I'd like a Leica but ...

[jmcd]

"As a stick-in-your-pocket and carry everywhere thing."

As others have recommended, if you really want to carry the camera in your pocket and stay in your budget, get a Leica screwmount, or a LTM Canon or similar, along with a collapsible lens or something small like a Voigtlander 50/2.5. I love Leica M cameras, but lightweight they are not, they are heavy duty photographing machines.

The lens is the most important part, but the camera itself is a vital part of the equation, and a properly functioning set suited to your purpose is valuable.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

M lenses are very good indeed, but how much sharpness, contrast do you really need? They are good, but you pay through the nose for that extra bit of performance.

Leica lenses are not the most contrasty lenses
out there. My sense is that Leica balances out
its lenses for lower contrast, at least with the
lenses I have used. Contrast is not always a
good thing -- it can make it more difficult to
make a negative that holds shadow detail
without blowing out highlights.

One day I did a test shoot with a group of
5cm LTM lenses, each in pristine condition:
A Summar, a Summitar, and several versions
of the Nikkor Sonnars. The Nikkors as a group
blew away the Summitar and the Summar --
much finer detail, and more defined contrast.
The Leica lenses looked muddy by comparison.

But so much for tests. In the real world the
Leica lenses, to my eye, routinely create
visually interesting images. The more I shoot,
the less stock I put in objective measures of
camera lenses.

 

[mojobebop]

look into a cl, or cle.
great camera. fixed lens.

 

[Lee L]

look into a cl, or cle.
great camera. fixed lens.

Interchangeable Leica M-mount lenses, or Leica screw mount with M adapter. You need to be careful of collapsible lenses, which can damage the meter cell arm when pushed into the body. Some non-collapsible wide angles may present the same problem. Leica has some info out that recommends some Dymo (labelling) tape widths to apply to the collapsible barrel to prevent problems.

The CLE has no metering display in manual exposure mode, and switching between auto and manual is a bit clumsy. The CLE also meters off the curtain in full frame averaging mode, whereas the CL meters a central spot. There are other differences in flash metering and in viewfinder magnification and framelines.

Lee

 

[nuckabean]

If you're looking for wides keep the Bessa 4s in mind. They have framelines for 21/25/28/35/50. They're also more expensive though and I've heard they're a little hard to frame with a 50mm. I picked up a Bessa T at a camera show for 150$ and I've been using a Russian lens on it till I have the money for another. I plan on picking up the Voigtlander 21/4. If the external viewfinder doesn't bother you, then I would recommend looking into one as they have a meter and can be found for very cheap.

 

[hughitb]

I'm really thinking now that the Leica CL is what i need. I see one on the auction site at a buy-it-now price of 439 dollars. I could then pick up a lens after selling some of my other gear ..... I like the fact that it takes any of the M lenses. It all sounds good to me ....

 

[IloveTLRs]

If you can go without the built-in meter I'd recommend a screw mount Leica, too.

Here in Japan while M bodies and lenses are very expensive, screw mount gear (bodies, lenses, etc.) is much cheaper (I'd imagine it's the same overseas, too.) I currently use a IIIb with a small wrist strap and a colapsable Elmar 50/3.5 - it truly fits in my pocket. The external 1:1 viewfinder is really nice, and with some spare film in your pocket, the world really is your oyster There are lots of really nice screw-mount lenses out there by other makers too, like Canon, Nikon, etc.

Lower priced- but not lower-quality- screw-mount gear, has meant that I could get into Leica without having to break the bank

 

[Bill Harrison]

Leica, built in meter=M6, $1,000-1,200,Small Wideangle, VC Scopar 2.5 =$225ish. I LOVE mine....

 

[Larry Bullis]

I shoot a BEATER M2. I got it for $400. This can happen. It's vulcanite is half gone (I'm going to replace it with a piece of salmon leather I have) and it has somebody's driver's license number crudely inscribed on the top with one of those vibrating engravers. Mechanically, it seems to be perfect. My M5, which LOOKS perfect, needs CLA, the shutter curtains are unbalanced above 1/50, which is going to cost at least $250. The lens I am using (I have others, but this usually stays on) is a CV 40mm f/1.4, the single coated version that was made for the Japanese market. I got it on ebay for about $350, can't remember exactly offhand. The lens is perfect, really brand new, but has been modified to bring up the 35mm frame lines rather than the 50mm. I happen to like the perspective, and I don't like to have to make decisions about lenses and fumble around for the one I want; so I've drawn that limit for myself, mostly. The lens is superb. I guess my former dr summicron 50 was sharper, but actually, I never notice anything wrong with this one.

So I guess that gives me about a $750 camera. I already had a light meter, but having to carry it is an issue, for sure.

I started with a loaner M5 in 1975, and I have a special fondness for the camera, though there are others who despise it. That's their problem. It is a great camera with a great meter; it just got a bad rap by users who were expecting an M3 with a meter, which they didn't get. Instead, they got a very advanced camera that really should have met a LOT more success. Because they are not universally sought as the M6, MP, M7 might be, they tend to go for significantly less $$. They are a bit larger, a bit heavier, and have a more square aspect.

The CL idea is a good one, but remember, if you are looking for a LEICA, the CL was a partnership with Minolta, much like the recent partnership agreement with Panasonic for some of the digital cameras. The camera was built in Japan. I don't know if this is important to you, but it is to some people. Some think it is not as well built. Another potential drawback is that the rangefinder base is significantly shorter, since the camera's size requires that. Check Wikipedia, or other reference source. I really doubt that a CL would survive hitting the earth at terminal velocity, having dropped out of an airplane, as many M2's and 3's were known to have. One great thing about my M2 is the confidence I have that if someone tries to take it away from me (unlikely because it's so ugly) I can just hit him with it. The camera won't break, but his skull might.

Like a previous poster, I have not found a pocket camera practical, so I strap it. This is actually an advantage on the street because you are known to be a photographer, and upsetting people by surprising them is much less likely.

I shot with another M2 and an M4 for many years, for my living, shooting travel stories for a magazine. I just don't feel right with anything else. That's the risk you run. Leicas ARE ADDICTIVE. The nice thing is that no matter how ugly your Leica might be, as long as it is mechanically right, it is still a Leica. Nobody will be able to see how ugly the camera is by looking at the pictures.

 

[Kerik]

Hugh I just went through this exercise and ended up with a CLE and 40mm Rokkor for $430 in Ex+ condition with everything including the meter working properly. I just processed the first 2 rolls of film and the negs look great. Down the road I will likely add a 28mm, 90mm and maybe the Voightlander 15mm, too. It is a wonderful camera to use.

 

[Frank Bunnik]

In the past I owned an M5 and an M6. I liked the M5 much much better because of the better viewfinder that makes lightmetering much easier. Simply match the 2 needles and you are done.

But for the ridiculous prices Leica charges, you are still photographing in stamp sizes. I would therefore stick with the Mamiya M7 or the Fuji. It might be Leica glass but it can not beat a 6x7 or a 6x9 slide/negative.

 

[k_jupiter]

I gues I am confused. You already shoot 120 film.

Why wouldn't this work?

Fujica GS645 Professional 6x4.5 Medium Format Camera

I would own one but the thought of 400 bucks is a bit daunting at this time.

Leica Schmeica, this will shoot the pants off an M series camera. Even with a Summicron.

tim in san jose

 

[hughitb]

k_jupiter and Frank: I already have some MF cameras. I want something small and compact that will give me 36 shots per roll and that I can carry around easily but still give me decent quality. I know it won't beat 6x7, 6x9 or even 645 negs but them's the breaks, eh?

raisans: yeah that's true ... if I sold both the Fuji and the RF645 and added it to the 500 dollars I have then yes, I would have a budget of well over 1000, but there would probably be something more important for me to spend the surplus on .... like .. I dunno ... my mortgage ... a holiday ..... expensive wines .... books .... paying off my debts .. I'm getting excited now.

 

[Chan Tran]

How many people carry a leica in the pocket?

 

[Larry Bullis]

Sometimes I carry a iiif in a coatpocket. A doctor I happened to meet last week had taken some kind of a workshop with Gene Smith; he said Smith carried one in a pocket and encouraged him to do the same.

However, there are much better pocket cameras. The Olympus XA is the best I have. It actually FITS in a pocket, and doesn't require an additional light meter.

 

[keithwms]

Pardon the following series of rants....

Rant 1: I have a minilux. Piece of garbage. Useless brick, tiny godawful VF, very cheap foldup mechanism. One of the worst cameras I ever had the poor judgement of buying. Want it? $100 to the first PM. I miss my konica hexar AF and would, in a heartbeat, reach for that before the f@&%ing minilux.

Rant 2: IMHO it's complete nonsense to get a decades-old camera just because it's a Leica and you think that it'll make some difference. Are the leica prices inflated? Uhhh... yeah! So then why would you, with your tight budget constraints, settle for less camera because you're interested in a brand that is inflated in value? Sorry, it's just not logical to me! We're in a tanking economy in which the cost of *new* products has never been so low (see rant 4 for further details). Think about it! Spend wisely!

Rant 3: I also don't understand this business of trying to suggest various MF camera when a person posts, in a very clear way, that he is interested in a compact 35mm RF.

Rant 4: Shouldn't we be encouraging the purchase of new cameras anyway? Sorry, but sometimes these threads start to sound like antiques road show. Look there are plenty of *new* cameras out there that aren't that far out of your range. Not only will you be under warranty, but in many cases you'll be getting a better performer as well, with the option of spending your hard-earned money on lenses. But perhaps most importantly, you will be helping to keep analogue cameramaking alive.

Rant 5: I agree with Chan Tran , if you get a camera that has excessive object value then you may not feel so inclined to use it in the way you'd like, or in a way that'd be productive. I use olympus xas as pocket cameras, and they are superb. What's more useful, the camera you have with you often, and use often, or the camera that you're afraid you might scuff. Like I said before, the really nice thing about the xa is that if you are mugged, you can throw the camera at your mugger. They won't expect that, and you won't care.

Personally, with the aforementioned budget, I would save up a bit and get a bessa or Zeiss Ikon than go for some old M with which I'd immediately have to sweat the shutter and CLA and baby. You want fantastic used camera for a realistic price? Go for a contax g2 or xpan or TX1 and be happy.

 

[Chan Tran]

I asked the question about putting the Leica in the pocket because I think the Leica is too big for most pockets. I don't have a Leica although I would love to have one, but if I had one it would not be the one I put in my pocket and carry with me all the time. The OP wanted an inexpensive camera, in the pocket, with built in meter, not need more than 1 lens. I don't think it's Leica like at all. Few Leicas have meter. The first metered Leica M5 is way too big. The M6, M7 are not inexpensive by any mean.
I have 3 Olympus XA's and they takes decent pics and I don't care if I break one of them. No lens cap to get lost.

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

Pardon the following series of rants....

Rant 5: I agree with Chan Tran , if you get a camera that has excessive object value then you may not feel so inclined to use it in the way you'd like...
QUOTE]

This part of your "rant" I will affirm wholeheartedly.

Perhaps my favorite camera I ever owned - "needed" to have - was the Minolta XK Motor. The problem was, once I got it and had it serviced and brought back to mint condition, it was too valuable to use! Every time I took it out I was concerned I was going to hurt it, ding it, get dust in the gears,etc. I got to the point where I couldn't justify using it without feeling anxious. I ended up selling it to a friend and it's now a part of his collection.

At times I wish I hadn't sold it, but at the same time, I know I'd have those same feelings every time I took it out to put it through its paces, so it's better off where it is.

