What's the big deal.... [about Leica]

mps · Nov 20, 2006

I am the naive chic that asked the question......I never expected such a plethora of responses. I now understand:confused: I definitely won't pass up an opportunity to test drive a Leica!

Unlike the rest of you,as it sounds anyway, I am new to photography and strictly shoot 35mm SLR. I am interested in broadening my horizons and am considering RF vs. MF. The bottom line is I love to shoot. My budget currently won't allow me to purchase a Leica so I will go with one of the many other suggestions. Thanks.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

mps said:
I am the naive chic that asked the question......I never expected such a plethora of responses. I now understand:confused: I definitely won't pass up an opportunity to test drive a Leica!

Unlike the rest of you,as it sounds anyway, I am new to photography and strictly shoot 35mm SLR. I am interested in broadening my horizons and am considering RF vs. MF. The bottom line is I love to shoot. My budget currently won't allow me to purchase a Leica so I will go with one of the many other suggestions. Thanks.

Canon P or Canon 7
Nikon rangefinder
Contax
Voightlander Bessa R
Keiv R4 so forth
etc
You can start out with a voightlander lens which is reasonably inexpensive considering prices, and move upto a leica lens later down the road. Even if you start out with screwmount, you can use them on Leica M bodies with adapters designed for specific focal length.

You'll find the rangefinders are a bit different style of shooting from a SLR, both have their plus and minuses.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

raizans said:
have you heard about the bessa r4a/m?

http://cameraquest.com/voigt4m4aintro.htm

*blink* *blink*

... I ... Hate ... You ...

Drools

livemoa · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Isn't the "wide open" vs "stopped down" more of a lens question?

Leica bodies are supposed to be rather good, but the lenses are the "why" of the system, no? If so, shooting at f2, 1.4 or f1 is more abotu the lens than the body.

Couldn't you get a Leica lens and a Cosina body and produce pictures indistinguishable from a "all Leica" system?

As an answer, I have a Bessa R2 which I use as a back up/second body if shooting two filmstocks. The R2 gets used about 10-20% compared to the M6. M6 body has never had a problem and I have had it for the same length of time as the R2. The M6 is second hand, the previous owner used it a lot in the 10 odd years he had it. He had it serviced before I bought it. Service man said nothing needed doing. The R2 is a piece of junk compared to the M6. Rangefinder needs adjusting all the time. Bits come lose, rewind lever came of in my hands last week (was easy to fix), film wind has failed twice (lose/striped cogs).

Photos from both are probably indistinguishable, but I find at very slow shutter speeds the M6 has less shake.

Maybe I got one of the bad R2's.

kb244 · Nov 21, 2006

If we were looking strictly at Base Lengths (the longer the baselength the more accurate the rangefinder is considered.) I thought the results to be a tad interesting.

Bessa R2 : .68x 36mm base = 24.28mm effective
Canon P : 1.0x 41mm = 41mm effective
*Leica M7 : .72x 69.25mm = 49.86 effective
Nikon SP : 1.0x 58mm = 58mm effective
Leica IIIg : 1.5x 39mm = 58.5 effective
Leica M3 : .92x 69.25mm = 63.731mm effective

*I know the M7 can have .52, .72 or .85 magnification

So just on base length and magnification alone, seems my Canon P is more "accurate" than a Bessa R, but barely touching a M7 with a .72x magnification (but not near a SP, IIIg, or M3).

Course I wonder what happens if you get a body you think is shitty, but has a 80mm base length, do you shoot sharper because of the base length, or do you shoot worse because you hate the body

Tom Stanworth · Nov 21, 2006

I think the RF645 could have been dynamite if only Bronica has not been so mean on the baselength and then had successful longer lenses. I have come to terms with the fact that I will only have a 45 and 65. For proper travel I will pair it up with my Leica M and perhaps the 35 and 90 lenses.

Qn on the Leica 0.85 bodies: Is the 35mm frame in the same position relative the the overal coverage of the finder as the 28 on the 0.72 i.e. right in the corners or is it less tight?

Biogon Bill · Nov 21, 2006

raizans said:
have you heard about the bessa r4a/m?

http://cameraquest.com/voigt4m4aintro.htm

Ye, I have, but it's not part of the current discussion because it's not available & will not be for at least another 6 months - announced for April.

However, the use of the R4 would require two bodies because this is a body strictly for wide angle lenses & has limited application with even a standard lens. Useless for anything longer. I want my 28 frame lines built into a normal viewfinder.

The biggest drawback of the R4 is that the effective baselength is only 20 mm - slightly more than a Leica CL. It should be great for wide angle lenses & is a very innovative design in that it will accomodate 21 & 24 mm lenses, but it is not a general use viewfinder. It should be a terrific tool when paired with an R3 for someone who wants to carry around two bodies.

Kudos to Cosina for a real breakthrough design in a dedicated wide angle body.

Biogon Bill · Nov 21, 2006

kb244 said:
If we were looking strictly at Base Lengths (the longer the baselength the more accurate the rangefinder is considered.) I thought the results to be a tad interesting.

Bessa R2 : .68x 36mm base = 24.28mm effective
Canon P : 1.0x 41mm = 41mm effective
*Leica M7 : .72x 69.25mm = 49.86 effective
Nikon SP : 1.0x 58mm = 58mm effective
Leica IIIg : 1.5x 39mm = 58.5 effective
Leica M3 : .92x 69.25mm = 63.731mm effective

*I know the M7 can have .52, .72 or .85 magnification

So just on base length and magnification alone, seems my Canon P is more "accurate" than a Bessa R, but barely touching a M7 with a .72x magnification (but not near a SP, IIIg, or M3).

Course I wonder what happens if you get a body you think is shitty, but has a 80mm base length, do you shoot sharper because of the base length, or do you shoot worse because you hate the body

The most precise modern rangefinder with standard magnification on the market is the Zeiss Ikon - better than a Leica, so I'll add it to your list:

Zeiss Ikon: .72 x 75mm base line = 55.5 mm effective base length

Just to knitpick your list . . . the base line of a Bessa R2 is 38 mm, so the effective base length is 25.6 mm.

kb244 · Nov 21, 2006

Biogon Bill said:
The most precise modern rangefinder with standard magnification on the market is the Zeiss Ikon - better than a Leica, so I'll add it to your list:

Zeiss Ikon: .72 x 75mm base line = 55.5 mm effective base length

Just to knitpick your list . . . the base line of a Bessa R2 is 38 mm, so the effective base length is 25.6 mm.

If it was better than a Leica wouldn't you want an effective baselength over at least 63mm (M7 can get 58mm with a 0.85x viewfinder)?

kb244 · Nov 21, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
I think the RF645 could have been dynamite if only Bronica has not been so mean on the baselength and then had successful longer lenses. I have come to terms with the fact that I will only have a 45 and 65. For proper travel I will pair it up with my Leica M and perhaps the 35 and 90 lenses.

Qn on the Leica 0.85 bodies: Is the 35mm frame in the same position relative the the overal coverage of the finder as the 28 on the 0.72 i.e. right in the corners or is it less tight?

The higher the number(mag), the less likely you'll see wide angle frame lines. So for example on a .85 the 35mm frame lines may be very tight depending on the original base length.

Biogon Bill · Nov 21, 2006

kb244 said:
If it was better than a Leica wouldn't you want an effective baselength over at least 63mm (M7 can get 58mm with a 0.85x viewfinder)?

As I said ". . . with standard magnification."

The problem with the high magnification viewfinders is that you lose on the wide angle side. The .85 M7 viewfinder does not have 28 mm frame lines, the Zeiss Ikon does.

Same problem with the Bessa 1:1 viewfinder; the 35 mm frame lines are replaced with hard-to-see 40 mm frame lines.

Biogon Bill · Nov 21, 2006

kb244 said:
The higher the number(mag), the less likely you'll see wide angle frame lines. So for example on a .85 the 35mm frame lines may be very tight depending on the original base length.

The remarkable thing about the Zeiss Ikon is that this rule does not apply since it has an oversized eyepiece. Even with its slightly higher magnification than a .72 Leica M7, most people report that the 28 mm frame lines are easier to see.

kb244 · Nov 21, 2006

Biogon Bill said:
The remarkable thing about the Zeiss Ikon is that this rule does not apply since it has an oversized eyepiece. Even with its slightly higher magnification than a .72 Leica M7, most people report that the 28 mm frame lines are easier to see.

Hrm kinda like my lifesize viewfinder on the Canon P, with 35mm readily visible.

Tom Stanworth · Nov 21, 2006

In terms of rangefinder magnification, it is not just a question of accuracy due to effective base legth surely...is it not also related to how small or large the image appears in the finder regardless of focus issues. I am sure even if you can focus your 90mm easily on the 0.72 finder it does not feel as good as using a higher mag finder where things dont seem so small and far away! Should be quicker to focus even if the end result is not more 'accurate' shoudl it not?

I know the higher the mag the more of an issue short lenses are but what I was after was a direct comparison of the 0.72-28mm frame line visibility with the 0.85 and 35mm visibility. I am not comparing like with like as I know the 0.85 does not have a 28mm frameline! Clearly the 35mm is appreciably longer and wondering whether the 0.85 finder has more space outside the 35mm than the 0.72 does with the 28. I dont wear glasses so this is not a major issue, just curious.

I had another random thought. A rare few people state that the heavier brass based silver chrome lenses are 'stronger'. I personally think this is BS. The Aluminium ones are appreciably lighter that is for sure...which should mean (trying to remember GCSE physics here..badly) that with Force=Mass X Accelleration (a constant?), the heavier lenses hit the ground if you drop them, with more force. This should mean the optics are more rather than less likely to be damaged/misaligned on the heavier chrome lenses, should it not (go easy on me if I have got this @rse about face). Utterly pointless observation and I apologise. I'll get my coat.

Biogon Bill · Nov 21, 2006

raizans said:
since there are no standard mag viewfinders with good 28mm framelines, a second body is a great idea. not even the zeiss ikon let's you see the whole 28mm frame.

I beg to differ . . .

. . . but to each his own.

Bromo33333 · Nov 21, 2006

mps said:
I am the naive chic that asked the question......I never expected such a plethora of responses. I now understand:confused: I definitely won't pass up an opportunity to test drive a Leica!

Unlike the rest of you,as it sounds anyway, I am new to photography and strictly shoot 35mm SLR. I am interested in broadening my horizons and am considering RF vs. MF. The bottom line is I love to shoot. My budget currently won't allow me to purchase a Leica so I will go with one of the many other suggestions. Thanks.

Hey there!

As someone who recently started using a Rangefinder - there are a couple of options.

One would be to pick up an inexpensive FSU camera - usually less and $100 for one that works. Will give you a feel for the "rangefinder experience" though will be built "like a tractor" in feel. I did this.

Then if you are on a budget and want to trade up, the Voigtlander is probably your best bet new. I saved up a bit and got a Zeiss Ikon with 35mm/f2 lens, but a similar setup for the Voigtlander would have cost abotu half of what I paid.

So....

Good Luck!

It doesn't *have* to be a Leica, they are no doubt a fine camera, but there are other options there as well!

mps · Nov 21, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Hey there!

As someone who recently started using a Rangefinder - there are a couple of options.

One would be to pick up an inexpensive FSU camera - usually less and $100 for one that works. Will give you a feel for the "rangefinder experience" though will be built "like a tractor" in feel. I did this.

Then if you are on a budget and want to trade up, the Voigtlander is probably your best bet new. I saved up a bit and got a Zeiss Ikon with 35mm/f2 lens, but a similar setup for the Voigtlander would have cost abotu half of what I paid.

So....

Good Luck!

It doesn't *have* to be a Leica, they are no doubt a fine camera, but there are other options there as well!

Thank you! I will post an update of my learning experiences with a non-Leica RF hopefully in the near future!

What's the big deal.... [about Leica]

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency