Newbie here.. need your help

A

abhishek@1985

Member
Local time
4:29 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
43
Hi, I am a newbie here and this is my first post.

Well film is almost an alien part of photography to me until yesterday when I had the first ever chance to hold onto a leica M6 . Couldn't believe the feel of the camera.
It seems that even after 24 hrs I still long for the camera badly and it sadly makes my Nikon D90 look so very inferior. I mean its film not digital , manual focus , no viewing through the lens but still the feel of it alone was enough to sell all my digital stuffs and get a rangefinder.
The smooth focus of using the creamy summilux for 30 minutes has been haunting me even in dreams.
So have decided to sell out my digital gear and fund a rangefinder. Ofcourse I would have to sell my digital stuffs as they no more appeal to me after using the leica for 30 mins. I don't know it may sound weird but i am only dreaming of it.
Also wanna know if there's a little less costly option to Leica . My highest budget is 1500 with the lens.

It may sound childish but need your views as to what's best for me. Will it be good for me as i am just a newbie in photography to go for a rangefinder or stick to digital and later move to rangefinders with experience..

As of now, i have listed down 2 cameras which seem a little affordable to me :-

1. Voigtlander Besssa R2M,R3M,R4M .
2. Leica Minolta CLE

But cannot afford a leica lens . So want to know your views on the lens. I am more of a wide angle guy and seem to enjoy shooting with anything less than 50mm.
 
Welcome.

Are you set on an M6? I believe that you can find an M2 or M4 for much less than the M6.

A Summilux will be out of your price range, I'm afraid, but there are tons of other options out there.
 
for 1500 you could get a used leica and a very good lens...perhaps even a leica with some good shopping skills.
i have been a rf guy from the beginning and even when using other formats/styles of cameras have always had a rf nearby.

i like the r4a and a 25mm lens...great combo...
 
You could get an older Leica M film body and a Leica screw in lens with M adapter for $1500. It might even help create pictures with more character than a new ASPH lens. Personally, I like both but I only own an ASPH lens. If I could do it all over, I'd save a bunch of money and buy a very old Leica lens in good condition instead. I LOVE what I have, but I got some bills to pay. :eek:

Either way, if you are interested in used Leica gear do your research before hitting ebay. Prices can be higher there for people who get caught up in auctions and/or haven't done their research. There is an amazing, helpful knowledge base here.

If you are open to non-Leica equipment, Zeiss makes some good lenses.
 
Thank you guys so much for the info.. Well i am currently doing my research but wanted to get all your views before I plunge into the leica system.
The only thing that has been worrying me is the scanning of teh films. I have got Walgreens nearby but dont know how good their scanning would be. Also truely speaking film is a costly process in teh long run especially when you cannot scan them on your own.
Now certainly cannot afford a M9 but let me knwo your thoughts on the M8. A used one from keh would go around 2k and may be a voigtlander lens, it would come to around 2500 USD.. Certainly quite high for me but if i do sell all my nikon stuffs I think I can afford it...
 
Ricoh GXR + EVF + Leica M mount module + Cosina 35/2.5 (or 25/4) Skopar could be close to your original budget. Crop factor = 1.5. M8 specs without the pricetag or fooling with special filters.

For about the same $, M2 or M4 + used Zeiss Planar + decent light meter. (And yes, film is the high-IQ gift that keeps on costing.)
 
Try out a Nikon S2 or SP. You can get an S2 with 50mm f/1.4 for $600 or less, pretty easy. An SP will run closer to or above $1000 but the lenses for the Nikon rangefinders are quite inexpensive compared to their Leica counterparts and the Nikkors are amazing image makers, easily equal to their Leica counterparts and very close to the performance of lenses today.
Regardless of what you choose, welcome to shooting film!

Phil Forrest
 
abhishek@1985 said:
Thank you guys so much for the info.. Well i am currently doing my research but wanted to get all your views before I plunge into the leica system.
The only thing that has been worrying me is the scanning of teh films. I have got Walgreens nearby but dont know how good their scanning would be. Also truely speaking film is a costly process in teh long run especially when you cannot scan them on your own.
Now certainly cannot afford a M9 but let me knwo your thoughts on the M8. A used one from keh would go around 2k and may be a voigtlander lens, it would come to around 2500 USD.. Certainly quite high for me but if i do sell all my nikon stuffs I think I can afford it...
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are more interested in owning a Leica because it's a Leica than owning an M6 because it is a great film body? Correct me if I am wrong.

