Underrated film cameras

[Helge]

Most well-known street photographers shoot Leica - that's their review.

The thing that's special about a Leica is that, with a minimum of maintenance, it reliably does exactly what you want it to, quickly, quietly, and without anything extra.

They shot Leicas back when they actually made sense economically.
Today not at all.

A brand new Leica with a lens was between 400 to $500 in the sixties with the possibility for big discounts for stationed personnel and other special exceptions.
Adjusted that is about $3500.
But again, that is brand new, with decades of mileage in front of it and lots of inexpensive service readily available.

I mean everyone could probably afford one or two without going hungry, if they really wanted it, but the same can be said for a lot of other stupid status symbols that sells to bourgeois plebs and the desperately but cluelessly aspiring proletariat.

Reliability is very important for someone who earns a living. But bringing two or three bodies, buying new or repairing as they break, of another far less expensive brand, will also get you that reliability.

Would I take a good condition M3 with a Sumicron if offered to me for a $1000 or less? Absolutely, in a heartbeat!
I’m not sure I wouldn’t be a little embarrassed about bringing it out though.

 

[grat]

When you see some douchebag who is telegraphing and radiating “I have a Leica” whenever he can and wherever he goes (think eminently punchable characters like Matt Day and Nick Carver). And he only has mediocre, tendentious, borderline plagiarized work to show for it. Then you are entitled to be snobbish. Most of all because you are a counter snob.

Strange how being a snob is the worst thing you can tell someone they are in the US, really.

Snobbery is offensive to Americans. Many of us are descended from immigrants who were booted out of their own countries by people "better than them". It's why we find our European counterparts to be so eminently punchable.

Odd that you go after Nick, who's usually dragging around some form of Mamiya or Shen-Hao-- I don't think I've ever seen him with a Leica. His day job is as an established architectural photographer, and teaching photography classes, so I'm not sure why the hatred. His personality may grate, but his photography knowledge is solid.

Matt does have more than one Leica, and appreciates them, but he's less evangelical than, say, Sirius Glass is about Hasselblad's, and we tolerate him.

 

[Helge]

Snobbery is offensive to Americans. Many of us are descended from immigrants who were booted out of their own countries by people "better than them". It's why we find our European counterparts to be so eminently punchable.

Odd that you go after Nick, who's usually dragging around some form of Mamiya or Shen-Hao-- I don't think I've ever seen him with a Leica. His day job is as an established architectural photographer, and teaching photography classes, so I'm not sure why the hatred. His personality may grate, but his photography knowledge is solid.

Matt does have more than one Leica, and appreciates them, but he's less evangelical than, say, Sirius Glass is about Hasselblad's, and we tolerate him.

Yeah, I'm aware that is the story that is passed around in the subconscious 3rd place of most Americans.
It was "just" basically mass immigration, as has happen many times before due to overpopulation and/or lack of resources.

I don't see why you can't see that reverse snobbishness is just a whole other layer of snobbery on top of all the other perpetually existing layers, and often begets an explosion in straight snobbishness should the person ever be able to advance even the slightest bit.

Snobbery is a basic human emotion or condition that is neither good nor bad and will never and should never be eradicated.
There are more or less refined ways to aspire though, and several blind allies for the naive.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Most well-known street photographers shoot Leica - that's their review..

My point exactly. They don’t buy them or use them for the “status” they think they’ll gain by owning one.

 

[Don_ih]

They shot Leicas back when they actually made sense economically.

Most well-known street photographers still shoot Leicas.
Paying $2000 for the tools of your trade is not exorbitant. I have about $10000 worth of stuff I routinely haul around with me for work (not photography).
What I mean when I say the camera does what you want is that it only does what you want. It doesn't autoexpose, it doesn't autofocus. It's made to a degree of precision that, so long as it hasn't been used as a hammer or been taken apart by a clown, assures it focuses and exposes exactly as you direct it. A picture taken with it is entirely your responsibility, the result of your knowing how to use it. These are aspects that are important to some people. Simple operation that is reliable and exact enables your reaction time to decease drastically.
But it is just a camera. You can take pictures that are just as good with almost any other rangefinder. And many other rangefinders are also built to very exacting specifications and are highly reliable (those typically aren't free, either). What I'm saying about Leicas should not be taken to mean they are magic or anything.

