Should i remain a Leica virgin?

[rkm]

No Madonna reference was intentional, although it could be subliminal, as I do remember the video from my, ahem, formative years.

 

[Tom Diaz]

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?

I'm just going on what you said here, as much as possible. You have gotten very fond of photography with film. You have (especially in the 105mm) some of the best lenses. You are saying you could not afford Leica lenses but would use CV lenses on a Leica body. I'd advise you against this change, especially because you're figuring you would have to lay out over a thousand dollars.

Yes, there's something different about the RF viewfinder and all that, but really, if you are very quality conscious you may be disappointed in what a CV lens does compared with a Nikkor. Or, if not, you will not get a thousand dollars more satisfaction out of it all.

I do think Leica lenses are a different ball game, but you said you aren't going there.

If you're feeling like more gear to expand your horizons, consider a second Nikon body,. so you can go out armed with two lenses and not have to switch. Or maybe scanning and printing equipment to do justice to those fine Nikon negatives you're getting?

Tom

 

[hepcat]

...Yes, there's something different about the RF viewfinder and all that, but really, if you are very quality conscious you may be disappointed in what a CV lens does compared with a Nikkor. Or, if not, you will not get a thousand dollars more satisfaction out of it all.

I do think Leica lenses are a different ball game, but you said you aren't going there.

Tom

I'm sorry, Tom... I just can't let this pass. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue, and there are certainly differences in lenses, but to make sweeping statements that CV lenses aren't the equal of '70s or '80s vintage Nikkors, or that Leitz/Leica lenses are superior to all else is just too much. There is too much variance in iterations of even Leitz glass to make generalizations that broad.

In 50mm lenses alone, the CV f/1.5, Leitz Summitar f/1.5, Zeiss M f/1.5, and the Jupiter 3 f/1.5 are all based on the same optical design. And yet each renders slightly differently, all of them pleasing to my eye.

Of my eight lenses, three are Leitz and five are large aperture CV and I'm really happy with them all. I seriously doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between two similar exposures, one taken with a VC lens and the other with a Leitz lens.

The CV line is a perfectly acceptable alternative optically to Leica glass at a much more attractive price point.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm sorry, Tom... I just can't let this pass. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue, and there are certainly differences in lenses, but to make sweeping statements that CV lenses aren't the equal of '70s or '80s vintage Nikkors, or that Leitz/Leica lenses are superior to all else is just too much. There is too much variance in iterations of even Leitz glass to make generalizations that broad.

In 50mm lenses alone, the CV f/1.5, Leitz Summitar f/1.5, Zeiss M f/1.5, and the Jupiter 3 f/1.5 are all based on the same optical design. And yet each renders slightly differently, all of them pleasing to my eye.

Of my eight lenses, three are Leitz and five are large aperture CV and I'm really happy with them all. I seriously doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between two similar exposures, one taken with a VC lens and the other with a Leitz lens.

The CV line is a perfectly acceptable alternative optically to Leica glass at a much more attractive price point.

And they have their specific character too. I am very pleased with the CV Color Skopars, for instance (I have 21, 28, 35, and 50 mm). They are very reminiscent of my favorite Leica Elmars, but with better flare control and improved resolution/contrast in some cases. The Nokton 50/1.5 is superb, 99% of the performance of a Summilux 50 at 1/4 the price (or less!).

I have two Leica lenses, two M-Rokkors (one of which *is* a Leica lens, just branded differently), and six Voigtländers. They're all superb, and all render on par with the '70s to '90s series Leica lenses I had once upon a time. Different, yes, but still wonderful.

G

 

[FrankS]

Still, Leica must have done something right beyond marketing in order to gain the reputation they have, during these years. (1940's, 50's, 60's)

 

[Godfrey]

Still, Leica must have done something right beyond marketing in order to gain the reputation they have, during these years. (1940's, 50's, 60's)

Certainly! Leica is always right out there on the far edge of the best. But that doesn't mean that the alternatives aren't also excellent. No reason to discourage people from using them.

G

 

[Tom Diaz]

I'm sorry, Tom... I just can't let this pass. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue, and there are certainly differences in lenses, but to make sweeping statements that CV lenses aren't the equal of '70s or '80s vintage Nikkors, or that Leitz/Leica lenses are superior to all else is just too much. There is too much variance in iterations of even Leitz glass to make generalizations that broad.

In 50mm lenses alone, the CV f/1.5, Leitz Summitar f/1.5, Zeiss M f/1.5, and the Jupiter 3 f/1.5 are all based on the same optical design. And yet each renders slightly differently, all of them pleasing to my eye.

Of my eight lenses, three are Leitz and five are large aperture CV and I'm really happy with them all. I seriously doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between two similar exposures, one taken with a VC lens and the other with a Leitz lens.

The CV line is a perfectly acceptable alternative optically to Leica glass at a much more attractive price point.

No problem, Hepcat. (Great name.) I don't apologize for what I said, and neither should you! Sounds like you're really happy with your equipment. The thing is, so's the OP, sounds like. He has a couple of great lenses there, especially, in my opinion, the 105mm Nikkor. I don't think it's worth $1,000 to $1,500 of his money to replace all that with CV lenses. I have used them a fair amount, also, and was happy enough--just not that happy.

Maybe we should consider the other part of the picture--switching from an SLR to a rangefinder. Again, the man seems happy, so I don't think that's all that vital either, although there's room for argument. Depends on how much he likes using that 105, perhaps. Not a rangefinder's sweet spot.

Tom

 

[reiki_]

If you need more than a one reason to do something, don't do it.

 

[jschrader]

I went from DSLR back to film 1 year ago. I use an M6 mostly with 35mm (ZM Biogon).

To me, the question is if you want to give up the things you cannot do with a Leica: macro, long tele, zoom.

If you can live with a single lens, it is affordable. The 40mm Summicron is an excellent suggestion but You have to adapt to the lacking frame lines somehow.

I checked e-bay prices for some time. I do not feel that the M4 is much cheaper than the M6, and I learned that sets are cheaper than lens and body seperately, maybe 20% on average.

I didn't regret it

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You say you are nearly 40...

Well, thinking about it, the BMW bike would be a better first choice as you can be too old for one if it's your first but you can't be too old for a Leica or any other CRF for that matter. Although, of course, you might be thinking of a superior vintage bike like a Brough and that's something that can be deferred a bit.

As for a Leica, if it worries you, then buy one and get over it. Don't think about any other make of lens because leica is Leica is leica and that what you wanted wasn't it?

They don't cost the earth but you have to pick them carefully and study the market a bit. In your shoes I'd go to a dealer and see what they have, even over the net it can be a better bet and you'll get a proper description of what you are buying, rather than some blind optimist's.

I stuck my toe in the water for the modern ones with the M2 and the, not so extreme, f/2.8 lens. It gave me all the fun and games I expected and a bill when the slow speeds went funny but there you are.

Or there's the pre-war ones; the model II seems to be an easy to buy classic and the Elmar or Summitar is a good lens. Or else there's the IIIc and a Summitar or coated Elmar. All good ways into pre-war Leicas. But remember, only a dealer will give a guarantee (and lens caps).

For any old RF experience there's Ricoh, Olympus and so on. But do some research, there's Ricoh's and Olympus cameras sold as RF's that just ain't. And then there's FED and Zorki; a good FED is just like a Leica Model II and a FED 2 with the right lens can give you the RF experience without tears and change from a reasonable sized note (I think our American friends call them bills); FED 2's for ten dollars are not unknown. Then there's the Contax II and Kiev 2; both great cameras but the Contax can fail dramatically and be a PITA to get repaired. (Luckily we have Oleg for the ex-USSR stuff.)

Anyway have fun but remember you are standing at the top of a long and slippery slope.

Regards, David

PS (Edit) a Brough, or rather a superior vintage bike is a joke for us Brits and especially the older ones. The rest of you should search on "Brough Superior SS100" to understand. The version with the twin exhausts is my favourite...

 

[shadowfox]

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).

That's how I see it also.
I have my M4-P and an Ultron 35/2. That's it.

To Rohankent,

If you want to experience a Leica without breaking the bank, don't go with the "Joneses" and aim for the expensive ones.

Be patient, find a reasonably-priced M4-P (got mine for less than $500). Get a CV lens, forget Leica ones for now, the jewel on Leica's crown is that absolutely gorgeous rangefinder on the camera body, to me, that's the definite "must try."

Of course their lenses are extremely good, but also overpriced to the point of being ridiculous.

And how about CV vs Nikon glass quality?
You won't be able to tell the difference in real life photos.

 

[hepcat]

No problem, Hepcat. (Great name.) I don't apologize for what I said, and neither should you! Sounds like you're really happy with your equipment. The thing is, so's the OP, sounds like. He has a couple of great lenses there, especially, in my opinion, the 105mm Nikkor. I don't think it's worth $1,000 to $1,500 of his money to replace all that with CV lenses. I have used them a fair amount, also, and was happy enough--just not that happy.

Maybe we should consider the other part of the picture--switching from an SLR to a rangefinder. Again, the man seems happy, so I don't think that's all that vital either, although there's room for argument. Depends on how much he likes using that 105, perhaps. Not a rangefinder's sweet spot.

Tom

Fair enough, Tom. I'm not a lens aficionado, insomuch as I am not concerned as much about the nuanced rendering of lenses as much as some here, but I actually find the late production Leica lenses "too clinical" for my taste. And I really don't care for the serrated feel of the lens barrels after the '60s vintage scalloped focusing rings. For me though, lens performance is about aperture... and value (performance per dollar spent.) Absolute sharpness in terms of lines/mm of resolution is unimportant as long as the lens renders well. Interesting how individual tastes plays such a role in lens selection.

You're right though in that switching from an SLR to a rangefinder, IS the crux of the issue; whether a coincident rangefinder camera suits your shooting style is important. Coincident rangefinder cameras and SLR cameras have very different disciplines. Unfortunately, the only way to find out if a rangefinder camera shooting primes suits you is to try it out for a while.