The M6 and M8 are two completely different animals. It is true that film will be expensive in the long run, but if you have your mind set on film, there is no way around this. You can develop and scan your own film (or have it developed and scan it yourself) in order to cut down on costs.

What is your true budget? $1500 for an M2,M3,M6 + a lens is certainly possible, but $1500 for an M8 and lens is not. If you are thinking of stretching your budget to $2500 for an M8, why not spend that money on an M6 and a 35mm Summicron pre-asph (or maybe even a loved 35mm Summilux pre-asph v1)?
 
If you like the M6, and by your own admission, you're a newbie, the M6 is a good choice. At this stage, I would not suggest you get a Leica without a meter. The M8 is of course a different affair, the only thing I'd suggest with the M8 is to make sure you get a warranty of some kind. That's no diss on the M8, just any camera with electronics may have issues which are not immediately obvious and you may only notice after a month.

35mm film scanners are cheap and easy to get if you want to go down the film road, and bought at the right price, an M6 can be sold for what you paid for it. The M8 will hold value too, but it'll likely creep downwards as the months and years progress.
 
Hi abishek,

if you want to experience film, then do not settle for anything less (buying cheap is paying twice, as others already mentioned). Wait until you can afford a M6. A user grade fully functional is perfectly fine.

If you are not sure about film vs. digital, then it's getting really difficult to get into Leica M digital on a budget. I don't think the M8 is worth it, I never owned one and never thought about it. Having a small sensor and the need for IR filter is a no go for me.
 
Thanks everyone for all your inputs.. Well all I want is a Leica experience bbecause the feel of the M6 was of different than anything I have hold onto. And teh rangefinder focusing was fun and new concept to me. Surprising how fast you can do the focusing by overlapping the rectangles!!
And even though all the images I took were mostly Out Of Focus but the experience alone and the Out of focus pictures make you to strive more for perfection.
I want to learn photography not for profession but for passion. Hence I feel the urge to improve onto it and feel like using aleica will help me a lot in composition.
Also the texture of films were something I dont see in digital, that is true. So with all your suggestions will go for a M6 or let me know if M4 is good enough as its M6 without a meter..
Under any circumstance I need a lightmeter..Also please do let me know what good lightmeter can be bought for around 150$..
 
abhishek@1985 said:
Thanks everyone for all your inputs.. Well all I want is a Leica experience bbecause the feel of the M6 was of different than anything I have hold onto. And teh rangefinder focusing was fun and new concept to me. Surprising how fast you can do the focusing by overlapping the rectangles!!
And even though all the images I took were mostly Out Of Focus but the experience alone and the Out of focus pictures make you to strive more for perfection.
I want to learn photography not for profession but for passion. Hence I feel the urge to improve onto it and feel like using aleica will help me a lot in composition.
Also the texture of films were something I dont see in digital, that is true. So with all your suggestions will go for a M6 or let me know if M4 is good enough as its M6 without a meter..
Under any circumstance I need a lightmeter..Also please do let me know what good lightmeter can be bought for around 150$..
Click to expand...

Sekonic Twinmate is a good, cheap meter. The Voigtlander VC METER II is good, but pretty expensive. Or check eBay, there will be loads under $150.

The M4 is more than good enough, so long as you're OK about not having a built in meter. I think a meter is essential if you're shooting slide film, but you'd be amazed how tolerant colour negative film is these days of getting the exposure wrong. Think about this way, disposable cameras have no way of affecting the exposure at all, they rely entirely on the film absorbing the user's errors, which it does 99% of the time.

Film photography is pretty addictive, and I have no doubt you'll love any Leica.
 
I would begin from the end: do you shoot colour or B&W? Do you print or view pictures on screen only? These are important distinctions.
My opinion:
1) if you shoot colour, then try to get a digital body - RD-1 or M8.
2)If you shoot B&W, then start with buying a (good) scanner.
Fot a 35mm lens superlative RF experience, I would get a Zeiss Ikon and either the 35/2 or 35/2.8 Biogon. You won't get a better body for shooting or a (substantially) better lens. An alternative great lens is the Nokton 35/1.2, which is what I mainly use the ZI body for. Once you will see if rangefinders are for you, you will have plenty of time to save for the most expensive Leica bodies and lenses, even if none of this will make technically better pictures.

ZI+35/2 Biogon

2008050517 by mfogiel, on Flickr
 
If I were you, I would buy this m2 in the classifieds ---

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...on-collapsable-5cm-lensrecent-cla-on-m2/cat/3

That is $599.

I would get a sekonic l-208 light meter for $125 new.

Initial budget of $1500 - $600 for the camera - $125 for the light meter = $775 left.

Not sure how wide you like to go with your lenses. Wider than 50 is rather vague. There is a huge difference between 15, 21, 24, 28, 35, 40...

Check b&h, adorama, igor camera, tamarkin, leicashop, and the classifieds here. Difficult to offer specific lens advice without knowing what precise focal length you want.

edit - and if i were you i'd also buy a plustek 7600i ai scanner for $350 or so. And about $50-75 more should get you set up with everything you need to develop film yourself.

This is of course assuming you want to go the film route.
 
Well IMO, you should start with a Bessa R2/3/4 A/M, and here's why. First they're great. Second, you can start with a set of two or three lenses instead of one, for the same amount of money, specially if buy used. Since you're beginning have more lenses is great because you still need to find your photographic style. I'd say bessas don't have the same feel of a Leica construction wise, but the viewfinder is outstanding(IMO better than leica ones), and the experience should be about the same. In the future, if you still in to it, and found your style, get a Leica. Also, lenses are, usually, better investments than bodies. Also bessas do have a meter.


Body new + 2 lenses(color skopars 35mm and 21mm(or 25mm) = 1540,00

Very hard to beat. Used you can get a 50mm Jupiter 8 and an adapter to complete your set.
 
Up to the OP of course, but I personally disagree with the "film for B&W, digital for colour" advice you see a lot of. The punchy colour you get from Velvia, and the muted colour from over exposed Portra 160 both look fantastic. You're also more likely to hang onto the highlights from colour negative film than almost any digital camera IMHO. On the other hand I think the clean B&W look you get from digital looks really good, and I sometimes prefer it to B&W film.

You can achieve almost any film look from digital in post processing if you want though, it just depends if you want to achieve that look on your computer, or on film.
 
teleparallel said:
Well IMO, you should start with a Bessa R2/3/4 A/M, and here's why. First they're great. Second, you can start with a set of two or three lenses instead of one, for the same amount of money, specially if buy used. Since you're beginning have more lenses is great because you still need to find your photographic style. I'd say bessas don't have the same feel of a Leica construction wise, but the viewfinder is outstanding(IMO better than leica ones), and the experience should be about the same. In the future, if you still in to it, and found your style, get a Leica. Also, lenses are, usually, better investments than bodies.
Click to expand...

On paper I agree 100%, the Bessa cameras tend to have specs/finders/usability advantages over Leica. Technically I'd say Leica wins few battles, but sometimes the heart wants what it wants, and that may well be a Leica.

I will fan the flames though and perhaps suggest a Zeiss Ikon...
 
abhishek@1985 said:
The only thing that has been worrying me is the scanning of teh films. I have got Walgreens nearby but dont know how good their scanning would be. Also truely speaking film is a costly process in teh long run especially when you cannot scan them on your own.
Click to expand...

Film is very reasonable. It can be intimidating and seem expensive, but it really isn't. Just figure out what you want to do with your film and calculate the costs from there. Even if you pay for a lot of services, it is still a good deal.

I created a big Excel table to look at the different cost combinations of processing, printing from, and scanning film at a local professional lab. Without volume discounts, I determined I could get film, processing, 4"x6" prints, and high-res tiffs suitable for 16"x20" prints at something like $0.61 each. It might seem expensive compared to digital, but you'd have negatives, prints, and scans. And somebody else did all the work and maintains the equipment.

I have a film scanner and I almost bought a nice printer. For the same or less amount of money (not including ink and your time) you could have somebody else make you 2000 6"x4" prints and high-res tiffs.

Good film scans with an affordable scanner can take a while. What is 36 exposures X 15 minutes? 9 hours. You might want to save your time and money and pay someone to do it. I figured out that I'd have to scan 700 frames if I bought a plustek 7600i AI on sale before that cost would equal what I'd pay the lab.

Don't let this discourage you from film. I chose an M6 and film over a D800. By the time the costs are equalized, the D800 will be worth less than the M6 and I'll have both digital and physical artifacts of every picture (if I wanted). I also don't need to buy a new computer to use my M6, unlike the D800.

In the end, I decided to pay for film and processing. I might process my own film soon. From there, I'll pick the few frames I want to scan and do it myself. Then the price drops to something like $0.10 per exposure (not including the cost of the scanner or my time).
 
with a little patience, you can probably get an m2, a 35 skopar and a 21 skopar for $1500. my first leica was an m6 but i have since moved to the m2 and never looked back. the m2/3 feel even better than the m6 if you can believe it. check keh for good bgn prices. they have a great return policy too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom