first leica

[Theo Sulphate]

The thing about a Leica rangefinder is that it is so damn tactile.

That is so true...

Please explain. I don't notice anything all that special, although I do love the wind lever on the M6.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Advancing the film, focusing, firing the shutter has a feel that is smooth and unlike any other camera or machine.

 

[trythis]

I think they are snazzy and tactile but just not worth the premium if you are on any sort of budget where you have to save money to buy one. If you are loaded its part of the fun.


Sent with typotalk

 

[Sirius Glass]

Advancing the film, focusing, firing the shutter has a feel that is smooth and unlike any other camera or machine.

I think they are snazzy and tactile but just not worth the premium if you are on any sort of budget where you have to save money to buy one. If you are loaded its part of the fun.

I was talking about the feel. But they do not bring enough to the party for me to buy. As for the price, it is too high, pushed higher years ago by collectors, not photographers.

 

[zanxion72]

O.k. Let's be realistic! 500-600 euros for a decent film camera is not too much and certainly it is not a collector's item price. Really collectibles mount at a lot higher than that.

 

[darkosaric]

O.k. Let's be realistic! 500-600 euros for a decent film camera is not too much and certainly it is not a collector's item price. Really collectibles mount at a lot higher than that.

New iPhone costs the more, almost every dSLR costs more. Used Leica with nice Leitz lens can be found for under 1000 € (I paid for my M3 500€ - still works grat after 4-5 years, no CLA at all) - you can use it all your life, and pass it to the children and then to grandchildren.

 

[zanxion72]

New iPhone costs the more, almost every dSLR costs more. Used Leica with nice Leitz lens can be found for under 1000 € (I paid for my M3 500€ - still works grat after 4-5 years, no CLA at all) - you can use it all your life, and pass it to the children and then to grandchildren.

Well said! I have bought my M4-P for 600€. I was about to go for an M6, but then I thought that I wouldn't like any dead things on my camera in the future. Of course it will pass on to my son as soon as he gets old enough and keen enough to love and use it.

 

[georg16nik]

... the idea of a quite shutter and a full mechanical full brass camera, ...

The Leica M body is mostly made of aluminum - body shell, shutter cage etc, etc, only the top cover, the bottom and few internal guts are brass. Some M bodies don't even use brass for the top and bottom covers.
The Barnacks bodies up till Leica III got shutter cage made of brass and more or less only the body shell is made of aluminum.
With lenses is a bit different story and historically the brass was the preferred material but most recent “black” versions are a mix of brass and aluminum.

The RF shutters are generally quieter since there is no mirror box and lens diaphragm to trigger, so its basically only a focal plane cloth shutter.
Keep in mind you won't be able to focus at closer than 1m or so, unless you add some goodies and workout the parallax moment.

RF's are great with symmetrical wide and normal primes - no distortion; optically excellent even wide open or a tad stopped down.

Given the cost of film, paper, chemistry, time spent in darkroom etc etc. - no camera or lens seems luxury, and it really is the cheapest ingredient.

 

[darkosaric]

Given the cost of film, paper, chemistry, time spent in darkroom etc etc. - no camera or lens seems luxury, and it really is the cheapest ingredient.

Yes. ILFORD Multigrade FB Classic 40x50 cm box is 239€, I got my Leica III with Elmar 5cm lens in Leica shop with warranty for 250€.

 

[trythis]

$600 for a camera body is out of reach for many people including myself. If you have nice upper middle class income or more, sure why the heck not? But when you are concerned about money and just want to take photos, you can do that with many reliable cameras that come with a lens for 1/10th the price and have enough money to buy film, an enlarger, a laptop, and scanner, blah blah blahh.

I would just recommend that someone not buy one based on hype and actually test first to see if they need all that luxury


Sent with typotalk

 

[Xmas]

Typically the Canon LTMs are half the price of a Leica M but faster handling, that is why Leica are small and Canon big.

http://www.peterloy.com/stock-list.php

No vesting issue with vendor.

 

[zanxion72]

$600 for a camera body is out of reach for many people including myself. If you have nice upper middle class income or more, sure why the heck not? But when you are concerned about money and just want to take photos, you can do that with many reliable cameras that come with a lens for 1/10th the price and have enough money to buy film, an enlarger, a laptop, and scanner, blah blah blahh.

I would just recommend that someone not buy one based on hype and actually test first to see if they need all that luxury


Sent with typotalk

Pardon me, but saving for a Leica does not make you necessarily a member of the upper middle class.

 

[trythis]

Nope it sure doesn't. Personal choice is what it is. But we all know that Leica is a luxury brand just like luxury luggage, watches and cars. They are very nicely made with the best materials and people want them. Can we travel with cheaper well made luggage, tell time with a cheap well made watch and get to work with a cheap well made car? Do we lust after those things for reasons of the end game of getting to work or do we envy telling time in style, with pride and joy at looking at the "time piece."

Its easy for me to say this stuff cause I have 2 Leicas given to me; a IIIc and a M3. Holy moly they're very very nice little machines, and I like to hold them occasionally just because they are so nice to hold. However, I wouldn't take money from my kids' education to buy these things and will sell them when the giver dies.. (Don't want to hurt their feelings) I use them occasionally to keep them working but my photos look the same to me regardless of the camera . I don't feel comfortable taking them outside in public out of fear of them getting stolen or dropping and breaking them. For me that's the problem with a Leica or a $5000 watch or new car. The thing I'm using becomes more important than what I'm using for.


Sent with typotalk

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I traveled a lot with cheap luggage. Only after buying two old models Samsonite suitcases I realized what is well made. And I don't have to buy another cheap luggage after Samsonite.

I'm taking my M4-2 anywhere and anytime it is needed.

And I wouldn't describe IIIc and M3 as luxury. Not even as expensive items.

I wouldn't put any film Leica camera into luxury category.
Classic Film M Leica is nothing but well made tool. Not the luxury item, but high quality tool. You could buy several B&D or you could buy Makita. Once.

 

[ColColt]

I don't feel comfortable taking them outside in public out of fear of them getting stolen or dropping and breaking them. For me that's the problem with a Leica or a $5000 watch or new car.

No need to live in fear like that. If a man can buy a Rolex, Lexus or the latest Leica without letting his house payment go for a couple months why not do it if you want it? I'm not well heeled enough to buy the latest Leica nor would I as I don't care for them. You can get a great looking M2 for about $850 that works as intended. In fact, that's my choice of the M cameras. they're made to shoot. I've only dropped one camera related item, a Nikon flash and it cost me a couple hundred bucks to get them to fix it. I've never dropped a camera or a lens since I got into this in 1977.

It all reminds me of so many I've talked with in person or via the Internet who will hunt down and buy a $2-3000 pre-64 Winchester instead of buying a new one at half the cost. It's all about quality and history behind the item. If you have the bread to do so, go for it. Enjoy life for today-tomorrow may never get here for you.

 

[zanxion72]

Cmon! Being out with a leica is far less dangerous than with a fancy digital camera with stuff blinking and glowing around it shouting "steal me". To people not much related to photography others like Canon and Nikon ring a lot more bells than a Leica.
I met at a local fleamarket a guy selling a Zorki-4K in its box for 150 euros (!) and a Rolleiflex with some rough signs of use for 50. Now if you have the bad luck to come across some maniac that knows what a leica is and would steel or kill about it then it is just plain bad luck.

 

[ColColt]

I don't live in a dangerous city but not long back I walked around downtown with a Leica M2 around my neck and a Nikon F2A over my shoulder. I hardly got any looks at all. Some probably didn't know what they were.

 

[trythis]

Cmon! Being out with a leica is far less dangerous than with a fancy digital camera with stuff blinking and glowing around it shouting "steal me". To people not much related to photography others like Canon and Nikon ring a lot more bells than a Leica.
.

I don't think it's dangerous to walk around with any camera.





Sent with typotalk

 

[trythis]

No need to live in fear like that. If a man can buy a Rolex, Lexus or the latest Leica without letting his house payment go for a couple months why not do it if you want it? -tomorrow may never get here for you.

Totally agree with this, when you are relatively wealthy an $800 camera seems like no big deal just like anything else, its relative. It will seem like luxury for those of us on a Canon Ae-1 P or Nikon FG and E series lens budget. The original poster seemed like he felt the pull of owning a Leica but would have to buy a broken one hoping to fix it because of finances. Being in that situation myself regarding other gear and then actually having a couple of Leicas for free I can say that the grass is not all that much greener. They are oh so snazzy but make no difference in my photos.


Sent with typotalk

 

[ColColt]

It's nice to have good, reliable equipment known for quality bodies and lens but there are many who indulge and gloat in their good fortune financially and make sure everyone knows by hanging a $5000 camera around their neck. I could care less about brand or the cost of it. I'm into the final product whether it's shot with a Leica, Nikon, Canon, makes no difference. I'm not into impressing anyone-got too old to care anyway!

 

[flavio81]

RF's are great with symmetrical wide and normal primes - no distortion; optically excellent even wide open or a tad stopped down.

The myth of wideangle lenses in Rangefinders being superior, has been carried over from the 50s when retrofocus designs were not as good. I dare to say that the first good retrofocus wideangle lenses (for example the ones made by Nikon in the 60s) were the final killer of the rangefinder era, and made pros move massively to SLRs.

Even in 1964 Canon was able to make an extreme wideangle retrofocus lens much superior than its "symmetrical" wideangle. This test, made in about 1965, speaks for itself. And by the way, that FL 19/3.5R lens has practically no distortion (i own one). Easily one of Canon's best optical achievements.

 

[seanE]

I never mean to start a class war lol, I take back the canon and nikon RF are ugly boxes comment, but I prefer the leicas, and the canon and nikons can be more expensive than leicas, I'm looking to spend 4 to 500 on a body and maybe 200 for a lenses, essentially I like the craftsmanship in the leicas, and I can't afford a digital leica, So I think il buy an old film leica, use that just for fun days out, And then I will buy a cheap ugly practical dslr or csc for other stuff.

 

[bo eder]

I never mean to start a class war lol, I take back the canon and nikon RF are ugly boxes comment, but I prefer the leicas, and the canon and nikons can be more expensive than leicas, I'm looking to spend 4 to 500 on a body and maybe 200 for a lenses, essentially I like the craftsmanship in the leicas, and I can't afford a digital leica, So I think il buy an old film leica, use that just for fun days out, And then I will buy a cheap ugly practical dslr or csc for other stuff.

I think you need to save up more money. The Leica glass is really the important thing, right? I'm not sure you'd find a Leica lens for 200. I had a friend who bought a new Voightlander 35/1.7 screw mount and put an M adapter on it to use on his M4 because he couldn't afford a 35 Summilux, but even that lens was over 400.

 

[georg16nik]

The myth of wideangle lenses in Rangefinders being superior, has been carried over from the 50s when retrofocus designs were not as good. I dare to say that the first good retrofocus wideangle lenses (for example the ones made by Nikon in the 60s) were the final killer of the rangefinder era, and made pros move massively to SLRs.

Even in 1964 Canon was able to make an extreme wideangle retrofocus lens much superior than its "symmetrical" wideangle. This test, made in about 1965, speaks for itself. And by the way, that FL 19/3.5R lens has practically no distortion (i own one). Easily one of Canon's best optical achievements...

The entrance and exit pupils of the symmetrical lenses for RF cameras are about the same size - hence no distortion @ any ƒ/stop and focus distance.
With asymmetrical wides for SLR (or RF), the pupils are of different size - hence the distortion with variable form, tied to focus distance etc. etc.

In case some magazines in the 1960's said otherwise because their advertisers asked - it's a free world that runs on money.

 

[seanE]

I'm looking at voightlander and ltm lenses at the moment, i must keep up hope, lol, if i can double it as a lens for my future csc kit i wouldn't mind spending a more,