DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Yes, a good thread, this one is. Well worth reviving.
As an 'oldie' I am now looking at buying my last camera in this life. To add to the already large collection I already own - and am now selling off, piece by piece, as I find buyers who appreciate them and are prepared to use them, not just flip them on Ebay for a fast buck.
I've been into Nikons (well, Nikkormats) since the 1970s. Bought into Digital in the late 2000s. I now have two D700s and two D800s (we also run a D90 kit at home for casual snaps and cat portraits). My kit of 12 Nikon D lenses sees most of those largely unused, and there is also the factor of carrying the weight of a big DSLR when I travel. I have a Fuji kit (XE2 and six lenses, yep, when I move laterally in my photography I seem to always buy up big) and a few odd-bods with kit lenses. All of which I intend to dispose of.
After much reading and research I've decided on a Leica CL with two lenses. Not Leitz, but Sigma Art. My reason/s for this are many and complex (like me), but mostly to do with the sad fact that one good lens for a Leica camera will cost, in Australia, more than the camera (which I will be buying used anyway).
The quality of the camera, the colors, and especially the affordable price for my particular choice, are my main reasons for this decision. As an age pensioner I live and try to budget sensibly, and I will have to (progressively) sell camera gear I already own to make up the $$ I spend on this new kit.
I can pick up a used CL with a decent warranty from a dealer for +/- AUD $3000. Two Sigma lenses (either an 18 or the legendary 24/3.5, and a 60 short tele) will add a further AUD $1500-$2000 to the bill. UVs (I favor B&W over Leitz) nd lens hoods (ditto, from China) will increase my expenditure by a couple of hundred dollars.
Ideally I would get a Leica Q2, but they are priced too high for me and I really don't need all that resolution anyway. My days of trying for perfect images and selling stock are now past. Now my photography is for my own pleasure. A good place to be!!
Someone I know is using a 90/4 Elmar and a 135/4 Hector on a CL. I've not seen any images she has made with this combo, but I will be looking into it. A China manufactured adapter will suffice, so she tells me. I'm interested in this to 'expand' my scope of image making beyond the rather static subjects I nowadays seem to be specializing in.
And this will be the complete kit I will go on using for, I hope, a long while. Especially in my travels, as I hope (and intend) to be roaming round SE Asia for a few more years before retiring to my rocking chair and (I hope) a decade or more of editing and post processing my images.
Disposing of four Nikon DSLRs and 12 D lenses will then become my next major project - after photography, of course.
I had Leica Ms in the 1980s (sold, which I've regretted for many decades) and I now have a iif with three lenses. So the film side of my Leica 'mania' is well catered for.
Part of me has long wished I had stayed with my Leica M2 and M3 when I had them. I think of all the $$ I would have saved over the last four decades, and, well. You know. On the other hand, being me I likely would have splurged on more and newer Leitz lenses, so financially the net effect would have been the same. (Sighs loudly)
As an 'oldie' I am now looking at buying my last camera in this life. To add to the already large collection I already own - and am now selling off, piece by piece, as I find buyers who appreciate them and are prepared to use them, not just flip them on Ebay for a fast buck.
I've been into Nikons (well, Nikkormats) since the 1970s. Bought into Digital in the late 2000s. I now have two D700s and two D800s (we also run a D90 kit at home for casual snaps and cat portraits). My kit of 12 Nikon D lenses sees most of those largely unused, and there is also the factor of carrying the weight of a big DSLR when I travel. I have a Fuji kit (XE2 and six lenses, yep, when I move laterally in my photography I seem to always buy up big) and a few odd-bods with kit lenses. All of which I intend to dispose of.
After much reading and research I've decided on a Leica CL with two lenses. Not Leitz, but Sigma Art. My reason/s for this are many and complex (like me), but mostly to do with the sad fact that one good lens for a Leica camera will cost, in Australia, more than the camera (which I will be buying used anyway).
The quality of the camera, the colors, and especially the affordable price for my particular choice, are my main reasons for this decision. As an age pensioner I live and try to budget sensibly, and I will have to (progressively) sell camera gear I already own to make up the $$ I spend on this new kit.
I can pick up a used CL with a decent warranty from a dealer for +/- AUD $3000. Two Sigma lenses (either an 18 or the legendary 24/3.5, and a 60 short tele) will add a further AUD $1500-$2000 to the bill. UVs (I favor B&W over Leitz) nd lens hoods (ditto, from China) will increase my expenditure by a couple of hundred dollars.
Ideally I would get a Leica Q2, but they are priced too high for me and I really don't need all that resolution anyway. My days of trying for perfect images and selling stock are now past. Now my photography is for my own pleasure. A good place to be!!
Someone I know is using a 90/4 Elmar and a 135/4 Hector on a CL. I've not seen any images she has made with this combo, but I will be looking into it. A China manufactured adapter will suffice, so she tells me. I'm interested in this to 'expand' my scope of image making beyond the rather static subjects I nowadays seem to be specializing in.
And this will be the complete kit I will go on using for, I hope, a long while. Especially in my travels, as I hope (and intend) to be roaming round SE Asia for a few more years before retiring to my rocking chair and (I hope) a decade or more of editing and post processing my images.
Disposing of four Nikon DSLRs and 12 D lenses will then become my next major project - after photography, of course.
I had Leica Ms in the 1980s (sold, which I've regretted for many decades) and I now have a iif with three lenses. So the film side of my Leica 'mania' is well catered for.
Part of me has long wished I had stayed with my Leica M2 and M3 when I had them. I think of all the $$ I would have saved over the last four decades, and, well. You know. On the other hand, being me I likely would have splurged on more and newer Leitz lenses, so financially the net effect would have been the same. (Sighs loudly)
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
@DownUnder: The Leica CL is quite a nice camera. I had one from 2017 to 2022 or 2023 ... made somewhere around 17,000 photos with it. Although I have a Hektor 135/4.5 and M-Rokkor 90/4, I didn't use them on the CL very often as I was using it with a Leica R lens adapter most of the time and generally chose the Summicron-R 90 and Elmarit-R 135 over the M lenses for the long focal lengths. Just personal preference... I'm sure the Hektor 135 and Elmar 90 would do nicely on it too.
A 135mm lens is quite a long focal length on APS-C format sensors (equiv to about a 200mm on FF format) and, for me, constitutes the upper boundary of what I'll hand-hold. My usual kit with the CL was two lenses ... Elmarit-R 28 and Summilux-R 50 ... along with occasionally a Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 for pretty radical wide angle. (I still have the Voigtländer 10mm but the FoV is so wide on FF format I find it quite difficult to use...)
G
A 135mm lens is quite a long focal length on APS-C format sensors (equiv to about a 200mm on FF format) and, for me, constitutes the upper boundary of what I'll hand-hold. My usual kit with the CL was two lenses ... Elmarit-R 28 and Summilux-R 50 ... along with occasionally a Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6 for pretty radical wide angle. (I still have the Voigtländer 10mm but the FoV is so wide on FF format I find it quite difficult to use...)
G
Bad Example
Member
They take beautiful pictures.
yossi
Well-known
I prefer shooting films with Leica M3 and M6, but I have a few digital M cameras too (M9 and M9 Monochrom). While I do like the images produced by these digital M cameras, I must admit that the most useful purpose of these digital Ms is to enable me to check the focusing accuracy of my vintage lenses (Summitar, Summar, Summicron, ltm Canon, and W-Nikkor lenses... front- and back-focusing for these lenses are more like a normal than anomaly) and to calibrate the RF accuracy of my old film M cameras without using a ground glass on the film gate.
(I know it might be a hilarious reason but it is a fact.) 😅 😔
(I know it might be a hilarious reason but it is a fact.) 😅 😔
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Your son mentioned it. Your wife may have noticed it but said nothing. A likely event. ;o)
Mute-on
Well-known
Leica Store Chadstone has a CL kit with 18-56 for under $4k. I imagine it is backed by warranty.
Leica Store | LEICA CL Black Kit with 18-56mm (Pre-Owned)
Leica stands for visual enjoyment and lasting value. Our approach and Leica's unique technical expertise make our optical instruments ideal companions offering the highest possible reliability and durability.
leica-store.com.au
Michael Markey
Veteran
My favorite body and I use it most of the time . I prefer it to my SL2s which is far to heavy.
I recently sold my CL lenses (18,23,35.60 and 55135) and now use it with my M lenses or if I want AF my two SL lenses .The 24/70 and 90/280. The extra reach it provides with these lenses is useful.
Beemermark
Veteran
probably because I was drunk
bulevardi
Established
When I look at images in topics such as "photos shot with Leica", I see a variety of images and for most of them I think: "but this one could have been shot with a Sony or Nikon or whatever cheaper camera too".
Ok, some images have a particular warmth or bokeh that could be described typical for a Leica, but if you don't look at the exif data, most of them can be shot with any camera you can imagine.
When I go to an exhibition of Leica images I see a lot of extraordinary beautiful stuff, shot by pro photographers, certainly press photographers.
Much deserved praise for them.
But when I see 90% of Leica images online, ... I mostly think: 'well yeah, this images doesn't look like the output from an expensive camera'. It could have been shot with any other cheap camera aswel.
There are plenty of extraordinary beautiful photos shot with cheap camera's. It's not the camera that makes the image, it's the photographer.
I know there are a lot of people shooting Leica because of the mechanics inside, its range finder technique, because they have already lenses for it, or because of the expensive looking brand name on it, ... all valuable arguments.
But who of you bought a Leica for the output?
Ok, some images have a particular warmth or bokeh that could be described typical for a Leica, but if you don't look at the exif data, most of them can be shot with any camera you can imagine.
When I go to an exhibition of Leica images I see a lot of extraordinary beautiful stuff, shot by pro photographers, certainly press photographers.
Much deserved praise for them.
But when I see 90% of Leica images online, ... I mostly think: 'well yeah, this images doesn't look like the output from an expensive camera'. It could have been shot with any other cheap camera aswel.
There are plenty of extraordinary beautiful photos shot with cheap camera's. It's not the camera that makes the image, it's the photographer.
I know there are a lot of people shooting Leica because of the mechanics inside, its range finder technique, because they have already lenses for it, or because of the expensive looking brand name on it, ... all valuable arguments.
But who of you bought a Leica for the output?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
IMO, you cannot evaluate photographs properly using on-line websites because the display medium is the gating factor for image quality. Everything tends to look the same once past a certain threshold of quality. Print medium demonstrates imaging quality differences with much more differentiation.
What this implies, of course, is that a lot of cameras can produce results for on-line presentation that are mostly indistinguishable from the Leica lenses, so if that is your primary venue for showing/displaying your photos, there's little need to buy into a Leica (or a Hasselblad, or whatever) over many other quality cameras... At which point, the reason to be interested is more weighted to the user experience rather than the imaging quality limits. If, however, your goal is prints for sale, or exhibition, or just to hang on your walls for decor, then the quality of these hyper premium cameras steps beyond what you can get elsewhere. Of course, getting that ne plus ultra out of the hyper premium class cameras also implies skills in rendering and printing that suit the task.
I grew up with Leica and Nikon cameras. I like how both work ... at least the older Nikons from my youth (F, F2, FM, FM2, F3) as I've not become particularly comfortable with the feature laden auto-convenience cameras of the middle '80s onwards. The M, even the latest whizbang digital models with bunches of additional features, have remained much the same as the M4, M4-P, et al that I had then in use. Which is one reason why I like my digital Ms, and film Ms alike. But I also appreciate (and spend the money for) what the Leica M lenses produce when I'm making prints for home or exhibition, for sale ... even if it's somewhat difficult to see that in an online gallery.
G
chuckroast
Well-known
I am largely in agreement - there are less expensive alternatives that are just as capable and I am unwilling to pay the required price to get there to carry a Leica computer that can mount their lenses.