 

[grat]

Yeah, I'm aware that is the story that is passed around in the subconscious 3rd place of most Americans.
It was "just" basically mass immigration, as has happen many times before due to overpopulation and/or lack of resources.

In the case of most of my ancestors, it was because incredibly short-sighted policies had left them with nothing to eat (I eagerly await your repudiation of the Irish Potato Famine). Another group of my ancestors were here long before you silly people with metal hats, and had their land forcibly taken from them. For you, it's a story. For us, it's history.

I don't see why you can't see that reverse snobbishness is just a whole other layer of snobbery on top of all the other perpetually existing layers, and often begets an explosion in straight snobbishness should the person ever be able to advance even the slightest bit.

I never said reverse snobbery was good either-- In fact, there's a whole swath of English, and American, culture that deeply mistrusts intelligence, science and success. It puts people like Boris Johnson and Trump in power.

Snobbery is a basic human emotion or condition that is neither good nor bad and will never and should never be eradicated.
There are more or less refined ways to aspire though, and several blind allies for the naive.

Or, in more colloquial terms, some people are just going to be dicks.

 

[John Earley]

I've owned a number of the cameras on the lists including M2 and M3 cameras. One thing I've noticed is that any camera that doesn't fit my style of photography I think are over rated. Cameras that fit my style I see as under rated. Cameras I can't afford are in between.

 

[Don_ih]

So, a truly underrated film camera: I have a Samoca something or other (it's a rangefinder) that was not working (shutter stuck). So, I took it apart and got it working. Used it for a roll, then it stopped working. So I took it apart and made it work again. Another roll. Stopped working. Took it apart and got it working. Back together, tried it a couple of times and it stopped working. Threw it in a box - where it still is. A darn shame.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Here in America, when we seem to be fumbling about, screwing everything up, haunted by our own history, we are inclined to remember out glory days, rescuing Western Europe (including Danes) from the folks who invented the Leica. If this should come across as reverse snobbery, may I humbly offer our collective apologies.
Time to go shoot my own under-rated camera: a Canon Ftb with a 35mm f/2.8. A really sharp lens!

 

[jay moussy]

...
Time to go shoot my own under-rated camera: a Canon Ftb with a 35mm f/2.8. A really sharp lens!

Tell me more!
I am trying to have a friend of a friend give me hers with lenses (TBD)... soon I hope.
Could be similar experience to the Konica Autoreflex A I have?

 

[Don_ih]

Get FTb ----> immediately replace light seals.

 

[grat]

My problem with the Leicas (and the Hasselblads), is that they can't possibly live up to the hype, and the current prices aren't justifiable. A Bronica SQ-A is not a 500CM-- but it's much, much closer in performance than the price difference would suggest.

My only rangefinder (Konica IIIA) was incredibly cheap until a month or two ago, when it suddenly jumped in price-- and is still, waaaaay less expensive than a comparable Leica-- and yet, it's frequently compared, in favorable terms, to the Leicas. I joke that it's like a Leica, but not as much.

 

[markjwyatt]

Leica is a top tier 35mm rangefinder. The Leica is the standard for 35mm rangefinders, and rangefinders have the mystique of peak photojournalism and street photography. When Zeiss and NIkon and others stopped producing rangefinders Leica kept on going for decades. Zeiss, Voigtlander, and others are still producing lenses for rangefinders, well Leica M-mount rangefinders. When was the last Contax or Nikon S-mount lens produced? Early 1990s? There are enough Leica repairmen still today to repair them, lenses being produced, etc. Plus you can adapt Zeiss Contax mount lenses to the Leica (but not vice-versa). This is why Leica is the standard. Is it worth the cost? To me, personally, no. I am happy to own a Zeiss Contax iia, which was better than the Leica of its age, and I would say close to as good as the M3 (M3 had some additional features, yes). If I were a professional, and depended on my rangefinder, then a Leica would be a much better choice, and would cost me professional money, as well the lenses to fit on it. A professional grade digital camera will easily set you back $3-6k for the body. Why shouldn't a professional grade 35mm rangefinder?

Finally Leica has the most aggressive marketing of any company anywhere. They amplified the benefit to cost ratio by 10x or more. Even though they stopped producing film cameras, we still argue about the Leica today! The PC-Mac argument has all but died, but not the Leica- everyone else argument. That is great marketing.

Keep in mind also that the top Leicas were never mass produced. The Nikon/Canon business model was low price, high quantity. The Leica (and I might add Hasselblad) model was/is low quantity, high quality. Is a Rolls Royce or Bentley that much better than a modern volkswagen? Same difference in business models.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Speaking of light seals, my wife an M3 that she inherited from her Dad and it hardly uses them; the way the body is constructed, the only felt seals are on opposite sides of the "back door". On this one, those seals are in great shape.
With respect to image quality, I can't see much difference between the M3 and my various Japanese SLRs, with one exception: the f/1.4 Summicron, even wide open, is nice and sharp! So I rarely bring out her M3, heaven forbid if somebody stole it, it was Dad's!

 

[markjwyatt]

Where did this doodoo come from? Based on what data? In the USA market, as of June 2021, you can still buy a brand new film M body.

https://leicacamerausa.com/m-a-typ-127-black.html

Are they still producing them? I wouldn't be surprised, just extends my argument. I thought they stopped production and are still selling stock, but would be pleased to be wrong. Pretty pricey though for what you get... At least add a built in exposure meter!

 

[Don_ih]

Leica community is the undisputed champion. 99.999% of photos they take are photos of Leicas, not photos taken with Leicas.

There are two distinct Leica communities (film Leicas, that is). One is the people who use them and don't really constitute a community. The other, the people who collect them, do constitute a community and like to show their stuff off. The collectors, for the most part, don't use them, and they have done much to raise the prices. After all, what's going to drive the price of an M4 up? The person who wants one to use or the person who just bought his tenth?

 

[Paul Howell]

Tell me more!
I am trying to have a friend of a friend give me hers with lenses (TBD)... soon I hope.
Could be similar experience to the Konica Autoreflex A I have?

The Canon has a brighter viewfinder, Konica is on the dim side, the Canon Ftb has a top shutter speed of 1/000 but lacks shutter speed priority, the Konica is a stripped down T, no mirror lock up or ME. Canon made really good glass, but I give the nob to Konica, some of the best glass made. If your friend does see fit to bestow her Canon on you look for a working Konica FT 1, has a brighter viewfinder than the T, T, T2, 3 and 4, integrated motor winder, AE lock and exposure compensation. Downside is electronic shutter, bright side works off AAA batteries. Konica midrange lens, 28 3.5, 50 1.7, 18, 1.4 135 3.5 or 2.8 and 200 F4 are still reasonable, the 57 1.2, along with fast glass like the 35 F2. are pretty pricey.

 

[Helge]

I’d love an FT-1 that works.
Very few of them still work.
Allegedly it has something to do with a flexi PCB where the contacts has oxidized.
Never had the time to look inside mine.
It’s a very nice feeling camera with heft and a solid well designed feel.

 

[rulnacco]

Quite frankly, there’s no Leica worthy of the hype, and they’re probably all overrated to some degree.... Give me a review written by Erwitt, Winogrand, or Arbus and let’s see how thy differ from the fanboy reviews. I’d bet they’d be wildly different tones.

I'm not sure what Arbus used when she was shooting 35mm, but she did eventually switch to a Rolleiflex, and then a Mamiya C33 before she did her most famous work. I don't know that Erwitt or Winogrand would either have bothered wasting time writing a review, they were far too busy actually making photos, but they both voted for Leica, absolutely and most definitely--they both used them throughout their careers, almost or entirely exclusively. In fact, Winogrand used *his* Leica so much, it ended up looking like this: https://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm. (I've never seen another camera with the sprocket holes worn into the pressure plate.) Given how prolific he was shooting film, I have no doubt he'd have used something else if the Leica didn't give him exactly what he wanted for tens of thousands of rolls. That's a hell of a review right there.

The whole point to me is that cameras are like musical instruments, particularly guitars: you use the one that will give you the "feel" you want, both while playing it and in terms of the output. For some songs, a Martin D-28 might give you the feel you want, where on another song, only a Tele will do. And a Fender Jazzmaster may give you the exact sound you want, but my understanding is that some people find them a bit of a b**ch to play. So yeah, sometimes your Sony A7III will be what you want to use, and others only an M2 with a collapsible Summicron will give you the feel you want. Some guitars are more fun to play, some cameras are more fun to shoot--and stay the hell out of your way while you're doing so. And in both cases, you have to be the master of your instrument--you better know how to *play* it if you want it to produce the results you desire. You might have the most expensive axe/camera in the neighbourhood, but if you don't know how to play it, you're gonna make crap. Conversely, someone who knows how to work a fretboard/camera can take a cheap, basic tool and make sweet music/images with it.