I went from DSLR back to film 1 year ago. I use an M6 mostly with 35mm (ZM Biogon).

To me, the question is if you want to give up the things you cannot do with a Leica: macro, long tele, zoom.

Again, I have to speak up. I haven't "given up" anything to shoot a rangefinder with primes. Zooms... yes, but I used M bodies with primes long before zooms became popular. I personally find that not to be a limitation at all, and in fact appreciate the perspective changes that moving while shooting primes brings over the usual working method with a zoom. The point of switching to a coincident rangefinder camera is to use fast primes. That's part of the difference in the style of shooting. Macro and long teles can, in fact, be done with an M body and a Visoflex III. It may not be inexpensive, quick, or easy, but it's quite effective.

 

[hepcat]

Still, Leica must have done something right beyond marketing in order to gain the reputation they have, during these years. (1940's, 50's, 60's)

Well, of course they did, Frank. They built small cameras that were head and shoulders above anything else that was out there. And they were expensive. Very expensive. And E. Leitz was an optical company and made great strides in optical design and coatings.

When I first got to the fleet as a Navy photographer in 1974, I had a choice of shooting with a KE-7A (M4) kit or a Beseler Topcon Super D outfit. The difference in build quality, fit, finish, and optical quality was staggering. That's really how I got started shooting Leicas. And then came the electronic camera revolution, and practical zoom lens optical designs out of Japan. Those "innovations" left Leica in the dust in the market place. Jut as Leica was recovering with the M4-2/M4-P and M6, digital hit the market and once again left them in the dust. Fifteen years later, they're just now pulling themselves up by their bootstaps... again.

What keeps them going is people like us who appreciate shooting with this kind of equipment and who will continue to shoot with this kind of equipment regardless of what the current marketplace direction might be elsewhere.

And fortunately for us, Leica equipment is (generally) engineered to be repairable and to allow us to use it as long as we choose to keep it. That's what Leica has done right in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. There's much they haven't done right since the '70s though. 😉 I hope they're finally getting through that.

 

[jschrader]

Again, I have to speak up. I haven't "given up" anything to shoot a rangefinder with primes. Zooms... yes, but I used M bodies with primes long before zooms became popular. I personally find that not to be a limitation at all, and in fact appreciate the perspective changes that moving while shooting primes brings over the usual working method with a zoom. The point of switching to a coincident rangefinder camera is to use fast primes. That's part of the difference in the style of shooting. Macro and long teles can, in fact, be done with an M body and a Visoflex III. It may not be inexpensive, quick, or easy, but it's quite effective.

to me, the attractive thing with the Leica is the simplicity. If I wanted to take macros and had to carry a SLR, or a Visoflex for those occasions, I would rather take only the SLR.

I never gave up zooms, I never had any. I have a macro lens for the Nikon, but I found I would not hang any of the photos on the wall, so obviously I do not give up very much.

Concentrating of a simple set is a wonderful thing.

 

[hepcat]

to me, the attractive thing with the Leica is the simplicity. If I wanted to take macros and had to carry a SLR, or a Visoflex for those occasions, I would rather take only the SLR.

I never gave up zooms, I never had any. I have a macro lens for the Nikon, but I found I would not hang any of the photos on the wall, so obviously I do not give up very much.

Concentrating of a simple set is a wonderful thing.

I don't have an SLR any more, or a DSLR. I have three M bodies (M4-P, M8, and M9-P) eight lenses and a Visoflex III... and I shoot commercially. I have a single system that works for me, and I did that consciously for exactly the same reasons... simplicity. I need a kit that can do the job, whatever job comes along... but I really like that the entire system has basically the same control set and operating parmeters. And it does exactly what I need for it to do for the kinds of jobs I do.

I think we're probably on the same page.

 

[jamais]

...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?

If you want something better than good Nikkor AIS glass can provide then skip Leica and go straight to medium format. If you want to try a Leica RF - try it, you do not need to worry about the image quality of CV lenses. They are really good.

 

[Range-rover]

I got a Nikon S3, it stop that Leica graving for sure.

Range

 

[DougK]

If you have a pro camera shop around where you live and they offer gear for rent, it might be worth seeing if you can rent a Leica and a lens to try them out. Rnagefinders in general are a lot of fun to shoot, but I wouldn't jump into a purchase until you've had a chance to try them out.

 

[jschrader]

I think we're probably on the same page.

That may be right.
I am just an amateur. I don't need to make money with it and can afford to let photos slip by that I cannot take.

Anyhow, I miss most photos not because the camera is not appropriate but because I don't see them or because I am not at the right place at the right time.

I have been dreaming of the Leica for 25 or 30 years, and early thought "once I need only one lens, I'll buy it". Then, I thought it would be 50mm; now it is 35mm.

They are amazing, those Leicas

 

[henri klein]

Provided we' d tell you it's not the camera, would you listen?
Provided we' d tell you you don't need a project to take pictures, would you care?

Expense or complexity of the equipment is meaningless.
M-E-A-N-I-N-G-L-E-S-S
Camera dealers and Leica fanboys tell different but we all know why.