That old thing about Leicas being stealthy...

It has been my experience that anyone using old film cameras stands out in a crowd because they are different. I was in Angkor Wat area of Cambodia in May, and someone asked me about my Contax IIa. They appeared to be disappointed when I answered, "no, it is not a leica". Same thing happens to me when I use my Canon P around the DC area- it is obviously not a digital,and sticks out like a sore thumb. After all, you have to bring the camera to your eye to use😛
 
I thought they were steathy only in regards to the shutter being so quiet. Of course I don't shoot a lot of street and the people I do shoot at events and protests tend to want to get noticed. I'm also 6'5", 280 so I dont blend in well.
 
The statement that Leica owners want to be noticed by 2 members above sounds pretty cynical.

I was hoping more for satire, cynical sounds like I'm outright being mean.

For an honest contribution to the OP post, no, I don't think a Leica stands out any more or less for taking pictures. Maybe when some us local RFF'ers get together and walk as a group the cameras might get noticed by other camera geeks. But it could also be related to the area you find yourself in, lots of camera both old and new are all around where I live and like to walk around.
 
I had an old man in a wheelchair come up to me once at a car show and say "I haven't seen a rangefinder in years...is that a Leica???" I was using a Contaflex Super with the pancake 50...everyone else had DSLRs... He was probably the only man in the whole crowd who had balls!!! 🙂
 
The iphone is the most candid "camera" you can use now. I've taken countless shots with mine without being noticed. There are many apps that allow you to snap a photo but touching anywhere so sometimes I'd casually walk by and touch my phone while looking at something else. Sadly the quality is going to be nowhere near a professional camera but in terms of being stealthy it can't be beat.
 
The statement that Leica owners want to be noticed by 2 members above sounds pretty cynical.


In some ways it's a philosophy handed down from the manufacturer who has clicked into the fact that some people buy a Leica for exactly this reason!

Hence the garish options they make available for those that want them ... white M8 anyone?
 
I never understood how using a camera half the size of an SLR made someone invisible. Sure it's more compact, you're still holding it up to your face, metering the scene, focusing, composing and finally hitting the shutter. As compared to the teen with a cell phone that takes the picture in half a second?
 
Of course Leicas are stealthy, compared to Speed Graphics and Rolleiflexes.
But don't people walk around with Leicas because they want to be noticed? 🙂
I snuck a Rolleicord into a piano recital at a conservatorium last year (I didn't at that time have a Flex) and took a few shots without being spotted, or ejected. I can see a Leica would be less noisy than an SLR with a slappy mirror, but surely, they're not quieter than the lens shutter of a TLR? I was sitting down, and captured shots looking into the waist level as the TLR sat on my chest. I noticed a couple of punters with digital P&S type gear having a go, but thought I was being a lot more discreet, by not having to raise the camera (and quieter), personally.

I think it depends to some extent on the environment in which one intends to photograph, yes?
Regards
Brett
 
....I can see a Leica would be less noisy than an SLR with a slappy mirror, but surely, they're not quieter than the lens shutter of a TLR? I was sitting down, and captured shots looking into the waist level as the TLR sat on my chest.... Brett

In this regard Rolleiflex is better than a Leica.. You set your frame by looking down at the groundglass, no matter if the "subject" notices you or not. Once the "frame" is set, hold the camera fixed with finger on the shutter release.. Start looking at the subject, not at the groundglass anymore.. A few seconds later he/she will ignore you and once you "catch" the moment you were after, release the shutter by still looking at your subject. A great advantage of TLRs over rangefinders...
 
My experience: After years of shooting w a Canon 1 seroies rigged w a prime lens, I got an M8 w the red dot. W the Canon, I knew I attracted attention. I usually got something like "wow, I bet you can take some really good pictures with that" or "That's a really good camera you got there" (equating quality with size and impressiveness). I would also get statements that photography was strictly verboten in whatever venue I happened to be at the time. Once I got the M8, all this changed.

The comments became something like "wow, a Leica" or "still shooting film?". Definitely a different type of comment. More importantly, I haven't been told that I can't photograph in a given venue or had people drool over my big slr. Both are good developments.

In the last two months I've taped over the red dot and the "M8" text. This has eliminated any "wow, a Leica" response. People now think I'm shooting an old film camera.

