Is There Life After Leica?

[Newt_on_Swings]

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.)

The Bessa R4 has a built in viewfinder with 21mm lines. its a nice camera to use with wide lenses.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I have never owned a leica, I have played with a few and shot them. They are nice to handle, and they make great pictures when they are taken care of. But price was always a barrier, they just cost so much, especially recently. They are also such a target for people who would want to steal gear as well, with such a recognizable look and tons of yuppies today treating them like jewelry, i dont feel as comfortable with something like that around my neck on the street. I wouldnt mind owning one, but at this point, i'm not going to look for one to buy anywhere in the near future. I have enough cameras to use.

As of a week ago, my good friend got a user condition late model m2, which i lent him my 35mm nokton to use on it. It was his first rangefinder ever, so i showed him how to load it, and how to check that the film is being wound on, and how to rewind with the lever rewind, etc. i'll ask him in a few weeks what he thinks about it.

 

[gzinsel]

I find it at times a situation that calls for rangefinder. Other times, it calls for waste level, while again some things call for LF. Lately i havethe been experiencing a "unintentional weight" with rangefinder. I am not apposed to those who espouse leica as the best rangefinder. In many ways, they are great.Right now im in a rut with rf. Is there life after leica
Rangefinder. Maybe, depends on your journey with image.

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry Frank. My intent was not to stir up the fanboys or the haters. Actually what I have read has been pretty good so far. I am actually interested in why people find them so useful, and why others head for the exits after a period of time with a Leica.

I find it interesting that most who have moved on have done so for reasons other than cost. That may be a big obstacle for entry, but once the camera is purchased there are other reasons to move on.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I have never owned a leica, I have played with a few and shot them. They are nice to handle, and they make great pictures when they are taken care of. But price was always a barrier, they just cost so much, especially recently.

An interesting alternative is the Canon 7s, which is not as expensive, but still very good:

https://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm

 

[frank]

Sorry Frank. My intent was not to stir up the fanboys or the haters. Actually what I have read has been pretty good so far. I am actually interested in why people find them so useful, and why others head for the exits after a period of time with a Leica.

I find it interesting that most who have moved on have done so for reasons other than cost. That may be a big obstacle for entry, but once the camera is purchased there are other reasons to move on.

No worries, Pioneer!

Because ergonomics/haptics are subjective, you may as well be asking why someone likes a particular dish. For some, it just tastes good. Another person could dislike the taste of the exact same dish.

My M2 fits well in my hands, while a Contax and a Nikon RF camera did not. For someone else, it is just the opposite.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

An interesting alternative is the Canon 7s, which is not as expensive, but still very good:

https://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm

The canons are indeed good! I have and still shoot with a canon vit with trigger winder and two bessas (r and r4). When I shoot rf on mf I use my two fuji 690s.

 

[bdial]

I've more or less gone the other way, that is, from only using SLR's in 35mm to somewhat recently starting to work with rangefinders.
I like the quietness, and relative compactness of rangefinders.

I don't find that only being able to focus in the center a limitation. Maybe I rely too much on the focus aids in SLR screens, but focus and reframe is pretty much automatic for me.
Seeing the DOF vs imagining it hasn't been an issue either, for me, I rarely use DOF preview on an SLR, and for either camera I just look at the DOF scale.

Neither of the heavy Leica users I know rely only on them, both interchangeably use 35mm SLRs from time to time, I think there is plenty of room for both.

 

[frank]

For me, the biggest difference in use between a RF and an SLR camera, is that with an SLR, I spend more time looking through the lens searching for a picture than when I'm using a RF camera. With a RF, I compose to a greater degree with my minds eye. The framing with a RF is just a tweaking of what I've seen with my eyes. With an SLR, I use the view through the lens to find and compose my pictures to a much greater degree.

Sorry that's a little off topic.

 

[McFortner]

I like my Leica IIIa, IIIc (wartime), IIIf (BD), and CL. But I also enjoy my FED (2, 3, 4, 5, and 5B), Zorki, Zarya, Canon IIf and P, and Minolta 35 Model II cameras. They are all good rangefinders. I also love my Minolta SLRs, my various TLR cameras, and my Polaroids. It just depends on the mood I am in that day as far as what I shoot with. Lately it's been rangefinders. While the Leicas are top of the class, my FED 2 cameras and Zorki 4 come pretty close after a good CLA. The Canons are a joy. The Minolta I just got this week so I'm waiting on finishing the first roll of film before a judgement is made.

I'd love to have a M2 or M-A to play with, but they are not quite in my price range at the moment. My other cameras are fine for what I want to do so I am not worrying about it. Basically, be happy for what you have and can afford right now and don't get so hung up on what you wish you have. You may eventually be able to get it, and if you don't you don't do yourself any favors by anguishing over it. Shoot film and have fun because life is too short for sitting around and regretting what you don't have and not shooting what you do.

 

[rbultman]

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.

This applies to other pursuits too. Like cameras.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[chip j]

Try shooting a Leica w/your left eye while wearing glasses! Ugly.

 

[film_man]

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?

Is your question about Leicas or rangefinders? Because you seem to imply that they are the one and the same.

Here's my take, I own a Leica and I own a rangefinder. The Leica is the R8 and the rangefinder the Bessa R3A.

What I don't get is the idea that rangefinder shooting is quicker than an SLR. With a rangefinder I have to focus on the patch then frame. With a SLR I can focus anywhere on the screen plus I get proper framing. Even if I had to focus in the split image with a SLR how is that different to focusing on the patch? If you are talking about zone focusing then that can be done on either system. If you are talking about fast focusing lenses my 50 on the R8 is smooth, light and fast to focus.

I reach for the R3A more nowadays than the R8 and that's because I find it a bit more relaxed to use (the 1:1 finder is great) but not faster. As for Leica, the R8 is a wonderful camera (the build and finish is just as superb as with their rangefinders) and I'm hoping to add a M6 or M7 some time in the not so distant future but they all have their place. In the end though, if I had to have JUST one that would have to be the SLR.

The main thing going for a rangefinder is size and how quiet it is.

 

[Xmas]

I like my Leica IIIa, IIIc (wartime), IIIf (BD), and CL. But I also enjoy my FED (2, 3, 4, 5, and 5B), Zorki, Zarya, Canon IIf and P, and Minolta 35 Model II cameras. They are all good rangefinders. I also love my Minolta SLRs, my various TLR cameras, and my Polaroids. It just depends on the mood I am in that day as far as what I shoot with. Lately it's been rangefinders. While the Leicas are top of the class, my FED 2 cameras and Zorki 4 come pretty close after a good CLA. The Canons are a joy. The Minolta I just got this week so I'm waiting on finishing the first roll of film before a judgement is made.

I'd love to have a M2 or M-A to play with, but they are not quite in my price range at the moment. My other cameras are fine for what I want to do so I am not worrying about it. Basically, be happy for what you have and can afford right now and don't get so hung up on what you wish you have. You may eventually be able to get it, and if you don't you don't do yourself any favors by anguishing over it. Shoot film and have fun because life is too short for sitting around and regretting what you don't have and not shooting what you do.

I'd recommend another Canon P... In poor light the P is just as serviceable.

 

[jovo]

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

QUOTE]

In the 70's, my father gave me his M3 and 35, 50, and 90 mm lenses. I used it constantly but....at that time, the relentless advertising for SLRs made feel I was using the wrong machine. So, I bought an Olympus OM1 with 50mm and 70-150 mm zoom lens. That camera was as small as my Leica, and I found it more fun to use. I still have the M3, but never use it and the frame lines are faded as is the rangefinder. Not being one to shoot 'street', nor candidly, I've moved on to medium and large format. Two of my friends use a Leica Monochrom which costs $7500 for the newest version of the body. They're welcome to it.

 

[Xmas]

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

QUOTE]

In the 70's, my father gave me his M3 and 35, 50, and 90 mm lenses. I used it constantly but....at that time, the relentless advertising for SLRs made feel I was using the wrong machine. So, I bought an Olympus OM1 with 50mm and 70-150 mm zoom lens. That camera was as small as my Leica, and I found it more fun to use. I still have the M3, but never use it and the frame lines are faded as is the rangefinder. Not being one to shoot 'street', nor candidly, I've moved on to medium and large format. Two of my friends use a Leica Monochrom which costs $7500 for the newest version of the body. They're welcome to it.

This is a generic problem with any rangefinder you need to buy one with a bright and contrasty rangefinder frame and spot.
Some of the repairers can rebuild a M3 or M2 finder like new or better but cheaper to buy another shooter.

 

[flavio81]

I own several Leica cameras, and I do enjoy them. But they are astoundingly expensive and not all that flexible.

As APUGUser19 said, consider yourself free from the ridiculous cult of Leica (rangefinders)! Yay!!

