Myrona
Newbie
I don't know exactly which thread to stick this in, so I'm posting it here. I'm a relative newbie to the world of 35mm cameras. I have read numerous forums and spoken to many individuals who all say that Leica cameras are very good and recommend them highly. Without sounding rude, what makes these cameras so special?
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Have you ever handled one? 
HSI
The Fourth
The Leica M series has the clearest brightest finders I have ever laid eyes on.
(Not to mention hand crafted brass bodies, smooth gears, and endless lenses)
(Not to mention hand crafted brass bodies, smooth gears, and endless lenses)
windraider
Established
Before I got my M6, I used Nikon F2, F70, F80, Olympus XA, OM1, OM2n, Minolta X700, XD7 and a Samsung P&S. Compared to all of them, the M6 costed a lot more and was a pain to use - harder to focus, compose, meter and shoot.
But after shooting at least 10 rolls thru each camera, the M6 gave me the best images - composition, exposure, resolution & character.
While slower, metering & focusing is always accurate on the M6.
But more importantly is the Leica glass, none of the other brands mentioned have the impact that it has on the quality of the images.
As I develop my own film, I noted that negatives exposed with Leica glass were of a different density from those taken with other cameras or other brand of lens (Cosina & FSU) mounted on the M6 - even those developed in the same tank.
Haven't tried Zeiss yet though.
But after shooting at least 10 rolls thru each camera, the M6 gave me the best images - composition, exposure, resolution & character.
While slower, metering & focusing is always accurate on the M6.
But more importantly is the Leica glass, none of the other brands mentioned have the impact that it has on the quality of the images.
As I develop my own film, I noted that negatives exposed with Leica glass were of a different density from those taken with other cameras or other brand of lens (Cosina & FSU) mounted on the M6 - even those developed in the same tank.
Haven't tried Zeiss yet though.
pfoto
Well-known
The M mount has a dizzying array of glass from vintage to modern (not all of it necessarily Leitz/Leica) that is the best you can get and the mechanical bodies at least are very reliable and ergonomically just about perfect.
ferider
Veteran
Welcome !
Nothing really.
They wouldn't be half as popular without ebay and RFF
The M mount is cool due to compatibility of many different lenses. But a new ZI or Bessa, or the discontinued Hexar RF have that too.
Like Patrick, I wouldn't buy a new Leica. But spending US 500-700 on a good used one seems reasonable to me. A new lens is another matter.
Cheers,
Roland.
Nothing really.
They wouldn't be half as popular without ebay and RFF
The M mount is cool due to compatibility of many different lenses. But a new ZI or Bessa, or the discontinued Hexar RF have that too.
Like Patrick, I wouldn't buy a new Leica. But spending US 500-700 on a good used one seems reasonable to me. A new lens is another matter.
Cheers,
Roland.
feenej
Well-known
I agree; the a used M2 or 3 seems like a good deal to me, especially when you look at the prices on C. Voigtlanders now. Unless you need a built-in light meter.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I can't imagine buying a new leica film camera. (though I did buy a new M8, but then, digital is a whole other thing)
Over the past 20 years, I've purchased and used (and later sold) more than a half dozen film Ms, ranging from the M3 to the M6. Most of them were in user condition. I put hundreds of rolls of film through them - never once having any sort of reliability issue.
Over the past 20 years, I've purchased and used (and later sold) more than a half dozen film Ms, ranging from the M3 to the M6. Most of them were in user condition. I put hundreds of rolls of film through them - never once having any sort of reliability issue.
oscroft
Veteran
The Voigtlander Bessa viewfinders are brighter!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
It think Leica cameras are special because they retain their value.
We can go on about the reasons of why that is the case, but good quality is only one of them.
Like Roland above, I myself won't buy a new body either because I chose the route where my secondhand M-system cost me less than either a new ZI or even a newer Bessa R-series. But for those who can justify a'la carte models, more power to them, that does not make them elitist or stupid, just have different priorities.
We can go on about the reasons of why that is the case, but good quality is only one of them.
Like Roland above, I myself won't buy a new body either because I chose the route where my secondhand M-system cost me less than either a new ZI or even a newer Bessa R-series. But for those who can justify a'la carte models, more power to them, that does not make them elitist or stupid, just have different priorities.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Have you ever handled one?
Exactly. And the fact that they have been making 35mm cameras for over 80 years argues that despite the arguments of the nay-sayers, they may be doing something right.
There is absolutely no reason to use Leicas unless you like them. Oh; and want some of the best lenses in the business. And proven reliability and reparability over decades. And easy rangefinder focusing of wide angles in poor light. And 76 years of lens compatibility. And...
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
True.
But note the qualifications: 'they may be doing something right'.
As, presumably, are Vauxhall, even if it's only making flashy cars, cheaply-- and few would call Leicas either cheap or flashy.
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
For me, the current Leica lenses are simply the best for 35mm, allowing bigger enlargements with legible detail. Such a long history/compatability with so many lenses is a real plus. The bodies are perfect in my hands, and that I can be shooting with a camera from 1974 that is both reliable and yet repairable if required is today quite a rare thing.
Handle one. Shoot some film, make some prints. You'll know if a Leica is for you. None of us can tell you.
Handle one. Shoot some film, make some prints. You'll know if a Leica is for you. None of us can tell you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not just the current ones. The most recent lens I've agreed to buy is a 90/2.2 Thambar built in 1938 -- 70 years ago for the hard of figgering. There's nothing else to equal it. Well, not deliberately, anyway. It's pure magic on my M8.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
ferider
Veteran
Wrong. Bessa: more light, less contrast. ZI: same.
photovdz
Well-known
I use leica, contaxes, and others... all have their qualities... Leica has a certain feel, an overall good quality... but it's like cars... (I said cars not vauxhalls)... sometimes you want to drive one more than another ... and to that extend putting a roll of film in a m6 is as idiosynchratic as driving a real mini cooper.
I would be surprised that someone proves scientifically that leica lenses give negatives with more density than other good lenses (sounds like a pseudoscientific assertion of a true believer), and a new ZI viewfinder is brighter than a leica one... (only that it's cheaper)... Zeiss lenses for instance are as good as leica ones (with a different signature...), etc...
For me there are no rational reasons to say that leica is "better" than other high quality cameras.
but...
There is a certain snobism in owning or showing a leica (and a lot of leica users are fed up with those snobs),
Leica (the company) has played on that snobism to keep the head outside the water (purely commercial strategies of exclusivity and luxe... )....and they had few other solutions than to do so...
So basically a leica is a good camera with good lenses with a good network of reputation... but it's also a plain distinction object (in the sociological sens)... like a montblanc fountain pen (not needed to win the Goncourt prize).
At the end of the day, the words are more important than the price of the fountain pen...
Stephan
When I go to a collectors event, I always try to have a true contax lens on my leica... just to be different
I would be surprised that someone proves scientifically that leica lenses give negatives with more density than other good lenses (sounds like a pseudoscientific assertion of a true believer), and a new ZI viewfinder is brighter than a leica one... (only that it's cheaper)... Zeiss lenses for instance are as good as leica ones (with a different signature...), etc...
For me there are no rational reasons to say that leica is "better" than other high quality cameras.
but...
There is a certain snobism in owning or showing a leica (and a lot of leica users are fed up with those snobs),
Leica (the company) has played on that snobism to keep the head outside the water (purely commercial strategies of exclusivity and luxe... )....and they had few other solutions than to do so...
So basically a leica is a good camera with good lenses with a good network of reputation... but it's also a plain distinction object (in the sociological sens)... like a montblanc fountain pen (not needed to win the Goncourt prize).
At the end of the day, the words are more important than the price of the fountain pen...
Stephan
When I go to a collectors event, I always try to have a true contax lens on my leica... just to be different
ferider
Veteran
photovdz
Well-known
nice job... (sounds you went to cameraleather)
Mine is almost as uncommon... A working attrape M3 (A serial number) with a Zeiss opton TF 85/2 on an adapter... or a penfv with an arriflex xenon 75/2 (I'm trying to find a mount to adapt a xenon 50/0,95 on it too)
btw just bought what looks like a true LTM Biogon 35 T.... impatiently waiting... (a bit too cheap to be true... but may be ...)
it gives me an idea for a new thread.... "spot the difference..."
Mine is almost as uncommon... A working attrape M3 (A serial number) with a Zeiss opton TF 85/2 on an adapter... or a penfv with an arriflex xenon 75/2 (I'm trying to find a mount to adapt a xenon 50/0,95 on it too)
btw just bought what looks like a true LTM Biogon 35 T.... impatiently waiting... (a bit too cheap to be true... but may be ...)
it gives me an idea for a new thread.... "spot the difference..."
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I shot an old Summitar LTM lens for a while, loved it for portraits, and the 40 Summicron is my favorite for Kodachrome. I've not had the pleasure of anything older than these two (yet!). I'm hunting for a pre ASPH 35 Summilux now, I think the midtones that lens gives would be great for my current project in the woods...