish I had all the money back that I spent on cameras I bought because I "couldn't afford a Leica (or a Nikon F)". I'd be money way ahead now because the cameras I did buy sold for practically nothing. If I'd bought the cameras I'm using now, I'd still be using them, because there's no upgrade from here.

 

[sepiareverb]

Try 'Leicaphilia', http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html.

Hadn't read that in a while Roger, I quite like what you say about the M8:

Many films would be hard put to deliver results as good. No doubt an M12 (or whatever) in 2017 will be better, just as the M9 is better now. But this will remain a more than acceptable level of quality for most pictures for as long as the camera lasts.

Precisely why I believe I'm going to use my M9's till they give up the ghost. They get me where I need to go with some room to spare.

 

[goamules]

I've found a very reasonably priced Leica IIIf that I'm considering buying, but I need a little convincing. It's a lot of money to fork out... is it worth it?
...

As most everyone has done, I will answer about the cost, since that's all you mention. First, what you wrote is a paradox. A "very reasonably priced IIIf" is not "a lot of money." They have gotten as cheap as a decent point and shoot digital camera at Walmart. Or a couple tanks of gas or trips to get groceries. Is it worth that? Well, in the post war period, a Leica IIIf cost much more, the equivalent of many month's salary, if you had a good job. I just took my family to San Diego for a vacation. Our meals cost between $50 and $100 every time, and I look hard for value. So I'd answer yes, if you want to try a very well made camera from a previous era for a very low relative cost.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As most everyone has done, I will answer about the cost, since that's all you mention. First, what you wrote is a paradox. A "very reasonably priced IIIf" is not "a lot of money." They have gotten as cheap as a decent point and shoot digital camera at Walmart. Or a couple tanks of gas or trips to get groceries. Is it worth that? Well, in the post war period, a Leica IIIf cost much more, the equivalent of many month's salary, if you had a good job. I just took my family to San Diego for a vacation. Our meals cost between $50 and $100 every time, and I look hard for value. So I'd answer yes, if you want to try a very well made camera from a previous era for a very low relative cost.

Dear Garrett,

Nicely phrased!

Cheers,

R.

 

[ray*j*gun]

If you need convincing your not ready yet.

 

[wakarimasen]

If you just want a cheap film camera with multiple lens choices (though not admittedly a rangefinder) then the Canon FD system would suit you fine. In fact, you could spend many hours poring over Ebay finding yet another cheap lens, to go with the many others that you have hoovered up in an uncontrollable spree. Unfortunately, you may well spend more time on 'the chase' than actually using your camera and learning how to expose 'well' and compose an image that you will be happy with. I know, as I have spent the last year doing this.
Alternatively, you could buy a Leica and one lens. Then spend the next year learning how to use it well. In fact my 'The Leica Way' book suggests that one lens may be all that many users ever need!
Good luck in your decision!

Best regards,
RoyM

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you need convincing your not ready yet.

Actually, I think he's already convinced, and is wondering if anyone can dissuade him...

Cheers,

R.

 

[wrightbrain]

Bruxelles is right, they are "fiddly, slow, and use obsolete technology" but that's a good thing. It will dramatically transform the photographs you take!

It will make you slow down. It will make you consider composition, lighting, depth of field. You will not take more pictures than you take. You will bring the camera up to your eye and say,"that's not a picture" and not push the shutter.

I take better pictures on film because it costs me time and money. Instead of shooting for the sake of pulling the trigger and deleting them later you may only take five pictures in an outing.

Your goal should be one good picture from a roll of film. Slow down and take better pictures.

 

[raydm6]

Yes, holding might give you some tactile feedback.

I think you may have already convinced yourself going by your avatar 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I can't answer the question for you any more than any one else but you ought to ask yourself if you are buying it because it's there and cheap or are you buying because you've always wanted a Leica? If the answer's "yes" to the second question then you ought to be wondering if you want that model...

BTW, technology cannot be obsolete as the word means worn out. The camera could be worn out and I'll warn you they cost a lot to get sorted out.

Once sorted out you'll find them difficult to use and then you might grow to love them and end up with several and no money for film or food...

Anyway, the decision is yours and I'll wish you luck.

Regards, David

 

[traveler_101]

Hi Stephen,

I noticed you posted here before and took a look. I would say that the Leica IIIf is perfect for you. Compared to your Exacta you will find the IIIf to be a sleek and very modern tool. Equip it with a 5cm f. 3.5 Elmar and its will be the perfect travel camera: your informal style of wandering the streets of Katmandu (and other cities) is perfectly matched with Leica minimalism.

 

[traveler_101]

Hi,

. . .

BTW, technology cannot be obsolete as the word means worn out. The camera could be worn out and I'll warn you they cost a lot to get sorted out.

Once sorted out you'll find them difficult to use and then you might grow to love them and end up with several and no money for film or food...

That's right. The technology is hardly obsolete: it is very useable. It is also true that these cameras are old and need attention from a professional repairman, or if you are very talented maybe you can do-it-yourself.

I don't think they are difficult to use (I have the IIIf myself), but some people like David prefer the more expensive, more advanced (and larger/heavier) Leica M cameras.