If i want to use a rangefinder, i have the Kodak Retina IIIc which has a fantastic lens, very compact, and extremely well built.
For cheap gratification the Yashica Electro 35GSN is a very fine camera. It looks clunky, ugly and limited (because of auto exposure) but on actual use it is a wonderful camera with a very good lens.

For interchangeable lens rangefinders the Canon line looks like a better option. Or a modern "Voigtlander" (in quotes) fitted with "Voigtlander" lenses, or vintage Canon lenses -- which back in the 60s used to directly compete with the Leitz equivalent. Nowadays when people think in "Canon" they think about plastic autofocus lenses, but in my view Canon is the best japanese lens maker, together with Fuji, then narrowly followed by Nikon and then the rest, perhaps with Tomioka first.

But all in all I need depth of field preview and I need to preview the actual perspective compression/expansion the lens is giving me. Thus, generally, I'd rather use a TLR or SLR camera. For compactness the Nikon FG is a wonderful tiny camera. For very high build quality the Canon F-1 is second to none, including Leica products.

If you want high build quality in a german camera, better take a look at the Rollei medium format cameras, or the professional Zeiss-Ikon cameras. In my opinion those two makers had a higher build quality standard. Carl Zeiss lenses were generally as good as the Leitz equivalent, and (in my opinon) Schneider-Kreuznach lenses of the same vintage were even better. I'd take a Xenotar-equipped Rolleiflex any day over ANY leica.

This thread has cemented my contention that a Nikkormat is superior in every way. Even to the F2, which is probably the best fitted 35 of all times.

How the Nikkormat is superior to the F2? I owned both and sold the Nikkormat FT2. The Copal vertical shutter was too clunky (vibration-wise) compared to the F2. That's the same reason I sold my Canon EF -- same clunky vertical shutter. Otherwise they were great and yes they are built like a one-piece tank.

 

[benjiboy]

I have so far managed to be a photographer for 63 years without ever owning a Leica and have never felt the desire for one.

 

[Hatchetman]

My only thought is the M series plus a modern lens isn't much smaller (if smaller at all) than a small SLR setup. Soooo.....

I like my III with collapsible Summitar. It fits in my coat pocket.

I would like to get an M3 and modernish Summicron, but it would only be because I like fondling nice things, not because it will help my photography.

 

[Xmas]

The only difference between your III and an M

Size
Loading easier
Quicker 2nd shot
Better finder
No snagging shutter dial
Emptier wallet

But you can keep the lens with an adapter.

 

[R.Gould]

I don't own a Lecia, but I hope to in the near future, but I have gone the oppisite way to many, I grew up on SLR'S, and always thought them the bees knees until a few years ago, when I bought a Rangefinder at a car boot sale for a fiver( £5 GBP) and never looked back, now I use either rangefinders or viewfinder cameras for all my photography,apart from my Rolleis, and now never use a SLR, prefering the ease of focusing and use of an old Rangefinder,

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I have so far managed to be a photographer for 63 years without ever owning a Leica and have never felt the desire for one.

Zeiss Contarex then, right?

 

[McFortner]

I'd recommend another Canon P... In poor light the P is just as serviceable.

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

 

[rgperedo]

I think that the advantages of shooting 35mm is that it's super portable, more frames and it's smaller (generally speaking) than medium format cameras. With that being said I find rangefinders to be a more tightened up set of options that totally fall into the advantages of 35. I shot my K-1000 for years, I basically learned film photography on it and I still love it. It went everywhere with me on all my trips. Then my uncle gave me his old Canon canonet QL17 rangefinder a few years ago and I have to admit it kind of took over my life. It was a faster tool and a different way of looking and composing that really made me happy. I still love my K-1000 and I love SLR's but there's something about rangefinders that just speak to me, I really think it's the way it focuses, the fact that you can't preview the depth of field (composition is easier to focus on for me) and the mirror-less aspect (allows me to shoot easily at 1/15) which make rangefinders so difficult to turn away from. I own a Leica as well, I decided after shooting the Canon I was really into rangefinders and of course the Leica is "THE" rangefinder. It was a special occasion though, I bought it because I finished my undergraduate degree (years ago). I love the M6 and I love my K-1000 but when I load 35mm film now it's almost always my Leica or my QL17. Long live rangefinders. Also are Polaroid Landcameras considered rangefinders? I have a 420 and a 250 and they are awesome as well. Cheers.

 

[benjiboy]

Zeiss Contarex then, right?

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