Why Leica? - a confession of equipment junkie

[denishr]

After some interesting comments and thoughts in the "Camera and Coffee" thread re. Leicas, I just wanted to hear why the other people get a Leica.

My (long) story is as follows:
I am (was? - I'm not sure I'm cured yet!) an equipment junkie 🙁
I've been shooting various stuff for years - gone back to "serious" photography about 5 yrs. ago, after a long hiatus. By "serious" I mean other than P&S shots of holidays 🙂
First I got a serious camera (Nikon FM) and a good 50/1.8 lens, after my old Yashica FR broke. After that, it's been a trip down the "el cheapo zoom lane"... Disappointing. Some good shots, but mostly just average pics. Also got a Nikon AF camera due to failing eyesight - and I had to have sharp photos of my kids running around 🙂
Then, after reading a lot on the Internet, I thought medium format would be nice - and I got warmed up for a Speed Graphic, which I finally bought (2x3, i.e. 6x9 format). It was nice, and I did some nice shots, but I realized it's big and bulky - and I don't do that many landscapes on a tripod.
Then it was a Koni Omega. Very nice camera, good lens. Bit on a heavy side, though, so it mostly stays at home. More reading, drooling over "German engineering", etc. - and then came the Rolleiflex T.
You see a pattern here, I guess: "I must have that camera! My photos will surely be better with it!"... And a beginning of eBay addiction 🙁
Well, some of the photos *did* get better, but not on the account of camera. MF shooting has taught me to slow down and really SEE the ground glass/viewfinder image, check the corners, etc...

Along the way, I've also realized that I've become more of a collector than a shooter - which was not a very pleasing realization. However, I did learn to tinker with old cameras - a good thing, IMO.
More deliberate shooting followed (MF only), and the results improved somewhat. More browsing on photo.net and other sites, and comparing photos with those of my friends (mostly amateurs like myself).
Then a friend got an opporrtunity to shoot a few rools with a Hassie, and we were blown by the "3D" effect in the shots. Beautiful bokeh, sharp - in short, better than anything I've seen so far. However, relatively big and bulky, not for quick shooting, unpredictable handheld results, etc... And expensive! My friend decided he had to get a Hassy - but I wanted something smaller, of equal glass quality.
But, now I knew what I was looking for. I started paying more attention to OOF rendition, and looking more and more at Leica shots on the Net. I also did some tests shooting with almost all of the glass I have, to see the OOF rendition, gradation between sharp and unsharp areas in the photo, etc... My Nikons did not exactly excel in this respect. However, Jupiter 8 on a Kiev 4A was nice.
I realized I like the "old-time" quality in a lens, and got warmed up for Leica glass more and more. I was thinking about getting just a lens to put on my Zorki or Fed, but others on the Net advised against it - you know, in the vein of "not really being the right stuff".... Finally, I coughed up some serious dough and went to the nearest store which had some Leicas. Took a roll of Fuji Superia with various lenses offered at the store, and based on the resulting photos, decided on the lens. I got an M2 with a Summicron 50/2 and a Summitar 50/2. I was blown by some of the shots I took later. What's most important, I was now shooting like mad - I shot more in the first month of having the Leica than almost the whole previous year...
And I'm pleased with the purchase. Maybe I bought into "Leica mystique", and I'm actually seeing something that's not there, but still... I immensely enjoy shooting with this camera - more than with any other. And I got more lenses for it (on the cheap side - even a Jupiter 12 🙂). I got an M2 instead of an M6 which was also offered (the price difference was not that significant), because I liked the older camera more. I have a thing for older cameras, I guess - probably like most people here on RFF 😀

In short, it wasn't an impulse purchase (too expensive for that!), I did not buy it for the hype (at least it wasn't the main reason), but an informed, and researched decision. I knew what I wanted and why I wanted it - I knew what photos I was after, and I knew that Leitz glass would be suited for that kind of shots.
And my photos *did* improve - probably only because now I shoot more, and now have a larger number of "keepers" 😀
Also, my burning desire to get more and more photo gear has dwindled - instead of more cameras and lenses I now buy more developers and films - in bulk!

And what's your Leica story?

Denis

 

[Gordon Coale]

I have a couple of Soviet rangefinders coming (Zorki 6 and Fed 2). They are quite a bit less money then new shutter curtains and a CLA on my grandfathers Leica IIIc. (Someday I hope to get it done.) The Zorki has a Jupiter 8 on it. I was considering using the Summitar 50/2 from the Leica on one of the Soviet rangefinders. Any words as to the differences between the Summitar and the Jupiter?

 

[denishr]

I was considering using the Summitar 50/2 from the Leica on one of the Soviet rangefinders. Any words as to the differences between the Summitar and the Jupiter?

To my untrained eye, (my) Jupiter has less pincushion distortion than the Summitar. OTOH, the Summitar is better in rendering 3D "feel" in the photos. Just my impression, after a small sample of photos, all in B&W.
Not very conclusive, given that the shots were not done under same conditions (different rolls, different times, different light, etc...).
If you already have the Summitar, go ahead and give it a try. If you're planning a purchase, thinking it will be miles ahead of Jupiter, I don't think you'll notice a very visible difference. But, for a good price, it is a good lens.
I wouldn't have bought it separately - I got it as part of the kit, together with the M2 body. The Summitar was listed as "bad" - meaning the focusing was way off, and I practically got it free. After some DIY disassembly and lubing, it now works quite OK 🙂 However, I'm not sure it's up to specs - haven't got it checked by an expert. As I said, it works fine by my standards.
Still, my collapsible Summicron 50/2 is better - but has a problem with damaged front element coating, so I have to avoid flare-inducing situations.

Denis

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My first Leica was a IIIf; I got it as part of a $50 camera grab bag that the manager of a professional camera put out. The look on the salesman face turned from laughter that anyone would buy a grab-bag in a camera store to a "are you crazy" look shot to the now laughing manager. I paid $130 to have the Finder rebuilt and the camera put back into perfect working order. I intended to sell it. I kept it. Last year I ran into an M3 with lenses for a very good price and sent it and the lenses to Essex for CLA. They resilvered the finder while they were at it. The M3 has become one of my Favorite cameras. The Leica lenses render an image that is very pleasing. It is able to pickup subtle variations on color and contrast that tend to get lost with "picture postcard colors".

Most of you can guess that I love my Nikons. My collection looks like the old Peter Max Nikon poster done for the inftroduction of the F2. But there is something to this Leica stuff that sets it apart from the pack. Yesterday I got my first Leica lens built after I was born, ie after 1957. It will be interesting to compare the later Summicron to my Type I Rigid Summicron and Summarit.

 

[Oldprof]

I have never owned a Leica, but I think of the original Leica as the "Ur Camera" for 35mm photography (Ur was an ancient Mesopotamian city - i.e., the beginning of civilization). I see all modern 35mm cameras as descendants of Oscar Barnack's original design. His goal was to invent a "small and transportable camera capable of making big pictures." He achieved that and started a revolution in photography.

My first 35mm camera was a used Argus C3 I purchased from a high school classmate for five dollars. This was around 1959. In 1960 I got a more modern and full-featured Japanese fixed-lens rangefinder (the Beauty Super II, which I got on sale for $35). I considered it to be more "modern" and "full-featured" than the C3 because it had a rapid-wind lever, a rewind crank, a fast f/2.0 normal lens, shutter speeds from 1 sec. to 1/500 sec., a self-timer, and both M and X flash synchronization.

From the very beginning, I was "blown away" by the quality of the enlargements I got from my little Japanese rangefinder. Even today, I have some large 16x20" prints from this camera on display. People who see them are impressed and often say, "Wow, what camera did you use to make these pictures?" Sometimes I say, "A Beauty." This usually ends the conversation and leaves the questioner perplexed. More often I just say, "A 35mm camera."

Because I was on a limited budget and getting such outstanding results from my little Beauty rangefinder, I never was tempted to get a "real" Leica. In 1970 I shifted to SLR photography, and got excellent results with those cameras and lenses too. But I have always loved the looks of Leica cameras and their contributions to photographic history. I'm just not convinced that viewers of fine photographic prints can discern that "Leica glow" that is so often talked about. If blind tests were conducted I doubt many people could identify which brand of lens was used to make an image.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I started with an SLR (a Minolta X370, like the one used in the CSI TV series) and soon went for a Nikon AF SLR, thinking my eyesight was going to the pits and I needed the AF.

Nope. I needed a smaller, discreet camera.

