The Cult of Leica

[guangong]

I feel like someone giving out Alcoholics Anonymous cards at a beer festival.

Reformed drunks always do this!

 

[blockend]

Reformed drunks always do this!

A better analogy would be having tasted champagne I prefer a nice pint of ale.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On the contrary my friend! Old Leicas are much simpler to repair to the point that many do it by themselves. I am not rich, yet limiting purchasing of cameras and a bit of saving landed me my first Leica, an M4-P. Btw, a dead electronic circuit is not everybody's cup of tea not to mention that it is not always repairable.

Well said!
Also, the tip with the viewfinder of an XA on the Zorki is of the best I've read for years!

At your service!

Another good source is Minox 35, they made them to lasts even less than XA series are. Not only source for VF but lens is convertible to Leica with recently made conversion kit.
The lens from Minox 35 is better lens for BW than XA has.

 

[Sirius Glass]

thanks for the link !
the film cutting guide looks helpful but $150-200+ is as much as a camera LOL
i guess we all suffer for our art, and for leica users this suffering >> film loading

Yet for less money you could own a Hasselblad and not need to buy the film cutting guide. <<wink>> <<wink>>

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Never mind the ultra expensive M models, get a Leice II, Leica IIIc, Leica IIIf and you will begin to understand.

True, the Leica reputation was well established long before the Ms came along... far back in the days when the Contax was king. (Koenig?)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yet for less money you could own a Hasselblad and not need to buy the film cutting guide. <<wink>> <<wink>>

Spurious, Sirius.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Or slip a business card between the pressure plate and the film gate, insert the film behind the business card, wind the film a frame or two, remove the card, and close the camera. ...

To borrow a concept from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, we can't use just any business card, can we? Shouldn't it be a special Leica business card complete with five-letter Bestellworte?

 

[blockend]

Shouldn't it be a special Leica business card complete with five-letter Bestellworte?

Cue hipster start up.

 

[michr]

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.

I generally dislike car analogies since they're not accessible to everyone, but basically I agree. They're just two distinct classes of vehicle.

 

[cliveh]

A Leica is the Aston Martin of the cameraworld.

 

[Jim Jones]

A Leica is the Aston Martin of the cameraworld.

Probably, to those more interested in appearances than in production. To others, Leicas are a reliable and effective tool. Good tools cost much more than Harbor Freight imports. They are worth it to those who use them enough to spread the cost over a lifetime of intensive use.

 

[Pioneer]

Leica cameras are certainly not the only way to get a nice photo.

But they are a very nice way to do it for those who like to use rangefinders.

 

[T42]

I've noticed that good photographers can get good images from just about any good camera. And those of us who struggle to get a good image ever so often
will have that struggle regardless of whichever cameras we use. Even so, an amateur image-maker can still appreciate having fine photographic instruments
that exceed his own abilities to extract the instrument's full potential.

There is just something about the quality and the basic, no nonsense simplicity of the Leica M that is very appealing to some folks. One does not easily grasp
this if he has not used one long enough for it to become "at one" with himself.

As it turns out, many people who love the Leica M, own and use one, whereas those who speak most unkindly of them do not. That's probably a good thing.

No camera has never been convicted of having a single inspired artistic thought, not even a Leica M.

Happy Day.

 

[removed account4]

As it turns out, many people who love the Leica M, own and use one, whereas those who speak most unkindly of them do not. That's probably a good thing.

i think you mean probably NOT a good thing ?

there are always tribes.. us's and them's
this is just one of those times where people LOVE stuff
and don't get why others might not love the same stuff
or have the same reasons for using the same stuff.
and like all of these discussions it usally endsup like this one.

 

[T42]

i think you mean probably NOT a good thing ?

there are always tribes.. us's and them's
this is just one of those times where people LOVE stuff
and don't get why others might not love the same stuff
or have the same reasons for using the same stuff.
and like all of these discussions it usally endsup like this one.

Hmmm. Sorry I wasn't more articulate. Actually, I meant that those who have traveled the path know and understand the Leica M's strengths and limitations.
Those who speak most unkindly of the Leica M are those who do not own them and those who have not used them long enough to comprehend their merits.
Therefore their points of view are based more in emotion than in knowledge and experience. On the other hand, if their viewpoints were base in extended
use and actual knowledge of the Leica M, then they would be more valid criticisms. So, therefore, it's a good thing that the unkind remarks are based more
in emotion than in experience.

