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.
Last edited:
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.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.
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!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
In 2018, you can get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.In the 1970's you could get manual controls for $99 with a Pentax K1000.
... The drawback of Leica is you have to pay $8,000 to get manual controls...
As is the case with many cameras.When you hold and use a Leica, you can see and feel the quality and craftsmanship.
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.
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.
..
I do agree that Leica is no longer able to support professionals in the way that they once could...
Close-ups w/a Leica M?? That's SLR territory.
I'm watching "Everybody strret", just paused on Bruce Gilden part.Close-ups w/a Leica M?? That's SLR territory.
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.
these photographs could have been taken with anything and don't really seemA 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.
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
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.
And then reporters went with the Nikon F and progeny. Hence the introduction of the Leicaflex, which never won the new Nikon reporters back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?