Is There Life After Leica?

[chip j]

I don't care for Leica cameras, but I have plenty of Leitz enlargers & enlarging lenses! Anyone using a Leica w/o the Leitz enlarging equipment is missing half the SHOW!

 

[Xmas]

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.

No sale
Leicas are reliable as they are cause there is nothing inside them to go wrong, eg compared to a contax II. The M4s I used to use from the box were not a lot different from the M2s I use now.
I never carry less than three bodies.
The only fault I get is a snapped ribbon or torn gear (brass is soft) if you use later Ms the steel should be better.
Never had tapering if you use them hard the lube does not get a chance.
The finders can fog up.

 

[Xmas]

I don't care for Leica cameras, but I have plenty of Leitz enlargers & enlarging lenses! Anyone using a Leica w/o the Leitz enlarging equipment is missing half the SHOW!

Most shooters I meet have M9s I'd have difficulty selling an enlarger to them...
Most kids with Ms use Cosina Voighlander lenses, as I do...

 

[georg16nik]

I don't care for Leica cameras, but I have plenty of Leitz enlargers & enlarging lenses! Anyone using a Leica w/o the Leitz enlarging equipment is missing half the SHOW!

Seconds of the show @ƒ4, perhaps?
The prints usually spend most of the show, wet, in trays with chemistry, water, drying.

 

[vpwphoto]

I don't care for Leica cameras, but I have plenty of Leitz enlargers & enlarging lenses! Anyone using a Leica w/o the Leitz enlarging equipment is missing half the SHOW!

Agree/// I may use Nikon in the outdoors, but Leitz in the darkroom.

Someone rightfully said that my repairs were not made in Sohlms or other faraway exotic repair shop.

That said, aside from Nikon F3 and N8008 (<<<more than one repair/let down per camera), I have used Nikons from late 1960's F and Nikkormats vintage to my occasional use Nikonos V. None of these cameras are worth (to me) a $200 or more lube and clean, but aside from risk to flooding with the Nikonos the shutters and transports are super reliable and have never needed and expensive trip "back to the maker" to keep them going. Also astounded at the accuracy of my early Canon VL and P being usable and accurate some 50 years after their making. Troubled with all the M3's out there the factory viewfinder replacement costs about a grand and isn't the same as OEM design. I make good money, I like to use good equipment, but can not deal with the headaches the "M" cameras have given me despite my good researched intentions.

Perhaps that is just it... Nobody "throws away" an M3... we keep trying to "fix" them. When I put my thumb through a N90s shutter I threw it away. When my Canon AE-1 started to "screech" I put it on the shelf "retired". And if my Nikonos finally "floods" it will become a desk ornament! Perhaps more M3's need to be but out to pasture at this point? Not out to offend, but examining the economics and "user" use of these tools which is what they were intended to be.

 

[film_man]

I don't care for Leica cameras, but I have plenty of Leitz enlargers & enlarging lenses! Anyone using a Leica w/o the Leitz enlarging equipment is missing half the SHOW!

So wouldn't someone using Leitz enlarging equipment but no Leitz cameras miss the other half of the show?

 

[film_man]

Perhaps that is just it... Nobody "throws away" an M3... we keep trying to "fix" them. When I put my thumb through a N90s shutter I threw it away. When my Canon AE-1 started to "screech" I put it on the shelf "retired". And if my Nikonos finally "floods" it will become a desk ornament! Perhaps more M3's need to be but out to pasture at this point? Not out to offend, but examining the economics and "user" use of these tools which is what they were intended to be.

The thing is though that a M3 can be repaired again and again while a N90s or a Nikonos once dead they are neither economical neither easy to repair. The N90 is uneconomical simply because there are so many of them you can get another one for £15 while for a Nikonos there really are only that many spare parts to go around (which is what I'm dreading as I do have one and love it).

 

[chip j]

So wouldn't someone using Leitz enlarging equipment but no Leitz cameras miss the other half of the show?

I have a Contax G1 & G2 w/5 lenses, so I'm not missing much, and they are SO much FUN to use! (Actually, an old & experienced Leica dealer sold me my G1, saying it was " better than Leica in every way"). Leia ads also used to say that even if you didn't use Leica cameras, you should still use a Focomat V35!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

.. Actually, an old & experienced Leica dealer sold me my G1, saying it was " better than Leica in every way" ...

Different in every way, not necessarily better. It's "better" only if that camera fits your style of shooting and your psyche.

The Contax G series cameras are all-electronic, autofocus, autoexposure, auto-advance, cameras. The traditional Leicas (M2-M6) are all-manual, all-mechanical, non-electronic, except for those that have a built-in meter. Totally different animal and experience.

If the Contax works for you, that's great.

Also, for people trying to sell me something, I usually take their comments with a grain of salt.

 

[benjiboy]

Different in every way, not necessarily better. It's "better" only if that camera fits your style of shooting and your psyche.

The Contax G series cameras are all-electronic, autofocus, autoexposure, auto-advance, cameras. The traditional Leicas (M2-M6) are all-manual, all-mechanical, non-electronic, except for those that have a built-in meter. Totally different animal and experience.

If the Contax works for you, that's great.

[QUOTE
Also, for people trying to sell me something, I usually take their comments with a grain of salt.]

Yes, it's like asking a butcher if meat is good for you.

 

[removed account4]

not sure if there is life after leica, i haven't gotten rid of mine yet .. but there was life before i found myself with one.

 

[film_man]

But is there life on Mars?

 

[chip j]

Most people are on Mars already.

 

[georg16nik]

Most people are on Mars already.

Some people say America should liberate Mars from the “enemy” first, then invade.

 

[SLVR]

Read through the first 5 pages or so. I felt compelled to post.

I love my M5. It seems I'm the opposite of most people who seem to have posted. I can't trust my eyes to focus an SLR. The rangefinder is perfect for me. Other benefits like being able to see outside of the framelines are great too. Carrying this over to MF I'm shooting a mamiya 6 and having a great time with it. Inversely, shooting with my Pentax 67/105 f2.4 I find myself stressing about focus almost every shot. While I love the results, getting there is a battle.

But I'll still keep it because that 105 look is something that the mamiya 6 can't touch.

as mentioned earlier, different strokes for different folks.

 

[ColColt]

I'd love to have my M2 back and pine for it to this day. The only reason I sold it was to fund medium format since I was doing studio work and weddings back then. I had a rigid 50 f2 Summicron and the 35 f2 Summicron as well. Maybe some day I'll get another. The only thing that keeps me back and wondering at this point is my eyes have changed since then and more near sighted. I doubt I could focus well with a range finder without diopter correction. Still, I wish I still had the M2.

 

[flavio81]

Carrying this over to MF I'm shooting a mamiya 6 and having a great time with it. Inversely, shooting with my Pentax 67/105 f2.4 I find myself stressing about focus almost every shot. While I love the results, getting there is a battle.

I'm not sure if this is a good comparison, since the Pentax 67 is notoriously difficult to focus with the prism. Try a Mamiya RB67 and you will nail the focus really easy.

In the same way, not all 35mm SLRs are equal. Some of them have viewfinders that are heads and shoulders above everything else, and I'd say focusing is as easy as an doing it in a rangefinder.

 

[ColColt]

When I got my first 6x7 I was in my mid 30's, still had good eyesight but found it difficult to use the matte fresnel screen to focus. I'd still get 3-4 our of ten not in good focus. That all changed when I sent it back to Pentax for a split image screen. From that point on if I got shots that were a bit blurry I could attribute it to my trying to shoot at 1/30th or 1/60th second. Using 125 or higher the success rate went up.

I can't imagine the 67 being any different.

 

[ColColt]

Speaking of Leica again, I'm wondering just how well I'd do these days with a rangefinder like the M2 I once had. I doubt there is much one could do to focus properly with being a tad near sighted with astigmatism. On my F2A I had to use a Nikon eyepiece correction lens (+0.5) so I could see good to focus and it worked great. I kind of miss the old M2-great camera.

 

[flavio81]

When I got my first 6x7 I was in my mid 30's, still had good eyesight but found it difficult to use the matte fresnel screen to focus. I'd still get 3-4 our of ten not in good focus. That all changed when I sent it back to Pentax for a split image screen. From that point on if I got shots that were a bit blurry I could attribute it to my trying to shoot at 1/30th or 1/60th second. Using 125 or higher the success rate went up.

I can't imagine the 67 being any different.

Believe me, my 67 is my most-difficult-to-focus SLR camera... mine does not have the split-screen.

 

[Pioneer]

Seems to be ok just with my normal eyeglasses though you can buy a diopter for the eyepiece if you like that better. I do find that the rangefinder is usually a tad easier to focus. In my SLRs I find I now prefer the simple microprism focus screen. It is either on or off, fuzzy or sharp.

 

[ColColt]

I recall Sover Wong stating that Nikon finders are all set at -1, without any correction lens. I don't know about the M Leicas how that would correspond. I can focus all my Nikons without the diopter change I use on the F2A, it's just not as sharp trying to focus.

As for the 67 I can understand the difficulty trying to focus with the standard screen. I fought that battle a long time before going with the split image.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you saying that because I never owned a Leica, I never had a life? I hafta run and tell my momma!

 

[4season]

Over the years I've owned plenty of Leica: A couple of screw mounts and R cameras--and a whole lot of M rangefinders, the last being the M9. Really enjoyed them too.

So what happened?

1. I feel that large sensors, and high image quality in general, have becoming something of a commodity. So much so that one can buy a mirrorless camera or SLR (with lens!) for about $300-350. Even smaller 1" sensors like the one used in the Sony RX100 have gotten so good that really the only giveaway that the photos were taken with a small camera is that the depth of field tends to be deep. Meanwhile, lenses which incorporate aspherical and/or high-index elements are so common as to be ubiquitous.
2. A shift in my own priorities: Have discovered that spending the big $$ often makes me no happier than a well-chosen cheapie.

But not to worry, I still own a Leica 3F + Summicron lens. I wouldn't rule out future Leica purchases, but at current prices, I'm in no rush. Experience with new Leica gear is that it's much more likely than average to need at least one trip back for warranty repairs to sort out some basic quality control issue--perhaps an unavoidable consequence of building things the old-fashioned way.

 

[ColColt]

I was mulling over an old copy(1995) of Shutterbug the other night and noticed the R6.2 back then went for around $2700!! Compared to today, the prices for that camera is good, albeit, still a mite higher than the R6 for whatever the reason. That extra 2000/sec wouldn't be worth the higher price for me.