One other thing, speaking of photographers who can write: Diane Arbus was a brilliant writer (as was her brother, who won a Pulitzer Prize for poetry)--and she apparently was an extremely talented painter, too, although she abandoned that in her teens. Eugene Richards is a hell of a writer, too--his short captions for some of his photos are utterly heartbreaking. Gordon Parks, a truly extraordinary human being, could certainly wield a pen superbly capably as well.

 

[Paul Howell]

Back in the day the the U.S military did extensive testing, all branches used Leica, reliable, rugged, great lens, could take a beating. When it came to SLRS the Air Force picked Nikon, the Navy picked Topcon and Canon, the Army may have used both Nikon and Topcon, the Marines Nikon, but ever all branches used Leica until the the mid to late 70s. During Vietnam AP issued Leica and Nikon. Why? Because Leica is a performer. I would not put a M2, 3, or 4 down as overrated, they maintain their price only because folks crave a rugged camera with great lens that will last a lifetime, or many more lifetimes, the M2 is now 60 or so years old, and are willing to pay the price, well collectors have also driven up the price, but that does not diminish the functionality of a Leica.

 

[Helge]

Here in America, when we seem to be fumbling about, screwing everything up, haunted by our own history, we are inclined to remember out glory days, rescuing Western Europe (including Danes) from the folks who invented the Leica. If this should come across as reverse snobbery, may I humbly offer our collective apologies.
Time to go shoot my own under-rated camera: a Canon Ftb with a 35mm f/2.8. A really sharp lens!

How would that ever come over as “reverse snobbery”‽
That’s just some brand of humble bragging or whataboutism.

 

[Alan Gales]

A real journalist reports the facts, a columnist reports his or her opinion.

Unfortunately, for the most part, journalism is dead today.

 

[Helge]

Back in the day the the U.S military did extensive testing, all branches used Leica, reliable, rugged, great lens, could take a beating. When it came to SLRS the Air Force picked Nikon, the Navy picked Topcon and Canon, the Army may have used both Nikon and Topcon, the Marines Nikon, but ever all branches used Leica until the the mid to late 70s. During Vietnam AP issued Leica and Nikon. Why? Because Leica is a performer. I would not put a M2, 3, or 4 down as overrated, they maintain their price only because folks crave a rugged camera with great lens that will last a lifetime, or many more lifetimes, the M2 is now 60 or so years old, and are willing to pay the price, well collectors have also driven up the price, but that does not diminish the functionality of a Leica.

Everything in life can be considered on a cost to benefit scale.
A good Leica, without looking at the price (say as a loan or inherited, or the extremely few people in the world who can say “small” money for personal use is no matter at all) is certainly among the three best rangefinders ever, if not the best.

But the second you start to bring in cost/benefit it’s a very bad deal.

In some parts of the world you could get a pretty decent car for the money a complete Leica system will set you back.

Furthermore, If you ever only plan on shooting normal lenses, then a fixed lens rangefinder will get you 95% of the way there, even 130% in some ways.

The Barnack Leica which is the purest, not over refined version of the idea was originally made mainly for 50mm lenses. Everything else kind of was an afterthought.
That carries over to the M mount. With only slightly better accommodations for shorter and longer lenses.
Rangefinders are just not meant for tele work and macro.
Wide is slightly better. But even then you need correction glasses and hotshoe finders.

 

[Paul Howell]

A few fixed lens rangefinders have really good lens, the 38mm on the Konica S3 is a standout, but lacks the build quality of a Leica. When I was a working PJ I carried either a IIIG or Canon 7 as second body with a 35 or 28, some times a 50 1.4, quite, no mirror slap, no motor drive, and your right a rangefinder is ok with a 90mm, not so good with a 135, and even with a visoflex almost useless with a 200, no zooms, slow flash sync. I evenly started to carry a second SLR rather than a rangefinder. By the 80s very few PJ were using rangefinders, but that does make a M2 or 3 overrated.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, let's just say that Leica cameras are not underrated and so should probably no longer be talked about in this thread. Aren't there already 50 or 60 threads dedicated to arguing about Leicas?