New to Leica and film. Jumping in deep end?

I'm inclined not to recommend the Bessa R2M/R2A route, only because that's the route I took. (R2M -> Barnack -> M4-P). I would instead recommend either just going for whichever Leica you like, or maybe getting one of the cheap RFs just so that you can find out if you like the RF shooting style (some of the olympus 35s, or canonets). They'll be less of an initial cost (100-200) and have bottomed out.

The R2M/R2A have actually gotten quite expensive, but won't hold their values as well (so if you buy and sell, you'll lose more on depreciation).

If RF suits you, you can't go wrong with a Leica. If you don't like Leicas (not addressing lens prices, but there are lots of quality offerings for significantly cheaper), chances are you won't really like RF cameras in general.

But do bear in mind, not everyone gets along well with the RF abilities/deficits, since they excel at some things and do really poorly at others. A lot of photographers have grown up familiar with SLR shooting (SLRs being "the norm"), so in general, that's usually what suits people best.
 
Again, thank you so much for the replies 🙂

Well you've sold me the M6. I am definitely going to get one.
Just a matter of finding a good cheap copy. Unfortunately the one I was looking at had some of the ISO numbers rubbed off so I might pony up a few more dollars to get a better condition one as I'm the type to keep and hoard my cameras 😛

And to the Sydney folks, I would love to come out for a couple of drinks and meet up when I get it. Would be awesome to learn more about it and hopefully get some tips on developing at home too. Pretty exciting times ahead!
 
danielv10 said:
Greetings from Sydney, Australia 🙂

Lately I've been considering entering into the world of rangefinders and film. I've been after a small, discrete, and good quality camera to take out and about with me everywhere.
A rangefinder seemed like a good fit. I also wanted to learn about the world of film as recently I stumbled upon some old film photos and played with my friend's F3HP which was lots of fun.

Basically I've been offered an excellent condition (I believe) Leica M6 from ebay for approx. USD$1050 from a reputable seller. From my research this seems to be a good price?

I'm just wondering I should just purchase a cheap rangefinder and take baby steps instead of jumping into the deep, and expensive end of things?

I have very little experience with film (and none with rangefinders) aside from a old film P&S camera when I was young.
Leicas seems like an good choice due to the quality, size, durability, lenses available etc. And also the reputation and mystic is a factor 🙂
I have been shooting with a 5DMK2 for a few years with my 35/1.4 almost permanently stuck on. I absolutely love it. But I would love something smaller and discrete. I've followed the mantra of buy good, buy once and its worked well so far.

Any opinions and advice is greatly appreciated 🙂
Click to expand...

DONT...

people here will say oh yeah sure Leica M6 is affordable at 1000 but i don't think they understand that our economy is bad and that is still a high price for a film camera..

If you look closely enough you can find a top quality german made 50's 60's voigtlander (vito something) rangefinder with a sharp ultron lens for just around 50 bucks...

All film cameras are full frame and you'll get just as good results..

People here have to understand even a leica m6 is a rich person's toy lol..

at the end it's not about an m6 or an m7 but what you feel best carrying around..
 
fixed.......................................................................


kutitta said:
I second flip! I had been shooting film with SLRs and also had a Yashica Electro 35 GSN rangefinder before I got my first Minolta around 3 months ago. BTW it has its own story under Leica(Minolta) CL thread. But now I rarely grab my other cameras.

After making sure that the camera is in full working condition, I reckon getting a Leica Affiliated Camera is a wise decision. BTW I'm also based in Sydney, and it's good to see more RFF members around. Maybe we can arrange a meetup sometime.
Click to expand...
 
If small is important to you and it has to be Leica, getting a IIIc or IIIf would be another (and way cheaper) option. Not everyone likes the barnacks but I prefer them to the M's.
 
denizg7 said:
DONT...

people here will say oh yeah sure Leica M6 is affordable at 1000 but i don't think they understand that our economy is bad and that is still a high price for a film camera..

If you look closely enough you can find a top quality german made 50's 60's voigtlander (vito something) rangefinder with a sharp ultron lens for just around 50 bucks...

All film cameras are full frame and you'll get just as good results..

People here have to understand even a leica m6 is a rich person's toy lol..

at the end it's not about an m6 or an m7 but what you feel best carrying around..
Click to expand...

Also, I think people here have to understand that not everybody has the same income, expenses, earning potential or priorities in their life.

Your definition of rich is probably different to mine, and $1000 for a camera which will likely never devalue much is not too bad vs. the difference between spending $5000 or $6000 on a car which will eventually devalue to practically nothing, will make sense to many.

We all have different ideas about money, and you can't simply apply your own feelings about something to everybody else, there will be people on here who are millionaires, and some who are broke. The only blanket statement that ever seems to hold true is that blanket statements are never correct.
 
thegman said:
Also, I think people here have to understand that not everybody has the same income, expenses, earning potential or priorities in their life.

Your definition of rich is probably different to mine, and $1000 for a camera which will likely never devalue much is not too bad vs. the difference between spending $5000 or $6000 on a car which will eventually devalue to practically nothing, will make sense to many.

We all have different ideas about money, and you can't simply apply your own feelings about something to everybody else, there will be people on here who are millionaires, and some who are broke. The only blanket statement that ever seems to hold true is that blanket statements are never correct.
Click to expand...

But you can afford a M6 for that price.. you might need to get an older leica lens or third party lens but you can afford it.

I'm a student and saved since I was 14 for... well I didnt know what I was saving for but I did. And here I go with that wonderful thing.

I guess the author has at least a little affinity towards Leica.. else he wouldnt have written in the Leica M subforum🙂
 
denizg7 said:
fixed.......................................................................
Click to expand...

Do you think you are funny? I'm sorry mate, but so far you have been the only RFF member that annoys me. For those who didn't understand the issue, this gentleman has this fixed idea in his mind that Leica CL is not a Leica but a Minolta, and doesn't miss any opportunity to reiterate that.

So from now on, let's call Nikon DSLRs Sony, because they carry Sony sensors.
 
Marc G. said:
But you can afford a M6 for that price.. you might need to get an older leica lens or third party lens but you can afford it.

I'm a student and saved since I was 14 for... well I didnt know what I was saving for but I did. And here I go with that wonderful thing.

I guess the author has at least a little affinity towards Leica.. else he wouldnt have written in the Leica M subforum🙂
Click to expand...

it's not about affording. I too saved up my money 2 years to get an m6. But I knew about rangefinders for awhile , I studied them . I shot with my parents old film camera for a long time.

I just don't think when you have no experience and when you are not too sure about something that will be expense , it's best to try it out first. Don't listen to people saying the m6 is the best entry level rangefinder for leica m, it is the best leica m film up to date because , it does not need batteries to work on all shutter speeds , the mechanics are not dependent on electronics yet you have the option of using a light meter built in , better rewind then mp and the list goes on
 
kutitta said:
Do you think you are funny? I'm sorry mate, but so far you have been the only RFF member that annoys me. For those who didn't understand the issue, this gentleman has this fixed idea in his mind that Leica CL is not a Leica but a Minolta, and doesn't miss any opportunity to reiterate that.

So from now on, let's call Nikon DSLRs Sony, because they carry Sony sensors.
Click to expand...

not your mate , pal , all though i woulda have bought the broken down minolta cl at that price too leica or not.. So when youxin ye gave you a new one how much did that cost
 
denizg7 said:
not your mate , pal , all though i woulda have bought the broken down minolta cl at that price too leica or not.. So when youxin ye gave you a new one how much did that cost
Click to expand...

Such a ridiculous question! What difference does it make if I paid $200 or $600. Or the price I paid for Summicron-C 40/2 is still $10. Does that mean that it shouldn't qualify as Leica, because I paid too little?

For mate thing, you are right in saying that you are not my mate. It was just an Aussie expression used without thinking!
 
Stick with the M6 decision but make sure it is in good shape to save you woe in the future. A fine body. I have had an M7 also so if affordable check into that also.
 
For me, I started with the Leica M4-P that served several purposes: 1> Gave me a Leica at a price point that allowed me to determine if I wanted to fully dive into the expensive metered bodies and 2> Taught me to read light sans reader.

I along the way also acquired several Russian LTM cameras and a Canon, and the experience certainly is different. The Leica is solidly recommended for exactly the reasons stated: It is the absolute best 35mm rangefinder tactile experience you will get. It will solidly commit you to photography, for both the seriousness of the gear and the financial costs of investing into it.

Go straight for the Leica. Otherwise, you may find yourself with half a dozen rangefinder cameras that you upgraded from to ultimately get you there.
 
NeeZee said:
If small is important to you and it has to be Leica, getting a IIIc or IIIf would be another (and way cheaper) option. Not everyone likes the barnacks but I prefer them to the M's.
Click to expand...

I have both M3 and IIIf, I agree that the Barnack cameras are gems, and both bodies and lenses are a lot cheaper. I think I use the IIIf more than the M3 at this point, if nothing else because it fits so well in the hand.

That said, I think I was better off starting with an M. I think if you see a good deal you should go for it, I doubt that you will be unhappy in the end.

Randy
 
kutitta said:
Such a ridiculous question! What difference does it make if I paid $200 or $600. Or the price I paid for Summicron-C 40/2 is still $10. Does that mean that it shouldn't qualify as Leica, because I paid too little?

For mate thing, you are right in saying that you are not my mate. It was just an Aussie expression used without thinking!
Click to expand...

haha i just think you are too stuck in the leica name.. all i am saying is after selling your camera to youxin ye and buying another one if it did cost same or more than the minolta cle , then it would prove my point..
 
I wouldn't say an M6 is a rich boys toy. Thats a massive generalisation you are making.
It's a great tool to learn on, go for it.
 
American: You're not my friend, buddy.
Canadian: You're not my buddy, guy.
American: You're not my guy, pal.
Canadian: You're not my pal, friend.
 
denizg7 said:
haha i just think you are too stuck in the leica name.. all i am saying is after selling your camera to youxin ye and buying another one if it did cost same or more than the minolta cle , then it would prove my point..
Click to expand...

I reckon it's the other way around - you are too stuck in the Minolta name for a camera that was named by its manufacturer by Leica CL.

I am sorry to ask but what is your point anyway? What difference does it make if I paid more or less than Minolta CLE? To me CL is a Leica camera, period! And this fact doesn't change if it is more or less expensive than Minolta CLE.
 
kutitta said:
I reckon it's the other way around - you are too stuck in the Minolta name for a camera that was named by its manufacturer by Leica CL.

I am sorry to ask but what is your point anyway? What difference does it make if I paid more or less than Minolta CLE? To me CL is a Leica camera, period! And this fact doesn't change if it is more or less expensive than Minolta CLE.
Click to expand...

a true leica supports framelines of 50mm lens first and 35mm lens second.

cle has a much better electronic meter than cl

to a lot of people a panasonic is a leica camera too..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom