Bill Pierce
Well-known
Introduced almost a century ago, the Leica rangefinder was unique - a small camera you could carry with you and use without a tripod. When single lens reflexes eventually offered an alternative in the small camera world, the rangefinder still offered better focusing accuracy with wide angle lenses and better viewing in dim light. Those advantages have disappeared for the most part in today’s world of auto focus and digital images where even Leica rangefinders are equipped with an LCD and the possibility of using an accessory “Visoflex” digital viewfinder for focusing and framing, gear that has far less chance of being out of adjustment or out of range for a high-speed or longer lens. All of this in a world where the limited production increases price. While the Leica rangefinder and its Leica lenses offer very good image quality, there are other cameras that do that too for less money. While the bright frame finder offers real advantages in some shooting situations, between Fuji and accessory viewfinders there are alternatives to the Leica rangefinder.
It’s very easy to brand the Leica rangefinder as an item of conspicuous consumption. While I think it is in some situations, I know some very good photographers who choose digital Leica M’s. (It’s funny, several of those come from the shooting side of the film industry where manual focus is still king.)
Two questions… (1) Excluding conspicuous consumption, what is it in the Leica rangefinder that appeals to often quite experienced and knowledgable photographers? (2) Does that also apply to Leica’s other mirrorless cameras with autofocus?
It’s very easy to brand the Leica rangefinder as an item of conspicuous consumption. While I think it is in some situations, I know some very good photographers who choose digital Leica M’s. (It’s funny, several of those come from the shooting side of the film industry where manual focus is still king.)
Two questions… (1) Excluding conspicuous consumption, what is it in the Leica rangefinder that appeals to often quite experienced and knowledgable photographers? (2) Does that also apply to Leica’s other mirrorless cameras with autofocus?
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
In reverse order 2) no
1) small size, great finder, reliability of film cameras
1) small size, great finder, reliability of film cameras
For me: being able to compose the picture, seeing outside of the captured area. An SLR and Mirrorless camera: "What you see is what you get". With the viewfinder/rangefinder: you can compose and focus at the same time. Second to that: for moving subjects, being able to pan with the subject while the exposure is being made.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
(1) Other than my personal affinity for Leica M lenses (and they don't necessarily have to be Leica branded), I've had a love-hate relationship with Leica for many years. The most aggressive "hate" time was aimed at the M8 (cropped sensor, those lousy IR-Cut filters, and the small - even for then - 10mp sensor); but Leica lured me back with the M-P 240 (the M10-P, of course is even better). I love the simplicity of a Leica M and I've gotten used to the RF manual focusing to the point that it's my preference.
(2) I suppose I could see myself going to an SL2 (or even a CL[2] at some point) with my M lenses in tow, but for now I'm contented to stay with my current arsenal. I would never consider a 3rd party system unless the camera had M lens profiles loaded and communicated with my M lenses 6-bit codes.
kshapero
South Florida Man
1. It Just works for me.
2. It just doesn't work for me.
2. It just doesn't work for me.
As someone who no longer uses an M because I prefer autofocus, I still think the RF patch in a bright VF is the best style of manual focus available. Of course, if you can make great photos with an RF, you can make them with anything.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
IMO. Don't hit the messenger.
1. Leica limited RF production is Leica Camera AG own choice to become boutique product line. They choose differently in M43, Instax and mobile phones sales.
2. As result of 1, Leica decent photogs are disappearing. By now it looks like Mad Max road to the Hell oldies on the top of the hill. Sorry. With RF and else. Every rare young LCAG new gear user I see is nowhere near to be photographer. In best case so-so gear vlogger. It just $$$$ price tag is a must for them. Status first and nothing after it. No valuable content provided.
3. Leica mirrorless AF is laughable in terms of R&D, support and basic functions. Leica Camera AG is gauging on current so-so Panasonic M43 two cameras.
CLd is limited, including lenses and overpriced.
T-something is cute but nobody can make affordable third party lenses to it. Some half-dead L trio is not impressive at all.
LCAG A7 Sony's series knockoff is another overpriceo. But in this particular case LCAG has good call. Sony A7 series colors just sucks (IMO).
4. "MF and RF" is the best is no longer true. EVF with MF focus peaking is holding RF by the neck.
IMO.
LCAG is able to pull it off mostly because they are masters of packaging:
They are perfect on boutique marketing. Pathetic, empty BS in any of LCAG marketing text, but it hits those with $$$$ to spend right in to their pockets.
LCAG still holds crown for cameras, lenses, packaging sex appeal. This is the key to boutique products sales. Want to sell it for $$$$ no technical details matter, make it sexy!
1. Leica limited RF production is Leica Camera AG own choice to become boutique product line. They choose differently in M43, Instax and mobile phones sales.
2. As result of 1, Leica decent photogs are disappearing. By now it looks like Mad Max road to the Hell oldies on the top of the hill. Sorry. With RF and else. Every rare young LCAG new gear user I see is nowhere near to be photographer. In best case so-so gear vlogger. It just $$$$ price tag is a must for them. Status first and nothing after it. No valuable content provided.
3. Leica mirrorless AF is laughable in terms of R&D, support and basic functions. Leica Camera AG is gauging on current so-so Panasonic M43 two cameras.
CLd is limited, including lenses and overpriced.
T-something is cute but nobody can make affordable third party lenses to it. Some half-dead L trio is not impressive at all.
LCAG A7 Sony's series knockoff is another overpriceo. But in this particular case LCAG has good call. Sony A7 series colors just sucks (IMO).
4. "MF and RF" is the best is no longer true. EVF with MF focus peaking is holding RF by the neck.
IMO.
LCAG is able to pull it off mostly because they are masters of packaging:
They are perfect on boutique marketing. Pathetic, empty BS in any of LCAG marketing text, but it hits those with $$$$ to spend right in to their pockets.
LCAG still holds crown for cameras, lenses, packaging sex appeal. This is the key to boutique products sales. Want to sell it for $$$$ no technical details matter, make it sexy!
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
- The joy of using a simple, beautifully constructed mechanical device. The M2 is the nicest mechanical device I've come across.
- Size of the lenses, particularly the fast ones. My M2 body isn't actually any smaller than my MX and OM1n, but RF fast wides are much smaller than SLR fast wides.
- Quietness.
- I find an RF patch easier to focus in dim light than an SLR.
No. It also doesn't apply to digital M's.
Doug A
Well-known
I started taking pictures with my father's IIIc when I was about 8, and I have never outgrown my affinity for the Barnack Leicas. 70 years later I am still using my father's IIIc along with a few slightly younger siblings - a IIIc/f conversion, a couple of IIIf's and a IIIg. The newer Leicas, film and digital have never particularly interested me.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I like the size and weight, I like the VF on the left corner so I can rest the camera against my not insubstantial nose and forehead and be much more stable. All that said, I am finding that my eyes are getting weaker and focusing is more difficult. I sold my Leica, did keep my Epson and I have the Fuji X-E3 and X100 to sooth my RF itch and be able to more easily focus.
JonB
Member
I think the experienced and knowledgeable photographer will select the most suitable tool at hand for the task that wants doing. When photographing predictable human events -- sports, weddings -- the photographer can anticipate rather accurately what might fill the frame on the next shot, so pre-cropping with a through-the-lens finder is a useful aid. When documenting something -- landscapes, non-environmental portraits -- the precision of framing and focusing are essential, so the pre-processed nature of electronic finders can be an advantage. However, when it is impossible to reliably anticipate the composition of the next frame -- street photography, emergent event reportage, photography as meditation/mindfulness -- window finders are the most suitable tool.
Window finders maintain a fixed magnification and display only the illumination of the scene itself. They always do the exact same thing every time they are lifted to the photographer's eye, so the photographer's attention on the scene itself is minimally distracted. While window finders can be attached as accessories to most other cameras, that application still requires reference to another interface to manage focus and exposure.
