Should i remain a Leica virgin?

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Not so in my case. It began with the package: the small, light IIIa (and my girlfriend's II before that, both with 50/3,5 Elmars) and then went on to an M3. I REALLy don't go for the hype about Leica lenses being the reason to buy the camera -- though I do in fact have half a dozen -- and when my 21/2.8 was stolen in Moscow I didn't bother to replace it: I use a Kobalux 21/2.8. Both are so far above the quality threshold that I don't care. Likewise I sold my adapted 21/4.5 Biogon: I just didn't use it enough. Sometimes I use the 21/4 Voigtländer, just 'cos it's smaller. And my favourite 50 is the C-Sonnar.

Cheers,

R.

 

[huddy]

I didn't buy my M6 to experience the images taken with Leica lenses. I wanted to try a rangefinder to see if it would prove to be suitable for my style of shooting with 35mm lenses. I expected to end up with a user Bessa, Ikon, or maybe M4-P due to budget. I really wanted the M4-P but had an M6 fall out of the sky. My only lens was a Zeiss 35/2.8 C-Biogon (currently sold due to finances), and I loved using the combination. It is different than any of my Nikon SLR's, not necessarily better or worse, but different.

I would recommend that you just try one out. Pick up a user body and your choice of 35mm or 50mm lens and shoot with it for awhile. If you love it, keep using it. Rangefinders don't fully replace SLR's for all types of shooting, but I have found that they are complimentary for me. You might find the same.

 

[thegman]

You buy a Leica camera to experience the images taken with Leica lenses!

Not for me, one man's 'character' is another man's 'flaw', I just want my lens to have decent resolution, decent sharpness, decent contrast, and that's about it.

Honestly, I never thought my Summicron or Summarit was any better than my Voigtlander.

 

[Dan Daniel]

By now I think it is clear- coming to a place called 'rangefinder forum' and asking if you should use a Leica is like going into an evangelical Church and asking if you should accept Jesus as your personal savior.

 

[Rodchenko]

Not all of us drink the Kool-Aid. :angel:

(or can afford to, truth be told 🙁 )

 

[filmfan]

My advice is to do the same as artists -- learn what it's about (buy one) in order to forget what it's about (then sell it).

 

[FrankS]

Go ahead, take the red pill (dot) but understand that you may never come back.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

In my opinion it is not worth changing from Nikon to Leica but I know it is hard to resist once one gets into the idea. The good news is that if you buy at the right price you can then sell without losing a dime, so maybe you should just buy the thing right now, see for yourself whether it is worth or not and then, with or without a Leica, go back to the important stuff: pictures.

GLF

 

[Vics]

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.

All true, and very well said.

 

[Dralowid]

Stay a virgin, it will save you a huge amount of money and probably some angst as well.

But since you ask the question I suspect you are already teetering on the slippery slope.

Eve accepted a a nice IIIc plus Elmar from Adam...need I say more?

 

[MISH]

By now I think it is clear- coming to a place called 'rangefinder forum' and asking if you should use a Leica is like going into an evangelical Church and asking if you should accept Jesus as your personal savior.

I lost my virginity in 1990 and I still can't get the smile off my face.
I don't know where you live but my advice would be to find someone like me in your area that has already been devirginized. in general we are a friendly bunch that likes nothing better than talking about and showing our cameras to anyone that shows even the slightest interest. This will give you a chance to see if the system suits you.

My advice #2) If you find this is something you want to go for.....forget about the young flashy expensive model, go for the awkward hard to use mature older sister. It is harder to get her loaded (another place a mentor can come in handy) but if you find one that has a lot of life left in it can be a ton of fun for a small investment. The lens selection for a Barnack is unbelievable with so many good ones to try. I agree with Roger when he says that pretty much any lens for a Leica is better than my ability as a photographer so don't discount the ones that don't say Leica on them.

when people that know something about cameras see mine the inevitable question seems to be "does that thing make better pictures" ...... my answer "no, but it does make me take different pictures"

have fun on your journey

 

[ChrisN]

Steer clear of the Barnacks unless you have good eyesight. With glasses those squinty viewfinders are disappointing (and they'll scratch your expensive spectacles).

Other than that - do what feels right for you.

 

[rkm]

Thanks everyone for your well considered input. I think I'm going to pursue the following course: keep shooting with the Nikon for this year. Buy a 28/2.8 AIS, and see if I get along with that focal length better than the 35. Then reconsider the Leica question at the start of next year.

I think the uniqueness of a rangefinder might suit the way I like to shoot. But first I need to see if my eye and brain can acclimatize to wide lenses, which would then determine M3, M6 etc.

Thanks again.

 

[Vics]

Good luck, and post some pics from the Nikon!

 

[furbs]

I think you made the right decision. In 35mm film, I got all the way down to a 20 before I realized 35's were perfect from the moment I picked one up, but I feel better having tried the superwide. Often you won't know what you like until you try it.

I'm a fellow Leica virgin, and I love my F2, but the rangefinder of my Mamiya 7 is growing on me. The 7 with a 65mm in front and Tri-X inside lets me focus on seeing and, increasingly, it's been spitting out beautiful 6x7 negs. I do seem to take different photos with a RF, not necessarily better than those made with the F2, though they feel closer to my personal vision. At least the Mamiya seems to have quelled my hunger for a Leica, though it has admittedly taken a few months to get comfortable with a RF.

 

[robert blu]

Beside my rangefinder cameras I still shoot a lot my Nikons, specially the FM2 with two lenses: 50mm/1,4 and the 20mm/2,8D (originally bought to be used for the F100). If you plan additional lenses do not be afraid to go wide, very wide. 20mm gives you a special view and you will appreciate it! Keeping close to your subject, to be "in the scene" is an interesting way to take photos.
robert

 

[NLewis]

Shooting film costs money, as you know. Film, processing and scanning. Shooting a Leica is close to free -- you have to pay to get the camera, but you can generally sell it again for about what you paid.

I have an M2 and a Leica III. I like both. They are a lot more fun to use than my Nikon FE.

In general, the Leicas may suit you if you are happy with just one lens, either a 50mm or a 35mm, and want to handhold without a flash. The SLRs are better with multiple lenses and focal lengths, flashes, and the sort of thing that is best done with a tripod (eg Velvia landscapes).

For the most part, the image quality using Leica gear or good Nikon gear is about the same. Film is a rather low-resolution medium, by today's standards, in any case. Especially in ISO400. If you want technical image quality, you would be better off with a Fuji X100s or a Nikon D3200.

Much of the joy of using a Leica is just the camera itself. It feels great. The Nikons feel like tin cans in comparison. It's like the difference between a Mercedes S500 and a Ford Focus. Both get you there at the same speed. One is a lot more fun to use.

Among the Leica bodies, I would recommend something from the "classic" era -- M3, M2 or M4. M3 is best if you like 50mm. M2 or M4 is best for 35mm. Get a body that has been recently (last five years anyway) CLA-ed. These old bodies will need CLA.

These don't have meters, but you will soon discover that you don't really need one. If you want a meter, just use an iPhone.

The "Barnack" Leicas are more quirky but have the same jewel-like construction. Although the most advanced IIIf is popular, I suggest the prewar III, IIIa and IIIb. If you're going to use a Barnack it might as well be really "Barnack-y" if you ask me, which means prewar. I suggest using the Elmar 50/3.5 collapsible with this -- only the Elmar. This is a really classic, compact combo. The lens is very, very good. The uncoated Elmars are best suited for BW. They are somewhat low-contrast for color film, giving a "pastel" sort of presentation. If you want a more modern lens, the new Voightlander 50/3.5 collapsible is super good and in the same style. The other Summars etc. are really just predecessors of the M/Summicrons. You lose much of the quirkyness and compactness of the Barnacks, without really gaining the advantages of the M/Summicron combo.

There you go:

M3 with 50mm
M2 or M4 with 35mm
Prewar Barnack with Elmar 50/3.5

My suggestions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shooting film costs money, as you know. Film, processing and scanning. Shooting a Leica is close to free -- you have to pay to get the camera, but you can generally sell it again for about what you paid.

I have an M2 and a Leica III. I like both. They are a lot more fun to use than my Nikon FE.

In general, the Leicas may suit you if you are happy with just one lens, either a 50mm or a 35mm, and want to handhold without a flash. The SLRs are better with multiple lenses and focal lengths, flashes, and the sort of thing that is best done with a tripod (eg Velvia landscapes).

For the most part, the image quality using Leica gear or good Nikon gear is about the same. Film is a rather low-resolution medium, by today's standards, in any case. Especially in ISO400. If you want technical image quality, you would be better off with a Fuji X100s or a Nikon D3200.

Much of the joy of using a Leica is just the camera itself. It feels great. The Nikons feel like tin cans in comparison. It's like the difference between a Mercedes S500 and a Ford Focus. Both get you there at the same speed. One is a lot more fun to use.

Among the Leica bodies, I would recommend something from the "classic" era -- M3, M2 or M4. M3 is best if you like 50mm. M2 or M4 is best for 35mm. Get a body that has been recently (last five years anyway) CLA-ed. These old bodies will need CLA.

These don't have meters, but you will soon discover that you don't really need one. If you want a meter, just use an iPhone.

The "Barnack" Leicas are more quirky but have the same jewel-like construction. Although the most advanced IIIf is popular, I suggest the prewar III, IIIa and IIIb. If you're going to use a Barnack it might as well be really "Barnack-y" if you ask me, which means prewar. I suggest using the Elmar 50/3.5 collapsible with this -- only the Elmar. This is a really classic, compact combo. The lens is very, very good. The uncoated Elmars are best suited for BW. They are somewhat low-contrast for color film, giving a "pastel" sort of presentation. If you want a more modern lens, the new Voightlander 50/3.5 collapsible is super good and in the same style. The other Summars etc. are really just predecessors of the M/Summicrons. You lose much of the quirkyness and compactness of the Barnacks, without really gaining the advantages of the M/Summicron combo.

There you go:

M3 with 50mm
M2 or M4 with 35mm
Prewar Barnack with Elmar 50/3.5

My suggestions.

Or, um, going through the lenses I own, a 15mm, 18mm, 21mm, 28mm, 75mm, 90mm or 135mm...

I use tripods too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I've had two extended periods with Leica M6 and M6TTL. They are great cameras but I've proven and reinforced that, for 35mm, I am much happier with an SLR in front of me.

Now then....where medium format is concerned, I am very taken with my Mamiya 7 as the image quality is superb and the camera, though being a rangefinder, loads and handles more akin to an SLR, IMO.

If you want one and can afford it, buy one. However, if you can't, I wouldn't say you're missing very much at all by sticking with the Nikon.

 

[rkm]

Good luck, and post some pics from the Nikon!

I've been posting regularly in the gallery, but not much in threads.

Here's a sample of the three lenses I've been using (the 105mm is my favorite, but not always appropriate).

35/2.8

35/2.8

50/1.4

50/1.4

105/2.5

105/2.5

105/2.5

105/2.5