Is There Life After Leica?

[frank]

No Theo, but I do have a 1933 Zeiss Contax that my dad gave me that he brought back from Germany after WWII.

Hoarder!

just joking

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I know, late to the discussion, as always. I do have several rangefinders, neither of them Leicas. For me, 35mm film cameras lost their appeal once quality mirrorless cameras with good EVFs appeared on the scene. That said, I'm currently shooting a little Fuji X10 whose OVF is busted, and instead I'm using an external hot shoe-mounted Olympus OVF whose FOV is equivalent to 35mm - and loving it! The frame lines are very accurate to the X10, as both the VF and camera are 4:3 aspect ratio. This has me wondering if perhaps a digital M are in my future.

~Joe

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I know, late to the discussion, as always. I do have several rangefinders, neither of them Leicas. For me, 35mm film cameras lost their appeal once quality mirrorless cameras with good EVFs appeared on the scene. That said, I'm currently shooting a little Fuji X10 whose OVF is busted, and instead I'm using an external hot shoe-mounted Olympus OVF whose FOV is equivalent to 35mm - and loving it! The frame lines are very accurate to the X10, as both the VF and camera are 4:3 aspect ratio. This has me wondering if perhaps a digital M are in my future.

~Joe

In 2012, Fuji out-Leica'd Leica with their X-100 and X-Pro1: they got the size correct, they offered traditional controls such as a real shutter speed dial, aperture ring, exposure compensation dial, and the ability to elegantly select full manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, or fully automatic. Plus, they gave you a hybrid viewfinder where you could customize how much and what kind of information you wanted to see optically or electronically.

I realized this is exactly what I wanted and it didn't matter to me that the recording media was digital. My only complaint really is that it's too easy to press some of the buttons on the back.

Fuji has turned out to be a very customer-responsive company and they've produced excellent lenses for their X-system.

Even so, I feel a lot more relaxed with the simplicity of an M3 or M6 -- and mine will easily last another 60 years.

 

[georg16nik]

Folks, folks... what are you smoking, for (Agx) film's sake?,
Silver halides point of view, Leica means film powered rangefinder, not digital pampers.
Could we stay on topic, so we won't get spammed about stuff and nonsense related to your 1's & 0's binary insecurities?

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Leica in 1952 and the first Nikon F in 1967. After many years of using Leica and Canon rangefinders and Nikon, Nikkormat, and a few lesser SLRs, a 45-year-old Leica M4 is the all-time favorite. A Canon P and 7S and a few Nikon bodies have quit working. The 50mm f/1.4 lens from the Canon 7S was a dog wide open. Leica and Nikon lenses were consistently good; the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 and 45mm GN-Nikkor especially so. The Leica handles better than the Nikon line, even though I use my left eye. SLRs have advantages in macro- or micro-photography and with long lenses. They also allow more precise framing, although the many thousands of Kodachromes shot with the Leica presented no serious framing problems. An old advertising slogan for another type of product applies even better to the Leica: "It fits in your hand like the hand of a friend."

 

[chip j]

I remember an old quote---"the only thing in this world like a Leica is another Leica".

 

[vpwphoto]

Leica's have let me down too many times. Of course I've been using 25+ yr old or older ones. Dragging shutter curtain in my main issue.
Anyway, I like a camera that is fast to load, I joke now and then at the images HCB may have missed loading his M cameras? When it comes to 35mm I like the SLR systems best.

 

[vpwphoto]

The Canon P is a great camera, and looks like a LTM version of the Leica M2 to boot!

+1 I've used a few Canons from this era including a P and servicing and reliability not a concern.

 

[Xmas]

I bought my first Leica in 1952 and the first Nikon F in 1967. After many years of using Leica and Canon rangefinders and Nikon, Nikkormat, and a few lesser SLRs, a 45-year-old Leica M4 is the all-time favorite. A Canon P and 7S and a few Nikon bodies have quit working. The 50mm f/1.4 lens from the Canon 7S was a dog wide open. Leica and Nikon lenses were consistently good; the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 and 45mm GN-Nikkor especially so. The Leica handles better than the Nikon line, even though I use my left eye. SLRs have advantages in macro- or micro-photography and with long lenses. They also allow more precise framing, although the many thousands of Kodachromes shot with the Leica presented no serious framing problems. An old advertising slogan for another type of product applies even better to the Leica: "It fits in your hand like the hand of a friend."

