Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
It doesn't have to be a Leica...
It doesn't have to be a Leica...
In case anyone is reading this thinking they just have to get a Leica but can't afford it, don't sweat it. You'll get substantially the same experience with a Pentax MX for one tenth the price. Don't get me wrong: the Leica is a superb camera but it's not the only one. Leica lenses sometimes have a slight advantage but whether or not you'll see this depends on several factors.
Your technique, from focusing, pressing the shutter, developing the film and making the darkroom print (assuming you're going to be making REAL photographs
) has to be bang on. There aren't too many amateur photographers who can achieve this. Handholding the camera also means that you will probably never see the ultimate sharpness your lens is capable of. In fact, any excellent prime lens if used on a tripod will probably surpass a Leica lens handheld.
If you really want a Leica and can afford one then by all means buy one. You cannot buy better. However, years ago I had an M2 and M3 and a few lenses and subsequently sold them. They're great for street shooting and for walkabout photography but I found them too restrictive in other areas. I also couldn't get used to such an imprecise viewfinder. Yes, it's bright and clear but I was never sure where the edges of the 35mm film frame actually were because the viewfinder's field of view shows quite a lot less than the film captures and it changes according to the focused distance. Depending on the type of shooting you do, this may or may not be important to you - I know photographers who compose very "loosely" and then crop on screen or on the easel. I'd love to have another Leica but I know it would only be for the camera's tactile qualities. I probably wouldn't shoot much with it.
I've got much the same problem with my Hexar AF and Yashica 35CC. Both have great lenses - particuarly the Hexar - but they don't get a lot of use. I was out shooting with the Hexar the other day and found myself wishing I'd taken my Contax SLR along instead. Composition is, imo, the key to good photography and SLRs are better for me in that respect than a rangefinder.
Sorry about this long post but I just wanted to caution the OP or anyone else in a similar frame of mind that a Leica isn't the magic bullet. If you have a good eye for a photograph you'll be able to take them with just about anything. If you haven't a Leica wont help you and, in some respects, could hold you back. That's just my opinion and your mileage may vary.
It doesn't have to be a Leica...
In case anyone is reading this thinking they just have to get a Leica but can't afford it, don't sweat it. You'll get substantially the same experience with a Pentax MX for one tenth the price. Don't get me wrong: the Leica is a superb camera but it's not the only one. Leica lenses sometimes have a slight advantage but whether or not you'll see this depends on several factors.
Your technique, from focusing, pressing the shutter, developing the film and making the darkroom print (assuming you're going to be making REAL photographs
) has to be bang on. There aren't too many amateur photographers who can achieve this. Handholding the camera also means that you will probably never see the ultimate sharpness your lens is capable of. In fact, any excellent prime lens if used on a tripod will probably surpass a Leica lens handheld.If you really want a Leica and can afford one then by all means buy one. You cannot buy better. However, years ago I had an M2 and M3 and a few lenses and subsequently sold them. They're great for street shooting and for walkabout photography but I found them too restrictive in other areas. I also couldn't get used to such an imprecise viewfinder. Yes, it's bright and clear but I was never sure where the edges of the 35mm film frame actually were because the viewfinder's field of view shows quite a lot less than the film captures and it changes according to the focused distance. Depending on the type of shooting you do, this may or may not be important to you - I know photographers who compose very "loosely" and then crop on screen or on the easel. I'd love to have another Leica but I know it would only be for the camera's tactile qualities. I probably wouldn't shoot much with it.
I've got much the same problem with my Hexar AF and Yashica 35CC. Both have great lenses - particuarly the Hexar - but they don't get a lot of use. I was out shooting with the Hexar the other day and found myself wishing I'd taken my Contax SLR along instead. Composition is, imo, the key to good photography and SLRs are better for me in that respect than a rangefinder.
Sorry about this long post but I just wanted to caution the OP or anyone else in a similar frame of mind that a Leica isn't the magic bullet. If you have a good eye for a photograph you'll be able to take them with just about anything. If you haven't a Leica wont help you and, in some respects, could hold you back. That's just my opinion and your mileage may vary.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I might as well add my tu'pence worth.
The M6 is a superb camera and with even a basic set of lenses (I'm thinking 35mm and 90mm) will be a very enjoyable experience. Plus the fun of film.
But - and this is a great big but - if you can afford the M6 and lenses etc, then I'd suggest one of the basic CRF's like the Olympus range or even the Ricoh and Yashicas*. Cheap to buy and try and cheap to repair too. Then go for the M6 once you kow what it's all about.
As I see it the M6 is the last film camera you should buy and not the first. And your choice of the last camera should be based on the experience you've built up over the years. Other people's experience is useful but yours is what counts.
Regards, David
* A minor point but do find out what batteries they need as that might be the biggest problem and cause a lot of sleepless nights. Look at the price of a PX625 adapter for example. The PX625 is an illegal mercury battery needed by a lot of older cameras. Adapters are available but can cost more than the camera: 3 or 4 times the cost of the camera if talking Ricoh...
I might as well add my tu'pence worth.
The M6 is a superb camera and with even a basic set of lenses (I'm thinking 35mm and 90mm) will be a very enjoyable experience. Plus the fun of film.
But - and this is a great big but - if you can afford the M6 and lenses etc, then I'd suggest one of the basic CRF's like the Olympus range or even the Ricoh and Yashicas*. Cheap to buy and try and cheap to repair too. Then go for the M6 once you kow what it's all about.
As I see it the M6 is the last film camera you should buy and not the first. And your choice of the last camera should be based on the experience you've built up over the years. Other people's experience is useful but yours is what counts.
Regards, David
* A minor point but do find out what batteries they need as that might be the biggest problem and cause a lot of sleepless nights. Look at the price of a PX625 adapter for example. The PX625 is an illegal mercury battery needed by a lot of older cameras. Adapters are available but can cost more than the camera: 3 or 4 times the cost of the camera if talking Ricoh...