Thoughts after getting a Leica

[alternatve]

So I finally sucummbed and got a Leica.

I knew it was inevidable, after that faithful day when I passed a camera shop and saw, for a first time, a werid looking camera stamped LEICA and M6 and looking like the Olympus OM-10 I was using then for my school's photography club. I was 14 then.

Just a few days ago, my BGN grade Leica IIIc converted to IIIf arrived. It's a early model IIIc, serial number 408666! Talk about unlucky numbers! I have a early model FED 2 as well, with holed curtains, so I decided to do a comparision test.

Both cameras are around the same age, give or take 20 years. No CLA as far as I know has ben done on either of them

Winding.
Both are knob winded. The winding was effortless on the IIIc. In fact, I thought the camera was spoilt, and on the first day of me owning it! The winding on the FED, while not rough, was noticably tougher to wind. Winner = Leica.

Mounting lenses.
I have a Industar 50 coll lens that I nicknamed the dream lens due to the very heavily scratched front element. It still works though, giving dreamy pictures, though I won't blow the pictures up beyond 4R. When I mount this lens on the FED 2, it keeps slipping off and unscrewing when I'm trying to focus the lens. On the IIIc, it screws on and stays there. Winner = Leica.

Shutter speeds.
The IIIc has speeds from 1-1000 plus B and T. The FED has speeds from 30-500 plus B. I usually shoot in low light, so the lack of slow speeds is a killer. Winner = Leica .

Dioper adjustment.
Both have it, though I'm pleasently surprised that a $30 camera comes with this function. Draw.

Meter.
Both features TTE metering, the worlds most accurate metering pattern. Comes in spot, matrix or center weighted, incident or reflective depending on your mood. Draw.

Film rewind.
Both have knob rewinds. I'm not a photojounalist, shooting 10 rolls a day, so I don't think it's slow. Draw.

Now comes the bad part.

Film loading.
The IIIc keeps the awkward bottom loading of it's predecessors, while the FED 2 has a much better loading system, though not as convenient as a swing back. Why couldn't Leica, who was at the forefront of innovation then, have something like that? Winner = FED.

Viewfinder / Rangefinder
The FED 2 features a COMBINED VF/RF while the IIIc has seperate viewfinders for both. While the IIIc rangefinder is larger, and it isn't a problem for me, it's still slower then a combined one. Winner = FED.

Rangefinder baselength.
The FED wins here yet again. Why Leica, why!

And the most damning
Shutter sounds.
To my utmost relief, the IIIc sounds softer then the FED 2, but not by much, around 30-40% only. Considering that this is a $300 camera compared to a $30 camera, it gives one pause. Draw.

In conclusion,
I still prefer the Leica IIIc. The slow speeds, small size plus looks does it for me. But if anyone wants a small accurate rangefinder, a FED 2 would suffice, and at 1/10 the price of a Leica at that!

Samuel

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Whoa... when I read the title of this thread I wondered if this was a reflection of my own situation when I opened the box in which my first Leica came: "what on earth did I do now?"

But no... You did know what you were doing. Nice comparison! 🙂

 

[Ronald M]

Leica was not an inovator beyond a certain level of photographers needs. The were mechanical perfectionists.

The cameras were made for hard profesional use and designed to be repairable.

That was then.

Now people can`t use cameras like that for photojournalism work usually. Couple that with Nikon giving away cameras to pros in the early years.

Cost is outragious for lenses compared to N or C. Sure they are markedly superior optically and mechanically, but not in proportion to the cost to most people.

They are now having to inovate. I remember reading a Leica publication when they said it was impossible to put a light meter behind the lens! Then came the Leicaflex SL.

They are working hard on digital now and they will recover. They have to make cameras that sell, not what is nostalga to most people.

 

[alternatve]

Whoa... when I read the title of this thread I wondered if this was a reflection of my own situation when I opened the box in which my first Leica came: "what on earth did I do now?"

But no... You did know what you were doing. Nice comparison! 🙂

That came when I checked my bank account. :bang:

 

[alternatve]

Leica was not an inovator beyond a certain level of photographers needs. The were mechanical perfectionists.

The cameras were made for hard profesional use and designed to be repairable.

That was then.

Now people can`t use cameras like that for photojournalism work usually. Couple that with Nikon giving away cameras to pros in the early years.

Cost is outragious for lenses compared to N or C. Sure they are markedly superior optically and mechanically, but not in proportion to the cost to most people.

They are now having to inovate. I remember reading a Leica publication when they said it was impossible to put a light meter behind the lens! Then came the Leicaflex SL.

They are working hard on digital now and they will recover. They have to make cameras that sell, not what is nostalga to most people.

And I hope they'll last for a another century and beyond.

Digital is great, but I hope they remember the people that supported them to where they are now.

What I believe will save them is the new generation of Leica users, who want quality, will pay for it, and are going to take the legendary pictures of tomorrow.

Samuel

 

[Spider67]

"The winding was effortless on the IIIc. In fact, I thought the amera was spoilt, and on the first day of me owning it!"

That's what I thought when I got my Canon IV! I was so used to the FSU powerwinding that I could not imagine anything different!
Enjoy your camera and please post descriptions!
Greeting from Vienna
Des

 

[ruben]

I can understand and interact with the folks of my neighbourhood, claiming that a Kiev equals a Contax. Let it be is the name of a song. But who is the father of the claim that a Fed should equal a Leica ?

Thanks Samuel for your compliments.

Ruben

PS
One of the features that attracts me in the Kievs, is not what they are but what they can be.

 

[dee]

with an Oleg Fed 2 and a Leica IIIc and IIIf red dial , i recognise your comments , but ... there is nothing like a Leica ... it's tactile , impossible to describe ...

Then again , I love my 1932 Leica II black / nickel AND it's Oleged Fed 1g black ''Leica '' companion ... I guess each has it' fascination ...

dee

 

[alternatve]

I can understand and interact with the folks of my neighbourhood, claiming that a Kiev equals a Contax. Let it be is the name of a song. But who is the father of the claim that a Fed should equal a Leica ?

Thanks Samuel for your compliments.

Ruben

PS
One of the features that attracts me in the Kievs, is not what they are but what they can be.

I don't expect a FED, at 1/10 or 1/30 the price of a Leica to be anywhere near the quality of one. But the quality of the FED 2, and the Kiev 4a, has impressed me. I regard the Kiev 4a as a better camera then the FED 2, though with a smaller finder. No comparision actually, since the equipment used and even some of the engineers there are German made! Thank goodness the Americians got to Solms before the Russians, else we might have FED IIIc/fs!

And I'm sure that one day, with a competent CLA, Russian Rangefinders will be held in esteem with it's Japanese and German siblings. As for now, we in this forum get to enjoy this secret and the incredible deals while it lasts. 😉

Regards,
Samuel

 

[reagan]

Interesting stuff, Samuel. I would maybe take another slant on the film loading view. I have several of the bottom loading persuasion. It's only "awkward" for a short period whilst one is learning to do it, not unlike Sunny.16, scale focusing, etc.

The upside of bottom loaders 😉 is, IMHO, when it comes to being and remaining a light-tight box, they are superior to any back loaders. In older cameras, tricky seals get worn, torn or installed improperly. Hinged backs get tweaked or misaligned. Many have been the threadcries, "Help! Light leaks in my new FSU!" The simple bottom plate seems more reliable for longer life.

So for me, bottom loading is a preference. And like you, my Beater.Leicas are my favorites, too. Just my 2 cents. 😎

 

[alternatve]

Interesting stuff, Samuel. I would maybe take another slant on the film loading view. I have several of the bottom loading persuasion. It's only "awkward" for a short period whilst one is learning to do it, not unlike Sunny.16, scale focusing, etc.

The upside of bottom loaders 😉 is, IMHO, when it comes to being and remaining a light-tight box, they are superior to any back loaders. In older cameras, tricky seals get worn, torn or installed improperly. Hinged backs get tweaked or misaligned. Many have been the threadcries, "Help! Light leaks in my new FSU!" The simple bottom plate seems more reliable for longer life.

So for me, bottom loading is a preference. And like you, my Beater.Leicas are my favorites, too. Just my 2 cents. 😎

Look Ma, no light seals!

Well, my first rangefinder ever was a Zorki 1 that unfortunately had holed curtains. So, I've been through it before, cutting leader, slotting it in and having a dozen people stare at you.

I'm a very fickle minded person, buying this camera, getting sick of it and selling it off. But when I open the camera case and hold it in my hands, wind it, play with the shutter speeds and release the shutter, I'm instantly in love again. Only two cameras have made me feel this way, my Kiev 4a and my Leica IIIc.