Not my experience I sold my Leica lenses kept a set of Canon and Cosina voightlander.
The M2 or Nikon rangefinder bodies are less convenient than a Canon P.
A lot of people bought Canon equipments.

 

[gzinsel]

Life after Leica could be interpreted as both metaphorically, and a varied way of Literalness. Metaphoricalluy, Many circles of consumers of photographs have moved on to other types and styles that are not the "street style" so often attached to those who shoot Leica/Rangefinder. Most people say today "oh!, your like ...( name of a photographer) from the 40's-60's. and your imagery is so much like his, WOW". Literal (one) leicas best cameras where made at least 50 years ago, and longer. Their "heyday" is over. Tell them to go home, and talk with the wife and kids, cause their Career is over. Literal (two) After you buy one( leica) and realize the camera doesn't take good photographs, ONLY well educated/expereinced person in film photography "takes awesome photographs" . . . . SO. . . being "that" crestfallen" you might think of selling Leica toy and put that money towards experience. literal (three) If I keep the camera, The Threshold is too High. I can not compete with those who shoot leica! what now? go out and try to beat Henry C.B??? . . . .to do better? it seems ridiculous. Just keep going through the wheel/cog knowing that you are "good" company??

 

[Xmas]

HCB spelt his name Henri.

Bruce Guilden swaps between a M6 and a FM2n

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think a more important question for all you Leica lovers is, "Is their Leica after (this) life?"

 

[narsuitus]

"Is their Leica after (this) life?"

Of course there is!

Otherwise it would not be called heaven.

 

[chip j]

Leica's have let me down too many times. Of course I've been using 25+ yr old or older ones. Dragging shutter curtain in my main issue.
Anyway, I like a camera that is fast to load, I joke now and then at the images HCB may have missed loading his M cameras? When it comes to 35mm I like the SLR systems best.

HCB used a screw-mount Leica. The M3 didn't appear until 1954.

 

[Xmas]

There are photos of him posing with an M on the web if you google.

 

[gzinsel]

good point, xmas! sorry about that post there really was a lot spelling and grammatical errors. It was very hastily written. Also I might add that there are many Leica users who are exceptional photographers. I think my post was probably filled with a lot or at least . . .some hyperbole. like I said it was written in haste. I suppose my point is. . . . That life after leica is very invigorating, now that you have left behind all the baggage/weight ( metaphorically speaking) that goes with that camera. Although, thats a point of view not shared by most. I would assume that for the Leica lover, "that baggage" is not baggage, but "a very Rich history, sacred even" / I do not share that point of view.

 

[Xmas]

I normally carry three M2 or three CanonP with three CV or three Canon lenses, so yes some baggage.

 

[georg16nik]

Leica's have let me down too many times. Of course I've been using 25+ yr old or older ones. Dragging shutter curtain in my main issue...

The proper maintenance of your cameras is your responsibility - you let yourself down, not Leica.
It's typical for hobbyist photographers to neglect their tools, since even a Leica is cheap for what it is.
A cinematographer will never blame Arri or Zeiss when his cam or lenses run dry..., and Arri, Zeiss are also cheap for what they are.
Also, you are most likely to meet a cinematographer who appreciate a Leica but I guess it comes with the territory.

 

[vpwphoto]

HCB used a screw-mount Leica. The M3 didn't appear until 1954.

HCB did use the screw mount Leica's (which I don't care for at all).. but his career did not end with some of the early iconic images... he worked for a long time also using the M cameras.

 

[vpwphoto]

The proper maintenance of your cameras is your responsibility - you let yourself down, not Leica.
It's typical for hobbyist photographers to neglect their tools, since even a Leica is cheap for what it is.
A cinematographer will never blame Arri or Zeiss when his cam or lenses run dry..., and Arri, Zeiss are also cheap for what they are.
Also, you are most likely to meet a cinematographer who appreciate a Leica but I guess it comes with the territory.

I'm a pro... and they were serviced by shops I will not name here, and still had issues. (In cold weather sub 10 degree F) after second shutter incident I sold the offending camera (warning buyer of the issue in cold temps).

A few years later I came into another Leica set, bought some nice lenses had the bodies serviced, and again found fiddling with the re-load to be silly, my f100 and f6 just work better for me and the kind of work I produce with 35mm (I use those beasts mostly via manual exposure).

We all use what works for us... just saying I was down the path and why I'm no longer a member of that group beside the fact one of my favorite images was made with said camera and the oh so wonderful 90mm Elmar which looks like a stupid lens to so many, but the results are sublime.

 

[Pioneer]

I DO NOT believe that Leica cameras are unreliable. What many seem to forget is that a lot of these Leica cameras are old. If you are relying on one of these cameras for a business then you may not have chosen the right tool. Even after they are serviced they are still old and the potential failure modes increase. I love my M3 cameras but one was built in 1957 and the other was built in 1954. One is almost 60 and the other one is over 60.

If you are seriously in need of a reliable M film camera for your business then you should be buying a new M, not used ones. Otherwise you definitely stand a risk of failure that would certainly be frustrating at a minimum, and the cause of lost income at worst. This also applies to personal use. If you are carrying an old M3 or M2 on vacation there is a good chance that your camera may fail.

 

[vpwphoto]

I DO NOT believe that Leica cameras are unreliable. What many seem to forget is that a lot of these Leica cameras are old. If you are relying on one of these cameras for a business then you may not have chosen the right tool. Even after they are serviced they are still old and the potential failure modes increase. I love my M3 cameras but one was built in 1957 and the other was built in 1954. One is almost 60 and the other one is over 60.

If you are seriously in need of a reliable M film camera for your business then you should be buying a new M, not used ones. Otherwise you definitely stand a risk of failure that would certainly be frustrating at a minimum, and the cause of lost income at worst. This also applies to personal use. If you are carrying an old M3 or M2 on vacation there is a good chance that your camera may fail.

+1
Agree... just too old to deal with, I mentioned that in my first post in this thread. 'Affordable' m6 and m7 are pretty used up too, and I just don't see the worth in a $3500 body that needs lenses that cost more than a couple grand... I feel the same way about the 'old lenses' that have "many issues" that "shouldn't affect image quality." I'd own an MP and a couple lenses if the kit didn't cost as much as a new Honda Civic.

Nikon F3 is the other camera I consider trouble (30 years ago).


That is all.

 

[georg16nik]

I'm a pro... and they were serviced by shops I will not name here, and still had issues. (In cold weather sub 10 degree F) after second shutter incident I sold the offending camera (warning buyer of the issue in cold temps)...

Most certainly it wasn't serviced @ Solms, Wetzlar or brand certified shop, hence your issues.

 

[mhcfires]

Leicas are beautifully constructed tools. Beyond that, any tool is only as good as the operator's ability to use it for its intended purpose. If you are more of an SLR person or want to go birding, a Leica rangefinder is a paperweight.

You hit the nail on the head! I specifically bought my Nikon D700 for birding. I use it with a Nikkor AF-S 300/ 4 lens. The Nikon is also great with other lenses for chasing after small children, dogs and cats. I also have an M2. I love it, it usually has a 35mm lens on board, not a 'cron or a 'lux, but a C-V lens or an older Leitz Summaron.

This thread has indeed become a pissing contest, and I have a small bladder. I also have a few Graflex SLR's, for those who like SLR's. The negatives in those puppies will put your 35mm stuff to shame.

m

 

[Dismayed]

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?

I use rangefinders, but I use other types of cameras, too. So there's no need to move on and not look back. Just choose the camera that's right for the task.