The Cult of Leica

[darkosaric]

Ken Rockwell describes SP vs M3 here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm
Quote:
In the 1950s, Oriental makers did as we expect, and Nikon made a camera, the Nikon SP, with superior specifications and features on paper, and it sold for only about 2/3 the cost of the LEICA M3. Nikon still hasn't figured out why the Nikon SP only sold one-tenth as many cameras as the LEICA M3: the SP lacked genius, more specifically, the Nikon SP had more finders and frame lines, but asked that you used two different finders to do what the LEICA M3 does better with just one! The Nikon SP also came from the stone age, demanding that you stop and change finder frames manually.
There is no comparison to the LEICA M3; everything else is inferior.

In short: even if the specifications are better - M3 wins because it has genius design.

 

[BradS]

The SP was supposed to be the best-built camera That Nikon ever made. Any comments on this??

best built Nikon ever...prior to the Nikon F2 ?

 

[BradS]

dude, its not hype, its lenses that make sunshine, its german quality not that other junk ..
you don't get it man, i guess you can't afford it

Maybe, I just need to drink more of the special Leica kool aide !

 

[removed account4]

Maybe, I just need to drink more of the special Leica kool aide !

it IS special, very special ... the best kool aide ever

 

[btaylor]

I guess Ken Rockwell got it wrong. True, the Nikon SP has a separate viewfinder for 28mm/35mm framing but the M3 has no framelines for anything wider than 50mm. Which is why I got an M2. I also have a Nikon SP, I think they are both terrific rangefinder cameras that have hardly been improved upon in the intervening years (ttl metering excepted).

I have to agree with BradS, the slobbering Leica fanboys can be hard to take. Yes, Leitz made and make nice machines, but so do plenty of other manufacturers. The Summicron I have is not superior to the Nikkor on the SP, and either one can make a stunning photo if the operator is up to scratch!

 

[btaylor]

The finest Kool Aid. BMW, Mercedes and Porsche have it by the gallon at their dealerships. But is is even more expensive there.

 

[michr]

I'd really like to try a Leica but it just does not make any sense at all from a **rational** cost / benefit point of view and all of the usual and customary Leica fanboy foaming at the mouth and blathering on about how it is the finest, best, most superlative mechanical device ever made is a major turn off.

So, its not that I am "anti-Leica"...I'd say that I am really turned off by the hype.

Amen to that. I find it a turn off too, and to a lesser degree it's the same with Rolleis or anything Zeiss labeled. I don't like that I take the bait sometimes, like with this article is posted, where apparently all it takes to keep company with the Queen is to own the same camera. So I'm not really speaking up to convince a Leica fan of anything. I'm sure they're as set in their ways as I am.

For anyone else, they shouldn't be deceived. While Leicas are plenty good as cameras, and the glass is reputedly very nice, they aren't miles ahead of the competition. There's nothing a Leica can do that another camera out there can't do better and for less money. And more importantly, there's nothing a photographer needs that they can't find elsewhere and for less money. At some point, all this becomes tiresome.

 

[Ai Print]

Outclassed meaning the category that Leicas fit into 35mm, while they may or may not be the "best in class", they aren't in the same class as the larger formats. And also meaning outclassed in image quality, since no matter how good the lenses supposedly are, they can't compete with a negative that is much larger (12 times in the case of 4x5). Does Leica glass have 12 times the resolution as any large format lens, let alone compared to the best? If you want convenience and spontaneity then Leica isn't the system either. Have they made a camera with autofocus yet?

I don't buy it, I have a very large and capable 4x5 system and as nice as it is to print those big negs in the darkroom, it's a different playing field of impact. To me, the content of the photo and it's impact is the first order of business in image quality. I shoot all these formats professionally, I am very well versed in them and the hot air I read about LF is about as scalding as it gets.

I call BS.

By the way, I find Leica M rangefinders are incredibly intuitive and responsive to spontaneity.

 

[michr]

Maybe, I just need to drink more of the special Leica kool aide !

Certainly that has to be sarcasm that you're responding to, not a serious comment...I would hope so.

 

[Ai Print]

So, its not that I am "anti-Leica"...I'd say that I am really turned off by the hype.

I was too but mostly because I could not afford it. Then about 12 years ago a specific project popped up that I felt it would be good on so I ponied up for a user M6 and 35mm F2 and gave it a whirl.

Do you know what ended up being more annoying than the hype...? The fact it was true.

 

[michr]

I don't buy it, I have a very large and capable 4x5 system and as nice as it is to print those big negs in the darkroom, it's a different playing field of impact. To me, the content of the photo and it's impact is the first order of business in image quality. I shoot all these formats professionally, I am very well versed in them and the hot air I read about LF is about as scalding as it gets.

I call BS.

Oh, absolutely the photo's content should come first. Which is why Leica doesn't matter, and all discussions of image quality are moot if the image isn't compelling in the first place.

 

[Ai Print]

Oh, absolutely the photo's content should come first. Which is why Leica doesn't matter, and all discussions of image quality are moot if the image isn't compelling in the first place.

Leica M specifically has a legendary status about it because it came into vogue at the time that the intrepid 35mm reportage photographer also came into vogue, it was the tool of choice for many a great iconic shooter. And after awhile, especially as SLR's took greater footing, it was not a matter of it being better technically than other gear, it was the total package and how it just simply worked better from a cerebral standpoint with some shooters. I happen to know several of the more modern "greats" who have stuck with it and it's just an everything in it's right place at the right size kind of thing.

I use it because it just works better for me in the areas I use it in than any other camera and the image quality is simply outstanding.

 

[Jim Jones]

Image quality isn't the only reason to choose one camera over another. Sometimes the way a camera handles is more significant. Durability and reliability can also be important. In my experience over 65 years, Leica excels in all of these qualities. I also use a Nikon system for those capabilities which exceeds Leica's. For some photos, my ancient battered Speed Graphic would be better than any Leica or Nikon. In a quick but critical lens resolution test of maybe 35 lenses I performed in the early 1970s, three of the best four were by Nikon; the other one was by Leica. The runners up were close enough for practical photography. Perfection is an obsession that few need to pursue.

 

[naaldvoerder]

I was led to believe the Zeiss ZM was the best ever Leica?

 

[mshchem]

I love my Leica. Damn film is too long. Please bring back 20 exp. rolls. Thank You!

 

[removed account4]

Certainly that has to be sarcasm that you're responding to, not a serious comment...I would hope so.

not sarcastic at all. leica has special optics that make sunshine ( sonnenscheinmaschine )
and if somene complains about anything its not cause they don't want it, its because of the price tag.
i almost complained about a BAT sandwich i had today it cost $32.50, the chips were free. i pony'd up the cash
and ate it as slowly as i could. it was made with locally sourced avacodes,
local bacon artison arugula on ritz crackers. the potato chips were home made. its just money,
my kids just made me another batch of kool aid to guzzle ...

I don't buy it, I have a very large and capable 4x5 system and as nice as it is to print those big negs in the darkroom, it's a different playing field of impact. To me, the content of the photo and it's impact is the first order of business in image quality. I shoot all these formats professionally, I am very well versed in them and the hot air I read about LF is about as scalding as it gets.

I call BS.

By the way, I find Leica M rangefinders are incredibly intuitive and responsive to spontaneity.

but the problem with a leica is no matter the film, no matter the processing or the care taken exposing &c
you really can't enlarge the negative past 5x7 because 35mm doesn't hold up past 5x7 ( unless you have
a leitz enlarger maybe a little bigger ) . at least with a larger negative, 5x7, or 4x5 for example,
you can enlarge to a larger size before it gives up, and even larger size negatives, well they don't quit.
not sure what hot air you read about LF .. its like anything some of it is perfectly true, some of it is nonsense.
( i read a few weeks ago if you use the lorium lenses on the leica iiik it cures pattern baldness )
kind of like any sort of hype no matter the format or country of origin of the camera. and the beauty of all of this stuff
is that a camera is just a box with a light trap. some people are able to make astounding images from the lowest things on
the totem pole and by the grace of athena others are able to make pure garbage with the most expensive gear on the planet,
and in the end, none of it matters because whoever it was using the toilet paper roll had as much fun as the person using the 3.2million dollar leica,
or 16x20 ebony with the 54,000.00 schneider xxl lens kit,
what really matters isn't the camera or lens anyways, its the shoes you are wearing while making the photographs.

 

[Lee Rust]

Why did Garry Winogrand leave behind thousands of undeveloped frames? Perhaps because he enjoyed looking at life through an M4 viewfinder and marking the interesting moments with that Leica sound. Maybe every bit as much as making the prints afterwards. Maybe more so. Maybe he never really even needed film... just the camera to focus his attention and cue his memory.

For me, a Leica M is about the experience of taking a picture, rather than the resulting photo. Weight, shape, surface textures, the clear and uninterrupted view through the bright line finder, the rangefinder focussing, the feel of the levers, knobs and lens rings, the simple and clearly marked adjustments, the complex little click of each captured instant... these are your sensations while using the camera, not while looking at the pictures. The film M's have always had these qualities and the digital M's are almost there.