That said, I did buy a used Leica D-Lux Typ 109 because I wanted a wandering around camera. I paid well under $1000 USD so we're not in the Leica M digital nosebleed section by any means.
I have to say, the color interpretation is really, really good, but even more impressive is the in camera monochrome mode, which is tremendous. In this case, an equivalent Panasonic can be found, but it is not materially cheaper.
In the better part of five decades of shooting, I've never particularly found any brand or system to be either the limitation or the breakthrough I was looking for. It's always been my own limitations. Cameras do not take pictures. Photographers make pictures.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I did actually . I`ve been using them since the `80`s but have also used Canon Richo Sigma and Sony. Something to be said for all of them but generally speaking I like what Leica does with their cameras and the output from them. Maybe I`m deluding myself . Who knows but despite a few downsides I`m happy with them. If I didn`t I`d buy something else. I have bought something else but always come back to Leica.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I bought my Leicas for the rangefinder idea and for the practically infinite number of lenses that can be used on them. The M9 output was a huge bonus. The M240 output not at all. I haven't bothered with any of the subsequent CMOS sensor Leica Ms because I so much prefer the M9's CCD.
However, I have bought cameras just for their output, namely the Sigma Foveon cameras. God knows you wouldn't buy them for any other reason.
However, I have bought cameras just for their output, namely the Sigma Foveon cameras. God knows you wouldn't buy them for any other reason.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Pretty much any modern digital camera system will give you a competent image. My Pentax system - APS-C DSLR is a nice compact extremely competent camera system with excellent quality modern lenses that is perfect for most normal day to day shooting.
That said...
My Leica as a rangefinder is a different beast altogether. It handles differently and I get a very different experience using it even when shooting very similar scenes. Combine that with the fact that I own very few Leica lenses - and the few that I do are like the vast majority of my rangefinder lenses, old classic lenses. I love my classic Canon, Minolta, Leica, Nikon, etc lenses far more than modern ones for the kinds of shooting I do; landscapes predominantly but to include urban ones.
I could make do with one or the other easily enough but I'd hate to have to make that choice.
That said...
My Leica as a rangefinder is a different beast altogether. It handles differently and I get a very different experience using it even when shooting very similar scenes. Combine that with the fact that I own very few Leica lenses - and the few that I do are like the vast majority of my rangefinder lenses, old classic lenses. I love my classic Canon, Minolta, Leica, Nikon, etc lenses far more than modern ones for the kinds of shooting I do; landscapes predominantly but to include urban ones.
I could make do with one or the other easily enough but I'd hate to have to make that choice.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I wanted a no-regrets good camera. And while I have reservations about the Leica customer support policy I do like the cameras.
bulevardi
Established
That's one of my bad qualities, my skills are not that good, in so many aspects in photography, that for me personally it would be useless to upgrade to a high-end camera.
My photos won't get any better with more expensive cameras, unless I do a lot more effort myself.
I love Leica cameras though... over 20 years ago, I worked a while in a camera shop as salesman where I sold some cheaper Leicas (the expensive ones were only sold by the owner of the shop, who took great care of it as if it were his own children).
I've been testing some in the shop, with a Noctilux lens, but never really had the occasion to go out with it and explore the world.
Until now I never owned one... I've been using a wide range of second hand analog cameras before, went digital with DSLR until I got tired of the heavy weight and moved on with a smartphone... and now got tired of fast consumption of social media snapshots and went back to film to slow down my life a bit.
I now think "the circle is complete"... but I'm wondering if I'll ever take the step to go for a Leica, procrastinator that I am.
I don't want it to feel like it's an excuse for a midlife crisis.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Eh. Nothing wrong with a mid-life crisis, or the balm that lessens the pain.
But as to: "That's one of my bad qualities, my skills are not that good, in so many aspects in photography, that for me personally it would be useless to upgrade to a high-end camera.
My photos won't get any better with more expensive cameras, unless I do a lot more effort myself."
