Thinking about getting a Leica

[Newt_on_Swings]

I don't know if it helps with your decision or not, but it is a really bad time to buy into M-series Leica gear. During the past year or so the prices for 2nd hand Leica cameras and lenses have been going insane (you would definately be buying high).

Would you have to sell your F6 to fund the Leica? If so, I wouldn't do it - why trade in a camera that you really like for a total unknown. At the very least I would look into buying a cheap 2nd hand Cosina voigtlander camera/lens to help you decide if you even like using rangefinders before jumping in with both feet.

Yes I have been watching the prices as well on Keh, ebay, and craigslist, and so far for the last 6 months or so its been crazy. Everything from bodies, lenses, and accessories have been selling for outrageous amounts.

So I'm holding out as well, there are definite swings in the photographic world, as the purchases of older bodies in good condition could be viewed by collectors as investments, but sooner or later there is always a downswing, and thats when you buy.

And if you really think this purchase will make you a better photographer, just always remember its the photographer that makes the images, the camera is just a tool, many photographers have gotten by with much less in the last 100 years.

 

[rakeshmravi]

.....

And if you really think this purchase will make you a better photographer, just always remember its the photographer that makes the images, the camera is just a tool, many photographers have gotten by with much less in the last 100 years.

I never said anything about making me better with Leica. If I thought that, I would have had a Leica years ago. I have sticked with Nikon for over 6 years and will forever I make pictures.

My friend in FL is letting me borrow his unused Leica IIIg for a while. I think I will mess around for couple of months and see if it can really fit to my style before I make the purchase.

 

[BradleyK]

The main point here is that you are thinking of moving to a rangefinder camera as opposed to an SLR. The most important difference is that a rangefinder camera with a bright-line finder will allow you to see above, below and outside the side to side image through the viewfinder, thus acting as an aid to composition. This alone, for me is worth any advantage gained by an SLR. The M2 has a wonderful bright-line finder, but if you want the most beautiful design coupled with tactile handling perhaps a Leica IIIg will suffice.

Points well made. Like the OP, I began shooting with a 35mm SLR (a Nikon F2AS), later progressing "through the ranks," acquiring a couple of Hasselblads (a pair of 500c/ms and a 553el/x) as well as, about 12 years ago, a 4x5 Linhof. Along the way (about five years ago), I picked up, on a whim, an M6 with a 50mm Summicron, thinking that the camera would serve as little more than an adjunct to my 35mm shooting. It took a good year or so to feel comfortable shooting with the camera - curiously for the very advantages you named above. Once I became familiar with the camera, however, and came to realize its many virtues (unobtrusive, quiet, quick focusing, low light accuracy, etc), I began using the camera for a greater portion of my 35mm shooting. In fact, I have come to love shooting with the camera so much that I have added an additional body and five additional lenses - in effect building a separate system that I use almost exclusively for my street shooting and documentary work.

What is important to point out, I think, OP, as others have suggested, is that the rangefinder is a different beast intended for different purposes. Your dilemma should not be framed as an either/or proposition. Keep the F6 and build a second system. For macro work, for shooting with super-wide angles and for shooting with telephotos, the SLR excels. But for candid shooting, street and documentary work - for pretty much anything in the moderate wide angle to short telephoto range (I refuse to use the auxiliary viewfinders) - Leica rangefinders are primus inter pares. Yes, they are expensive; no argument there. But amortized over a lifetime their cost is quite reasonable.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I never said anything about making me better with Leica. If I thought that, I would have had a Leica years ago. I have sticked with Nikon for over 6 years and will forever I make pictures.

Then whats the point if you don't think it will make you better? Didnt you say in your first post you wanted it's (Leica's) advantages to street shooting?? Your not really making much sense.

 

[rakeshmravi]

Then whats the point if you don't think it will make you better? Didnt you say in your first post you wanted it's (Leica's) advantages to street shooting?? Your not really making much sense.

I never said Leica will make me a better photographer. I said I am considering it "simply because of the weight and quality package for my street shooting". I don't think it will make my photographs any better than it already is.

Hopefully the camera arrives soon from my friend. Lets see how it goes.

 

[Vilk]

i cannot think of any particular alignment of stars that might make me pick a leica over the F6. in fact, my last (only second, really) leica succumbed to craigslist last year, leaving my closet to a rowdy pack of F2s and i do shoot street, a statistically significant 95% of the time (for one thing, the F2 lets me shoot into the sun as well )

ps. just for the record, i've heard Ms louder than the F6

 

[BrianL]

Using and thinking slr and rangefinder, actually non-slr) are 2 different mindtraining experiences. each requires your eye and mind to see and think differently. Do you think the non-slr will let you see and think dofferently and in a better way than with the slr. If so, give it a try; if not why move. Street photography does not require a non-slr; it almost seems a myth to support the non-slr owners. Before, I get flamed, I own a Leica as my main 35mm camera along with a couple of other non-slr cameras.

