To Leica or Not to Leica?

P

pcfranchina

Well-known
Local time
2:11 PM
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
315
Many of us RF users never got a Leica because of the price. Either not being able to afford it or not being able to justify the spending. Obviously you still love photography and photo gear so you accumulate a bunch of other cameras and lenses. Deep down you still want that M3 or M6. At what point do you get rid of EVERYTHING to buy it? Get low prices for your equipment and lets say you sell a handful of cameras just to get one in decent shape and maybe still have to add a chunk of change. Is it all worth it?
 
Go to KEH.com

Go to KEH.com

Hi,

They have a nice M5 TTL for $750 at KEH.com

I have one and it's an excellent camera. I use Zinc Air Batteries at 1.4V size 675 instead of the original 1.3V size 635 batteries that are no longer available in the USA. The TTL light meter is accurate and the exposures are correct.

read this link about the M5

http://cameraquest.com/m5.htm
 
You can get a decent M2 or M3 for the price of a new R3a nowadays.

The Leica brand embraces high price. But classic M bodies are not so bad, really.

There is a good CLA'ed M3 in the classifieds now, for US 600.

Roland.

PS: Im not saying the M3 is better than the R3a, a fine camera.
 
No. Not in my opinion anyway.
I've been shooting with Niikon manual focus SLR's and AI and AIS lenses for almost thirty years, and in the last few months also got a vintage S3 rangefinder And in all that time, I've NEVER, EVER met anyone who could look at a photo and tell me what camera/lens it was taken with. So who's kidding who?
I'm sure Leica gear is very nice, but a "silky smooth "film advance lever has never been particularly high on my list of photographic must-haves, so I'll just stick with my pathetically old, laughablly out-dated F, F2, FA and S3, and all those old Japanese lenses and just continue to muddle along taking photos that other photographers tell me are often very nice.
 
I guess the choice depends on what you need. If you need a built in meter and AE the current Bessas are hard to beat. OK the RF baselength is shorter whick means that the focus is not quite so accurate with very fast longer lenses close up, but that does not happen in real life photography that often for the stuff I do with an RF. If you don't need a built in TTL meter the older Leicas are worth considering.

Don't rule out the FSU cameras either.
 
Just my opinion, I'm not a Leica or Leicaphile basher, but to me the most obvious gains in the quality of a photo have to do with format size not the camera or the lens. Even the quality of the film you are using will have more impact on overall image quality - say using Kodak UC professional vs a generic drugstore brand, than the camera type. I think, personally, lens quality overall is vastly overrated in terms of effect on overall image quality relative both to format and quality of the film you are using. Dramatic differences exist between film stocks and jumping from small to medium format but the differences between a very good lens and a "Leica" may have no visible difference in smaller prints or can only be evaluated in a lab.

To my way of thinking, the pinnacle of Oscar Barnack's philosophy might be a medium format folder that gives both portability and high quality image capability. Even the Darkroom Cookbook cites that improvements in microcontrast - a quality touted by Leica lens enthusiasts, is primarily a function of moving to larger formats. Similarly, a Mamiya 6/7 or one of the Bronica or Fuji MF 6x4.5 rangefinder offerings would seem to fit the bill. Modern higher speed films can compensate for the slower lenses. Leicaphiles, however, are like MAC computer devotees in their fanaticism, probably worse. These are not unreasonable people, so they must be given their due.
 
PC, you're toast. No matter what Zeiss, Bessa, Nikon or FSU cam you buy you'll always wonder. Get a nice looking M3, make sure the rf patch is bright, give it a cla and use it. You won't lose much on your investment if you decide it ain't worth it, there will always be a market for good users. Ditto for the glass, and there are still some decent deals around if you look.
Inheriting an M3, Leica is all I've ever used, so I'm not really qualified to give you an honest opinion.....but everything I've handled just feels cheap to me after the M3, and that includes my M6.
 
I agree and disagree with some of the comments. With Rollei TLR and Hasselblads the quality of the print obtained is definitely always of high quality. However on 35mm my experiences have been different with some of the comments. I have and still use a number of 35mm cameras both rangefinders and slrs and have found that the quality of the store prints vary from camera/lens to camera/lens. (Though I admit that I use only 'drugstore' film.) Just last week I brought back two rolls one old Nikkor 50mm f1.2 and the other Tesser 3.5 (Rollei 35). I could easily see the difference. Nikon lens was sharper. About six months ago I showed some Leica photos next to Canon photos to a photographer who probably has been photographing as long as I've been alive. He could pick out the sharper ones easily. But, of course, the price is much greater. A photographer once told me that if you are serious about photography then once in your life you should own a Leica. I was also told that about a Rolleiflex TLR, also. I'd also suggest that you handle the camera. And, I've read that the new Voigtlander lenses are as good as the older Leicas.
 
You live in NYC so you've probably been into a store and fondled an M3. If you're asking the question you want one so why bother rationalizing it? Look for a suitable one here and on photo.net (try the classifieds as well as the Leica forum there) and also of course KEH. You have a terrific 2 lens kit that you could use on the M3 while the wallet recovers. Go for it!
 
I imagine this all depends on what you want from an RF camera. For me, in order, they were: precision of focus within the relevant focal length range; the different way of seeing/composing through an RF finder; the available of good, small fast lenses; and the feeling and handling of a fine mechanical instrument. Any long-baselength RF will help with the first; many (but not all) RFs are good at the second; pretty much all RFs give access to the third and some really are among the best-built instruments you can hold (as are many non-RF cameras).

I started with a Hexar RF, which (to me) is good for all the above. Some may dislike the electronics, motorised film handling etc. ("not classic") but it suits me just fine. So well that I bought a 2nd for "just in case".

I bought my M3 for more precise focus of my 75 summilux (a bit tricky with the .6x finder on the Hexar RF) and (I'll admit it) just because I wanted one. But I would never have sold the Hexar RF to get it. I'm glad I have a Leica. For practical reasons and "just because". I doubt I would have bought it if I couldn't convince myself (partially) that I had a practical reasons (an all-mechanical RF backup, plus the high-mag finder). And I'm fortunate enough that I could afford to.

Your requirements, likes, dislikes etc. may differ greatly from mine. But I'd make sure you (a) don't spend more than you can afford; (b) don't sell anything you'd really hate to be without; and (c) have a good idea of exactly why you're buying a Leica - and for a reason you know you can live with. That will help save on buyer's remorse.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
I guess the big difference is that a Leica will somewhat hold its value, while most SLRs have such little value. I still have 2 SLRs that aren't even worth selling. A k1000 and a Ricoh Xr10M. They both sit in a bad and never get used. I had a 3rd, a Yashica 2 lens kit and B&H wanted to give me $40 bux for the the body and 2 lenses. I ended up giving it to someone who would use it.
 
Hallelujah and

Hallelujah and

dadsm3 said:
PC, you're toast. No matter what Zeiss, Bessa, Nikon or FSU cam you buy you'll always wonder. Get a nice looking M3, make sure the rf patch is bright, give it a cla and use it. You won't lose much on your investment if you decide it ain't worth it, there will always be a market for good users. Ditto for the glass, and there are still some decent deals around if you look.
Inheriting an M3, Leica is all I've ever used, so I'm not really qualified to give you an honest opinion.....but everything I've handled just feels cheap to me after the M3, and that includes my M6.
Click to expand...

Amen Brother!!!!!!!!!
 
Dadsm3, says it best "PC, you're toast. No matter what Zeiss, Bessa, Nikon or FSU cam you buy you'll always wonder." :D I do not own a rf, but just go and get your M3, get a cla, burn through a press pack of Tri-X. Then if you do not like it, well then you can move on to another system! :D Ask not, what it can not do, but ask, what I can do with it, (your camera) :D


Cheers

MArk
Quito, EC
 
I got into Leica in a small way, with a CL and a 40mm Summicron, because I wanted to try the lenses.

I've broken two CLs so far, and I've lost money repairing them. And I bet I couldn't tell a Summicron print from a Nikon print based on how they looked dry. BUT- I've NEVER had negatives that were so consistently easy and enjoyable for ME to print in the darkroom as those from my Leitz glass. Some of my old Mamiya medium format negatives were surprisingly printable, but my first Leica negatives were just freakin' unreal.

My two Leitz lenses are the best pieces of glass I've ever printed negatives from. I don't need a better excuse to keep them. And anyhow, I can't think of one.
 
I got a Leica mainly for the user experience. I primarily like shooting and each of my cameras are fun to use in their unique ways. At this point, if I get all the photos on the roll properly exposed and perhaps two or three keepers, I'm happy.
 
To anyone considering this--Get one. Very few regret it. I wanted one since I knew what they were; could never afford and/or justify one until the last few years. I didn't want to sell any of the gear I had, so I kept it. Now I have a closet full of Contax & Minolta af,mf, MF /SLR's/DSLR'S that haven't seen daylight in 20 months...Leica's are high quality, precision instruments that are also very simple and highly fuctional. Many operate solely on mechanics...for decades. The fact they also happen to be preceived as an industrial design ikon is not a bad thing.
 
Almost exactly 2 years ago I asked basically the same question:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4911&highlight=Bright+viewfinder+envy

To date I have kept all of my cameras, had the Contax IIIa cla'd, bought 2 canon P's, had them cla'd, bought a Leica M2 which has just been sent off to Youxin Ye to be cla'd. I did buy the Kodak 2D 8x10 and added the Satin Snow ground glass, but I did not say to H*ll with wedding photography. I still need to pay for a few more photography related items:).

I would say that you are doomed and must eventually succumb to the dark side of Leica and then to the Dark Slide of Large Format.

Wayne
 
Like Mike, I ended up with a pair of Hexar RFs because, hell, I was determined to eat my cake and have it: M mount, M body dimensions (more or less) M-class baselength, contemporary electronics and motorization, and the ability to buy two HRFs, with one lens between them, for the price (at the time) of one M7. But that's just me (and Mike).

An M3, IMO, is the mother of all safe bets in camera buying. If you don't like the thing, it's not like you'll be stuck with it for eternity. You'll be able to sell it rather easily. But, like many things that are easily sold (and desired), I'm betting you won't be getting rid of it so soon. But the call's up to you.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I wish it was that easy. With my current situation I would have to sell my current gear.
Pentax k-1000, Bessa r3a, Zorki 4k, A few Pentax mount lenses and maybe a Ricoh Xr10m.
All that for 1 Leica and I still would have to add some I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom