Why Leica? - a confession of equipment junkie

I never found it to be hard to manual focus. Just set it and go. Worked every time, smoothly, quickly- and the viewfinder compensated for parallax and distance- unlike my MP. G2 took some getting used to, for sure, but trust the AF system- if adjusted right (that's important on every camera!) it's a good 'un. I just wish I had a G2 that worked when I got it- and didn't have to go back to NJ once or twice for repairs.

I wish I had a kit again, kinda. The Leica is excellent, and the lenses on the G2 are awesome. If I don't get another G2, I'll almost certainly get the Zeiss M lenses for my MP, if the look is similar to what the G2 gave.
 
> I just wanted to hear why the other people get a Leica.

I bought a "Grab Bag" in a camera store for $50. It had a Leica IIIF with Elmar 5cm F3.5 and fitted case in it. You should have seen the look on the salesman that sold it to me. Went from laughing that I would spend $50 on a brown paper bag to staring at the store manager. The manager had put together the grab-bag and anyone that worked in the store could have bought it.
 
peter_n said:
And is it working Richard? 😉

Click to expand...
Well, it just takes a little time before greatness is recognized, that's all. Do you think it happens overnight? Sometimes it takes years. 😀
 
My M6 is my camera of choice, primarily because it's small, light and reliable. Pretty much every time I go out the door I grab it. You can still shoot with it if the batteries go out, estimating the exposure. I've whacked it on things, gotten it dirty and wet on many occasions, and have had no problems at all - which is a lot more than I can say for some of my extremities. And it's unobtrusive on the street.

I've heard the optics are pretty good too. That's a good thing.

Thanks to all for sharing your views.
 
Last edited:
Me, it's because of the glass.

I had a bunch of mediocre lenses when I started doing black & white with an SLR, though I didn't know they were mediocre. I just knew it took me a few late nights of frigging around to get a decent print from my negatives. Then, I accidentally bought (what I later found out was) a stellar lens compared to my existing equipment, and crisp, sparkling prints began jumping out of the vats. My Mamiya 645's pictures were also easy to print- I had really good lenses for it, too.

Glass. Leica has a reputation for übergood glass. As for the bodies, however...

I've handled several Leica M-series bodies, and a couple of the IIs and IIIs, and although I can't argue with their fans, I just don't like them much. Too dense for my taste- years of carrying an Olympus Stylus have spoiled me. Camera's bloody useless to me if it's too heavy for me to automatically throw it in my packsack. But a few minutes of pawing a Leica CL at a camera swap meet many years ago convinced me there was hope on the Leica front. I'd finally found something to stuff those reportedly wonderful lenses into. Grew up with a rangefinder, too, so that aspect didn't bother me a bit.

That thought simmered on the far back burner, as I took a leave of absence from silver-based picture-taking for a few years. But I'm back, and I've taken the plunge. Have a 40mm f2 Summicron and a 90mm f4 Elmar on hand, and a CL body coming in the mail. We'll see.
 
I'll give you a strong second- when I started my Canon AE (what? No aperture priority? That's as silly as my S3 that can't meter with manual lenses!)-1 and cheap (they weren't "cheap to me!) zoomar style lenses took soft, and un-clear shots. I had no training, and it took two months for my slides/ prints to get to me (Guantanamo Bay)

So I said "to hell with it," and let go of any idea of photography until 2000. Then, it was Medium Format rangefinders that got my attention. I saw a couple prints and I was sold. I've had lots of cameras, buut the Mamiya Universal is always with me. The Leica can't even come close.

But I digress.

It's indeed about the lenses- just about the best for 135. I've yet to find sharper, especially wide open. Not light, or small, though. Noctilux plus MP isn't light, small, or unobtrusive.

Still, It _IS_ nice. Just wish the G2 had brighter lenses...
 
If limited to 35mm format Leica quality is useful. And the fact you will be able to use your lenses on an M8 (10 years down the road these will be dirt cheap), is also useful. However, C41 processing isn't as good as it used to be, so I've given up on it, and I also don't want to scan. So I'm left with viewing transparencies on a light box. 35mm slides, even made with a Leica and Leica lenses, are a bit small. That's where medium format is again advantageous.
 
Why Leica? Well, I was not interested in them because I was and am purely digital (for my work). So everytime I go into Glazer's (for the Seattlites) my sales guy always bugged me about Leicas so I finally tried all the models he had on display and even sent me away with a loaner for 3 days. I used it along side my wedding stuff (canon digital) and the results were stunning! I was hooked.

Once you pick one up, advance the film, split image focus, release the shutter, and here a very mute click ... you're hooked!

After that experience I was on ebay 24/7 and got a few III series.

Finally and just recently, I walked into Galzers and there was a used black M6 for $1200. I jumped on it.

I also became a big fan after reading about the history in several books. Plus I'm a big fan of H.C.B.

That's my 2k 😛
 
Leica are so reliable because they are so expensive that people just avoid high risk situation. From an epidemiological point of view the price and the legend around it biases the usage, and therefore the consequences of such use.

David
 
dar said:
Leica are so reliable because they are so expensive that people just avoid high risk situation. From an epidemiological point of view the price and the legend around it biases the usage, and therefore the consequences of such use.

David
Click to expand...

This is very true, and I'd like to add that they are very,very simple devices. Particularly the M cameras made prior to the M6. I have a M2 and a M4-P with a small selection of lenses. I have done work on each of them and can attest that the workings of these cameras verges on crude. Hence the reliability.
To me, this is the beauty of these cameras, the marvelous simplicity. Some older Russian cameras have this simplicity as well I understand.
Leicas were originally designed to be used, not coveted. My photography has not improved by the use of Leicas. Having purchased these cameras long ago, when prices were low allows me enjoy their use.
The prices of new Leicas does not reflect the utility of such cameras.
 
I started to take photos with a very unproffesional 3.2 mpixel digital point n shoot about 3-4 years ago. Then a friend of mine introduced me to the dark room.. WOW! He shot with a Pentax SLR but since i didnt have my own dark room I figured Id get an DSLR, so I got a Canon..

Somehow I wasnt really all that pleased with seeing my pictures on the screen and on digital prints. Looking in photography books i started to get at the difference of my pictures to pictures taken on film. So i bought an old used dark room kit
and got a Mamiya SLR with 28, 55 and 105 mm lenses...

A few cameras later another friend showed me his grandfathers old Leica III.
So amazing! The feel of it, the workmanship and how heavy it was. Everything about it feelt so good. But since i didnt have like 1500 dollars at hand I bought a Zorki.
Quite cool..

Now my teacher at the photography school where I attend allways carrys at least one camera with him and thats a Leica CL. The finder was so big and clear and the images produced so darn sharp so I bought one myself at an auction this fall.
That camera got stolen just two weeks ago and now im all Leica-less again.

But now Im saving up for a new CL.. or perhaps a M2
 
My father used Contaxes - and he'd occasionally let me borrow his Contax IIa with a 50mm F:1.5 Sonnar + vented hood. For available light photography - it was (for me anyway) a bad mix. Here I had this magnificent piece of glass mounted on a body whose rangefinder was too dim to make it possible to quickly and accurately focus. . .

I also was fortunate enough to borrow an M-2 a couple times in the mid-1960's. The superiority of the finder was immediately obvious.

I had a Leica IIIf for a couple years in the late sixties and early seventies - but I don't recall shooting anything very spectacular with it.

In the fall of 1970 I think it was - I ran across a black paint M-2 for $150.00. The glass I had for it at the time was a 50mm F:2.0 Summaron (I think) which was later replaced with a %0mm F:1.5 Summarit. Now I had a great finder and a dog-ass lousy optic. The Summarit is gone . . . I still have that M-2 body and would never dream of parting with it. I also have my deceased fathers' chrome M-4 . . . but when I reach for a Leica, it's still my M-2. The finder cannot be beat.

Optics? What I could afford at various times:
15mm Voigtlander
25mm F:3.5 Canon
35mm F:1.5 Canon
50mm F:1.2 Canon
100mm F:2.0 Canon

I like to shoot available light - so an excellent finder was/is a prerequiste.

My brother has Contaxes (and my father's DS M-3). I regard the Contax, for the most part, as magnificent examples of industrial art - that one can actually use to take pictures - expecially the Contax II.

Paul
 
I have to admit that when I started photography, I thought the Leica reputation was a bunch of bull. A camera was a camera, a light-tight box with a piece of glass on front. I got to borrow an M6, and I bought a zorki, and neither changed my mind. Then I started buying more cameras, and older cameras, and took a chance on a battered M3. That was three years and 5 lenses ago, and I just bought a IIIf with summarit to match.

I like rangefinders, but I love my leicas. I'll keep using them until they stop making film, and even then I'll hang on to them.
 
Everyone knows that japanese people loves photography. Well, maybe it is because I am a brazilian and my grandparentes are japanese, but the truth is that I never liked to shoot until six years ago.

First I bought a bunch of lomo cameras. Then I started with my point and shoot obsession: Yashica T4, Olympus Stylus Epic, etc. So, my first Leica was a Minilux.

Last month I had a chance to trade my DSLR for a recently CLAd Leica M3 body. Since I didnt like the digital world, I accepted the deal. Now I have my M3 with a Summicron Collapsible and I feel the same as many M shooters: this is the camera I always wanted to have but I didnt know that. I shot only six rolls and I am learning how to use it. I dont have much perfect exposed and in focus shots as I had on my point and shoot era. But this few shots are far better than any photo that I made.

My next step is to learn how to process my own BW film.

The M3 didnt changed my life. But changed my photography for sure. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Leica m7 misaligned frame counter
Replies
5
Views
620
Richard G
Richard G
Photar
Who has a Leica MP Hammertone?
Replies
19
Views
1K
lolifitscoco
L
H
first steps with the KEKS M Meter
Replies
11
Views
925
hilltime
hilltime
I
Used Leica’s serial unknown to Leica?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
2K
sojournerphoto
S
J
  • Article Article
Leica Cameras of the Future: A Long-time Leica Fan’s Wish ListAn upgraded M EV1, a Leica I (Model A) replica, a slim retro compact!
Replies
3
Views
287
neal3k
neal3k
Back
Top Bottom