Should i remain a Leica virgin?

[rkm]

Given its 2013, given I've never experienced shooting a Leica or even held one, given I have limited financial means, given I really enjoy film photography, given many of the photographers I enjoy use Leica, given I'm 40 and feel like its now or never (in more than one area of life)... Should I remain a Leica virgin or have a mid-life affair with one?

Some background. In September of last year, on my 40th birthday, i picked up my Father's Nikon FE with 50/1.4 and out of nowhere became a bit obsessed with photography. I'm midway through a year long project, to shoot at least a roll of black and white film per week on that camera. I enjoy working within self imposed limitations like this. I've added a couple of lenses to his kit (105/2.5 and 35/2.8 ), but kept things pretty simple.

I've started to think about the parameters for next years project. I wouldn't mind experiencing a different kind of camera. I could go for a TLR or Hasselblad, but would have to put money into another scanner (my Plustek is only 35mm). So, in terms of 35mm, there is only really the rangefinder world, or maybe XPan.

If I were able to scrounge up $1,000-$1,500, I might be able to buy an M6 and a VC 35/1.4, or an M3 and 50mm of some description. Any rangefinder is going to provide a different experience of photography compare to my FE, but if I can only afford VC glass, is it going to be any better than the good Nikkor AIS glass?

Thoughts?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Why do you need a new project that requires a new camera? You are just getting in tune with the camera you have. And you have half a year left, yes? Sure, a new camera, new format, new film, new lens is exciting, but there's a lot to be said for having to simply not think about the camera and lenses you have.

I'd say stick with the equipment you have and focus on what you are shooting. You need a to move your project to the next level, find more focus on subject matter or style, not fumble around with a new camera.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It's a different shooting experience but there are some prime Nikkors that are absolutely world class and can't be beaten by any other lenses, especially for the price.

It's just my opinion but I say stick with the Nikon cameras. Maybe explore the F system a bit more. Try an F2A or an original F with a non metered prism. The finders in those cameras will even give you a bit of pause when you look back in the FE, which is a great camera.

Maybe try some of the cooler pro-class Nikkors out there like the 180 f/2.8 ED, the 28 f/2.8 AIS, the 50 f/1.2, or a crazy wide angle like the 2.1cm O Nikkor that requires a mirror lockup camera. It has a very unique and wonderful look all unto itself. These days, even exotic lenses like the 200mm f/2 are within "affordable" range when you compare them to used Leica lenses.

Over the last year I've made the switch back to Nikons (mostly digital) and use all manual focus lenses. I've got a small collection of some of the very best Nikkors made and, thanks to the generosity of members here as well as the used market for manual focus lenses, I can afford a bunch of lenses that would have cost over $7000 in glass alone back when they were new.

If you go for a Leica M camera, a non-metered body is the way to go to keep the cost down and help to afford a nice lens or two.

Phil Forrest

 

[gb hill]

Maybe a barnack like a IIIc & a 50 elmar. Or perhaps a Summitar if you perfer a faster lens.

 

[zuiko85]

I wanted a Leica M for 40 years, finally got one. Found out I'm a SLR shooter. The only way you will know for sure is to own one for a couple of years but.... You already have a fine camera.

 

[rkm]

Dan,

The impetus is me not really bonding with the 35mm. I started thinking about people saying rangefinders are better for wides. First thought was get a rangefinder for 35mm, and keep Nikon for normal and long lens. Secondary thought was maybe I could do really well with just a 50mm lens only, in which case, maybe I want a really good 50mm lens. but you're right, thinking about gear can be a distraction.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Do it! If you don't, you're always going to wonder about it. If you can swing it get a Leica lens as well. Because if you get an M6 camera you'll wonder about the glass too, and will hanker for a Leica lens anyway. Buy carefully, and if Leica doesn't work for you, you can always sell for what you paid.

As to whether CV glass is better than good Nikkor AIS glass, YMMV depending on your definition of "better", but I'd say yes. For example, all the CV 35mm lenses I've used blow the equivalent 35mm AIS Nikkors away. The Nokton 35/1.2 is so much better than the AIS 35/1.4 its ridiculous. And the Nokton 35/1.4 isn't bad either. I've never used an AIS 35/2.8 but I doubt it can touch the Skopar 35/2.5 (the best bang for your buck in RF 35mm lenses IMO).

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

I have been a leica M shooter since 1968. I am totally familiar with the camera and style of shooting leica M is best at. You have to realize it is not an "all round camera" ... very good on certain specific shooting situations. It is like a window to reality. You look thru it, no autofocus, tele lenses are hard to focus. If you are not commited to very precise workflow, it is very hard to have any real advantage of the optics. When I lend my leicas to people who are not used to leica ergonomics, they find using it very awkward. My advice: try to rent or borrow one for a week and see for yourself...

 

[rkm]

Phil,

Good food for thought, thanks.

28/2.8 AIS $200
50/1.2 $350
180/2.8 ED $350

That's a lot of ground covered.

 

[Vics]

If you like the 50 1.4, you should try thr Nikkor-H 50mm f2. Also, maybe a 20mm lens. There are many to choose from. Remember that all your lenses MUST be Ai or Ais to mount on the FE. I'd say try to stay with Nikon.

 

[lynnb]

I like what you've been doing with your Nikon lenses. For 35mm, I don't see any need to change - it's your eye and brain that take the pictures, not the camera. In my view the only photographic reason to go M-mount (or LTM) is to use quality Leica or Zeiss glass. I don't see the excellent CV lenses as any advantage over your equally excellent Nikkors, apart from size.

Emotional reasons are another matter entirely - there is much satisfaction in using quality precision tools. The other advantages of a RF is there's no VF blackout at the time of exposure, and you can see what's just outside the frame. If the absence of those things bothers you, then you might want to try a rangefinder.

In my opinion a MF camera might make more sense. I faced a similar dilemma and decided to get a TLR (Yashica Mat 124G); but with your budget you could get a very nice Rolleiflex or a 'blad - or something like the 124G/Autocord/Rolleicord + an Epson V700. The big negatives make a big difference. You take a lot of family portraits - look at Alex Krasotkin's gallery to see what a difference MF makes to family portraits.

Just my thoughts!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Dan,

The impetus is me not really bonding with the 35mm. I started thinking about people saying rangefinders are better for wides. First thought was get a rangefinder for 35mm, and keep Nikon for normal and long lens. Secondary thought was maybe I could do really well with just a 50mm lens only, in which case, maybe I want a really good 50mm lens. but you're right, thinking about gear can be a distraction.

Get a Rolleiflex. A 3.5 E, Planar or Xenotar. For the 75mm lens compared to the 80mm of the 2.8. Throw it all up in the air. The TLR way of shooting is *very* different than the SLR way; the Leica still involves the camera at eye level, covering the face, and looking through a peephole at the world. The TLR involves looking down, at a ground glass. And no mirror blackout (Hasselblad has blackout, and no returning mirror). And square, not 2:3.

If you don't click with it, sell it for what you paid.

Then if you want 35mm again, get the Leica. An M2 with a 35mm Summicron and be done with it.

But still, focus on the rest of this year, not on future equipment needs. When I am fiddling around thinking about equipment, it's because I don't have a project that is exciting me. Find a project and the right camera will find you.

 

[literiter]

If I had the talent I could write the most beautiful poem with either a stubby chewed up pencil or the most expensive gold nibbed fountain pen.

If I had the talent..........

 

[Archlich]

It's just a camera.

Buy a Canon LTM and you can remain a virgin - but what's the difference?

 

[tbarker13]

Why not? If you think you'd enjoy it and can swing the purchase, then just do it. The nice thing about this type of equipment is that you can change your mind two weeks later and pretty much get your money back.
People will recommend any number of camera/lens combos, based on what works best for their own situation.

I've gone pretty simple in photography right now. An M3, 50 rigid summicron and 90/4 elmar. A simple kit and not terribly expensive - at least not in Leica terms.

 

[Chrisrw]

I just purchased my first Leica yesterday (waiting with bated breath for the post to arrive). I don't think any of my CV lenses will create better images on this over my Bessa R2, or over my OM1n with the Zuiko glass, or Rollei 35, etc...but will I enjoy the experience of using a well built tool at the apex of design? Maybe. Maybe not. The great thing about used cameras (esp.Leica, is that you can always sell or return it. I say go for it if you can afford to. If it heightens your experience of shooting film, I see no harm.

 

[jwicaksana]

I wanted a Leica M for 40 years, finally got one. Found out I'm a SLR shooter. The only way you will know for sure is to own one for a couple of years but.... You already have a fine camera.

This is one of my biggest fear this far 😛
I am saving up for a Leica body and a lens, but what if I found out later I'm an SLR guy. 🙄 Is there any other way around it, I mean other than buying one and trying for a year?

 

[ktmrider]

Go for It

Go for It

Started using a Nikon F in college back in 1970. It paid my way through college and have loved the F series ever since but what I really wanted was a Leica. I bought an CL in 1974 and a real Leica M3 in 1976. Have owned both since then buying and selling various models. Objectively, a Leica will not do anything the Nikon can not do just as well. The optics are actually pretty equivalent with both lines having some OUTSTANDING lenses.

Having said that rational thought has little to do with phography. If you have the Leica itch, you might as well scratch it or you will never be happy. Need a meter? Then M5 or M6. No meter then a lot more choices including M2, 4,4-2, 4P or M3 if you primarily use a 50mm.

Get a used body and take a long hard look at Zeiss or Cosina lenses in your favorite focal lengths. Use the M for awhile and if you decide rangefinders are not for you, then sell it for what you paid for it. If you like it, then you can upgrade both body and lenses as desired. Personally, I have used all the film Ms and they will all out last me. I do not feel that the prices Leica wants for their lenses are justified and will probably never buy a new Leitz lens again. Of course, I have some going back awhile and use them but they make great investments. My favorite M bodies are the M2 for the simplicity of the viewfinder and M6 for the meter. Good luck and I do not really think you can make a bad decision here.

 

[jarski]

Am sure happy giving up my virginity. Though am not currently shooting with Leica, or it didn't make me any better photographer, was fun experience nevertheless. As Jon pointed, they don't depreciate much, even digitals keep value better than other brands.

 

[rhl-oregon]

It's possible to stay under budget with a certain Hexar RF (compare to M7) and CV 35 2.5 in the classifieds of a certain rangefinder-oriented site we all know. Ms may hold value better than Hexars or ZM Ikons, but I don't think a year's experimental rangefindering would affect resale values of these alternatives with some features superior to their Leica comparators.