My Leica M's are users. And any time I start feeling bad about that, I just go to Tom Abrahamson's site and look at his beaters. He uses stuff that looks like it's been through the shredder- and he's "Mr. Leica"! Then I feel much better.

 

[fotch]

I must have bigger pockets. I can slip my M3 with collapsible lens in my pocket. The Minox GL is of course the utmost in pocketable cameras if you can handle scale focusing. (Note! The Minox unfortunately is not a very durable camera but does render some outstanding images.)

I will admit looking for a belt pouch for the Leica but the prices were a bit ridiculous and I dislike camera straps.

The trouble with new cameras is they are, for the most part, cheaply made. Nothing new comes close to the older Leica. While there are a lot of advantages in plastic and electronics, longevity is not one of them.

In a similar way, that is why I like film over digital.

JMHO

 

[fotch]

I should qualify the pocket. I am speaking of a jacket or coat pocket, not a shirt or pants pocket.

 

[hughitb]

Man ... what a can of worms I've opened!

Keith:

re: rant 2 - I am by no means bent on getting a decades-old camera of inflated value. I'm looking for a 35mm rangefinder .... being fairly ignorant of this area Leica was the obvious one that sprung to mind to me. I'm all ears when it comes to hearing about other brands of similar functionality that may fit the bill and am therefore looking at all the other suggestions people are throwing at me. e.g. Bessa and so on. I'm now adding Olympus XA to that list. Thanks for the suggestion. I completely agree with the general principle of putting the money into the lens rather than the body, as I said already.

re: rant 5 - I don't really worry about getting mugged or robbed or scuffing up things I carry around so that's not really an issue.

re: rant 4 - good point .. something to consider all right.

Everyone else: I think we have established that an M camera will not fit in my pocket. Cheers. However I can't resist posting the following suggestion I received by means of PM from an Apugger who shall remain anonymous:

"I think you should spend the 500 euro on a tailor that will stitch a bronica rf sized pocket on all your clothes"

 

[keithwms]

Haha, yes, a tailor might well solve the problem! Do bear in mind that HCB supposedly shoved a Leica up his sleeve from time to time. Might be a myth though, my sleeves certainly aren't that big.

Let me clarify the essence of one of my rants. I am definitely not dissing Leica. But your budget puts you squarely into the realm of "bang per buck" calculations, and in that case I'm afraid that the Leicas definitely lose (unfortunately).

I also understand the reluctance to avoid plasticky pieces. However, in my experience the XAs can take just about anything, the design is brilliant.

One other thing to consider, if you are perchance open to an slr: the Nikon fm3a. Now there is a very high quality piece, it's in your price range, and it certainly will not disappoint. And you can get as ritzy with the lenses as your budget permits... a $50 50/1.8 or a $1000 ZF.

 

[Chan Tran]

Keith! Most of the FM3a's are quite new and in good condition. If I have one I wouldn't put it in my pocket either as I would scratch it. I often put an FM in my pocket though. Other times I may put a Nikonos V in my raincoat.

 

[keithwms]

The fm3as are arguably the best 'traditionalist' new camera ever made by Nikon. I think it might be a good compromise between a camera that you treasure and a camera that you use daily and without inhibition. But I agree that there are many other very worthy pre-fm3a models out there that can be had for a song.

 

[fotch]

Let me clarify the essence of one of my rants. I am definitely not dissing Leica. But your budget puts you squarely into the realm of "bang per buck" calculations, and in that case I'm afraid that the Leicas definitely lose (unfortunately).

If you consider resale value or clicks between failure (if starting with new or recent CLA) I think the Leica wins. Of all the cameras I own or have owned, only the Leica has increased.

Now, there are a lot of things to consider. Personally, the most important thing that I consider is, depending on the shoot, what tool will I like using and can depend on.

For me, the Nikon F3 and F3HP is high on my list for 35mm.