Leica's window finders focus by aligning the subject with itself. Autofocus window finders are excellent at making rapid changes, but sometimes they miss selections that seem obvious; for slower-paced focusing, or focusing by someone who habitually skilled in operating their rangefinder, manual focus offers more certainty. (With Fuji's window finders, manual focus requires turning mentally away from the scene and toward an electronic finder, which is better than always using an electronic finder but more intrusive than always using a window finder. I'm not aware of any other integrated window finders on the market.)
For exposure settings, frequently repeating photographic scenes can be very well predicted by electronic algorithms, but unpredictable scenes are still better anticipated and responded to by a skilled human than a portable computer. That the Leica M interface offers very little more than the absolute minimum means that there is very little to distract the photographer -- who, with experience, has come to see light more perceptively than the inexperienced photographer -- from the scenes emerging around them.
Optics are an essential part of any camera, but I believe this is less of a point of distinction for Leica than it used to be. Even if their lenses are the best (a matter on which I have no informed opinion), advances in optical design and manufacturing over the past decade have been nothing short of astonishing. Everybody wins.
Longevity is also a factor. Part of being an experienced photographer is handling equipment failure. While Leica tools fail, my impression is that they are more repairable and therefore have longer service lives than most alternatives. To wit: I am not a skilled technician, yet I have repaired both a camera and a lens in the past month. Then again, repairs that require factory service are astonishingly slow.
These general principles do apply to Leica's other camera systems...just as much as to every other company's offerings. The M system is optimized to become an extension of the photographer. Other systems have developed their own niches, typically less about the photographer and more about aids used (in the cynical view) to make up for knowledge and skill. I'm not well versed in them because the M suits my uses. The experienced and knowledgeable photographer, however, will rightly choose something else over the M if they are both at hand and more suitable to the task that wants doing.
Window finders maintain a fixed magnification and display only the illumination of the scene itself. They always do the exact same thing every time they are lifted to the photographer's eye, so the photographer's attention on the scene itself is minimally distracted. While window finders can be attached as accessories to most other cameras, that application still requires reference to another interface to manage focus and exposure.
Leica's window finders focus by aligning the subject with itself. Autofocus window finders are excellent at making rapid changes, but sometimes they miss selections that seem obvious; for slower-paced focusing, or focusing by someone who habitually skilled in operating their rangefinder, manual focus offers more certainty. (With Fuji's window finders, manual focus requires turning mentally away from the scene and toward an electronic finder, which is better than always using an electronic finder but more intrusive than always using a window finder. I'm not aware of any other integrated window finders on the market.)
For exposure settings, frequently repeating photographic scenes can be very well predicted by electronic algorithms, but unpredictable scenes are still better anticipated and responded to by a skilled human than a portable computer. That the Leica M interface offers very little more than the absolute minimum means that there is very little to distract the photographer -- who, with experience, has come to see light more perceptively than the inexperienced photographer -- from the scenes emerging around them.
Optics are an essential part of any camera, but I believe this is less of a point of distinction for Leica than it used to be. Even if their lenses are the best (a matter on which I have no informed opinion), advances in optical design and manufacturing over the past decade have been nothing short of astonishing. Everybody wins.
Longevity is also a factor. Part of being an experienced photographer is handling equipment failure. While Leica tools fail, my impression is that they are more repairable and therefore have longer service lives than most alternatives. To wit: I am not a skilled technician, yet I have repaired both a camera and a lens in the past month. Then again, repairs that require factory service are astonishingly slow.
These general principles do apply to Leica's other camera systems...just as much as to every other company's offerings. The M system is optimized to become an extension of the photographer. Other systems have developed their own niches, typically less about the photographer and more about aids used (in the cynical view) to make up for knowledge and skill. I'm not well versed in them because the M suits my uses. The experienced and knowledgeable photographer, however, will rightly choose something else over the M if they are both at hand and more suitable to the task that wants doing.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
I can speak only for film Leicas; I have no experience with digital Leicas, and no wish to shoot with them or other digital cameras.
A Leica is a superbly constructed, high quality tool. There is an aesthetic pleasure in using one, and it can be used with confidence that it will hold up its end of the bargain when a photographer puts it to use.
