The Cult of Leica

[faberryman]

Leica perfected what was needed in a reporters cam decades ago. The fit and finish is the best there is. It is reliable, small, manual and built like a tank.

And then reporters went with the Nikon F and progeny. Hence the introduction of the Leicaflex, which never won the new Nikon reporters back. With further defections, Leica introduced the M5 which nearly bankrupted the company.

 

[slackercrurster]

The benefit of a Leica, beside the pride of ownership, is the compact footprint and ease of handling the manual controls.

If you aspire to do high level, in your face candid photography, a Leica is perfect for the job. Really, the only thing that may be better is if Leica made a little manual M43 like the half-frame film cams of yesteryear.

Now, a Fuji or similar mirrorless would be good...except they are a screwy cam with their 'focus by wire' and terrible AF in dim light. These cams they make nowadays are just too complex. A Leica can be adjusted by not even looking at it...just by feel and counting clicks. The drawback of Leica is you have to pay $8,000 to get manual controls. In the 1970's you could get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.

 

[Arklatexian]

Decades ago when I worked for a newspaper, I routinely used a Nikon F and F2 with a 35mm f/2 and an 85mm f/1.8 lens.

I also owned a Leica M1 that I used on a microscope.

When needed, I would sometimes use two adapters to attach my 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor lens to the M1.

For some time, I wanted a Leica M2 with a fast 35mm lens and a fast 90mm lens.

It was not until the digital revolution depressed the price of film cameras that I was finally able to fulfill my desire. I purchased a Leica M6 with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 90mm f/2.

I guess I joined the "Cult of Leica."



M6 Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Decades ago when I worked for a newspaper, I routinely used a Nikon F and F2 with a 35mm f/2 and an 85mm f/1.8 lens.

I also owned a Leica M1 that I used on a microscope.

When needed, I would sometimes use two adapters to attach my 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor lens to the M1.

For some time, I wanted a Leica M2 with a fast 35mm lens and a fast 90mm lens.

It was not until the digital revolution depressed the price of film cameras that I was finally able to fulfill my desire. I purchased a Leica M6 with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 90mm f/2.

I guess I joined the "Cult of Leica."



M6 Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Welcome to the cult and remember it's first rule that was taught to me many years ago:"don't listen to the geese fart"..........Regards!

 

[faberryman]

In the 1970's you could get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.

In 2018, you can get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

When you hold and use a Leica, you can see and feel the quality and craftsmanship.

... The drawback of Leica is you have to pay $8,000 to get manual controls...

Only for a new one.

 

[faberryman]

When you hold and use a Leica, you can see and feel the quality and craftsmanship.

As is the case with many cameras.

 

[slackercrurster]

And then reporters went with the Nikon F and progeny. Hence the introduction of the Leicaflex, which never won the new Nikon reporters back. With further defections, Leica introduced the M5 which nearly bankrupted the company.

Yes, I've used both. In the 70's it was Nikon F and Leica M3 for me. Leica, Nikon and Canon were the rangefinder staples of the old time Life and Look photogs.

But where the Leica shines is in close up candid work...shot with the Leica MM.

This type of up close candid work is very hard to do with a dslr. The ergonomics of a dslr are not conducive to it.

You can make a little Fuji 'Leica like' if you slap a manual lens on it. But it is hell to focus. I prefer the rangefinder.

This candid was shot with an old 16mp Fuji.

I'd never use a Leica here. They ruin the cameras. I had someone break off my flash at the hotshoe.

This candid shot below was with a Leica M240...

The other thing is a dslr is very uncomfortable to carry in your hand like I do for hours on end. But from the photography I see, most of the Leica uses like them because of the cult, more so than needing a rangefinder.

This is what a Leica MM does if you take your time...handheld. I heard the newest MM's do better.

I've used all type of cams from Minox to 4 x 5...the Leica style rangefinder is best for my type of work. It will not take better photos than other cams, but it allows you to get photos you could not get as easy if you did not have a Leica / small manual rangefinder style cam.