So, is it more stealthy? I think so, especially if you tape over the logos. But really, I think we have it wrong here.

The lesson I've drawn is not that the Leica is stealthy per se but that the big SLRs attract attention. The M8 does not attract such attention (except from photo nerds); it is innocuous. A Canon G10 will be just as innocuous for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think that a Leica is stealthier than a dSLR with a long fat zoom lens. It is also about how the photographer uses his tools. I find that with an SLR, I enjoy having it up to my eye and viewing the world through the lens, adjusting focus and aperture/speed to match the meter needle. With a RF (not just Leica), I tend to do the majority of my composing in my mind's eye, the camera's exposure has previously been set with a handheld meter or by sunny16, and the focus has been set to give a zone within which my anticipated subject will be rendered with adequate sharpness. I raise a RF camera up to my eye only briefly to confirm the framing and pressing the shutter button. For me, and many others, a RF camera spends much less facetime than an SLR camera does, which makes it more stealthy. Hope that made sense.

+1.

I've never understood how someone can question the unobtrusive/stealthy qualities of a Leica/RF camera—other than to bash Leicas and Leica users. It seems logical to me that a smaller, quieter camera is less obtrusive—especially one that lends itself to a quicker shooting technique (as described above). Also, everyone from the soccer mom with a consumer grade Nikon DSLR to the DSLR-toting hobbyist with the fat zooms and a photo-backpack full of gear falls into the same thought process that the only serious camera is a big black camera with a big telephoto zoom. Around a group of such photographers, I get ignored. On the street, no one recognizes me as a "photographer", unless I approach them for a shot. Less face time and no arms-length or phone-holding shooting style.


/
 
Last edited:
The lesson I've drawn is not that the Leica is stealthy per se but that the big SLRs attract attention. The M8 does not attract such attention (except from photo nerds); it is innocuous. A Canon G10 will be just as innocuous for that matter.

This is my experience as well. I also notice that since people see more of my face when shooting a rangefinder they are more at ease than when I use my big DSLR. That sounds strange, but I have found it to be true - does "more at ease/ less intimidating" equal more stealthy?
 
I have decided on purely mindless exercise, I will photograph any Leica shooter that i come across. I want to find out how prevalent Leica use is and either debunk or affirm the theory that most Leica owners are on the internet and very few on the streets... And the best part about photographing photographers are that they cannot object otherwise they'll appear hypocritical. It should be fun in a nerdy way.
 
I'm in Prague now, for a combined beer/food/photo holiday... I can say that the M3 does not attract anything like the attention of the 1936 Leica III I use about half the time. People seem to think it cute. It's a great ice-breaker, certainly.
 
I was finally able to enjoy my subjects' complete, liberating indifference to my odd street behaviour only after I sold my last Leica. I have since apologized to my chunky-clunky F2, we made up real good and it's like the old times... Never again another flimsy Teutonic attention whore between us!

😀
 
Last edited:
This is my experience as well. I also notice that since people see more of my face when shooting a rangefinder they are more at ease than when I use my big DSLR. That sounds strange, but I have found it to be true - does "more at ease/ less intimidating" equal more stealthy?

Yes, I think that's exactly what it is. Cameras are not invisibility cloaks but they can attract attention as if they were affixed w red lights and sirens. SLRs attract attention. People ignore Leicas bc they're innocuous, especially if the logos are taped.

Also, w so many people carrying around SLRs and so many of these also carrying all their gear in back packs, I think the an SLR will make you look just like any other "poser". W a Leica you're just another guy w a camera and are more likely not to attract attention.
 
But the Leica M, supposedly valued because it allows the photographer to be discreet, is an extremely serious-looking piece of equipment in comparison to what everybody else is carrying. It is larger, heavier, and more imposing, as small as it it. You can't help but be noticed.

So, does anyone else find it difficult to disappear when out shooting with one? Or is this just me?

I think HCB faced the same issues in the 30's, not that everyone was carrying a camera around, but a camera, even one as small and unobtrusive (by the standard of the day) was sure to be an eye-catcher. Blending into the crowd and working in an unobtrusive manner is, I think, not about what camera you are using. There are loads of people who take candid photographs with big, chunky DSLR's.
 
Back
Top Bottom