Honu-Hugger
Well-known
I could not agree more, Robert The history is there for those that are interested; I've bought the books, read them and done the research (and I'm not going to make it easy for anyone by quoting here -- do your own homeworkRObert Budding said:
); the advances, innovations, and patents attributable to Zeiss are simply astounding.There's no shame in owning a Leica, but no honor in being a "Leica Lemming."
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Jarvis said:
It depends upon what they are shooting and, more importantly, for whom they are shooting. An art photographer can use any tool desired as what matters in the end is how well the print sells - hence quality of experiance and image will be very high on the list of priorities.
Now, someone who is working for a newspaper, such as the young woman I stood next to on Monday at the cathederal fire, is going to use a digitial - and not necessarily the latest and greatest either as half tone printing means that anything over about 5 megapixels is wasted. She carried a Canon EOS 1D but the real money was in the telephotos she had for it.
Now, I was right there with my Kiev 5 and a mixed bag of Zeiss, FSU and Cosina glass and the prints I got from Walgreens were probably better than the data files from her 1D. But the images from that APS sized CCD were in the next days paper, not mine
I've held and used Liecas enough to know they aren't for me. They just don't feel right to the way I like to shoot. Beautiful and well built and a view finder to die for. But they don't work for me.
In the end you have some things you can choose yourself and some choices are made for you. Finding what works best - for you - within those constraints is what matters. If it's a Lieca, great. For me it remains the Contax/Kiev family of cameras (I presume I'd love the Nikon S series as well, but I'll not know that one for sure anytime soon...
). William
rut
Member
for me: leica
-vs. FM3a(great camera BTW)- more accurate lowlight focusing and with wides in general. faster to focus-shorter throw. more compact, quieter. nikkors are sharp(i still use them) but i don't like the "look".
-vs.Bessa- better bulid quality..
-vs. Contax G- when i shot contax SLR's i tried one...too squinty and noisy. the lenses are great but typically too contrasty for my taste.
any of these cameras are capable of good images...it is the photographer anyway isn't it? what i find more amusing are the people rushing to drop megabucks on a digital SLR and peripherals and then "upgrading" as soon as the next model comes out....are their pictures better now? probably not, a K1000 would have sufficed.
-vs. FM3a(great camera BTW)- more accurate lowlight focusing and with wides in general. faster to focus-shorter throw. more compact, quieter. nikkors are sharp(i still use them) but i don't like the "look".
-vs.Bessa- better bulid quality..
-vs. Contax G- when i shot contax SLR's i tried one...too squinty and noisy. the lenses are great but typically too contrasty for my taste.
any of these cameras are capable of good images...it is the photographer anyway isn't it? what i find more amusing are the people rushing to drop megabucks on a digital SLR and peripherals and then "upgrading" as soon as the next model comes out....are their pictures better now? probably not, a K1000 would have sufficed.
akalai
Well-known
Oh GOD I really hate these threads!
Around and around we go, using so many cliches to compare apples with oranges (sorry couldn't help it) in a futile attempt to appease people's own insecurities in their camera choices due to fears of what? Being called an elitist or fondler for owning a Leica? Frugal but practical for buying a Voigtlander? Nostalgic and eccentric for choosing an older Contax? Insightful and avant garde for choosing an Epson Rd-1? I'm sure I have missed some stereotypes here... feel free to fill them out...
But who cares! Why are people so desperate to receive reassurance from others in their own underlying beliefs that lead them to use a particular range finder camera over another. All choices are compromises of some form and here we have issues of financial cost, availability, technical requirements, emotive issues of design aesthetics and quality....aghhh quality is a whole other quagmire... etc etc.
But surely in the end we make our own choices based on what puts a smile on our dials, while still respecting others various and perhaps differing choices and without insulting other peoples intelligence by preaching that our own personal choices are "obviously" more correct, truer, logical or somehow more valuable.
Perhaps one of the main problems here is people trying to attach numerical rationale to emotive issues and ending up with things like"total camera". What the hell is that? Surely as long as we end up with "total picture" we should be all pretty chuffed for one another.
Rodney King's quote "Why can't we all just get along?" seems to be getting a real work out of late....OK well lets now all hold hands and sing Cumbayah!
AKALAI
Around and around we go, using so many cliches to compare apples with oranges (sorry couldn't help it) in a futile attempt to appease people's own insecurities in their camera choices due to fears of what? Being called an elitist or fondler for owning a Leica? Frugal but practical for buying a Voigtlander? Nostalgic and eccentric for choosing an older Contax? Insightful and avant garde for choosing an Epson Rd-1? I'm sure I have missed some stereotypes here... feel free to fill them out...