I got a Canonet. Loved it! Took it with all over the place, learned to see through a rangefinder, had more time to compose, started playing with settings better... In sum, I learned, and my photos improved a bit. The best measure was my wife's taste. And, after a trip to Colombia, from where I came back with a nice number of keepers, I decided to reward myself with a Leica.

The first had a light leak. DAG in Wisconsin declared himself unable to fix it. I, brokenhearted, decided to sell it while it was still in the shop, and finance a second body from that particular sale. But how can you offer for sale something damaged? I was thinking about it when I spotted a black Leica... and bought it. What the heck!

To make a long story short, I decided to keep both bodies. A used Konica 35mm joined my initial 50/2 'cron. Now, I'm in debt, but extremely happy. In fact, I took both bodies to Barcelona in March, and came back with another nice number of keepers.

BTW, my Nikon stayed home... 🙁

That's the story... :angel:

 

[Rich Silfver]

I really didnt start taking photos until about 8 years ago.
Then with an SLR - Canon.
Things went really well for me and within 2 years I had a couple of exhibits, sold prints, interviewed in papers and online publications.

I then did what any sensible person would do - I stopped taking photos...

Didn't touch a camera for a few years until one day I started tinkering with the Canon again and discovered I didn't like my photography. Felt that I had 'lost the eye' if I ever had one.

Trusted myself into 'something different' and got a Hasselblad 500c/m camera. Loved it. It made me slow down and I felt that my photography now got better. But I needed a small companion for it - and after some research got an Olympus 35SP (there was the start of my RF camera usage).

I had always secretly kinda ridiculed Leica owners and felt that that was the last kind of overpriced camera that I would ever get - by the Oly led me to more RF cameras and a deeper interest in classic cameras and now also lens design. I finally 'broke down' and got a Leica M3 - thinking that I could turn it around and sell it quickly if I didnt like it. Loved it. It is now THE 35mm companion camera to my Hasselblad and I can't imagine parting with it.

The results I get from my 'cron from the 60's blows most of my other 35mm stuff away and the camera body is a pure pleasure to handle.

Does one need a Leica? No but the quality in both feel and results are to me a combination I could only find in a Leica camera and Leica lens.

 

[Pherdinand]

Rich, your last paragraph sounds really really convincing🙂 ever tried to work in the political campaign business?🙂

 

[rover]

Leica is part of what attracts me to rangefinders, even though I don't own a Leica body. They are way cool. My opinion right now though is that a camera body doesn't have to be the best. So, I am the perfect customer for Cosina, I will use their good quality products to shapen my skills, and really enjoy my hobby, and then someday I will go out and treat myself to a Leica when my responsibilities are less. Right now I have the 50 'cron, and maybe some day I will decide to swap some stuff for a 35 'cron. In my eyes that will allow me to use the best glass to capture the majority of my shots, which ultimately is what I think is most important.

I guess you can say that Leica was the RF bait for me, and CV stuff was the hook.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Francisco: I just cannot believe that a Light Leak Cannot be fixed! Have you tried using the Leica in a Well fitted Case? If the back door is the culprit, the fitted case will put some pressure on it and cut off most of the light that hits it. Looking at my M3, it is hard to imagine it leaking light from anyplace but the flip-up back.

If you end up selling it, you will take a loss.

 

[Oldprof]

... Does one need a Leica? No but the quality in both feel and results are to me a combination I could only find in a Leica camera and Leica lens.

I don't doubt the high quality of Leica lenses and bodies. But if the quality of Leitz lenses was demonstrably superior to anything else out there I think they would still be the first choice of professional photojournalists. This is not the case. Even back in the late 1930s Contax cameras were preferred by many photojournalists and Zeiss lenses were said to be generally sharper than Leitz lenses. The Leitz Summicron is widely recognized as one of the finest normal lenses of all time, but there are competitors whose performance is very close, if not equal, to the Summicron. Again, I think few viewers of fine photographic prints could identify whether a Leitz lens or another brand was used to make an image.

 

[FrankS]

Or, sell it to me for a loss!

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Fine cameras, however...

Fine cameras, however...

