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

firecracker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
1,950
Location
Japan
Format
35mm
Recently I had a chance to try a couple of new Zeiss Ikon bodies, hoping this would be it. But it turned out, they were not nearly as ideal for me. I just didn't like the 100% battery-dependent shutter system and the plastic nob for the different frame lines for the viewfinder. And they are about 1,000 bucks each like the old Leica M bodies.

So, I'm still in search for a good M4-p, M4-2, or M2 body to fulfill my needs. The store clerks who didn't keep any fresh batteries handy for the ZI bodies certainly did a wonderful job to remind me those were not the kind of cameras I wanted.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
191
Location
Korea
Format
35mm RF
Rolex is expensive, but isn't accurate as its price.
The same for Leica.

It is emotion, not the function.
But isn't photographic art an emotional work?
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
shoot some slides with a few other brands, then some with an M6, put them on the light table to have a look... -ensure you have some padding on the floor for when you get to the M6 bunch and fall off your stool (at least that's what happened to me..)

I've personally seen that little exercise sell at least a half dozen Leicas, both rangefinder and slr. I also know of a customer that challenged a salesman to tell the difference between (late '70s vintage) Nikor and Leica R glass. The customer shot paired shots with 50mm normals on a tripod with Kodachrome 25. The customer scrambled the slides (stamped sides down) on a light table and the salesman sorted them about as quickly as he could pick them up and put them down. He was wrong on one pair out of the 36.

Lee
 
Last edited by a moderator:

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format

Hi George,

Yes, if I had to choose the glass is the more important. However, there is something to be said about handling and using Leica glass on a Leica camera body. The cameras be they M, screw, R (or older SL) they just handle well and feel right in the hand. As to the M series lenses, do not forget that the ergonomics, hand holdable (or tripod mountable) body contributes to the final on film performance of the glass. Certainly the accuracy of the rangefinder, lens aperture and shutter (shutter damping, and if an inboard meter) will also contribute. As Roger has said, though expensive, well cared for the Leica bodies will last a very long time. Though the initial outlay may be high, averaging the cost of the camera body over such a long life really indicates how economical these camera can be.

Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm

Hi Rich,

The reason I ask is that I, being a Nikonian, went the RF route a year or so ago. I bought the "granddaddies" (i.e. a S2 and later a SP) but also picked up a couple of Cosina R2S bodies (er....multiple houses make for multiple cameras kits!).

I have a mix of Nikkor glass and some modern day Cosina glass.

I definitely prefer the Nikkor glass (old as it is) - but the Cosina body (which is identical to the R2A/R2M etc.) is a joy to use. It is much lighter and more ergonomic etc.

[Oh, and the TTL metering is nice too! ]

If I were to do it all over again, I'd just get Nikkor glass to use with R2S bodies.

I'm thinking this same equation works with Leitz lenses and Cosina's M-mount bodies too.
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
Hi George,

If you develop an eye for it and look at the film (negatives or transparencies) carefully I am pretty sure that you will be able to start to recognize some differences between the Nikon, Cosina, and the Leica/Leitz glass. I know that as mentioned people really experienced claim to be able to see and recognize the Leica from other brands for transparencies. When I print my transparencies digitally via the Chromira machine, Bill Nordstrom (Laser Light and my printer) suggests that the differences may become less evident and you may not be able to recognize the differences. Printing by hand in B&W or color you may well see a difference. I am still of the opinion that some of the difference with the Leica glass is attributed to the coatings that they use. But, I think that can in part be said about lenses produced by the big German makers including Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Rollei. I am of the opinion that as good as the Japanese lenses are, they use different coatings than the Germans, and it is a contributing factor of the on film performance.

Rich
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm

Hi Rich,

Rather than go in that direction, what my point is, is that perhaps the best way to go is to maximize spending on the glass and then go with a modern Cosina body.

Even after the intro of the digi M8 (which apparently has some serious problems anyway) a new M7 body will set you back a few kilobucks.

Start adding in the cost of Leitz glass and we're talking needing to have an inheritance from a rich uncle.

But, a Cosina R2A (or R2M etc.) body will only set you back around $500 or so.

Then, blow the budget on the Leitz glass and I think you will get the same quality of photos as if you had that M7 body.

Granted, the M7 body is built better and will last longer, but you can buy several Cosina bodies for fewer bucks and just "cycle" them!

[Oh, my analogy with my Nikons was simply to make the point that the lenses make the pics; not the body.]
 

DBP

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
1,905
Location
Alexandria,
Format
Multi Format
To get back to the original question, if you have never used a rangefinder before, and have a somewhat limited budget, I think you might first want to find out whether that style of shooting suits you. To that end, I would suggest trying one of the 70s vintage compact rangefinders. They have generally good optics along with the usual advantages of small size and quiet operation common to non-SLR cameras. Stephen Gandy's site www.cameraquest.com is a good source of information, as is Roger's book Rangefinder. Without knowing more about you it is hard to recommend a specific camera.

Once you know whether you want to use a rangefinder at all, then you can get into the brand wars, which date back to the 1930s BTW. For myself, I have been happy with a Bessa R and a Canon L, though I also use a variety of Soviet models and some old Japanese compacts on occasion (plus some lovely little 35mm folders and a selection of Argi). If you don't have a store where you can go and handle a Leica, the Fed 1 and Zorki 1 share the basic design, though not the build quality, of the Leica II. The feel of that camera in the hand is something special. Everything seems to be in the right place. The same is true of many of the copies.
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Format
Multi Format
Well as far as I am concerned...there is no big deal about a leica, they are expensive, but are good, but I have found over the years that there are many other good cameras as well as good glass, it is another tool in the whole scope of things and leicas will make bad pictures, just as well as the next camera..

Dave
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
I'm thinking this same equation works with Leitz lenses and Cosina's M-mount bodies too.

I've been very happy using a mix of Leitz and Cosina lenses on several Cosina bodies; T, R2, R3A. I love the 1:1 hotshoe and R3A finders with both eyes open, and I can afford several bodies for the different kinds of shooting and different kinds of films I like to keep loaded, and can carry two or three ready to go in a small bag. I get to use my favorite older lenses and collect affordable, interesting used vintage stuff, while filling in some (otherwise unaffordable) gaps with the best of the Cosina lenses.

Yes, the Leica bodies are better built, feel more solid, and will last longer. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the C-V bodies for what they are and what they offer for the price.

Like anything, you reach a point of diminishing returns per dollar spent when pushing the limits towards superb build and optical performance in a hand assembled camera. I agree with Roger that in the long run Leicas are a very good buy. It's just a matter of whether or not you can get over that initial price threshold and whether or not it's worth it to you personally to do so.

Lee
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
With Leica rangefinders? At or around $1000! I am a novice by all means (35mm SLR only) and am looking at trying out other cameras/formats. I apologize for the navitiy of my question. But what gives?

I would say one thing, before you buy any RF camera, make sure you at least handle a NEW Voigtländer or Leica. There are very many people who have decided that they didn't like RF cameras on the basis of a 30- or 40-year-old example with tarnished rangefinder prisms, which makes the RF patches very dim and hard to focus. As others have remarked, Leicas are more durable. smoother in operation and in fact not all that expensive if you average out the cost over 30+ years of ownership. Aside from these factors, however, you are virtually certain not be able to detect any difference in image quality between a shot with a Leica and one taken with a Voigtländer with the same lens.

Speaking as someone who has owned around 12 or 14 Leicas (screw-thread models and M3) over the years and now has Voigtländer R2a cameras, the only Leica I would want to own now would be the M7 (when I shoot 35 mm, I want to be quick and only like cameras with an automatic exposure (AE) mode).