But who cares! Why are people so desperate to receive reassurance from others in their own underlying beliefs that lead them to use a particular range finder camera over another. All choices are compromises of some form and here we have issues of financial cost, availability, technical requirements, emotive issues of design aesthetics and quality....aghhh quality is a whole other quagmire... etc etc.
But surely in the end we make our own choices based on what puts a smile on our dials, while still respecting others various and perhaps differing choices and without insulting other peoples intelligence by preaching that our own personal choices are "obviously" more correct, truer, logical or somehow more valuable.
Perhaps one of the main problems here is people trying to attach numerical rationale to emotive issues and ending up with things like"total camera". What the hell is that? Surely as long as we end up with "total picture" we should be all pretty chuffed for one another.
Rodney King's quote "Why can't we all just get along?" seems to be getting a real work out of late....OK well lets now all hold hands and sing Cumbayah!
AKALAI
P
pradeep1
Guest
I guess the answer is akin to why some people wear vintage clothing, drive 78 Coopers (or older Corvairs!), or use Macintosh computers, when cheaper, better, and safer alternatives are available.
It could just be that you have too much time on your hands, too much money to spend, and too little brains. But that's just my opinion.
It could just be that you have too much time on your hands, too much money to spend, and too little brains. But that's just my opinion.
DougK
This space left blank
I may not care much about Leica vs. Brand X, but I hope I didn't just hear somebody say there's a better alternative than a Mac... THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS, PAL!
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Leica bashing was quite the rage when I started shooting 35mm in the early 1970's.Jarvis said:
The Leica M whether you love it or dislike its think-before-you-shoot operation delivers consistant quality over many decades with little regard to the latest and greatest automated convenience. Its fit and finish are rarely equalled by current cameras. Compared to its contemparies, the Leica M is a no-nonsence affair.
With the exception of the M7, its basic functions are performed with a refined mechanical precision that will, with proper tune ups, outlast 99% of the latest and greatest micro-processor controlled power houses.
The M7 which is electronically dependent will have to prove itself over the long haul, but I'll predict that in a decade it will make a current Nikon or Canon Super SLR look like a silver metal winner, if not the bronze. The hand fitted and assembled M7 will definitely hold its value better than today's Super SLR.
The Kyocera Contax and the Konic Hexars were class acts, but a silver metal is still a silver metal.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Honu-Hugger said:
So which is better - Leitz or Zeiss glass? :angel:
W
wierdcollector
Guest
I can't add a word that would sum it all up better than Akalai's statements. Agfa to Zeiss, they're all nice. If it's within your budget, gets you out of your easy chair in front of the T.V., and provides hours of satisfaction and enjoyment, who can say one is better or worse.
Let's hope this forum doesn't deteriorate to the level of the "Classic Camera" forum on Photo.net . Lighten up guys, this is something we all enjoy isn't it? I don't think any of us really look down on any of the others do you? For myself, I'm equally happy looking at the photos all of you contribute to our gallery, equipment is really only a secondary pleasure. Be it a Dogdropping Mark 7 or a Turnip 3, isn't the fun we get from using them more important than the logo on the camera? Just my two cents worth, but if everyone wants to bicker, I'm sending you all to separate corners for a little Quiet Time Chair, lol.
Let's hope this forum doesn't deteriorate to the level of the "Classic Camera" forum on Photo.net . Lighten up guys, this is something we all enjoy isn't it? I don't think any of us really look down on any of the others do you? For myself, I'm equally happy looking at the photos all of you contribute to our gallery, equipment is really only a secondary pleasure. Be it a Dogdropping Mark 7 or a Turnip 3, isn't the fun we get from using them more important than the logo on the camera? Just my two cents worth, but if everyone wants to bicker, I'm sending you all to separate corners for a little Quiet Time Chair, lol.
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
After careful consideration: KinoptikSolinar said:
DougK
This space left blank
weirdcollector, well said
If you can afford it and want it, buy it and shoot it. If not, buy something else and shoot that. Either way, I'd rather hear about the pictures taken with it and the stories behind them.
If you can afford it and want it, buy it and shoot it. If not, buy something else and shoot that. Either way, I'd rather hear about the pictures taken with it and the stories behind them.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
wierdcollector said:
It scares me to think that the only readable forum on that web site is held up as bad...
William
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
quotes regarding gear:
"I went to Marseille. A small allowance enabled me to get along, and I worked with enjoyment. I had just discovered the Leica. It became the extension of my eye, and I have never been separated from it since I found it. I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung-up and ready to pounce, determined to "trap" life - to preserve life in the act of living. Above all, I craved to seize the whole essence, in the confines of one single photograph, of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes". -Henri Cartier-Bresson
"I hope that we don’t ever see the day when ready-made photo system, which guarantee good photographic compostions in advance, go on the market". -Henri Cartier-Bresson.