I realize nobody asked, and probably fewer care. This is why I do not use Leicas:

• My father and older brother use Leicas: what would we argue about at Thanksgiving?
• Henry Scherer: the man is a National Treasure. He completely rebuilds Contax rangefinders to "better than new" specifications.
• 21mm f/4.5 Biogon
• 35mm f/4.5 Orthometar
• 35mm f/2.8 Biogon
• 50mm f/2.8 Tessar
• 50mm f/3.5 Tessar
• 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar
• 50mm f/2 Sonnar
• 85mm f/2 Sonnar
• 135mm f/4 Sonnar

The Contax IIa is my absolute favorite camera to use, followed quite closely by the II and then the original version from the thirties (now called the "I"). My choice of cameras is purely personal, I never have and never will impose it upon others. I have always thought that the most important thing to do is grab something and go shoot, which is exactly where I'm headed on this beautiful autumn afternoon. Good light to all and my best wishes for a fine weekend!

D2

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Francisco: This light leak problem really has me bothered! If you take off the lens, shine a light into the mount (like a flashlight, well mated to the opening), go into a dark room, maybe you will see where it is coming from. Have you tried anything like this? At work we have done some strange things to find reflections and light leaks in the infrared.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

About leaks... the camera is very arbitrary and leaks light in the beginning, middle or end of a roll. DAG came to the conclusion it wasn't the camera, but the film handling at the lab. However, when I got a couple of slides back from Color-Reflections (where they process Scala) with noticeable leaks, he tried to reproduce it and couldn't get it. He already had changed the light baffles, he told me (I believe they're in the front, but don't know). I also tried to see if I could detect something by shining a light through the front (kind of through the shuttercurtain).

But then, after I got the camera back from Don, with an apologetic note and an invoice for $0.00... the camera didn't leak any more light in three or four rolls. And the only leaky exposure came once, in a roll of Scala (of all things).

No, it wasn't poor handling; I got leaks with film developed in three different labs. That'd be too much of a coincidence.

In sum, Brian, I had contemplated sending it to Leica in NJ to have it refurbished. Dave Elwell assured me it would take about 3 weeks and cost a bit over $300. The first test rolls I shot after getting the camera back from Don showed no leaks, so I kept it.

No, won't sell it. It's the very first Leica I purchased and I'm unreasonably attached to it.

Here's one of the leaky shots.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Brian, I haven't done the flashlight trick. I simply tried to see through the camera and shuttercurtains a long time ago...

It's not the lens either. The shot above was done with my first 'cron (a model made in 1956). Check this one out, done with the 1936-Elmar and Scala film; the coarse, red lines show the leaks:

 

[denishr]

Francisco, that first (color) photo looks more like an internal reflection/flare than a light leak to me 🙁
But then, I'm no expert - if DAG couldn't pinpoint it, who am I to say anything...

Denis

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Richard, like you, I once swore I'd never ever ever would buy a Leica; in fact, I stated once that only snobs and poseurs used them.

I guess I wouldn't quite find myself a very interesting chap if I ever meet my self again... 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Light Leaks: These leaks are in the direction of film travel. Off hand, I can think of two possibilities:

1) The shutter is not capping all of the time when advancing the film and cocking the shutter. It is "marginal" and lets some light in. This is a pain: but cap the lens while advancing the film for a while.

2) The back is leaking at the sides. It is occasional, depends on how it is held, etc. Try using the camera in a fitted case. That will prevent bright light from getting in.

Just some thoughts. You can advance the film and watch for the shutter not capping. I have an Olympus OM1 that does this. Very Annoying!

Do the leaks affect the area in between the pictures?

 

[Doug]

I must predate the snobs and poseurs! 🙂 By the mid-sixties I was a confirmed Pentax enthusiast with a newish Spotmatic that followed a Petriflex, Pentax H2 and an H3v.

I found a 10-yr-old button-rewind M2 at a shop in Seattle and bought it along with a new 35mm Summicron v1. The idea, as I recall, was a second body dedicated to a wide angle lens. Indeed I traipsed about carrying both the M2+35 and the Spotmatic with 1.9/85mm. Worked out pretty well.

At that time wide angle lenses for an SLR were less common, and then slow, bulky, and expensive. SLR users often had just a 55 and a 135. So the RF made sense to me.

Why a Leica? Well, not that I was a great photographer, but surely the best camera wouldn't limit me. I could be sure any lapses in picture quality were MY fault, thus correctable.

In that respect it's like anything at the top of its category, Hasselblads, Macintoshes, BMWs, etc. No excuses! Expensive, but giving top service throughout its service life, and that has its satisfactions. I tend to keep stuff for a long time, so it works out well for me.