There are probably ten good reasons to own a Leica M and ninety-nine not to. But those ten can be pretty important to some folks who value quality, simplicity,
and honest, intuitive control of the instrument. I've owned and used a lot of good cameras in the past 50 years, and every one of them has had strengths
and limitations ... but there really is something special about the M that transcends the others.

Happy Day.

 

[removed account4]

hi henry

i get it now, sorry for my misunderstanding !
but there ARE people who have and use leica M's
and have for years and these people see
the camera as a camera, and not anything more than that.
the idea that when one uses a leica m s/he has to have
in the back of her/his mind the role-call of everyone who might have been
famous, or well known, who might have used that brand camera ( with or without leica glass
seeing some folks used the body and not the lenses ) is rather odd, i have one, and its just a camera.
i also use a graflex slr ( series D / 4x5 ) and have used that extensively. i don't make claims
about what a wonderful camera it is ( or the lenses i have with it ) and make claims that
because margaret bourque white used one, or other photographers from that tie period used one
it puts me on the same plane as them, or it elevates the wonderfulness of the camera, its just a camera
.. i understand what you are saying sometimes people who don't have things rail on these things they don't have ( because of jelousy &c ) but
sometimes a camera is just a camera, and sometimes people realize that and don't worship idols.

as the window sticker says
ymmv

 

[T42]

I see your point. Thank you for sharing it, jnanian.

I never had those sensations of the Leica having all those famous photographers behind it. I never thought that their skills would be magically
imparted to me somehow. And sure enough, they haven't been ! Does fancy cookware make one a chef? Does a Ferrari make one a race
car driver? Does a Stradivari violin make one a great musician? Of course not... you get the idea.

The M is a camera, a tool. But not just any tool. If I may draw an analogy.. I have two nice fountain pens. One is a beautiful red Jinhao 159 that
wrote perfectly right out of the box. It cost less than five dollars. The other is a black Montblanc 149 that lists for $935. Both are "just fountain
pens," one might say. And both write beautifully. The Montblanc feels more comfortable in use, holds more ink, and has fantastic fit and finish.
You know what? My writing and signature look just about the same no matter which of those pens I use. Nobody would ever be able to tell the
difference. So it is with my cameras. My limitations and successes show about the same regardless of which camera I use.

I love both of those pens, but there is something special about the Montblanc, something that transcends the obscene price. In my hand the
Montblanc just feels better conceived, more correct for writing. One might have to write with both to really understand, I suppose.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It just another strike of misunderstanding about Leica users and dedicated to rangefinders photography folks like me. I quit from Graplex quicker than I quit from SLR, not my thing.
Not my photography.

Yes, if you see person who talks about Leica skin, leather bag and showing Leica on wrist stripe - those are affected by Leica cult. And most of the time their photography could be done with any other camera.
Same folks would buy anything from Leica. Every new Leica camera which is often not even Leica rangefinder anymore. The Leica is cult brand for them and most valuable subject for collecting.
With them it is not about photography anymore. Just consumerism. Boutique style of shopping.

And then where are folks I'm with. Some of us have one Leica camera, and very few lens. Yes, we could still have bunch of other cameras for something else.
I know one professional photog taking pictures with DSLR for living and then, after work and on non making money time, walking with Leica on the streets for hours after work, exploring other cities, countries and cultures with rangefinder.
We are into something which we feel is achievable only with one type of Leica.
Rangefinders.
And then another misunderstanding comes about us. Something how we take pictures with nimb of HCB, aura of Winogrand and Zappa glory. False assumptions, wrong interpretation of what some of use mentioned, noticed.
I'll put it again here.
It is happening to me over and over, again and again. I would spot some photos I like, with something deeply resonating inside of me.
I would check who took these photos, start to dig on photog and realize, yet and again, what Leica was in use.

Where are some other rangefinders made. I have and using Bessa and FSU LTM rangefinders. But Leica is most easiest and refine TOOL in use. No cult, no nimb, it is just how Leica rangefinders were and still made.
Is here Makita cult? Are people getting constantly bashed for using these expensive tools?
If not rangefinder, I would use Nikon SLR. Because it is another great, refined tool. Are Nikon users gets bashed on APUG as Leica users?

 

[BradS]

.....<snip>....
It is happening to me over and over, again and again. I would spot some photos I like, with something deeply resonating inside of me.
I would check who took these photos, start to dig on photog and realize, yet and again, what Leica was in use.
......
If not rangefinder, I would use Nikon SLR. Because it is another great, refined tool. Are Nikon users gets bashed on APUG as Leica users?

Kos, you are a very talented photographer with a good eye....what I hear you saying is that the Leica makes you a good photographer. That all these other great photos were made with Leica and could not have been otherwise..but this is just so much bull shit!.

I sincerely believe that if you were to use a Spotmatic, even with a lowly 55mm f/2 Super-Takumar, your photos would not suffer..
Hell, I bet you'd make wonderful photos with a Brownie Hawkeye (an exceedingly simple box camera that was very popular in the 1950's, 1960's and even into the early 1970's).

I'll also observe that the level of bashing from one side tends to be proportional to the intensity of irrational gushing from the other.

 

[faberryman]

I'll also observe that the level of bashing from one side tends to be proportional to the intensity of irrational gushing from the other.

I too think there is a direct correlation.

 

[narsuitus]

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

 

[faberryman]

I guess I joined the "Cult of Leica."

You can be an owner of Leica cameras and lenses without being a member of the cult. Cult members are defined by their behavior. The fact that you actually took pictures of your cameras and lenses and spontaneously posted them might be considered among those behaviors.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Kos, you are a very talented photographer with a good eye....what I hear you saying is that the Leica makes you a good photographer. That all these other great photos were made with Leica and could not have been otherwise..but this is just so much bull shit!.

I sincerely believe that if you were to use a Spotmatic, even with a lowly 55mm f/2 Super-Takumar, your photos would not suffer..
Hell, I bet you'd make wonderful photos with a Brownie Hawkeye (an exceedingly simple box camera that was very popular in the 1950's, 1960's and even into the early 1970's).

I'll also observe that the level of bashing from one side tends to be proportional to the intensity of irrational gushing from the other.

Thank you for the compliment!

Some of my prints, which I gave for private collections are from negatives taken with simple Smena-8m and crude FSU rangefinders.
But as person who was lucky to have time, money and understanding family to be able to learn and intensively practice in photography I could tell you what you are not correct.
If you do photography at every possible moment and do it for years, then choice of the gear which not in the way becomes unavoidable. Or it is pure masochism.

I bring these examples over and over, they are for many like you to read:

Vivian Maier was gifted photographer. Her first images where taken Brownie. She took Leica while she went for travel. But her best pictures came from Rolleiflex.
Jane Bown used Rolleiflex at early stage , but her best portraits are with Olympus OM. Tiny SLR allowed her to be better photographer. Because of her technique.
HCB started with MF camera, but only with Leica he became HCB. Because it was giving him what he was not able to get with bulky and slow MF.
Yousuf Karsh used Leica then he get big assignment to go across Canada, but his best portraits are taken with LF cameras, because it allowed him to be comfortable with it and use theatrical light.
GW switched from SLRs to Leica because according to him it was more suitable for his work. And I clearly see it on his pictures why, based on my exactly the same experience.

But believe it or not, in 2012 then I abandoned SRLs for street, reportage photography after using them for years, I knew nothing about Winogrand and who he was, what he used.
I didn't even know about HCB, back then while I was trying SLRs first.

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.

 

[Pioneer]

I'll also observe that the level of bashing from one side tends to be proportional to the intensity of irrational gushing from the other.

I disagree with this. I have witnessed just as much irrational gushing from Nikon, Olympus and Pentax users just to name a few. People who enjoy bashing Leica users just choose to ignore this for some reason.

There are irrational fans of all kinds of camera brands. But most people who enjoy photography tend to purchase and use the equipment that works for them. Leica has a long history of photographers who have chosen to use their cameras. And, I may add, have done quite well with them.

 

[slackercrurster]

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.