... well, you said it yourself. Being good at these things simply takes effort, developed skills, and practice. A certain native talent always helps but is insignificant when compared with effort, developed skills, and practice... If you want to become good at it, get to work.
The payback for doing so is that you enjoy the pursuit so much more!
G
But as to: "That's one of my bad qualities, my skills are not that good, in so many aspects in photography, that for me personally it would be useless to upgrade to a high-end camera.
My photos won't get any better with more expensive cameras, unless I do a lot more effort myself."
... well, you said it yourself. Being good at these things simply takes effort, developed skills, and practice. A certain native talent always helps but is insignificant when compared with effort, developed skills, and practice... If you want to become good at it, get to work.
The payback for doing so is that you enjoy the pursuit so much more!
G
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
The key is that effort. I've been a photographer of some sort since I bough my first Canon AE-1 in 1985. I got serious about after we went to Vietnam in 2002 to adopt my son and I intensely disliked the photos from my Canon Rebel XS - an OK, if simplistic, camera with an utterly shitty kit lens. I chased my tail for a number of year but I burned a lot of film and made a lot of mistakes and learned a lot of lessons.That's one of my bad qualities, my skills are not that good, in so many aspects in photography, that for me personally it would be useless to upgrade to a high-end camera.
My photos won't get any better with more expensive cameras, unless I do a lot more effort myself.
I love Leica cameras though... over 20 years ago, I worked a while in a camera shop as salesman where I sold some cheaper Leicas (the expensive ones were only sold by the owner of the shop, who took great care of it as if it were his own children).
I've been testing some in the shop, with a Noctilux lens, but never really had the occasion to go out with it and explore the world.
Until now I never owned one... I've been using a wide range of second hand analog cameras before, went digital with DSLR until I got tired of the heavy weight and moved on with a smartphone... and now got tired of fast consumption of social media snapshots and went back to film to slow down my life a bit.
I now think "the circle is complete"... but I'm wondering if I'll ever take the step to go for a Leica, procrastinator that I am.
I don't want it to feel like it's an excuse for a midlife crisis.
Learned I don't like to shoot "street" or people pictures. I do like to do landscapes, rural & urban - especially if they have old/abandoned buildings, bridges, factories and barns in them. I've bought and sold too many cameras that I should have kept - I especially miss the Leica CL & the Summitar I had with it.
So it's only been 40 years. I'm still a short timer by some standards but I've worked out a style of my own, a camera every day when I go out the door and try to make at least one image with it. Sometimes it's even a good one
Discipline is not an end in itself but a means to an end; for me the end is the enjoyment I get from photography. My discipline of grabbing either of my Pentax K-3 or my Leica M 240 every day is my means of gaining that joy. Hope that makes sense
luuca
Well-known
11 years after this message I can say I was wrong.
It didn't work.
Last edited:
bulevardi
Established
I know, you're both right, and I know what to do about it...... well, you said it yourself. Being good at these things simply takes effort, developed skills, and practice. A certain native talent always helps but is insignificant when compared with effort, developed skills, and practice... If you want to become good at it, get to work.
The payback for doing so is that you enjoy the pursuit so much more!
The only thing is having time for it.
Like most of you creative people with multiple interests, I'm having multiple hobbies and passions. If you want to become the best in just one thing, you'll have to leave the other things aside, like Olympic sports, they only train for that one thing for years. But don't ask them to do anything else at that time.
My problem is that apart from photography, I also want to improve my guitar playing skills and compose new songs, I also want to build up a good condition for a couple of sports to stay fit. I also have a full-time job, and aside that there's also my children who each have activities that I have to take them to.
There's only 24 hours in a day, but I guess that's for everyone. I guess we all struggle with the feeling of having not enough time, as life is too much interesting.
However, some people are single and have photography as their main job, it's logical that they can spend so much more time and improvement in their skills in that situation.
I feel like I'm doing 100 things and just fumbling around in each one. But one day the kids our out of the house, my job will be less demanding, and I'll find more time. I'm longing for my retirement already