 

[chip j]

Close-ups w/a Leica M?? That's SLR territory.

 

[Pioneer]

Leica perfected what was needed in a reporters cam decades ago. The fit and finish is the best there is. It is reliable, small, manual and built like a tank. Maybe the old film Hasselblad's were somewhat comparable.

Sadly, Leica is not longer of much import for reporters nowadays due to their high cost. The US Leica repair facilities turn around is also very, very poor. A professional could not tolerate it.

Even so, if you want a rangefinder, nothing else out there if you want digital. I would hope that another competitor comes into the rangefinder market to make an affordable, reliable clone of the Leica M.

It would be nice if someone produced an updated and improved digital rangefinder, not just a warmed up mirrorless.

I do agree that Leica is no longer able to support professionals in the way that they once could. It is a bit of a shame but the reality is that the professional reporting market has moved on a long time ago.

I am sure there are still pros using Leicas but they usually have more than one camera to back them up as they also know that Leica will be unable to give adequate turn around time in case a repair is necessary.

A Canon or a Nikon may not always be the best camera for a given situation but both companies learned long ago that strong professional support covered a lot of other sins.

 

[Huss]

..

I do agree that Leica is no longer able to support professionals in the way that they once could...

Nor the amateurs that they now should.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know about that. Whenever I have needed service, admittedly not a lot, I have been able to get it in a pretty timely manner. Meanwhile my M 262 and M-A seem to work just fine.

 

[Jim Jones]

Close-ups w/a Leica M?? That's SLR territory.

That's true for the past several decades, but in the 1930s Leitz produced many devices for macro- and micro-photography. This continued even after WWII. Some of these devices are more convenient to use than a SLR.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Close-ups w/a Leica M?? That's SLR territory.

I'm watching "Everybody strret", just paused on Bruce Gilden part.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I enjoyed reading the link posted my the OP. I like hearing about all those photographers who used Leicas. There's something really interesting about how technological progress redifines what's possible with art. There's probably similar stories with music, painting, sculpture. Similar brands associated with historical progress in a medium.

I didn't get on well with a Leica; I had an M4 for a year or so. I liked its curved body and general smoothness. But film loading was a pain and it was only marginally smaller than my FM2, perhaps it weighed the same (more once you factor in I also had to carry a light meter everywhere). Crucially, the cost meant I was very cautious to take it to some places and I could never afford to try more than one lens. For me, if you're more worried about your camera than the picture then something is wrong. I've read all sorts of hyperbole about the shutter so I was suprprised when I actually heard it; it didn't resemble a kiss as Wim Wenders said. More of a 'clunk' compared to the Nikon 'clack' but still audible enough to be heard by the subject. It was good to have had one and rather like getting a medium format camera I realised that it was too much camera for me.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, I've used both. In the 70's it was Nikon F and Leica M3 for me. Leica, Nikon and Canon were the rangefinder staples of the old time Life and Look photogs.

But where the Leica shines is in close up candid work...shot with the Leica MM.

This type of up close candid work is very hard to do with a dslr. The ergonomics of a dslr are not conducive to it.

You can make a little Fuji 'Leica like' if you slap a manual lens on it. But it is hell to focus. I prefer the rangefinder.

This candid was shot with an old 16mp Fuji.

I'd never use a Leica here. They ruin the cameras. I had someone break off my flash at the hotshoe.

This candid shot below was with a Leica M240...

The other thing is a dslr is very uncomfortable to carry in your hand like I do for hours on end. But from the photography I see, most of the Leica uses like them because of the cult, more so than needing a rangefinder.

This is what a Leica MM does if you take your time...handheld. I heard the newest MM's do better.

I've used all type of cams from Minox to 4 x 5...the Leica style rangefinder is best for my type of work. It will not take better photos than other cams, but it allows you to get photos you could not get as easy if you did not have a Leica / small manual rangefinder style cam.

A Leica can be adjusted by not even looking at it...just by feel and counting clicks. The drawback of Leica is you have to pay $8,000 to get manual controls. In the 1970's you could get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.

these photographs could have been taken with anything and don't really seem
to show how a RF shines or specifically why a leica is better than anything else
( except for bragging rights that they were taken with a leica ) and you are comfortable using a leica,
i have a m3 and i would rather use a k1000 and could have easily made the same
photographs you posted with a that same camera if in the same situations
as you / cost $149 with a lens.
it isn't sunshine glass
german ergonomics,
magical elk's blood or ...
anything speical its just a camera

 

[removed account4]

In all of these examples photographer used specific gear to get pictures most sufficient way. It means what specific camera made them better photographer.
It is not only about your vision and creativity, but it is about your tool. Is it allowing you to be fully creative and not obstructed, not slowed down day per day, year per year.

You could take good picture with any camera - it is not wrong statement. But it is not true for long term, dedicated to specific genre and individual vision photography

couldn't agree more !
what you described is key, finding a camera that feels comfortable and is easy to use and
is like 2nd nature so you don't have to think about it. for some people its a rollei, others a diana or holga and others a leica

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I enjoyed reading the link posted my the OP. I like hearing about all those photographers who used Leicas. There's something really interesting about how technological progress redifines what's possible with art. There's probably similar stories with music, painting, sculpture. Similar brands associated with historical progress in a medium.

I didn't get on well with a Leica; I had an M4 for a year or so. I liked its curved body and general smoothness. But film loading was a pain and it was only marginally smaller than my FM2, perhaps it weighed the same (more once you factor in I also had to carry a light meter everywhere). Crucially, the cost meant I was very cautious to take it to some places and I could never afford to try more than one lens. For me, if you're more worried about your camera than the picture then something is wrong. I've read all sorts of hyperbole about the shutter so I was suprprised when I actually heard it; it didn't resemble a kiss as Wim Wenders said. More of a 'clunk' compared to the Nikon 'clack' but still audible enough to be heard by the subject. It was good to have had one and rather like getting a medium format camera I realised that it was too much camera for me.

Loading film into M with hinged back is as simple as with most film cameras, if not simpler, except those with auto loading. But you need to read the manual once and trust it.

M is not small camera, but it is less bulky with lens. https://photos.app.goo.gl/b69hnKHmg8UfR6Oq1 Both cameras are with lenses equal in focal length, Leica has f1.5 and smaller lens, while OM10 has f1.8 and larger lens.

M4-2 cost me less and does the same as M4.
FSU, old Canon and new lenses are 50-200$ price range. Winogrand used Canon 28mm lenses for many years.
Who is W.Wenders? The Leica kiss is originally HCB metaphor, it took me some time and couple of his books with his words to read and get it.

The only drawback Leica has in a long and extensive use is limited number of independent services (which is not uncommon for many film cameras these days) and some extra cost involved.
For example, those advanced and regular users of Leica M in Russia have to send it to somewhere in Europe or to USA for CLA and repairs. But same applies for Bessa R (one service location in USA or Cosina service in Japan) and even FSU cameras are still professionally repaired only in few places in Russia and Ukraine.

In general, any rangefinder camera is not the tool for masses anymore and for many decades now. It took me three years to get from FSU RF, via Bessa LTM to LEica M. And I could barely afford just one... Just like many Leica photogs and it was always like this.

http://bergger.com/media/wysiwyg/blog/aleksey_myakishev/Bergger-Myakishev_EN_Definitif_mini.pdf Scroll it to the right.
This pro photog purchased M4 by the chance. It was under good price. He couldn't get used to it, just kept it in his desk at work for couple of years and then...

But at the end if someone believes (like in one previous comment above) what it is possible to take same pictures with something else rather than Leica and they are actually doing this, it is real blessing. I wish I could do the same with SLRs, but I can't. Physically.

 

[flavio81]

And then reporters went with the Nikon F and progeny. Hence the introduction of the Leicaflex, which never won the new Nikon reporters back.

Maybe it has something to do with costing more than twice the Nikon F, and having no interchangeable components.

(Note: I admire the Leicaflexes.)