Are these pleasant experiential things worth paying hundreds or thousands of dollars more than for other cameras? Are the Leica lenses really all that much better at forming images than comparable Nikon, Canon, Fuji et al? On a rational level, probably not. On an irrational level, absolutely.

 

[Richard Man]

Have you seen HCB images blown up to 20x24? I have. Have you seen Robert Frank's? I have. Have you blown up your own neg to 16x20 in the darkroom? I have. Have you scanned and print 20x30? I have...

but whatever, let's talk about Leica cult to death, again.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The SP was supposed to be the best-built camera That Nikon ever made. Any comments on this??

Best RF camera Nikon ever made, to be exact. Still, it is knock-off of Contax and Leica combined. Not genuine and genois enough. And nothing else. But they made good RF lenses. Good RF Contax coated knock-offs.

 

[removed account4]

Have you seen HCB images blown up to 20x24? I have. Have you seen Robert Frank's? I have. Have you blown up your own neg to 16x20 in the darkroom? I have. Have you scanned and print 20x30? I have...

but whatever, let's talk about Leica cult to death, again.

dude they probably filled the viewing space with some invisible gas to make the 5x7 prints look huge because
everyone knows 35mm cant be enlarged past maybe 8x10 if you are lucky and you have a phenomenal printer.
20x24 16x20 20x30 my guess is if they were that big at 5" viewing you couldn't even see the whole image and you
were just looking at objectionable grain. whats the point > shrugs< im guessing eventually with these
super sized prints its bigger is better, like the soft drink you get at the fast food joint " 72 oz for 1$ "
we all know what happened to the supersizeme guy ...

 

[guangong]

Speaking in general terms, the build quality of a Contax IIa or a Nikon rf may be somewhat better than a Leica, but from a design viewpoint they were competing with the IIIc and IIIf, not the M3. I enjoy using my Contaxes and as well as rf folders but they lack the speed and comfort of an M camera.
After reading some of the comments made in this thread, perhaps a better question might be: Why do some people, usually not Leica users, go into a tizzy at the mention of Leica? I have several 35 mm rf and slr cameras as well as MF and LF, not to forget Minox. Each has its virtues and shortcomings, although shear numbers would seem to give an overall advantage to 35mm.
There is also a practical reason newspaper photographers went from LF press cameras to Rolleiflex to 35mm, but there is no reason to not use any camera if you enjoy using it.

 

[jim10219]

Sign me up for the 4x5 Crown Graphic with rangefinder cult, the whole Leica thing is a granfalloon anyway. I remember people going on and on years ago on the Internet about the image quality of Leica. And I was nearly convinced they were the best until I learned about larger film formats. Who cares if one miniature camera is slightly better than the others when it's completely outclassed by the big stuff?

I want in on this, if you’ll allow a Speed Graphic.

To me, a Leica is a status symbol and a toy. To use the car anology, they are like a go-cart. And they may be the best go-cart ever made, but they’re still just a go-cart. A very expensive go-cart. I need something that’s useful as well as fun. I need a full sized automobile. I need large format.

 

[faberryman]

After reading some of the comments made in this thread, perhaps a better question might be: Why do some people, usually not Leica users, go into a tizzy at the mention of Leica?

Probably because some people, usually Leica users, go into the opposite sort of tizzy, at the mention of Leica. I think it kind of balances out.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

dude they probably filled the viewing space with some invisible gas to make the 5x7 prints look huge because
everyone knows 35mm cant be enlarged past maybe 8x10 if you are lucky and you have a phenomenal printer.
20x24 16x20 20x30 my guess is if they were that big at 5" viewing you couldn't even see the whole image and you
were just looking at objectionable grain. whats the point > shrugs< im guessing eventually with these
super sized prints its bigger is better, like the soft drink you get at the fast food joint " 72 oz for 1$ "
we all know what happened to the supersizeme guy ...

Dude to you as well...

I have seen Viktor Colar Canadian era prints here and they were huge. Including from his father Leica and lens.
And I have seen Winograd's original prints much larger than 8x10. And Meyerowitz.
I just printed on much larger than 8x10 from negatives taken by Oly XA on previous night.
Just like with prints I have mentioned before it has two viewing modes. One with glasses on to see how lens resolves and another to see the entire picture.

Check with optometrist and take it easy on grain, buddy.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

They each have their own charm...