Regards,

David
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roger Hicks

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,895
Location
Northern Aqu
Format
35mm RF
What about a Contax IIa or IIIa?
They aren`t that expensive and the quality is there.

Cheers

André

Dear Andre,

Very limited lens choice; expensive if you want good, late lenses; inferior finder (to M); bigger and heavier; wilfully complicated. When (not if) the shutter tapes go, you are looking at a VERY expensive repair. I'd be more inclined to say that the quality WAS there, 50 years ago, but nothing lasts forever. Not even my 1936 Leica IIIa.

Cheers,

R.
 

André E.C.

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
1,518
Location
Finland
Format
Medium Format

Dear Roger,

Wasn`t my intention to even risk a comparison with an M, there`s nothing to compare I think, they are different devices at also different prices.
Is the IIa bigger and heavier than the M? I can`t say, I never had one M to compare.
I just bought one Zeiss Opton Sonnar 5/1.5 for 150 euros, is that too expensive? Maybe, but how much would cost a similar Leitz counterpart?
I can`t afford to own a Leitz M product, but as far as I`m concerned and optically speaking, my Zeiss glass can be only matched, never surpassed.
Leica offers the highest possible standards in workmanship and that has a price for sure, but the Contax was and still is a great alternative at a different price.

Cheers

André
 

Uncle Bill

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
1,395
Location
Oakville and
Format
Multi Format
If you are looking to try out a rangefinder camera, start with the Canon Cannonet QL17 GIII with the 40 f1.7 lens. If you have some money, a voightlander Bessa R or R2a.

I own an early Leica M3, I love the camera, the single coated 50 f2 Summicron causes headaches on a bright sunny day with flare. I have taken some brilliant photos with it. Bear in mind you are buying into a mystique, which you will either dig or not. I would also look at screw mount Canon Rangefinders the P and the 7. I find Rangefinder photography to be a very different frame of mind than SLR and I like that to keep things fresh.

If cost is no object, I want a Leica MP

Bill
 

Bromo33333

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
687
Location
Ipswich, NY
Format
Multi Format
[...] and in fact not all that expensive if you average out the cost over 30+ years of ownership. [...]

I believe this to be true, but the cost/price of entry is the real barrier.

[Warning - wet blanket alert!]
But, assuming no interest, a Leica M7 "starter kit" (M7 + 50/2 lens) is appx. US$4395.

Divide by 30 -- assuming a (generous) $1600 residual value at the end -- makes the "total cost" about $2795

If you were to invest the money and earned a conservative 8% interest for 30 years - the $4395 would be $44225. (This is the opportunity cost)

So... your total loss would be US$47820, or US$1567/year.

(By the way, this is NOT the reason to not get a Leica - these sorts of things are why you would save and invest more than the bare minimum over your life. And of course, this does not include any income you might be able to make off of it)
[/wet blanket]
 

Drew B.

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
2,310
Location
New England
Format
4x5 Format
With Leica rangefinders? At or around $1000! I am a novice by all means (35mm SLR only) and am looking at trying out other cameras/formats. I apologize for the navitiy of my question. But what gives?

really, nothing!
 

Tom Duffy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
969
Location
New Jersey
It's all about the shutter, and maybe the viewfinder and the size and the weight and the characteristics of the lenses . If you can shoot with an M camera and not appreciate that confluence of design and execution that not one other single camera model comes close to, then save your money.
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm

Great example Brent.

Sometime around 1980 or so people started using the word "invest" as a synonym for "buy".

Such as: "I'm investing in a new Leica." Or, "We just invested in a new BMW."

I guess this semantic change is a way of fooling oneself into purchasing luxury items by thinking of them as some kind of investment, rather than as the acquisition of a depreciable asset.

If you want a Leica and can afford a Leica, then by all means BUY one. But don't purchase it as if it is some kind of INVESTMENT. Because if you do, as Brent has shown, its a very unwise one.
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
First of all, if you want a new M7 you buy an M7. Unless you need the newest with the automatic exposure and more accurate shutter and meter, there are many other older Leica M cameras available. Additionally, unlike almost any other camera, the M series cameras and lenses maintain their value. So you can probably recover the money that you paid for that same camera and lens if you wish to sell it in the future.

Rich
 

Soeren

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,675
Location
Naestved, DK
Format
Multi Format
If you are looking to try out a rangefinder camera, start with the Canon Cannonet QL17 GIII with the 40 f1.7 lens. If you have some money, a voightlander Bessa R or R2a.
Snip>
<Snip
If cost is no object, I want a Leica MP

Bill

Good remark. I went that route and found that, at least in 35mm, the rangefinder was not for me. I might go RF in MF but thats just me, I'd rather spend my money on a M7 in a bigger format than go the leica way. Ofcource there is the size/shootingstyle issue but since my 35mm main camera is a F90X the M7II is not really bigger so I think I'd be comfortable with that. And its only a fraction of the leica prices too.
Cheers
Søren
 

Bromo33333

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
687
Location
Ipswich, NY
Format
Multi Format

Actually, bought new, a M7 will be $3400 for the body only. If yo don't like it and are foced to sell it, you might be able to get as much as $2600 for it. OUCH.

Then as it ages, it goes down in value. 50 year old examples (M3, M2, IIIg/f)that are in great (i.e. not used and abused much) go for about $600-800. And dropping.

The lenses residual value for a $1500 lens is about $500. That is a loss of about $1000.

Used, has a much shorter lifespan, but the hit is less, I will agree.

The Leica is not about "practical value" - it is about "luxury" "craftsmanship" and "durability" - and you pay for it. You tie up a lot of money (losing the ability to earn interest on it through investment) and you will likely not be able to get everything you paid for it if bought new or slightly used and held for a decade or more.

If the world was just concerned about killer deals only, damn the rest, companies like Leica would not exist, neither would Porsche, Range Rover, Jaguar, etc.
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format

The RFF is too busy having a huge circle jerk over the M8 at the moment to answer sensibly any question about *whisper* a film Leica...:rolleyes:

If you want to get into rangefinder cameras you could do worse than start with a Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa (R, R2, R3 etc).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Samuel Hotton

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
383
Format
Medium Format
Whats the big deal about Leica

