Is There Life After Leica?

[OptiKen]

I'm on the other end of the evolutionary scale.
I started with SLRs and didn't even understand rangefinders. I couldn't see the point of them.
Out of curiosity, I picked up a Russian rangefinder....started to get enamored with the 'old camera charm', and started trying other rangefinders. Now I love them. I feel comfortable with them even though they have their quirks and are no where as easy to use as a fully automatic modern wonder. Now I pine for a Leica and am continually searching for one in my budget.

 

[Bill Burk]

Just to clarify - I was using an OM-4 SLR the other day. And I'm spending the day with my dad and his cousin, with the OM-4 again.

Why this relates to life beyond Leica? I don't know. I'm just using APUG as my personal Facebook.

Oh, I know. Because every camera has its corners that you walk into... when you work within its limitations, a Leica is a very, very nice camera to use.

Funny how, to take advantage of the high resolution lenses, you should use it on a tripod with a fine grain film... But to take advantage of its nimble focusing and shooting, you should use it handheld with a fast film. It competes with itself on these two merits.

 

[BradleyK]

Leicas are not for everyone. [snip] Leicas can be very expensive if you buy new and if you insist on f1.4, or certain items desired by collectors. [snip] The RF camera is just a tool, and Leica made and makes among the very best of them. [snip] 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.

+1. I share similar sentiments: I find the rantings of the fanboys as equally tiresome as those of those who dismiss Leica rangefinders outright...

 

[Vilk]

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

Yes.

 

[narsuitus]

...who out there has moved away from using rangefinder cameras and what were your experiences?

I am confused. Are you asking, "Is there life after Leica?" or "Is there life after rangefinders?"

In my case, early in my life, I used Argus C3 rangefinders and a Leica M1 on a microscope. I never used a Leica rangefinder (the M1 was not a rangefinder) but I still use Argus C3 rangefinders and I also use Canon, Minolta, and Fuji rangefinders.

For some time, I wanted a Leica MP with a fast 35mm and a fast 90mm; however, I was never able to justify the expense. Instead, I met my need with a Nikon F2, a Nikon 35mm f/1.4, and a Nikon 85mm f/1.8.

Therefore, my life is post Leica but not post rangefinder.

https://flic.kr/p/8XWPLh
https://flic.kr/p/agMby4
https://flic.kr/p/bFzfjZ

 

[Gunfleet]

I learned photography 40 years ago (yikes) on a crude old zorki and a Pentax which was by comparison heavenly. It wasnt a choice those and a sinar were the only cameras available in the art school and we weren't allowed out with the sinar. Between them and now I've used every camera imaginable but ended up with Leica. I just couldn't use cameras with too many controls, though I used lots of the modern stuff. I think a camera is just a box with a lens and I wanted a simple box with a great lens. They weren't as expensive as people seem to think. Abt 600£ for an m6 in good condition and slightly more for an f2 50mm summicron. Say £1100 all in. I've paid a lot less for cameras but people pay a lot more. It's worth it if it suits you and not if it doesn't.

 

[Gunfleet]

Sorry pound signs come out as hash 163! Makes nonsense of my post

 

[gone]

Great lenses, not so great (and terribly over priced) cameras. I always shot my Leica R glass on Nikon cameras w/ an adapter in stop down mode because they were better cameras, especially w/ AE metering. For the M mount lenses, an R2a was a better camera than most any Leica, at a fraction of the cost. Shutter wasn't as quiet, but it never lost me any shots. For screw mount lenses, some of the Russian glass is as good or better than the Leica, and there are good screw mount cameras out there besides Leica. A Bessa R is a much better tool w/ a great meter.

You read a lot of rot about Leicas. Get one CLA'd, and you'll have a reliable tool for 30 years. Bull. It might break again in a week. It will still be an old camera, and metal fatigues. Cloth gets holes in it. Or, no other camera is like a Leica. Ha! Dentists cameras for good reason.

I stopped shooting rangefinders because they are too limiting. They can't do close up shots. A rangefinder w/ a 135mm lens is an ugly sight, and not good for portraits. Give me an SLR for that, or most any usage, any day. I DO wish I still had my old R Elmarit 90 lens, but a Canon FD 85 1.8 or 135 2.5 is 95% its equal if you know what you're doing. I sold all that stuff, but am keeping my H 50 2.0 non AI Nikkor. Wonderful lens!

 

[frank]

Great lenses, not so great (and terribly over priced) cameras. I always shot my Leica R glass on Nikon cameras w/ an adapter in stop down mode because they were better cameras, especially w/ AE metering. For the M mount lenses, an R2a was a better camera than most any Leicas, at a fraction of the cost. Shutter wasn't as quiet, but it never lost me any shots. For screw mount lenses, some of the Russian glass is as good or better than the Leica, and there are good screw mount cameras out there besides Leica. A Bessa R is a much better tool w/ a great meter.

You read a lot of rot about Leicas. Get one CLA'd, and you'll have a reliable tool for 30 years. Bull. It might break again in a week. It will still be an old camera, and metal fatigues. Cloth gets holes in it. Or, no other camera is like a Leica. Ha! Dentists cameras for good reason.

I stopped shooting rangefinders because they are too limiting. They can't do close up shots. A rangefinder w/ a 135mm lens is an ugly sight, and not good for portraits. Give me an SLR for that, or most any usage, any day.

I can only reliably say with any validity, that your characterization of Leica cameras does not match with my personal experience with Leica cameras. I really doubt that your Bessa R will be functioning in 50 years, like my M2 functions today. I believe that my 50 year old M2 will out last you newish Bessa R. Let's keep in touch to see.

 

[joh]

My least used focal length over the last 30 years was the so called normal lens ...50mm for 35mm film or 150mm for 4x5. I can count the pictures I've taken with them on my fingers. This focal legth still did not work for me. Two or three years ago I get my first Leica and three lenses . 35mm, 50mm and 90mm and I'm totaly in love with the combination Leica and 50mm lens.
For me, this is a combination made in heaven. I think it has to do with the leica viewfinder and that I can look around the framelines. There was no life for me with a 50mm lens before the leica and there is probable no life for me and a 50mm lens after the leica.....sorry for my english

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Unless you are buying new, today, Leica prices aren't that expensive.

In the late 1980's I spotted an M3 in a Shutterbug store in a shopping mall. It was in mint condition, double stroke, with self timer and preview lever. The price was about $500 and $500 more for a collapsible 50/2 Summicron. That was my first Leica (which I still have). But you can get the same kit today at pretty much the same price, but $1000 in 2015-dollars is much less than 198x-dollars, so that kit is actually less expensive today.

Afterwards, I went on to buy a new M6, another M3, and an M6 TTL. Except for the new M6, the other Leicas were bought used and in mint condition for about $1000 - which isn't that expensive for what you get. I have no idea what the new Leica rangefinders are selling for today.

But I choose to use them for their combination of compactness, quality, and simplicity. I like the bright viewfinder as well. Even so, most of my cameras are SLR's. I thought the Fuji X-Pro1 would be similar to using a Leica, but it's not: too many little buttons to deal with and, holding it, I'm invariably pressing one I didn't intend to.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

there are high IQ people and low IQ people , beatiful women and ugly women , da vinci and photoshop ,leica and others

describing leica as a mechanical jewel and a toy for the job is like describing a worlds most beatiful woman and her beauty with her foot muscles flexibility , or liking da vinci because he was gay. If that forum writers writes like that , what others ?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

A Leica is like a Rolex - its a damn nice watch but a Casio Pathfinder does a thousand times more stuff more accurately.

Well, it's somewhat similar. People who are interested in mechanical watches enjoy the craftsmanship, the complexity, and the beauty of a mechanical movement. For example, a cheap quartz watch can easily keep time to 1/100 sec per month and can easily have perpetual calendar functions and stopwatch functions. But all it is is microprocessor programming - where is the beauty (other than the program)? Compare that to a watch where all that is done 100% mechanically. The Ulysse Nardin GMT Perpetual has windows that will display, for example, Dec. 31 1999 at 23:00 (in individual windows and on the dial) - if you push the "+" button, the time and date display will change to Jan 1, 2000 at 00:00 - push '-" and the time and date will go back to Dec. 31, 1999 23:00 -- all mechanically. Plus, it takes care of days per month and leap year adjustments - also mechanically. There are all sorts of other mechanical complications that different watches have that interest enthusiasts. This is what is valued over electronic accuracy and functions. That said, accuracy being good to only a few seconds per day is considered excellent (for a mechanical watch).

It's been said (on TimeZone.com) that if you get a lunch table full of watch enthusiasts together, the last thing they'll care about is the time. I can personally verify this is true.

Rolex, by the way, is not the top; it's maybe a tier 3 watch compared to Lange und Söhne, Ulysse Nardin, Jaeger LeCoultre, Patek Phillipe, and others. The Rolex movement is more like the Chevy 350 of calibers . That said, they are very nice watches.


Mustafa:

I once described the Leica as a mechanical jewel. Who are you replying to that described it as a toy?

 

[gzinsel]

I owned a Leica once, an M4.( between 1993-96) sold it ! Because The ideas I was exploring after I purchased it were NOT "geared" towards a "leica" look. I never really missed that camera. I never really felt that camera had "the extension of being" that other cameras do! its a fine camera. On a whim a few years ago I bought a Canon P. its o.k. (35mm really doesn't do much for me now) STILL, THE SAME PROBLEM. I haven't been enjoying my Fuji gw690 III either.Its something about rang finder that I find obtrusive. Lately I have been doing a lot of work with a 6x9 folder with a very slow triplet, ( soft and dreamy images), pinhole( very soft and very dreamy) and a few box cameras that I have made. I am finding the salt printing compliments well, the ideas I am working on.

I guess to answer the question you posed: you need to ask:Is the CAMERA making the image? or are YOU making the image? if your answer is the 1st, then keep it, you will not find a better camera. if you answered the 2nd, then it doesn't matter what camera you have, or even if you have a camera!

 

[Bill Burk]

gzinsel,

You may be onto something with the phrase "ideas geared towards the Leica look". Though I might phrase it as "ideas the Leica is particularly adept at fulfilling". I like to imagine I approach each photographic idea with an idea of the camera to use for the task.

I do not deliberately (or I deliberately do not) choose the camera "best suited for the task" because it's fun to try to make things work in unintended ways.

 

[Pioneer]

Great stuff folks.

I have to say that I find it interesting that Leica inspires such passion with people, in both directions. They are certainly well built cameras, and they do feel nice when you hold them, but not everyone believes they are more than a rich man's (or dentist's) toy.

As the Leica's greatest strength is undoubtedly documentary photography, or street photography (if there really is such a genre), perhaps Leica aficionados like to imagine themselves as Robert Capa, HCB or Gary Winogrand. Maybe it is that image that Leica users find themselves unable, or unwilling, to walk away from. If that is true than it would seem that Leica's marketing or branding is very successful in influencing our self image.

So far it appears that the Leica mystique is a very powerful addiction that is quite hard to leave behind.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I haven't been enjoying my Fuji gw690 III either.Its something about rang finder that I find obtrusive.

Interesting. For me, it's all about ease of use. With the Leica, I just hold it up to my right eye - my nose isn't pushed against the body and I can keep my left eye open. Also, because there are so few controls, my fingers are just adjusting focus, aperture, or shutter speed - there are no other buttons to accidentally touch.

Same thing with my Fuji GW690III. Actually, I find the Leicas just a bit too small - perhaps the bigger M5 would be my ideal.

Yet... most of my cameras are SLR's.

I think the "Leica look" (if there is such a thing) stems from ease of use - where handling the camera is just natural.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The way Leicas are build, they aren't expensive for such nice cameras.
I was using only one RF camera at beginning with only one lens. Never feel limited.
Took detour for 20+ years, now I have mix. But my M4-2 is real joy to use.
My first RF is still in use as well.

 

[RattyMouse]

Great stuff folks.


So far it appears that the Leica mystique is a very powerful addiction that is quite hard to leave behind.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person here who has zero interest in Leica. I dont hate the brand, not in the slightest. I just don't seem to have any interest in these cameras and lenses. I'm mostly a rangefinder guy, shooting Fuji GF670, 670W, and GA645's 90% of the time. When I shoot 35mm, a Nikon SLR does it for me. I came VERY close to buying a Zeiss Ikon once. The viewfinder on that camera is absolutely amazing. I look at the Leica's here in the used stores in Shanghai. One store alone has over 100 Leica M lenses along with dozens upon dozens of bodies. There's about 10 other stores selling used Leica film cameras. But I never once felt the temptation to buy one.

 

[frank]

Threads like this unfortunately, tend to stir up both the fanboys and the leica haters.

 

[TheTrailTog]

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.

 

[Gunfleet]

Actually Frank I was thinking how reasonable everyone was being.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dali]

Leica Akbar!

 

[ic-racer]

I bought a Bessa a while back just to use the 21mm lens. It is very annoying to look through the viewfinder and see everything in focus. The 'compose' 'focus' 're-compose' 're-focus' 're-compose' thing is tiring when the thing you want in focus is not in the exact center of the frame. The camera is fantastic, those gripes are generic for all rangefinders. The other very oddball thing is that on occasion I have found myself in situations where a cheap digital camera would be of benefit. This is where a rangefinder makes sense, however, I can't find one with a rangefinder (let a lone a viewfinder). (PM me if anyone knows where I can get one.)

 

[pdeeh]

"cheap digital camera" and "rangefinder" don't belong in the same sentence ( it does rather depend on what you mean by cheap)

Although you could of course mount a (hot/cold-shoe) accessory rangefinder on a digital camera.