Should i remain a Leica virgin?

[semilog]

I switched from a brace of Nikons and several Nikkors to an M6 and two lenses in 1998, and never really switched back. Now I have an M6, a CLE, and 3 lenses. For digital I shoot Fuji gear (mostly).

A critical question is what subjects you shoot. M's are not as good for tripod work, for close-up, or for sports. If you you use flash they suck (slow sync speeds, loser flash system versus Nikon). If you like telephoto lenses don't even think about switching. If you want professional-grade bodies and want to shoot both film and digital using the same system, stay with Nikon (unless you like throwing away money).

On the other hand: if you shoot a lot of available light and like shooting wide primes, the M system might be worth considering.

And I can honestly say my photography improved significantly with an M. The rangefinder approach encourages a different mode of composition that for me and the subjects I like to shoot was more suitable.

One other point. If you want to shoot with 35mm (focal length) lenses, the available Nikon glass just doesn't touch what's available in M mount from several manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Konica, Cosina, etc.) That's my home focal length, it's a weakness in the Nikon line, and always has been. It's a huge strong point for the M mount.

For whatever reason the Nikon 28's are much, much better than the 35's…

 

[mdarnton]

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...

What he said. My feeling of it is that with a Leica, you have to know what the picture is, then you thrown the box in the finder up around it, and push the button. With a RF camera, the view through the finder is never going to look like a "picture", so don't even try to think that way.

With an SLR, you see a "picture" through the finder, and I find myself spending more time with the camera up to my eye, moving it around looking for the picture to come together. So the SLR camera is more of a tool for composition.

Overall, an RF camera makes me do more of the work of visualizing the final product, and I have to be more secure in what I'm doing.

I don't know if everyone relates to it that way, but my theory is that the reason RF cameras are so popular for street photography is because the nature of street photography is to see things without the camera, find and compose the picture in your mind, then quickly grab it with the camera, rather than spending a lot of time with the camera up to your face, being obvious to your subject, which is more in the way of how to use SLRs.

 

[--s]

reckon it´s not about projects or technical demands.
a leica is a leica. got my first when i was 40 and never regretted. there´s a certain magic on that l-thingies other cams don´t have. and that´s what it´s all about- the magic, the fun, the joy of owning and shooting a leica. but not everyone feels that way, one must try it on, like a pair of shoes.
an slr is way more versatile, especially in the macro and tele worlds. my nikons are more reliable over the years, a leica needs service from time to time. but.....

 

[maddoc]

"If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura. -- Nobuyoshi Araki"


Taking photos with a Leica M is a totally different experience than using a Nikon F(M,E or whatever). If you can afford it, go for it. If you don`t need a meter get yourself a M4-2 (with return/inspection period !) and a Leitz lens, 40mm Summicron-C would be the best bang for the buck. Buy carefully to keep re-sale value in realistic proportions (if you figure out that you don`t like it), the kit should cost you no more than US$1200 in good to very good conditions.

 

[Ansel]

I have been a Hasselblad shooter for many years. My main reason for buying a Leica is portability. I wanted a nice compact film camera with an excellent range of lenses. Prices are very low at present so why not? At the end of the day just get what you want and what makes you happy.

 

[thegman]

I gave up my last Leica a month or so ago, and I doubt I'll return. However, Leica cameras taught me a few things about cameras:

1) They really did used to make things better in the old days.
2) Simplicity is a very attractive feature, the more features a camera has, the less likely I am to like it.
3) For negative film, I don't need a meter.

I didn't really rate my M6, but I found the M3 truly beautiful, a real work of art.

Many have said it here, that Leica is something you need to get out of your system, it might stick, it might not, but if you're thinking about a Leica, you will get one, may as well just get it over with.

If I shot more 35mm film, I'd certainly still have a Leica, but as Leica never made a medium format camera, we had to part company.

 

[Rodchenko]

If you want to try a rangefinder, then why a Leica? They are good, true, but there are plenty of photographers on this forum who show that you can produce excellent results with any decent RF, and especially with one of the better models which aren't sold at such a collector-driven premium.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you want to try a Leica, you want to try a Leica, not a Rollei TLR or a Canon or a Konica or anything else. It's as simple as that.

Yes, RFs are different. They don't suit everyone. But those they do suit, they suit very well. At 40, you can probably scrape up the money for a Leica, and as others have said, if you don't like it, you can sell it on at about what you paid for it, maybe even a little more.

Admittedly I'm biased. I've been using Leicas since 1969, when I was 19: screw-mount at first, then M since the mid-70s. Obviously they suit me. But quite honestly, I think that the importance of RF lenses is overrated. Almost every Leica lens I've had has been above the 'quality threshold' (the point where my skill matters more than the lens, so a 'better' lens wouldn't give me better pictures), and every modern Voigtländer and Zeiss lens I've had is above it. If there's enough light I'd rather shoot my M2 with a 50/3.5 than a Nikon with, well, just about anything. I just find the camera more congenial. Put my pre-aspheric Summilux or my 50/1.5 C-Sonnar on the front and there's even less contest compared with SLRs.

Yes, ZIs and Voigtländers are nice too. But they're not Leicas. And fixed-lens RFs, even the best like Konica, aren't Leicas either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mathiasprinz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BDJt30FmzI

sorry for being not helpful, but this had to be done.

 

[flip]

I think you should rip the little red cherry off the first leica you can buy.

 

[hepcat]

My thoughts are very much like Roger's above.

I've shot Leicas off and on (more on) since 1974. The 'process of seeing' with a coincident rangefinder camera is different from that of using an SLR. There is, for many of us, more immediacy in the viewfinder and there's something about the simplicity of controls on a Leica that is appealing. But the bottom line is that the gear either fits your style of shooting or it doesn't. If it does, it's a match made in heaven. If it doesn't, its one of the few pieces of gear you can own for a while and not lose your shirt on. It's the only system I own now with three bodies and eight lenses.

Of my eight lenses only three are Leitz, and those are '60s vintage. The rest are VC. I don't feel any need to buy Leica glass. The VC glass is the equal of any glass on the market today.

While there are a couple of types of work that it's not ideal for, there's really nothing you can't do with it. One of its current great strengths is that it's one of the few systems that the digital and film bodies are fully interchangeable, so you can shoot either film or digital at your whim using all of the same glass and accessories.

So, if you're intrigued by the idea that using a coincident rangefinder camera might suit your shooting style more closely, then go for it. You might find out that its a better fit for you.

 

[dave lackey]

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).

+1 what Jon said!😀

He's the one that got me addicted...uh, started with the M3! Do it!

 

[dave lackey]

Like Roger, I am only a Leica shooter now ...(though I occasionally shoot a roll with a Nikon or two for fun)...for the same reasons as Roger, but also, I tend to stick with one brand of car, one brand of jeans, one brand of coffee, one brand/style of most everything. :angel:

Monogamous-ness is just what I am.

Others are different and still others indifferent. JM...😎

 

[henri klein]

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.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[thejameskendall]

I sold my Nikon F3HP and bought a M6 (not in that order). The M6 isn't a better camera, and the pictures aren't better. But I like it more for the following reasons, which were my reasons for going Leica (in order):

1. Rangefinders suit me as I wear glasses - i find them easier to focus
2. It works without batteries (no meter, but it works)
3. It's marginally lighter and smaller - this isn't as big a difference as I'd hoped but I changed my mind about getting a CL at the last minute (lenses are much smaller though)
4. I figured it would last forever
5. I thought it would end GAS (yeah, right!)

 

[Steve Bellayr]

You buy a Leica camera to experience the images taken with Leica lenses! Moving from a metered Nikon to a Leica IMHO is best with an M6 + a 50mm Summicron. There are some AiS lenses that are classic but they, too, are not inexpensive. If you stay with Nikon the F3HP is the best choice for a manual camera. The 105 f2.5 is a classic. As for 35mm the f2.0 is the preferred model but its production was spotty in quality and it is a pricey item. For that focal length the Zeiss is probably the best but again it is quite expensive. (I do not know the VC in that focal length.) You could probably pick up an M3 in the $800 range & with a little more a 50mm Summicron. But, will you want a hand held meter? If that is the case then go for the M6. All in all if you get the VC lens you will be able to sell it later if you want to move up to the Summicron. Another option is the Summitar with an adaptor (though there are M mount Summitars). But, again, with Summitars there is the hood/shade issue which you would need to explore.

 

[Lflex]

If you always dreamed of a Leica, then you should do it. If it is just to see what the buzz is about; forget it.
Nikon has some wonderful lenses you could explore and the FE is the perfect platform. The only better cameras in the MF Nikon lineup are the FE2 and FM3a.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

What he said. My feeling of it is that with a Leica, you have to know what the picture is, then you thrown the box in the finder up around it, and push the button. With a RF camera, the view through the finder is never going to look like a "picture", so don't even try to think that way.

With an SLR, you see a "picture" through the finder, and I find myself spending more time with the camera up to my eye, moving it around looking for the picture to come together. So the SLR camera is more of a tool for composition.

Overall, an RF camera makes me do more of the work of visualizing the final product, and I have to be more secure in what I'm doing.

I don't know if everyone relates to it that way, but my theory is that the reason RF cameras are so popular for street photography is because the nature of street photography is to see things without the camera, find and compose the picture in your mind, then quickly grab it with the camera, rather than spending a lot of time with the camera up to your face, being obvious to your subject, which is more in the way of how to use SLRs.

heh, this is EXACTLY like it is... and also: You don`t need Autofocus, because with the focus tab in the leica and Voigtländer lenses you learn to focus the lens even before taking it to your eye. It is easy to say when the subject is more that 5 metres away= no need to even move the focus lever or 1,5 to 3 metres, that is usually the tab in the bottom position. You learn to know the angle of 21mm= 90 degree, 35mm= about 60 degree and 50mm= about 45 degree. You can position yourself in relation of your distance of your subject and lens angle and pre adjust the focus and simply rise the camera, and fire a couple frames before your subject even realizes what you are doing... This is "The higher degree on Leica M shooting style" no autofocus DSLR comes even close...

 

[froyd]

I'm in the camp of those who advise you to do it. However, two things might happen: you might not like the feel of the camera right off the bat, but also you will likely be spoiled for life.

Took me a whole of a year to bond with my M4, constantly missing my lighter R2a and its larger viewfinder. After a year, I tried pairing a ZI to the M, and could not get along with the flimsy feel and RF patch, even though the ZI is arguably a better camera than the R2a which I originally liked more than the M4. Same goes with many Leica lenses even thought there a plenty of wonderful offerings from CV, Zeiss, Canon, Konica and Nikon.

 

[mdarnton]

Addititionally, the down side of RF cameras is that lots of people who use them (this is a followup to my comment on the type of shooting they encourage) never learn to compose at all, accounting for the billions of badly composed street photos by people who call themselves street photographers. The trap on the other sided is that using an SLR can lead to precious compositions, with no point or subject matter. I think I'm pretty good with a RF camera, generally, but I find myself tending towards the latter problem when using an SLR, unless I watch out.