There is only one Leica

[slackercrurster]

 

[Huss]

That lens looks hazy.

 

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps the lens is less hazy than the ad writer who used a photo of a discontinued Summar lens to advertise the latest in the series of Leica Manual which lauded the Summar's replacements, the f/2 Summitar and the f/1.5 Zenon.

 

[guangong]

Lens on camera is a Summitar. Summar has a completely different look.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The photo shows a Summitar. Jim, look at it carefully.

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps the lens is less hazy than the ad writer who used a photo of a discontinued Summar lens to advertise the latest in the series of Leica Manual which lauded the Summar's replacements, the f/2 Summitar and the f/1.5 Zenon.

The early Leitz f1.5 was a Xenon, (not Zenon) a design licensed from TTH by Schneider and also Leitz who co-operated on the final lens design. It's not generally realised that Meyer made the first f1.5 lenses available for Leicas or that Meyer made the first reflex attachments, more TLR than Visoflex In the UK A O Roth the Meyer agents also sold the 50mm f1.5 with a Leica body.

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

I never wanted a Leica, although my wife has offered to buy me one several times over the years I prefer S.L.Rs.

 

[Ian Grant]

I never wanted a Leica, although my wife has offered to buy me one several times over the years I prefer S.L.Rs.

They made SLRs There's something different about using a range-finder camera, you either like them or not, there are pros and cons. I wish I'd bought my M3 earlier.

Ian

 

[slackercrurster]

They made SLRs There's something different about using a range-finder camera, you either like them or not, there are pros and cons. I wish I'd bought my M3 earlier.

Ian

Me too. I started with a Nikon F for my 'pro' cam back in the early 70's. Then a M3.

 

[darkosaric]

I love my Leica M3, but I love my Nikon F3 as well. On my last trip I had M3 with me, on the next F3 goes wit me. One can love both worlds .

 

[CMoore]

They made SLRs There's something different about using a range-finder camera, you either like them or not, there are pros and cons. I wish I'd bought my M3 earlier.

Ian

I have never OWNED a rangefinder, i have only used them, and not very often.
Do you find you prefer an SLR for certain types of shooting.....sports, landscape, or maybe That does not matter at all.?
Do you find you prefer an SLR once you each a longer focal length...after 80-90mm perhaps.?
Just curious is all.
Thanks

 

[Ian Grant]

I have never OWNED a rangefinder, i have only used them, and not very often.
Do you find you prefer an SLR for certain types of shooting.....sports, landscape, or maybe That does not matter at all.?
Do you find you prefer an SLR once you each a longer focal length...after 80-90mm perhaps.?
Just curious is all.
Thanks

That's a good question, I was using my M3 mostly for landscapes but also when shooting people, I shoot a few weddings (unofficially) with it as well. The M3 became my main 35mm camera despite my only having a 50mm Summicron, the SLRs were only used when shooting rock concerts with a Vivitar S1 70-210 zoom usually around the 70-100 mm rage.

One can argue that an SLR system is more versatile but a Leica range-finder is quiet and unobtrusive, I particularly like the fact the viewfinder shows you more than you capture and you compose to the bright-lines, I guess in a way it's the same when I shoot hand held with a Crown or Super Graphic and use the wire finder, it's a fast accurate way to compose and shoot, that's just from practical experience.

I guess what startled me the most was some images shot at a friends weddingson Fuji Superia 200 where the Leica being quiet went unnoticed, it was the hand held room light shots in particular 1/30 @ f2 just had such a natural edge compared to other peoples shots using flash. My friend commented that I must have bought a new camera and was astounded when I said no second hand from about 1954/5, (this was mid 1990s).

Ian

 

[darkosaric]

what i have noticed is that I use almost exclusively 50mm with my Leicas, and with nikons I use 105/2.5, 50/2, and zoom 28-80 equally. 90mm elmar and 135mm hektor are just sitting on the shelf.

M3 is used more than M6, CL or IIIf.

 

[locutus]

I split the difference and enjoy my Leica with the 28-90

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Leica in 1953. Years before then, the company made mirror boxes and other devices that permitted one to compose and focus through some lenses on some subjects. SLRs are far more practical for that. However, the Leica has several advantages that make it competitive. It seems to be designed and built by photographers and machinists rather than by the engineers that must produce most SLRs. Despite the endless wrangling over types, sizes, and brands of photo equipment, it is the photographer who makes the photograph. Remember, a box camera was good enough to produce a Pulitzer Prize photo. Better cameras merely provide added image quality.

 

[ciniframe]

Through the years I always imagined I wanted a Leica. Finally, near retirement I purchased a M4-2. The unfortunate truth was, I had been spoiled by many years with a OM-1. Still have the Leica, still prefer my OM-1. Go figure.

There is a PS; The OM-1, at least I’m my case, has proven to be more reliable. However a data set of one is worse than useless I know.

 

[darkosaric]

Through the years I always imagined I wanted a Leica. Finally, near retirement I purchased a M4-2. The unfortunate truth was, I had been spoiled by many years with a OM-1. Still have the Leica, still prefer my OM-1. Go figure.

There is a PS; The OM-1, at least I’m my case, has proven to be more reliable. However a data set of one is worse than useless I know.

When I purchased my first Leica (M6) - it took me more than half a year to get used to it, I was so attached to my Nikon F3. And I had rangefinders before (Olympus, Minolta, and some others). I am guessing that I subconsciously expected that Leica makes things better just because it is a Leica, and that was of course BS from my side.

 

[johnha]

I should have bought my M4 earlier, but I was too specific in looking for an M6 0.58 (I wear glasses), believing I needed a 0.58 and meter. Finding a bashed up M4 and pairing it with a Voigtländer 40/1.4 made the cost justifiable.

 

[Barry King]

Rangefinder cameras [Leica] and similar digital cameras such as the Fuji X100 series have the advantage over SLR's for street shooting, for their less conspicuous bulk.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have never OWNED a rangefinder, i have only used them, and not very often.
Do you find you prefer an SLR for certain types of shooting.....sports, landscape, or maybe That does not matter at all.?
Do you find you prefer an SLR once you each a longer focal length...after 80-90mm perhaps.?
Just curious is all.
Thanks

A few things:

Isn't the longest lens available for Leica a 135mm? They didn't make zoom lenses for them. Using a polarizer is slow but can be done. You would have to set it and then put it on the lens.

Wide lenses can be sharper for a rangefinder because they were not designed around the mirror of the SLR. Range finder focussing is faster. When shooting b&w you can easily focus with a colored filter on the lens since you don't view through the lens. With some of the cameras/lenses you can see beyond frame lines so it is easy to see someone walking into the frame when doing street photography.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm sending my $5 right now.

 

[Jim Jones]

I have never OWNED a rangefinder, i have only used them, and not very often.
Do you find you prefer an SLR for certain types of shooting.....sports, landscape, or maybe That does not matter at all.?
Do you find you prefer an SLR once you each a longer focal length...after 80-90mm perhaps.?
Just curious is all.
Thanks

I distinctly prefer a rangefinder camera for sports to be able to shoot at precisely the peak of action rather than tripping the SLR shutter a little earlier and hope I time that right. Mirror lockup and an external viewfinder could be used with the SLR, but only by losing some of the SLR's desirable functions. I can see what is happening outside the image area better with a Leica than with a SLR. Manual focusing with normal and wide lenses with the RF seems more natural than with the SLR.
If I had to choose between RF and SLR for all photography, it would be the SLR for those features where it far outshines the RF. Although I've used up to a 200mm rangefinder coupled lens with the Leica RF for non-sports photography, usually a 90 or occasionally a 135 is the maximum. Macro- and Micro-photography with the Leica is quite cumbersome, but the "spider legs" macro device made a convenient document copier. Shooting with long lenses and telescopes Is certainly best done with a SLR. Despite these advantages of a SLR, I prefer using a Leica for anything else.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Using a polarizer is slow but can be done. You would have to set it and then put it on the lens. . . .

Leica made a clever polarizer for rangefinder cameras that is little less convenient than a traditional polarizer on a SLR.

 

[ciniframe]

Rangefinder cameras [Leica] and similar digital cameras such as the Fuji X100 series have the advantage over SLR's for street shooting, for their less conspicuous bulk.

In theory. However personally I've found shooting with a big old 6X9 Kodak Tourist attracts less attention. I've even tried 4X5 as a point and shoot but too many people wanted to know "can you still get film for that?". With the 6x9 folks figure I'm just some old coot (well, I am old) playing around with an antique camera. After an initial bit of curiosity they quickly move on to whatever they were doing. Sometimes folks will come up saying, 'hey, my grandpa had one of those!'

 

[Pioneer]

I love them all! SLR, TLR, RF, View camera.

Which one I grab for the day often depends on nothing else but my mood.

The only ones I consistently use day after day are my Leica III or my Leica II. All because they are undeniably handy to pack around while still providing full control over all aspects of my photography.

Herr Barnack got it right.