It's compact and light, and the product of almost a century of refinements in ergonomics. For a photographer who understands the principles of focus and exposure, a Leica never gets in the way.
Rangefinder lenses are small and light, and superior to lenses for SLRs in that they have fewer restrictions on their designs.
They are quiet, and can be hand-held at very slow shutter speeds.
One looks through the finder at the subject, rather than at an image projected on a screen. To me, this is infinitely more engaging when shooting people.
Of course, mirrorless cameras with EVF have blurred some of these distinctions and advantages. For my part, I have over a half century of shooting with Leicas under my belt. It's what I know and love, and that's enough to keep me loyal to the film RF experience.
A Leica is a superbly constructed, high quality tool. There is an aesthetic pleasure in using one, and it can be used with confidence that it will hold up its end of the bargain when a photographer puts it to use.
It's compact and light, and the product of almost a century of refinements in ergonomics. For a photographer who understands the principles of focus and exposure, a Leica never gets in the way.
Rangefinder lenses are small and light, and superior to lenses for SLRs in that they have fewer restrictions on their designs.
They are quiet, and can be hand-held at very slow shutter speeds.
One looks through the finder at the subject, rather than at an image projected on a screen. To me, this is infinitely more engaging when shooting people.
Of course, mirrorless cameras with EVF have blurred some of these distinctions and advantages. For my part, I have over a half century of shooting with Leicas under my belt. It's what I know and love, and that's enough to keep me loyal to the film RF experience.
leicapixie
Well-known
I was allowed to use my Mentor's Leica M3 in 1954/5.
My own in 1966, which was destroyed in a freak accident.
The M3 now 1967 and really showing wear.
Living in a place of "Interesting Times" it 's seen Riots, Terrorism, Celebrations, Weddings, Birth of my daughter(the most magic moment)..
Many hate Leica, but reality, they set price for Nikon, Canon, Sony.
Look at their prices! Not far off..
My answer to "boutique" retail, it Works! I also worked for Cartier..
If you can't afford one, too bad!
My most favorite camera the M3, 50mm lens. (M2 and M6TTl).
My own in 1966, which was destroyed in a freak accident.
The M3 now 1967 and really showing wear.
Living in a place of "Interesting Times" it 's seen Riots, Terrorism, Celebrations, Weddings, Birth of my daughter(the most magic moment)..
Many hate Leica, but reality, they set price for Nikon, Canon, Sony.
Look at their prices! Not far off..
My answer to "boutique" retail, it Works! I also worked for Cartier..
If you can't afford one, too bad!
My most favorite camera the M3, 50mm lens. (M2 and M6TTl).
Bobby Kee
Member
The perfect combination of photo quality and equipment size, especially lenses.
zuiko85
Veteran
In 35mm shot with SLR’s for years.
Handled an M several times (always film) and always thought I’d get one someday.
Finally did, (M4-2) and……..the day to day reality of RF turned out to be, just not my bag.
After the first flush of new ownership, I was more likely to grab my Pen F (film of course) or OM-1 (old reliable) before heading out the door.
To partially quote Mr. Spock, ‘I found that the having was not so pleasurable as the wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.’
Handled an M several times (always film) and always thought I’d get one someday.
Finally did, (M4-2) and……..the day to day reality of RF turned out to be, just not my bag.
After the first flush of new ownership, I was more likely to grab my Pen F (film of course) or OM-1 (old reliable) before heading out the door.
To partially quote Mr. Spock, ‘I found that the having was not so pleasurable as the wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.’
Dogman
Veteran
Can't answer for anyone else but, for me, the simplicity of the design--even in digital--is appealing in the M. For the other models, not so much. Although the Mono-Q is interesting.
While I've owned a few in the past, I don't own a Leica presently and don't expect I'll own one in the future. My eyes are crap and rangefinder focusing is difficult for me. Instead, I use Fuji X-Pro and X100 models with AF. Lots of Leica-likeness there except for the simplicity thing. Still, AF wins in speed and accuracy over manual focus for me.
While I've owned a few in the past, I don't own a Leica presently and don't expect I'll own one in the future. My eyes are crap and rangefinder focusing is difficult for me. Instead, I use Fuji X-Pro and X100 models with AF. Lots of Leica-likeness there except for the simplicity thing. Still, AF wins in speed and accuracy over manual focus for me.
35photo
Well-known
Its simple and compact! Aperture, Shutter Speed Dial, Focus.... I remember when I first got my M6 back in 2000 after growing shooting on SLRs... It was challenge to shoot for me all around but I was up for it and stuck with it and I'm glad I did! Its an inspiring tool to shoot every time I pick it up when I do everything right it rewards with image quality that's unmatched to me. Leica's hold there own be it film or digital over any other camera in its class.. I have an M9 which I've been shooting since 2013 I love it its quirks and all it still delivers images quality that is right up there with my Fuji GFX 50R. I've also shot with an M4, M2 as well...My M9 is still my favorite camera to shoot overall... The M10 is the apex and I'll be acquiring one soon and it probably end up being my favorite over the M9...
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I like (at the moment) above all the LTM model III in black with a SBOOI finder and a 50mm lens mounted. The camera is small, not very heavy, precise and very nice to use.
Erik.
Erik.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I guess I'm utterly insensitive as to whether a Leica M has a rangefinder or not, or whether it's expensive or not. These two things simply don't matter to me at all when I think about what camera I might want to buy.
I couldn't give a rat's patootie about what some marketing people have to say about it ... or about what other people think about my cameras.
I like to carry cameras in a certain size and weight range. I like cameras that have good lenses, that are simple to use, and that don't distract me in the process of making my photographs. I like cameras that are reliable in use, and that allow me to make good photographs. I like cameras that let me see what I want to see so I can get on with the business of making photos.
The Leica M (both film and digital) fulfills these desires well, as have other Leica cameras like the Leicaflex SL, R6.2, R8, CL (both film and digital) and SL. I've owned and used many of them enjoyably over the years, alongside a few dozen other brands and types of cameras that do the same.
The Leica cameras continue to work well for me today: that's why I keep using them. I keep using other cameras too, for similar reasons.
G
I couldn't give a rat's patootie about what some marketing people have to say about it ... or about what other people think about my cameras.
I like to carry cameras in a certain size and weight range. I like cameras that have good lenses, that are simple to use, and that don't distract me in the process of making my photographs. I like cameras that are reliable in use, and that allow me to make good photographs. I like cameras that let me see what I want to see so I can get on with the business of making photos.
The Leica M (both film and digital) fulfills these desires well, as have other Leica cameras like the Leicaflex SL, R6.2, R8, CL (both film and digital) and SL. I've owned and used many of them enjoyably over the years, alongside a few dozen other brands and types of cameras that do the same.
The Leica cameras continue to work well for me today: that's why I keep using them. I keep using other cameras too, for similar reasons.
G
JeffS7444
Well-known
At least up to the M9 (I have no experience with newer M cameras) they are pleasant things to use with 35/2 and 50/2 lenses, and kind of a bother to use with other focal lengths. In a way, these very limitations can be a creative aid, and I came to appreciate just how much a person can accomplish with just one or two small lenses.
But these "Leica lessons" can be applied to to pretty much any other brand simply by making fewer, less-frequent purchases of camera bodies and lenses, and really savoring what you've got. But this requires some discipline when there are fewer technical or fiscal constraints to limit the photographer's ambitions!
Other Leica systems:
Leica T has a certain charm with it's cool modernist vibe and nice feel. I think this is one of Leica's more unique and appealing offerings and I think of it as a functional art object small enough to be carried about and enjoyed anywhere.
But these "Leica lessons" can be applied to to pretty much any other brand simply by making fewer, less-frequent purchases of camera bodies and lenses, and really savoring what you've got. But this requires some discipline when there are fewer technical or fiscal constraints to limit the photographer's ambitions!
Other Leica systems:
Leica T has a certain charm with it's cool modernist vibe and nice feel. I think this is one of Leica's more unique and appealing offerings and I think of it as a functional art object small enough to be carried about and enjoyed anywhere.