Hello to all,
Excellent points made. Leica IS a camera to last your lifetime and perhaps your heirs lifetime. Buy one or two and you will never NEED another unless your a Combat cameraman, (they get broken, flooded and wore out) or into long telephoto or extreme wide or fisheye or microscopy. In those cases one might want a SLR type camera.
The M bodies and lenses are supurb, virtually flawless. If you shoot slides/transparencies you will PERHAPS see the quality difference DEPENDING on what camera/optical system you are comparing it to. IF you got your exposures spot on, IF your chosen processor got the processing spot on. As for the final product being prints, a very old saying is "Exposed through a Leica, printed through a Coke bottle bottom". If your printer or you for that matter is printing through a "Lord know what" enlarger lens, perhaps dirty, at a less than optimum f stop, the film plane is not parallel with the easel, you WILL NOT be seeing any of the Leica magic on those prints. If you have the skill and knowlege for complete control over EVERYTHING from the moment of exposure until you hold and view that dry print, Then you can say you are holding a Leica image. Few people can say this truthfully.
Another old saying "If you can't make them good, then make them big". I've always held that if you want a big print, use a bigger piece of film. If you wanted to try something, try this. Take a 35mm camera, with a normal 5cm lens, yes a Leica with a chron will do. Load it with your favorite film, B&W is fine. THEN beg or borrow a 2 1/4 camera such as a Yashica mat 124. Keep it cheap, no need for a Rollei or Hasse. Load your cheap Yashica with the same emulsion as was loaded in the Leica. Take them both out on a tripod with cable release and shoot the same objects. Process both rolls together in the same chemicals and then print the 35mm negs and the 6x6 negs to perhaps 11x14 inches. It would be ideal if they could be printed with the same enlarger. You WILL be amazed at how much better the 6x6 print looks compared to the 35mm enlargement, even when exposed on a relatively cheap 6x6 camera. Square inches of film always wins, no matter how "Perfect" the 35mm lens is. NOW back to the comment of "If you can't make them good, make them big". If you wish to make prints no bigger than a 5x7 or 6x9 inch print then 35 mm is BRILLIANT! I can honestly say that a properly controlled print from a full frame 35mm negative can rival (I didn't say beat) a contact print from a 5x7 negative. If you only make 4x6 prints produced by commercial photo finishers. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if you expose that film through a Leitz lens, a Argus C-3, a NIkon lens what have you, as long as that camera and lens are working up to specification, the film is fresh and your exposures are correct. At 4x6 inches you will HAVE TO do CLOSE side by side comparisons to see a difference and on the same roll on the same day, do to chemical and equipment changes at the printers. I see NO advantage image wise in using a M series Leica system for commercial, machine made prints less than 5 or 6 times enlargement.
In the past 40 years of being a caretaker and bodyguard for my Leicas, worring about knocking them into solid objects, someone stealing them, tying the camera bag to a table leg when out to dinner, slinging it under my arm in a suit coat and trying to dance with a lady, not going in areas where it will be recognized by punks that will mug you for it, trying to keep it dry in the rain, cool in the summer, warm in the winter, locked up when not at home, dear Lord what a slave I've been to my Leicas.
So now I am a retired Combat Cameraman/ Photojournalist/ picture maker. My Leicas, a IIIF, three M-3s, one M2 and a M6 are STILL locked up. So are my Nikon F and F4AS and the Hasse and the Rollei TLR. I still use them on the odd occasion. They are brilliant cameras for the working man, I'd say the best a photographer can get. Most of my shooting now is either printed by myself, yes on a Leitz enlarger, to believe it or not 4x6 or 5x7 inches, (not big but very good). If I want bigger prints, I drag out a 2 1/4 camera or a 4x5 or a 5x7 camera. One can only display so many 16x20 prints on the walls of a house. If I'm not doing my own B&W prints, then I shoot color and have it printed by a semi-custom commercial printer. My 35 mm cameras, I use, you might ask. Well I use a Voigtlander Bessa R with either a 61LD Industar or a Industar 50 or a Jupiter 8 or a Jupiter 3. My other casual use cameras are a Zorki 4 or a FED 1 or a Kiev 4. All with FSU lenses. They are GREAT FUN. As I said earlier for a 4x6 inch print it DOES NOT matter what camera or lens you use as long as it meets specification. Even at 5x7 the cameras I use will compete image quality wise with virtually ANYTHING using the same size film. These cameras will never be treasured by my heirs, have virtually no resale value and as one fellow said " He who steals my cameras, steals junk". They are fun to shoot, they produce wonderful images and I don't overly worry about them. I can go out and enjoy myself. Of the cameras mentioned the Voigtlander is the one to go for, superb.
HAVE FUN! Use the correct camera for the job. Don't get hung up on myth and mystique. The camera is only a tool, and what a fun tool it is. Any camera and film of today will produce images that Sudek, Stieglitz, Atget, or Bresson would be proud to record. You will see more difference and character change in your images by just changing a film and or developer combination than you will by changing camera brand or lens brand.
You have now heard a lifetime of experience with Leica cameras reduced to a few paragraphs. Make what you like of it. Now go out and make some worthwhile and memorable images and STOP losing sleep about what your images will look like if You just had a Leica.

All the best,
Sam Hotton
 

Bromo33333

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
687
Location
Ipswich, NY
Format
Multi Format

My first Rangefinder was a Kiev 4A - I loved how it worked and the pictures were a tad sharper than my Nikon FM2A with the 50/1.8 Nikkor lens, so I ended up getting a RF (Zeiss Ikon) this year.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…