"Pictures, regardless of how they are created and recreated, are intended to be looked at. This brings to the forefront not the technology of imaging, which of course is important, but rather what we might call the eyenology (seeing)". -Henri Cartier-Bresson
"The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. -Brooks Anderson
"People are under the illusion that it's easy...Technically, it is complex. You have a million options with equipment to distract you. I tell me students to simplify their equipment". -Brett Weston
"Why Leica? Because My M3 can smash your Contax "G" into tiny bits and still keep shooting!"-Todd.Hanz RFF member.
Welcome to the Forum
Todd
"I went to Marseille. A small allowance enabled me to get along, and I worked with enjoyment. I had just discovered the Leica. It became the extension of my eye, and I have never been separated from it since I found it. I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung-up and ready to pounce, determined to "trap" life - to preserve life in the act of living. Above all, I craved to seize the whole essence, in the confines of one single photograph, of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes". -Henri Cartier-Bresson
"I hope that we don’t ever see the day when ready-made photo system, which guarantee good photographic compostions in advance, go on the market". -Henri Cartier-Bresson.
"Pictures, regardless of how they are created and recreated, are intended to be looked at. This brings to the forefront not the technology of imaging, which of course is important, but rather what we might call the eyenology (seeing)". -Henri Cartier-Bresson
"The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. -Brooks Anderson
"People are under the illusion that it's easy...Technically, it is complex. You have a million options with equipment to distract you. I tell me students to simplify their equipment". -Brett Weston
"Why Leica? Because My M3 can smash your Contax "G" into tiny bits and still keep shooting!"-Todd.Hanz RFF member.
Welcome to the Forum
Todd
Flinor
Well-known
If you have used Leicas, or any other good rangefinder for that matter, and you still don't understand then I don't think our words will help you.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
It can be argued that Leica does a few things extremely well and is an ideal answer to problems faced by certain 35mm film photographers such as Merciful. Personally, in 35mm, my choice for a more versatile "all around" system would be an SLR and in particular a Nikon FM2n. For me there is no doubt that you will pay quite a bit more for a Leica M system and that the gain in image quality is not in direct proprtion to the cost (point of deminishing return).
If versatility and best value for money spent were all that justified buying something it would be a very dull world. That said, I am happy to have had a chance to use a Leica and will continue to use one. Buy one and if you like it keep it, if you don't like it sell it. Do not look at me to tell you that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sometimes you just have to treat yourself.
Bob
If versatility and best value for money spent were all that justified buying something it would be a very dull world. That said, I am happy to have had a chance to use a Leica and will continue to use one. Buy one and if you like it keep it, if you don't like it sell it. Do not look at me to tell you that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sometimes you just have to treat yourself.
Bob
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Todd.Hanz said:
Just don't mention that to a real Contax II as it will stomp even a M3 into surrender... LOL
More seriously, never forget that names are owned by companies that do not give a goddamn about anything you consider important. _You_ may think of some bit of tradition as inviolate. They will consider it as "yet another revenue stream". Grab your ankles and be ready for the F*cking that will happen sooner or later, and you'll be OK...
Welcome to the Forum
William
T
tedwhite
Guest
Making a living with a camera is no easy thing, to put it rather mildly. When I did that for a few years I lost all regard for my equipment in terms of whether it was a Leica or a Pentax Spotmatic or a Minolta Maxxum or a Hassy. They were mere tools. One could love them, sit in the study with a glass of wine and admire them, tote them about and hope other aficonados would notice. But none of that made you money. I found renting equipment odious. But I did it when I had to, and anyway, the client paid for it in the end.
I was relieved when I quit doing that, and began, once again, taking pictures when I felt the urge, and where I wanted to, without regard for whether or not I had just made a viable commercial product.
During my commercial years I had an opportunity to pick up an M3. It was virtually useless to make money with. I used it instead to take the pictures I wanted to take. When I wandered around the Fiat-Allis plant in Springfield, IL (an industrial client) I heard a foreman say, "Oh, when he's got that little thing he's not working, he's on his lunch hour."
That you own a 1962 Mercedes Benz means you are a likely prospect to own a vintage Leica. The owner of either (perhaps you'll be the owner of both soon) suggests that the owner is a person of discriminating taste, and maybe that's part of what it's all about.
We're not talking practicality here. Although you may be able to keep both MB and Leica "running" for several more decades - and one could argue that owning both saves money in the long run (no car payments, as an example) - that's not why you own them.
