Is There Life After Leica?

Pioneer · May 15, 2015

I know that there are lots of photographers who go through their entire lives without ever touching a rangefinder, and are none the worse for it.

I also know that, regardless of Leica advertisements to the contrary, that there are large numbers of professional photographers throughout history who did not use rangefinders.

But are there people who used rangefinders in the past who moved on and never looked back?

I own several Leica cameras, and I do enjoy them. But they are astoundingly expensive and not all that flexible. Their major strength is fast focusing which allows quick, candid photographs. A secondary strength is being able to continually see what is happening through the viewfinder, even while taking pictures. Another secondary strength is their quiet shutter though there are actually other, non-rangefinder cameras, with shutters that are at least as quiet. Most of these strengths were overcome by fast focusing auto-focus systems and better balanced shutter systems.

So, who out there has moved away from using rangefinder cameras and what were your experiences? After making the move have you found to miss some aspect that just could not be found in other cameras systems?

NB23 · May 15, 2015

Man... No.

Pioneer · May 15, 2015

NB23 said:
Man... No.

Kind of what I thought but it is an interesting thought exercise!

chip j · May 15, 2015

Get a Contax G2.

summicron1 · May 15, 2015

Leicas are no more expensive than any other tool -- i haven't moved on, i just use lots of different.

But when I travel it is still a Leica rangefinder I carry, mostly, for the very benefits you list. As to flexibility -- it does its job, I do mine.

Having said that, a Leicaflex SL2 is a work of purest art.

Bill Burk · May 15, 2015

I find myself hitting the edges and limitations of every camera I ever use.

The last shots I took were some friends visiting with 400 speed film rated at 250, handheld, in the kitchen near dusk. I open the blinds for light and just as I aim, my wife walks behind my back and turns the blinds back dark. Dang. I turn on the chandelier and shoot wide open. Dang. 1/15th sec. Know it's not going to work. Spotmeter and think Zone VI... (No different, need more light). I switch from the f/1.8 lens to the f/1.4 lens... Now I get the shot. Think I might tell her what I think. Or maybe just shut up and enjoy dinner.

And before this moment I thought there wasn't any significant advantage to having f/1.4 versus f/1.8 (or f/2).

Now I know.

I need f/1.2

baachitraka · May 15, 2015

XA, set the focus to 3m and shoot.

Xmas · May 16, 2015

baachitraka said:
XA, set the focus to 3m and shoot.

I use scale focus and instinctive point, at need.

I frequent use a Canon P or a Leica M2 the P is just easier to focus in poor light cause it is closer to 1:1, an M3 just better than the P in poor light, by poor I mean starlight.

A beaten up P or M2 is not that expensive.

Pioneer · May 16, 2015

Some of you are quite amusing.

Leica cameras in good condition are expensive, even the older M2s and M3s. You may have been using one long enough to have forgotten.

A recent review of a very reputable on-line store with a very good return policy shows that you can buy a very nice Nikon F6 for what you would spend on a Leica M2 in the same condition.

Fixcinater · May 16, 2015

The F6 does not have the same "je ne sais quoi" as the M2/M3.

Full disclosure: I still have an M3 and a few Canon bodies. They do what I need a camera to do and help me focus on the shots I really want to take rather than the easy-but-impressive shots I've already taken.

georg16nik · May 16, 2015

in 35mm land the perfection between optico-mechanical excellence, compactness and reliability is achieved in rangefinders - Leica, Zeiss etc.
If the longest lens you mount is 90mm and you rarely shoot cats or flowers @ nose distance, then there is no contest.

pdeeh · May 16, 2015

I'm in the process of getting rid of all my leicaish kit at the moment (R2a, 35mm summicron, other bobs and bits).

Shan't miss it because I wasn't using it. I liked the nice mechanically sophisticated feel of it, but it didn't move me so much that I wanted to use it and nothing else - for 35mm that position has been happily taken by an OM1n. Plus I want cash for my LF ventures.

I still have a broken Zorki4 and a fungusy industar so if I have any regrets in the future that are more than a twinge, I'll get them fixed up. They're not worth the effort of selling.

Other people get very attached to brands and marques and even particular mechanical arrangements and imbue them with a mystical quality that borders on the Zealous. I'm not one, and I find other people's obsessions of that type tedious.
I expect this thread will end up its fair share of dick-swinging - as is usual when "gear" gets discussed

250swb · May 16, 2015

We'll probably get some inverted snobbery as well........

Steve

pdeeh · May 16, 2015

Was that aimed at me?
If so, you couldn't be more wrong ...

BrianShaw · May 16, 2015

I've never even used a Leica and other rangefinders have never been a major part of my photographic toolkit. I still have and use one but mostly as a fun curiosity. Rangefinders and Leica are nothing for me to "move on from"... I was never there in the first place.

dosilverhalide · May 16, 2015

Buying a Leica is not unlike buying a Harley. Fantastic name recognition of the item purchased and maybe even for the purchaser. If it still works after ten years or so, even the better. I have owned both, both were nice, but other types did the job just as well and with the camera you would need a magnifying glass to see the difference. I sold the Leica and went back to Zeiss glass and I no longer own any Harleys. I now ride a Japanese bike and my favorite camera set up is a screw mount Pentax with a Pentax 50mm f1.4 lens. J.

Chan Tran · May 16, 2015

Leica's are beautiful and both the cameras and lenses were built with great quality and taste and that is my impression of Leica because I never own Leica. The prices are high but I think I could afford it. I never own a Leica because they are rangefinder. I started out with the Petri 7s at age 10. I can focus and frame with the rangefinder well but when I looked thru the viewfinder of an SLR I never wanted a rangefinder any more.

trythis · May 16, 2015

I have an m3, a iiic and a few lenses that were given to me and rarely use them because they are too expensive and heavy. The iiic is small but my XA weighs nothing and is faster to use, and has a flash! If it breaks, I'm out $70.
I admire lieca's as objects but not as tools. I would probably feel differently if i had paid the $1000's they would have cost me though.

Typos made on a tiny phone...

jerrybro · May 16, 2015

I had a Leica dream system. M4, 35mm pre-asph Lux, 50mm rigid Cron, 21mm SA, all in very nice shape. I just couldn't love it. Didn't fit my hand well and knowing the value I was always afraid of it. I worry less about my Blad than I did the Leica stuff, so I sold it. Today, I can't tell the diference from negs taken with the Leica or any of my Nikons. I get my RF fix from my dad's S2 hand me down.

Like Yamaha used to say, different stroke for different folk.

nyoung · May 16, 2015

You learn to depend on the tools you learn with.

My first "real" camera was a Nikon FM w 28/3.5 lens and a borrowed 43-86. Years later, while teaching photography, a student gave me her grandfather's old camera -found in the back of a closet after he died. It was a minty M2 with a three lens kit. I fiddled with it a couple of days and decided it was just too archaic and complex. Sold the Leica set up and gave the money to the grandmother. A good friend, a photojournalist who had moved from Mamiya DTLs in high school into Nikons as a grown up, spent thousands in the mid-1980s for two Leica bodies, motor drives, and lenses. Thought they would change his shooting style. Every time out the door on assignment, however, he always grabbed the motorized F3s. To my knowledge, he might have put a dozen rolls of film through the Leicas before he sold them.
At this stage of my life, I can have Leicas, or F6s, or D4s if I want them. However, packing for a six week trip from Texas to Chicago, around the south side of the Great Lakes up to Maine and then into Canada and back around the north side of the lakes, I'm packing an FM2n, three manual focus short lenses, an F5, and three autofocus telephotos.
A Leica is like a Rolex - its a damn nice watch but a Casio Pathfinder does a thousand times more stuff more accurately.

NB23 · May 16, 2015

pdeeh said:
I'm in the process of getting rid of all my leicaish kit at the moment (R2a, 35mm summicron, other bobs and bits).

Shan't miss it because I wasn't using it. I liked the nice mechanically sophisticated feel of it, but it didn't move me so much that I wanted to use it and nothing else - for 35mm that position has been happily taken by an OM1n. Plus I want cash for my LF ventures.

I still have a broken Zorki4 and a fungusy industar so if I have any regrets in the future that are more than a twinge, I'll get them fixed up. They're not worth the effort of selling.

Other people get very attached to brands and marques and even particular mechanical arrangements and imbue them with a mystical quality that borders on the Zealous. I'm not one, and I find other people's obsessions of that type tedious.
I expect this thread will end up its fair share of dick-swinging - as is usual when "gear" gets discussed

Wtf is a R2a and what does it have to do with Leicas?

mnemosyne · May 16, 2015

NB23 said:
Wtf is a R2a and what does it have to do with Leicas?

A Bessa R2A, a Leica M mount rangefinder manufactured by Cosina.

TheTrailTog · May 16, 2015

For me, yes there is life after Leica. I've owned at one point or another a IIIa, IIIf, IIIg, and 2 M2's with a couple Elmars, a Summaron, and a collapsible 'cron. All beautifully made cameras. However, I couldn't really justify the $$$ I had tied up in them nor could I afford to try the faster lenses or wide angles. In the end I went back to Nikons which feel more intuitive to me anyway. Just for the price of the Thorium 'cron I sold I was able to get a Nikon F2 outfit with a 35mm f/2 that was a barely used one owner camera with all original paperwork that looked virtually new. Plus I was able to get a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, also both in virtually new condition.

Now if I was a little more "comfortable" in life, for sure I would definitely be rocking an MP with a 35mm and/or 50mm Summilux in addition to a Nikon outfit. Until that time though I am perfectly content with my F2

CropDusterMan · May 16, 2015

I sold my Leica M4 many years ago and have regretted doing so ever since. I bought a 5D MKII a few years
back for the occasional assignment I do, but for the most part, it sits in the bag. If my wife didn't insist on me
shooting color images, it would be gone and the money put into a Leica M4-P or M6 and a 35 F2 Sumicron.

frank · May 16, 2015

Leicas are not for everyone. Not even the larger sub-section of rangefinder cameras are for everyone.

Leicas can be very expensive if you buy new and if you insist on f1.4, or certain items desired by collectors.

But my used M2 costs less than the new fuji xe2 I just bought, and it will outlast it, even though it is already 50 years old.

The RF camera is just a tool, and Leica made and makes among the very best of them.

Just use whatever works for you in your photographic journey and DON'T FUSS OVER WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING/USING, as it has no bearing on you.

Is There Life After Leica?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency