oscroft
Veteran
Very true, yes - that is a disadvantraage of the Bessa's short EBL.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
But of course this raises a whole new bunch of questions. 'Good' for what? In what sense? And how clear does an advantage have to be?
A big zoom like yours would be all but useless for what I want to do (mostly travel, often carrying the gear some distance, sometimes on a motorcycle where size and weight are at a premium, sometimes shooting in poor light). My 35 Summilux might be equally useless to you -- but I've had it 25 years, and bought immediately it to replace the previous 35/1.4 that was stolen in India. Or in another field entirely, is a 100/5.6 Apo-Symmar a rational replacement for a 105/4.5 Apo-Lanthar? I thought so. Or a 210 Apo-Sironar-N for an (old, but post-Convertible) 210 Symmar?
Also, bear in mind what I do for a living: I often borrow kit. Sometimes, I'm surprised. I'd never have thought I'd find the 75 Summicron vastly more useful than the 90 I've been using for 25 years. Nor did I expect to fall in love with the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Or the Thambar. There's a bit of difference between buying on spec, or on a whim, and deciding to negotiate with the manufacturer about a lens you find really useful.
Cheers,
R.
photovdz
Well-known
tssss.... Cartier Bresson was using leicas (but sometimes with Zeiss lenses... )but Capa was using leica only before the war, Contax and Rolleiflex during the war, contax and nikon after the war (he died while using a contax IIA, that is said to be still somewhere in that rice field)... The Dday picture were done with a contax...
Sorry to disturb the holy mass...
Stephan...
ferider
Veteran
DDD first switched to Nikkors on Leicas and later to complete Nikon kits.
Erwitt used also other cameras, including Nikon SLRs.
Roland.
Erwitt used also other cameras, including Nikon SLRs.
Roland.
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Leicas are so expensive - and valuable - for what they DON'T have, not for qualities they do possess. To get less, you need to pay more!
sockeyed
Well-known
I have a softcover photo technique book (the title eludes me) on Erwitt with a section on his equipment. He talks about his use of Leicas, but also shows his camera bag bursting with a full complement of Canon FD SLR gear. This is not to say that he didn't also use Nikons.
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
I havent read all the replies so apologies if Im repeating something. In terms of results, despite what some people say, you wont notice any difference between a Leica and any other high quality 35mm camera unless your technique - everything from taking the shot to printing it - is spot on and you're making biggish enlargements of around 10x12. For 99.9% of the Leica population, they would get the same results using something a tenth of the price although that's not something many of them would own up to. For a big improvement in results for a lot less money get a medium format camera like a Rolleiflex or a Mamiya 6.
However, even if the results are the same with a Leica and, say, a Nikon F2, there's nothing quite like using a Leica in terms of its engineering. Its the only camera Ive had that I would sit with watching tv just winding on and firing with no film in the camera. It was a pleasure just feeling the buttery smooth movement of gears and countless other mechanical parts. That might just be a man thing ;-)
However, even if the results are the same with a Leica and, say, a Nikon F2, there's nothing quite like using a Leica in terms of its engineering. Its the only camera Ive had that I would sit with watching tv just winding on and firing with no film in the camera. It was a pleasure just feeling the buttery smooth movement of gears and countless other mechanical parts. That might just be a man thing ;-)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
kevin m
Veteran
Super. Send me all the money in your bank account and I'll send you absolutely nothing in return. That way, you'll get the most for your money.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Each to his own of course. A meter on my M2 that works like the one on my Nikon FM, + an 28mm frameline would just about make it perfect. Now I make do with a Gossen digiflash and an external finder. But's that just refinements really. A friend with an M6 and an M7 is actually a bit envious of my vintage setup.
By 'I can afford' I meant 'buying one wouldn't affect my life significantly financially'. I wouldn't have to skip a holiday or buying my next car.
But to be frank about it, I got the Leica bug too. But it has not bitten me hard enough to plump for an M7 or M8. I'd rather spend it on VC lenses, manual focus Nikon gear and the odd vintage Leica lens, in that order.
pfoto
Well-known
Indeed. Quite possibly a troll, although the one other post the OP has looks genuine enough.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
There was a thread not long ago by a member in China who brought his new (M6, at least to him) to anelderly Zen Buddhist woodcarver. The man held the camera in his hands along with another camera. The elderly carver then stated to the effect about the Leica: With this you will take good pictures not with the other. As they say it is a Zen thing.
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
There's nothing like good, sound, scientific advice for making a decision...
Myrona
Newbie
Haha - no, I'm not a troll (how can I be by just asking an innocent question?
). I went away for a minute... I didn't think I would start a 3 page thread (considering how popular my last thread starter was)... though a very interesting read and has made me intrigued to go out and use one (yes - I have never handled one). All places that I have come across that specialise in "collectable cameras" have Leica cameras that are extraordinary expensive. I was getting my Pen FT light meter (my other post) fixed the other day and there was a bright red one that looked so pretty.... but it was $5000 and it wasn't brand new - though I don't remember seeing the type of Leica it was. Not wishing to fuel the healthy debate that there is already, can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive Leica model for an amateur photographer who has never used one?
Last edited:
antistatic
Well-known
Leica: Preferred by 8 out of 10 Zen Buddhist Woodcarvers.
The other camera was probably a Cannon 1Ds III
Vics
Veteran
richard_l
Well-known
For the full Leica experience, an M2 or M6 would do nicely. The M2 is less expensive and some would say has more of the 'classic' feel than the M6, but the M6 is extremely nice and has a highly accurate through-the-lens meter. My personal favorite is the M2 for its elegant simplicity and good looks. You can get a good Barnack (screwmount) Leica for very little money, but it is more of a camera for the confirmed Leica enthusiast and could easily turn off a Leica novice.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Leica M4-2 or M4-P (without meter) and the 40mm Summicron-C (or the Minolta equvalent). Low-budget entry into the world of Leica.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The M2 and M3 are the purists' Leicas; the M2 has frames for 35-50-90 and the M3 for 50-90-135, but the M3 has a self-resetting frame counter while you have to reset it manually on the M2 (not really very difficult).
The M4 has all four frames (35-50-90-135); the M5 is a huge camera with a through-lens meter; the M4-2 was the M4 reintroduced when the M5 met with resistance; the M4-P is an updated M4-2 and was (a) the first Leica I had from new and (b) the roughest Leica I have ever used. The M6 added through-lens metering; M6ttl added flash though-lens metering, and a shutter speed dial that rotated in the opposite direction; M7 (current) has the same shutter speed direction as an M6ttl, plus auto-exposure (but is battery dependent); MP (current) is a sort of retro M6ttl with better viewfinder (less flare, like an M2/M3) and smoother feeling; and M8 (current) is digi.
A lot depends on how badly you want a meter -- and the shoe-mount Voigtländer meters go very well on Leicas without meters. Leica's own Leicameters aren't that brilliant, mostly as a result of old age.
Cheers,
R.