Some people buy Kias and single-use cameras. How "practical" can you get?
Others don't.
My black Bessa R certainly resembles an M6 or an M7. Both are RF cameras, both come with exceptional lenses. If I had either of the latter and went out on Monday and took pictures all day, then on Tuesday took the Bessa out and did the same thing, day after day, would anyone, looking at the photographs, be able to tell which camera I used?
Having said this, if I had plenty of discretionary income, would I put together a Leica RF system?
Sad to say, oh yes, oh yes.
Ted
I was relieved when I quit doing that, and began, once again, taking pictures when I felt the urge, and where I wanted to, without regard for whether or not I had just made a viable commercial product.
During my commercial years I had an opportunity to pick up an M3. It was virtually useless to make money with. I used it instead to take the pictures I wanted to take. When I wandered around the Fiat-Allis plant in Springfield, IL (an industrial client) I heard a foreman say, "Oh, when he's got that little thing he's not working, he's on his lunch hour."
That you own a 1962 Mercedes Benz means you are a likely prospect to own a vintage Leica. The owner of either (perhaps you'll be the owner of both soon) suggests that the owner is a person of discriminating taste, and maybe that's part of what it's all about.
We're not talking practicality here. Although you may be able to keep both MB and Leica "running" for several more decades - and one could argue that owning both saves money in the long run (no car payments, as an example) - that's not why you own them.
Some people buy Kias and single-use cameras. How "practical" can you get?
Others don't.
My black Bessa R certainly resembles an M6 or an M7. Both are RF cameras, both come with exceptional lenses. If I had either of the latter and went out on Monday and took pictures all day, then on Tuesday took the Bessa out and did the same thing, day after day, would anyone, looking at the photographs, be able to tell which camera I used?
Having said this, if I had plenty of discretionary income, would I put together a Leica RF system?
Sad to say, oh yes, oh yes.
Ted
waileong
Well-known
You asked why Leica?
You asked why Leica?
Why pay so much for a Leica that essentially takes pictures no differently, the cloth shutter is not as accurate as an electronic shutter, film loading is slow, etc..
Why indeed?
Because
a. The feel-good factor. They are absolutely beautiful cameras, esp the M3. Timeless classic design.
b. They are small-- smaller than 20D with battery grip and 24-70L lens.
c. They are quiet
d. They are easy to focus manually.
e. They are handholdable at low shutter speeds
f. They are potentially much sharper, the glass is good and the lack of mirror slap is good too.
In short, while SLR's/DSLR's are do-it-alls , the M is a specialist camera, and it's very good for it was designed for-- quiet, close photography in low light.
While SLR's/DSLR's are tools and workhorses of pro photographers today, a Leica M today is an item of joy which gives pride of ownership-- and I'm not just referring to wankers and collectors.
Is it worth it? Do you measure a car's worth by just whether it can get you from Point A to Point B? Or do you also look at styling, feel, luxury, resale value, etc. A 20D can certainly give good picture quality, but it has a different feel and certainly a lot lower resale value. If you only want to take pictures, buy an SLR/DSLR. If you are looking for more than a light-tight box to take pictures with, you may be right for a Leica.
You asked why Leica?
Why pay so much for a Leica that essentially takes pictures no differently, the cloth shutter is not as accurate as an electronic shutter, film loading is slow, etc..
Why indeed?
Because
a. The feel-good factor. They are absolutely beautiful cameras, esp the M3. Timeless classic design.
b. They are small-- smaller than 20D with battery grip and 24-70L lens.
c. They are quiet
d. They are easy to focus manually.
e. They are handholdable at low shutter speeds
f. They are potentially much sharper, the glass is good and the lack of mirror slap is good too.
In short, while SLR's/DSLR's are do-it-alls , the M is a specialist camera, and it's very good for it was designed for-- quiet, close photography in low light.
While SLR's/DSLR's are tools and workhorses of pro photographers today, a Leica M today is an item of joy which gives pride of ownership-- and I'm not just referring to wankers and collectors.
Is it worth it? Do you measure a car's worth by just whether it can get you from Point A to Point B? Or do you also look at styling, feel, luxury, resale value, etc. A 20D can certainly give good picture quality, but it has a different feel and certainly a lot lower resale value. If you only want to take pictures, buy an SLR/DSLR. If you are looking for more than a light-tight box to take pictures with, you may be right for a Leica.
P
pukupi
Guest
Well said akalai!
T
Tim
Guest
pukupi said:
amen to that.....
This thread made me think a bit, why do I choose to use the Leica, when I have owned or tried most other things?
The answer I came up with is "because I like it, I enjoy using it, and I can take good photos with it"
Pure and simple.
tim