If you've not tried and used one, before dumping a load of cash, I agree go get a non-slr to try first. There are a number of great fixed lens cameras that do not go for a lot of money to try. I use an old Vito with a Color-Skopar and a Zeiss Ikonta both of which give great results. The Vito lens is so good sometimes when shooting it and the Leica, I prefer the Vito results.

Also, I read you are trying a IIIG. The LTM bodies I prefer over the M bodies that are larger. Screw on a collapsible lens and it is very pocketable, a BIG plus in street shooting. The only M mount body that comes close in size is the Leica CL that with the 40mm lens makes for a great walk around street camera but, sadly is pooh-poohed by so many Leicaphiles.

 

[clayne]

i cannot think of any particular alignment of stars that might make me pick a leica over the F6. in fact, my last (only second, really) leica succumbed to craigslist last year, leaving my closet to a rowdy pack of F2s and i do shoot street, a statistically significant 95% of the time (for one thing, the F2 lets me shoot into the sun as well )

ps. just for the record, i've heard Ms louder than the F6

Couldn't be further from the truth. Go use an M and be informed. An F6 is as different to an M6 as an F6 is a different to an F3.

 

[fotch]

I have both an F3 and a M3 and look at them as tools. Choice of tool depends on the job and ones experience with their tools.

Similar to copy paper and a copy machine, a quick copy vs. a many page document.


The quality of the tool is important and a separate issue, and camera collector vs. photographer, each will have different reasons for the choice made.

 

[Vilk]

Couldn't be further from the truth. Go use an M and be informed. An F6 is as different to an M6 as an F6 is a different to an F3.

hmmm... sorry, i'm confused... which part exactly is far from truth?

owned leica - check
sold leica - check
prefer nikon - check
kept nikon - check
focused sun rays burn holes in textiles - check
not all Ms i have heard were more quiet than the F6 - check

:confused:

ps. to be sure, looking at my pictures now i have no idea which one was taken with which camera... which could be a good thing, too... not so much tantalizing as notgiveadamnizing, really

 

[EASmithV]

If you want something that you can do zone focus, and is very quiet, get a Nikon F, and lock up the mirror. They're verrrryyyy quiet then.

Then again, the only rangefinder I use with any regularity is a Graflex...

 

[EASmithV]

If your primary interest in the Leica is how it feels when you're fondling it, you probably won't be disappointed with the Leica, so you might as well buy it now.

HAHA :munch:

 

[Existing Light]

If your primary interest in the Leica is how it feels when you're fondling it, you probably won't be disappointed with the Leica, so you might as well buy it now.

Same thing goes for women. The main difference is Leicas still look just as good as they age and they dont give you crap when you take another camera out for the day

 

[Jim Jones]

Same thing goes for women. The main difference is Leicas still look just as good as they age and they dont give you crap when you take another camera out for the day

My M4 and at least one of its lenses have shed some of their Vulcanite and show many other signs of their 40+ years, but they still work perfectly. That is more satisfying than a pristine Leica sitting in a showcase. As for older women, Ben Franklin said it best:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/51-fra.html.

 

[rakeshmravi]

Just got the iiig and took it for a ride. What should I say... it is good (in terms of handling. Like it better than my FE2. However no where near as comfortable as F6). No idea how my pictures are going to look and for now, and I don't care about that. With enough exp, I am sure I can make the pictures look as consistant as the Nikons for sure. Focusing is the biggest difference that is slowing me down. It is not about being hard, it is just that I am never used to this much manual focusing at this range. It takes a lot of practice to get perfect. I manual focus a lot on my Nikon 400mm f/5.6 and at that tele level it is extremly hard to get perfect focus. So I would need few more days before I can say anything for sure.

Also, there is the feeling of lack of confidence when I look through the rangefinder before I fire it. It is always tempting to reach for my F6.

 

[cliveh]

Focusing is the biggest difference that is slowing me down. It is not about being hard, it is just that I am never used to this much manual focusing at this range. It takes a lot of practice to get perfect. I manual focus a lot on my Nikon 400mm f/5.6 and at that tele level it is extremly hard to get perfect focus. So I would need few more days before I can say anything for sure.

Also, there is the feeling of lack of confidence when I look through the rangefinder before I fire it. It is always tempting to reach for my F6.

Focusing is probably the most different action to get use to. With an SLR, often people focus with their fingers round the top of the lens. With a rangefinder you need to focus with your hand beneath the lens. Stick with it, you will love it when you get the hang of it.

 

[ntenny]

I'm very disappointed in all of you. Five pages of discussion on switching from an SLR to a Leica, and no religious flamewars? Y'all are slacking.

This may be a personal perception, but it seems to me like the general feel of focussing varies betwen different lenses in the RF world much more than it does in the SLR world. Focussing tabs, in particular, make a huge difference (I love them, but there are people who are driven crazy by them). Maybe it's that hand-beneath-the-lens thing; you can't just wrap your hand around the whole lens and manhandle the focussing ring, so you end up with a lighter grip that's more affected by mechanical nuances.

-NT

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Focusing is probably the most different action to get use to. With an SLR, often people focus with their fingers round the top of the lens. With a rangefinder you need to focus with your hand beneath the lens. Stick with it, you will love it when you get the hang of it.

And be thankful you're not thinking of moving to a Contax II or III.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh, just get a Contax G2 instead! They're fast, quiet, have excellent metering, and lenses that are at least the equal of anything Leica ever made, for a fraction of the price.

 

[kapro]

Focusing is the biggest difference that is slowing me down. It is not about being hard, it is just that I am never used to this much manual focusing at this range. It takes a lot of practice to get perfect. I manual focus a lot on my Nikon 400mm f/5.6 and at that tele level it is extremly hard to get perfect focus. So I would need few more days before I can say anything for sure.

When used for street photography with 35mm and wider lenses, aperture 4.0 or 5.6, I use just three positions of the focusing ring in 80-90% of shots - almost infinity, cca 3-4m and approx.1-1.5m. Position of lens is determined by the position of finger lever. The rest is the responsibility of deep of field. When one get used to Leicas focusing ring can be fast as AF.

 

[rakeshmravi]

When used for street photography with 35mm and wider lenses, aperture 4.0 or 5.6, I use just three positions of the focusing ring in 80-90% of shots - almost infinity, cca 3-4m and approx.1-1.5m. Position of lens is determined by the position of finger lever. The rest is the responsibility of deep of field. When one get used to Leicas focusing ring can be fast as AF.

This is sort of what I am doing. I am getting the hang of things now.

It sure is heck a lot easy to carry around. But you know.... Leica doesn't give a kick like the F6

 

[normmamiya]

Switch to Leica?

I was a Nikon SLR user before but when I realize that street photography was really important for me I moved to Leica.

Dont forget that Leica M is not a big issue for tele lens...maximum 135 mm.

Good pictures

 

[clayne]

This is sort of what I am doing. I am getting the hang of things now.

It sure is heck a lot easy to carry around. But you know.... Leica doesn't give a kick like the F6

And mirror slap is quite a good way to blur an otherwise attainable shot.

There's another thing people have totally ignored in this discussion: latency.

When you click the shutter on a leica, the shutter is opened and the film exposed.

When you click the shutter on an SLR, the lens stops down to whatever aperture (unless wide-open), while in parallel the mirror shifts out of the way of the light path and the shutter opens to expose the film.

There are at least two more significant steps happening in an SLR, all due to the cost of WYSIWYG. As a result almost all rangefinders have noticeably lower latency between when you click and when the film is exposed. Modern SLRs are quite good about this, but it's still there.

I'm not an RF or Leica freak either - I use my F3s religiously for anything significantly wide as viewfinder reality feels more useful with wide-angles and I don't care to use external VFs on RFs.

Same latency advantage goes to any non-SLR camera: TLRs, 4x5s, etc.

 

[cliveh]

And mirror slap is quite a good way to blur an otherwise attainable shot.

There's another thing people have totally ignored in this discussion: latency.

When you click the shutter on a leica, the shutter is opened and the film exposed.

When you click the shutter on an SLR, the lens stops down to whatever aperture (unless wide-open), while in parallel the mirror shifts out of the way of the light path and the shutter opens to expose the film.

There are at least two more significant steps happening in an SLR, all due to the cost of WYSIWYG. As a result almost all rangefinders have noticeably lower latency between when you click and when the film is exposed. Modern SLRs are quite good about this, but it's still there.

I'm not an RF or Leica freak either - I use my F3s religiously for anything significantly wide as viewfinder reality feels more useful with wide-angles and I don't care to use external VFs on RFs.

Same latency advantage goes to any non-SLR camera: TLRs, 4x5s, etc.

I am interested in this latency effect you quote and wonder if a Leica with a diaphram shutter would give greater latency than one with a focal plane?

 

[rakeshmravi]

And mirror slap is quite a good way to blur an otherwise attainable shot.

There's another thing people have totally ignored in this discussion: latency.

When you click the shutter on a leica, the shutter is opened and the film exposed.

When you click the shutter on an SLR, the lens stops down to whatever aperture (unless wide-open), while in parallel the mirror shifts out of the way of the light path and the shutter opens to expose the film.

There are at least two more significant steps happening in an SLR, all due to the cost of WYSIWYG. As a result almost all rangefinders have noticeably lower latency between when you click and when the film is exposed. Modern SLRs are quite good about this, but it's still there.

I'm not an RF or Leica freak either - I use my F3s religiously for anything significantly wide as viewfinder reality feels more useful with wide-angles and I don't care to use external VFs on RFs.

Same latency advantage goes to any non-SLR camera: TLRs, 4x5s, etc.

The latency advantage is so insignificant when compared to the mirror flap vibration. This becomes even more true when you expose for long period of time and when you use a really fast shutter speed (both extremes) (relation with latency and fraction of a second). Again this is assuming you have a camera that is decent in the line of Ds or later Fs. Consider the time to AF a lens vs latency due to apeture. The later vanishes when you consider the latency fractions.