I want a Leica film camera, but...

[semi-ambivalent]

IIIF = 8.2/M2(35mm3) > VC/Zeiss < Summicron

Nice.

 

[pen s]

The price of Leica lenses, both used and new, have come to be out of the range of many film rangefinder fans. And yet many people continue to do excellent work with 'inferior' optics. As a recent (2 years) owner of a Leica M4-2 my impressions are going to be different from many Leica old timers here but I purchased my M body for the handling and nice bright, long base, VF/RF. Two years ago used VC lens prices were much lower than now and I could get the 21mm f4 in LTM with viewfinder, and a 35mm f2.5 PII for a total of $540 in like new condition. My only Leica lens is a 60 year old 90mm f4 Elmar that was about $150, but in very nice shape.

The 35mm VC lens is just outstanding with sharp, contrasty negs, nothing lacking there and very compact on an M body. I haven't used the 21mm lens as much as I thought I would and really can't comment on it. I just purchased the 90 Elmar and have not had much chance to try it out. The 35 sit on the body 95% of the time.

My final take? Buy what you can afford, devote time to taking pictures and improving your technique. Limit your time spent on the photo forums listening to 'experts'. Be happy.

 

[coigach]

My final take? Buy what you can afford, devote time to taking pictures and improving your technique. Limit your time spent on the photo forums listening to 'experts'. Be happy.

Agree! Most of my learning has been through trial and error, and learning to 'see'. And there's still a lot of learning to go! Once you've got the best kit you can afford, try not to think about it - they are tools that help you say what you want to say, not ends in themselves...

 

[vpwphoto]

My final word... I'd take the Leica lens over the CV lens in most cases... that is except the price premium for quality is too great (it just is!! for these 20-30 and 50 year old lenses!!!!), and I don't pay that much of a premium for panache.

 

[Steve Smith]

Most of my learning has been through trial and error

Most of the best learning is through error. In the book about Edwin Land (Insisting on the Impossible) there is a section which describes how Land didn't like coming up with a solution to a problem immediately. He preferred to go through all the variables which didn't work first. This way you learn much more about the process than if you get it instantly right first time. I think he called it success through failure.


Steve.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Most of the best learning is through error. In the book about Edwin Land (Insisting on the Impossible) there is a section which describes how Land didn't like coming up with a solution to a problem immediately. He preferred to go through all the variables which didn't work first. This way you learn much more about the process than if you get it instantly right first time. I think he called it success through failure.


Steve.

I think I read about that somewhere. Very good advice.

 

[Isa7bela]

I just want to capture images....do I need to compare if a cats' whisker is sharper with this lens compared to the other lens ? Don't you think your equipment has gotten the best of you ? Geez ......

Its like you play rickenbacker 4001 bass and fender jazz bass and you cant understand which is which without looking to the headstock.
or driving a mercedes and toyota.
Why dont you take two same pictures with these lenses and post here , we will tell you what you need to search for and which quality you might invest at the future.
Equipment and training is everything at a for example war. If you have airplane but no pilot to fly it , you are a loser at another perspective also like Iraqi army. Buying the latest weapon without trained men , .... etc etc.

 

[Red Robin]

Yup! I want a Leica too!

Every six months or so that Leica bug reinfects me. The best deterrent seems to be holding and shooting my Canons. The Canon III & Canon IIs2 help me to get over the initial anxiety is overcome by these well-built classics. If more treatment is needed I pickup the Canon VI-T, or one of my three Canon P's My Canon 7 while a nice working example, seems to stay shelf-bound in lew of my Bessa R. A variety of lenses help to deal with the damn Leica bug. My lenses , Canon's Minolta, a Ziess, with a fair sampling of Russian glass has helped to keep that Leica Genie in the bottle. That and a quote from another forum that goes something like this: "I found out why my photos are not any good! !! !!! It's not my equipment ! !! !!! Buy a camera that feels good to you and then go have fun.

 

[Craig Swensson]

All thats needed now is for someone to start a bag thread, change the page colours and.......RFF

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The thing about Leica that I've come to appreciate, more than anything else, is just how niiiiice they are to use. That's awfully easy to get addicted to, which I found out when I picked up the Pentax KX again after a year or so of not using it. While a very nice camera (it really is), it just doesn't compare to the silky smooth advance lever, the quiet shutter mechanism, how it feels in my hands, the weight, and how easy it is to compose with the frame lines in the picture area. They're two separate kinds, and I love them both, but the Leica is nicer to use than pretty much any other camera I've ever tried out.
To me, that is pretty important, because it helps me be confident with the camera, and I do believe that this is an important aspect of removing layers between ourselves and the pictures.
It deserves to be mentioned that if it wasn't for a kind and generous soul, who gave me a deal on my beautiful M2 with three lenses that I simply could not pass up, I probably wouldn't be photographing with a Leica either. They are hardly inexpensive, especially the really nice specimens, but it could be worth it to truly figure out which one suits your needs best. Just do some research on all of the ones you can afford, list their specs with meters, frame lines, single/double stroke, etc in a spread sheet, and think about what you need. That will give you your answer. Anything else is just opinion.

 

[LouisG]

If your budget is tight, find a good Summicron C 40mm and an Elmar C f/4, originally made in the 1970s for the Leica CL. I had both on a CL and a M4 body until they were stolen. Both lenses are outstanding -- sharp with beautiful bokeh, and they go for good prices. The only problem is that the 40 mm lens will bring up the 50 mm viewfinder frame. I didn't find this a problem on the M4. When I needed accurate framing I used the preselect lever to bring up the 35mm frame.

 

[sangetsu]

No lens can compete with an Leitz glass , if you buy a zeiss lens on to Leica , you will not be a Leica owner. If you cant decide what to do with Leica problem , you are not a Leicaphile and you dont deserve that camera.

I can think of several examples of lenses which outperform "Leitz" glass. An inexpensive Canon L-mount 50/1.8 lens will easily outperform an Elmar, Summar, or Summitar (I have all of these lenses). The difference between the Canon lens and a Summicron or Summilux (which I also use) will be too small for 99% of people to notice.

I am not a fan boy of any particular brand; the tool should never be considered more important than the image it produces. My selection of "tools" numbers in the triple digits as my mid-life crisis hobby is to collect cameras. My typical Leica M kit is an M3 or M4 body with either a 50mm Summilux, or 50/1.2 Canon LTM lens. A good kit on a budget would be an M2 or M3 with a Canon 50/1.8 or a 50/1.4.

Most times I don't bother with my Leicas, I like to shoot with a Nikon SP, or a Konica Hexar AF. I prefer the Nikkor 50/1.4 to my Summilux, and the Nikon works more smoothly and quietly than a Leica M. The Hexar is faster and quieter than either, and takes wonderful pictures.

 

[kossi008]

[...] but I do know that the differences between all fine lenses made today are minimal, and i say this as a user of leica glass exclusively (except for the pinhole stuff, of course). [...]

I am positive that (if they made pinholes) a Zeiss pinhole would be NO match for a true Leica pinhole. And I'm prepared to back this up with about three paragraphs about how the Leica laser used to cut the pinhole has better mode stabilization etc. Just you go and tempt me...

 

[Xmas]

I am positive that (if they made pinholes) a Zeiss pinhole would be NO match for a true Leica pinhole. And I'm prepared to back this up with about three paragraphs about how the Leica laser used to cut the pinhole has better mode stabilization etc. Just you go and tempt me...

Trolling aside a CV f2.5 at f/5.6 wont be much different from a cron at same aperture, even on a tripod, and you may be more annoyed by veiling flare with a cron, but the crons hold their $ better.

Noel

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Get the Leica glass.. All your pictures will suck if you don't.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I am positive that (if they made pinholes) a Zeiss pinhole would be NO match for a true Leica pinhole. And I'm prepared to back this up with about three paragraphs about how the Leica laser used to cut the pinhole has better mode stabilization etc. Just you go and tempt me...

Don't forget to throw in a few paragraphs on the polarisation, pulse rate, and the fact that Leitz pinholes are cut the same direction as the image forming light will travel. Plus, Leitz uses a special alloy (proprietary secret) to cut the holes in, so no other pinhole can ever equal it.

What I'd really like to read, is a dissertation by a competent psychologist/photographer/physicist on just where this particular fixed delusion comes from.

 

[nosmok]

According to an article in Wired magazine that somebody linked in another thread, if we really cared about resolution we'd still be doing Daguerrotypes. So I'd wait for the first among CV or Leitz or Zeiss to add Daguerrotype functionality, and then buy that one! We must keep moving forward after all!

--nosmok

 

[E. von Hoegh]

According to an article in Wired magazine that somebody linked in another thread, if we really cared about resolution we'd still be doing Daguerrotypes. So I'd wait for the first among CV or Leitz or Zeiss to add Daguerrotype functionality, and then buy that one! We must keep moving forward after all!

--nosmok

It figures, that Wired would consider Daguerreotypes to be the ultimate in resolution. A wee bit of thought will show the fallacy.

Wired isn't about technology, it's about shiny things for the techno-magpies.

 

[Klainmeister]

I dunno, wetplates seem to have an incredible resolution. I couldn't image any film/sensor beating even a 6x6.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Daguerreotypes. http://www.pixiq.com/article/the-devil-in-the-daguerreotype-details

 

[nosmok]

Found the article!

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff_daguerrotype_panorama/all/1

Pretty astonishing. But then, if you consider the arc of 19th century photography, most of the images I can remember use a lot of pictorialist softening (soft focus, veils over the lens, etc.), which suggests that even at that point people thought that their (mostly very large negatives) had an intolerable amount of detail if just shot "as is". All this talk of various 35mm cameras being better than others just reminds me that a competent 60 year old MF camera will still blow any 35 out of the water (dons asbestos suit). And I'm sure LF users can say the same thing.

--nosmok

 

[Steve Mack]

Thanks to all who have replied.

To the Mods: Any time you want to lock this thread is OK by me. I'm the OP.

With best regards.

Stephen