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

PKM-25 said:

If you are a committed craftsman, obsessed about image quality and total sharpness, the new Leica aspheric M lenses simply leave everything else in the dust.

Click to expand...

If you are obsessed about image quality and total sharpness, you shoot a bigger negative, not a post stamp sized one.
I admire your enthusiasm but this is way over the top, "the new Leica aspheric M lenses simply leave everything else in the dust."


Cheers

André

Double post..

André E.C. said:

If you are obsessed about image quality and total sharpness, you shoot a bigger negative, not a post stamp sized one.
I admire your enthusiasm but this is way over the top, "the new Leica aspheric M lenses simply leave everything else in the dust."

Click to expand...

Working pro here Andre, they do leave other lenses in the dust when wide open, I should have clarified that. And I do use larger formats, but not for my Kodachrome project.

PKM-25 said:

Working pro here Andre...

Click to expand...

And?
Working amateur here.

Cheers

André

PKM-25 said:

I own 9 cameras and dozens of lenses, the only one I really want to shoot now is the Leica. If you are a committed craftsman, obsessed about image quality and total sharpness, the new Leica aspheric M lenses simply leave everything else in the dust.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Andre - if you have that committment, you should not be shooting 35mm anymore. You should move on to medium format or large format - since sharpness is much better maintained with smaller % enlargements.

It may be less expensive than keeping up with the "sharpness wars" in small format!

Like PKM-25 I have a range of cameras, to many I think, from 110 to 10x8.

I have a M6 and some Leica lenses that have become the only 35 mm I shoot with now. (I also shoot 645 with a very old Bronica). I sold my 35mm slr's except for an old Canon A1 (sentimental value) a while back. (actually used it the other day, hated it, big, noisy, hard to focus and compose, stupid light meter, come to think of it, is the sentimental value that strong....hmmmm anyone want an A1?).

Sure, shoot bigger format is the optimum answer, but street and spontaneous shooting with a field camera is, well, you try it and see how it goes. The Bronica is a bit better, but try using it discretely.....

"CLUUUUNNNNKKKK"

or carrying it in a small bag or jacket pocket.

I keep a Cosina/Voigtlander body and a Cosina 35 mm lens as a back up. I had to use the Cosina lens recently, and, as good a lens as it is, yes, you can tell the difference, even people who don't know much about photography can pick it.

In the long run it is a tool. This tool works for me, (and PKM-25 and lots of photographers), but it won't for everybody, especially those who don't like to have to think and use program settings for everything. For others its Nikon, or Canon. Whatever floats your boat, but it will take a lot to get me to move away from my Leica

And wide open, what lenses can compete

--------------------------------------------------
<I'm a snob. I have worked hard for a long time and now I am enjoying the rewards of my labors. I like the best. I shoot leica and Hasselblad, wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche. Life is too short to settle for second best.

If you develop the attitude of demanding the best in life you will find it in all areas of your life. Relationships, family, work, where you live, what you drive, what you own Etc...>
---------------------------------------------------

Lately I've been trying to decide whether to toss my Nikon gear and "move up" to Leica. After reading the above post, I think I will stay with Nikon.

Bromo33333 said:

I have to agree with Andre - if you have that committment, you should not be shooting 35mm anymore. You should move on to medium format or large format - since sharpness is much better maintained with smaller % enlargements.

It may be less expensive than keeping up with the "sharpness wars" in small format!

Click to expand...

That is dependent upon the subject matter and intent. If we take this beyond the situation of being able to use a tripod, certain lighting conditions, etc. RF have their place, though there are Medium Format RF cameras, they do not have the ability to shoot in such low light conditions hand held (unless using much faster film).

In addition, if we take 35mm to also include SLRs and not only RF cameras there is certainly a place for the usage of Leica SLRs as well as Canon, Nikon, etc. for such things as Wildlife, sports, and close-up photography. Medium format may be usable for some of these applications, though size, weight, expense, etc. may make their usage prohibitive. Additionally, though possible in Large Format, these are generally not the best camera for the job.

Additionally, certain photos (types) that I have taken are best taken with either 35mm or possible Medium Format Cameras in the field. Though some of the images could have conceivably been shot in Large Format, it would have been very difficult and possibly not practical with my Linhof Technikardan 45S. It is possible that they could have been done with a Linhof Super Technika or a Crown Graphic.

No camera or format is ideal for every subject. That is why we have many available. Unfortunately, most of us are not carrying or able to always carry the right camera for everything that we observe and want to record. That is we use what we have available at the time and work accordingly.

Rich

bkorites said:

--------------------------------------------------
<I'm a snob. I have worked hard for a long time and now I am enjoying the rewards of my labors. I like the best. I shoot leica and Hasselblad, wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche. Life is too short to settle for second best.

If you develop the attitude of demanding the best in life you will find it in all areas of your life. Relationships, family, work, where you live, what you drive, what you own Etc...>
---------------------------------------------------

Lately I've been trying to decide whether to toss my Nikon gear and "move up" to Leica. After reading the above post, I think I will stay with Nikon.

Click to expand...

I've been around a large number of camera purchasers since '73, and have heard the same "justifications" and attitude you're objecting to used for a large percentage of Nikon (and other brand) purchases, and from perhaps a greater percentage than you hear it from Leica users. Judging the brand by the user, or thinking the brand/model confers talent isn't productive, and isn't a good determinant of which camera you might find best for your own use.

If you want to get away from brand hubris entirely, you'll probably have to give up photography, even with Holgas. Or you could just let it slide and make your own decisions.

Lee

Bromo33333 said:

ALso shipped with a toolkit - which was a sign, though her car only broke down 5 or 6 times. And I had to tweak around with it since the dealer didn't seem capable of fixing it.

Click to expand...

Well, since I am comming from country which was part of the country who manufacture Yugo (former Yugoslavia) I can tell this:

Toolkit is (was) requred by law to have it in the cars here, so it is part of standard equipment here in cars. Zastava (manufacturer of Yugo) simply sells them in USA like here, that is toolkit included. Even if you drive Bentley or Rolce Royce or Ferrari or Porche or Chevy or whatever car, you will have to have toolkit in cars. If not, you will pay a fine if police stops you.

Yugo was not that bad car having in mind economy situation here. And that is reason for manufacturig it, people need cars and not have money for Golf(rabbit in USA), not to mention Mercedes or BMW or...

All Zastava cars are (were) more or less based on Fiat cars. Newest Zastava car, introduced few days ago, is based on Fiat Panda (in fact it IS Fiat Panda).

Just to tell...

Bromo33333 said:

I have to agree with Andre - if you have that committment, you should not be shooting 35mm anymore. You should move on to medium format or large format - since sharpness is much better maintained with smaller % enlargements.

It may be less expensive than keeping up with the "sharpness wars" in small format!

Click to expand...

Knickers. [Translation for those for whom English is not their native tongue: 'I do not entirely agree with your assertion'.]

I have a choice of formats from 8x11mm to 12x15 inch.

What I am always looking for -- and I do not think I am alone -- is the best possible quality for the best picture I can take.

I get more good pics with my Leicas than with anything else because I SHOOT more pictures with my Leicas than anything else.

Why do I use the Leicas most? Partly the objective quality (mainly contrast and sharpness) and partly -- probably rather more -- because I enjoy using Leicas more than anything else. If I enjoy the cameras more, I get better pictures: Q.E.D.

Second choice: MF, especially Alpa. Better tonality; better sharpness; fewer pictures.

Third choice: (fewest good pictures, though some are very good indeed, at least in my eyes): LF.

So much depends on what you shoot, and where, and when...

Cheers,

R.

Bromo33333 said:

I have to agree with Andre - if you have that committment, you should not be shooting 35mm anymore. You should move on to medium format or large format - since sharpness is much better maintained with smaller % enlargements.

It may be less expensive than keeping up with the "sharpness wars" in small format!

Click to expand...

Hmm, I think folks have missed the point entirely that the primary reason I chose the best Leica glass is so that I can do my Kodachrome project justice.
You can not shoot that film in any format larger than 35mm.

You can not shoot Kodachrome in any format larger than 35mm - well, not any more.

bKorites

Although Nikon made and still makes great cameras and glass, not moving up to Leica because of me is stupid. I admit I am an arrogant ass and I dont have time for people who waste their lives away but that doesn't change the fact that Leica is a truly great camera.

I have found that there is a reverse snobbery about Leica, mostly from people who cant afford to shoot Leica. I have had a few people tell me reasons why they would never own a Leica but I bet if every camera cost the same amount a lot of shooters would switch to Leica.

The sad thing is they can have it all if they develop the right attitude and work their ass off. If they say "I can't afford a Leica" they never will. If they believe they can have a Leica (also insert- Car, House, Education, relationship, Job...) and work for it they can have it.

What the mind can conceive and believe it can achieve.

You will not be disappointed in owning Leica but don't dump good Nikons to do it, you will miss them.

Raucous:

I've done the Rollex, Austen Healey, Volvo, Tartan racing sloop, BMW thing. I've come to realize that expensive toys do not necessarily equate to better toys, or to a happier life.

The Rollex has sat in my bureau drawer for 10 years because it doesn't work and never did keep good time; the Austen Healey was a piece of junk; the Volvo was a piece of junk; the Tartan, while exciting and enjoyable, was more trouble than it was worth. I do admit the BMW does still sit in my garage because if I sell it my wife will never let me buy another motorcycle. Besides, after 100,000 miles and 2 cross country trips I have grown attached to it.

I came close to buying a 911 once. But the salesman wouldn't give a penny on the price so I stomped out of the showroom in a snit. I have since heard numerous horror stories about the 911 and consider that day to be one of my luckier ones.

I find little pleasure in accelerating from 0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds knowing that I'm doing so in a poorly designed, poorly made, albiet stylish, piece of junk. My Toyota Tacoma, on the other hand, gives me great pleasure because I know it's probably the finest piece of engineering on four wheels.

You might be interested to know I once drag raced a guy on Rte 95 in New Hampshire. He was in a Porsche 911, I was driving my wife's turbo Volvo station wagon. I beat the pants off him. I watched him in my rearview mirror, in his sleek forest green 911, straining to keep up, the gold medallion on his hood receding into the distance... He probably needed a $6,000 engine job when he got home.

And the Tartan! Let me just say while it gave quite a ride, it was almost as much trouble as having 7 women in the house. Talk about maintenance!

I should also mention that I do own a Leica of sorts, a Z2X. When I bought it years ago the sale clerk recommended a Canon p&s or an Olympic Epic, which I had previously owned. The Epic was less than $100, the Canon slightly more. I went for the Leica, as the clerk shook his head, even though it was $330, because I assumed higher price meant better quality.

Well, shortly after the Leica's warranty expired, it quit. I remember that day well. I had slogged a few hundred yards out onto some tidal flats on a hot summer afternoon to get a shot of a stranded boat. That's when it decided to quit, as I stood there fuming, knee deep in mud. So I slogged all the way back to shore, hopped into my truck, drove home to get my $200 Nikon FM10, then slogged back out through the mud to get the pictures.

Leica fixed the Z2x for $140 plus shipping and I still have it. It quit again this summer, but I won't bore you with that story. Let me just say that the old FM10 once again came to the rescue.

Now about the Olympus Epic which you can buy right now from BH for $80 or so. The first one I had was bullet proof. It went everywhere with me and never failed. I found it one day sloshing about in the bottom of my sea kayak. I figured that was it for the Epic and was about to toss it overboard but decided to see if it could be rescued. I brought it home, flushed it out with fresh water, let it dry for a few day, then put a roll of film and fresh batteries in and - praise the lord - it came back to life and went another five years.

I do admit, in a side by side test, the Z2x does gives a better image, but not better enough to justify all its problems, certainly not it's 300 percent (plus repairs) greater cost.

As far as the acquisition of expensive toys somehow spilling over to a happy family life, I-don't-think-so. It's a lot more complicated than that...

Looking back I would have to say the things that gave me the greatest pleasure have been my Labrador retriever, my Toyota pickup truck (220,000 miles without ever having been in a garage for anything except brakes), and my Sharp watch that I got at CVS for $19.95 (the face even lights up when you press a button). It costs more than that to just put a new battery in my Orvis watch. It's easy to lose sight of things. After all, they only tell the time.

In the camera arena I would have to say I most enjoy my $200 Nikon FM10, although I did fit it with a $300 Nikon Tessar 45f2.8. It produces images as good as anything since, as we all know, the only things that matters in photography are the lens, the film, and the photographer.

I have other cameras but I like the FM10 because of its simplicity and its .86x, 93% split image viewfinder.

The thing that disturbs my about acquiring more Leica cameras is the reason why a lot of people seem to be buying them, this vague perception of Germanic quality (as in VW Jetta?) in spite of the litany of problems they seem to have. Just read some threads about the new R8 on photo.net!

I'll probably buy one anyway. Just thought I'd vent first.

You are reading about the M8 not the R8. The R8 is an R Series Leica camera, the predecessor to the new R9. R8 and R9 are great SLRs. The point and shoot cameras should not be compared to the M series and the R series Leicas.

Rich

And let me add....

I've always wondered where this notion of Germanic superiority in engineering came from. I think it probably stems from WWII when we were all dazzled by an array of German weaponry.

But we forget that an American plane, the Mustang, which was derived from the British Spitfire, is often called "the plane that won the war" because nothing the Germans had could keep up.

The tide has shifted to the East. Look at some astronomy web sites, Those guys really know how to test optics. Their favorite binoculars seem to be Japanese, especially Fujinons.

Every time I think of buying a Leica I feel like a lamb being led off to slaughter.

naturephoto1 said:

You are reading about the M8 not the R8. The R8 is an R Series Leica camera, the predecessor to the new R9. R8 and R9 are great SLRs. The point and shoot cameras should not be compared to the M series and the R series Leicas.

Click to expand...

Actually - not to start a religous war - I think all cameras need to be compared to each other and the job at hand.

I have an old Olympus XA that is a fantastic camera when I want something really, really small and still get great images.

Up in size I get to the 35mm - Kiev 4A ("built like tractor"), Zeiss Ikon and the Nikon FM2n. Zeiss is the sharpest picture, but I like all of them - they all do their jobs very, very well!

Then to the TLR's (Rolleicord III and Graflex 22)

Then to the SLR (Hasselblad).

Roger Hicks said:

Knickers. [Translation for those for whom English is not their native tongue: 'I do not entirely agree with your assertion'.]

Click to expand...

Roger, I have no issue with what you have said, and I agree without "knickers" (ummm... ) but I was responding to the posters comment:

If you are a committed craftsman, obsessed about image quality and total sharpness, the new Leica aspheric M lenses simply leave everything else in the dust.

Click to expand...

I did not catch the part about the number of pictures one might take - just obsession with sharpness. If you are as was quoted above - you would get the largest film you can, and do as little enlargement as possible.

Later it was revealed that it was Kodachrome 35mm - in which case, a larger format is impossible without changing to a different slide film.

I dont think the great superiority is in German engineering over other engineering but in the tradition German manufacturing of precision items as apposed to mass production of items. You will not maintain the same quality in a mass produced camera sold cheap as you will a low production camera made to tight tolerances with less regard to cost.

Actually the Leica quality and engineering of high quality goes back to about 1850 with the optics company that became E. Leitz and Company. This was one one of the old optical houses in Germany that made very high quality optics and microscopes. The company has always put real effort into the optical and mechanical operation of their equipment. Leitz along with Zeiss have always made some of the finest microscopes and optics. In 1913 Oskar Barnack invented the first 35mm RF camera that was known as the UR Leica (Lei from Leitz and Ca from camera). From that time and from its beginnings the company has a tradition of making outstanding optical equipment both optically and mechanically. Today, there are 3 companies with the Leica name after the retirement of the E. Leitz name. These are Microsystems company (which includes the Leica/Wild/B&L companies); the Geosystems Company; and Leica Camera, maker of 35mm cameras, binoculars, projectors, and spotting scopes. There is a loose connection still among the companies, but all strive for outstanding quality.

Rich

naturephoto1 said:

... In 1913 Oskar Barnack invented the first 35mm RF camera that was known as the UR Leica (Lei from Leitz and Ca from camera). ...

Click to expand...

Just a couple of small points - the Ur-Leica of course had no rangefinder and was by no means the first 35 mm still camera - you could say it was the first 35mm precision camera (all-metal). The Leica did not go into production until 1924 and it was 1932 before it acquired a built-in coupled rangefinder!

Regards,

David

Yep, leave it to a post about Leica to bring out the emotions.

Good old Leica, they make cameras built like "brick shithouses" that cost so much that innovation is virtually non-existent and improvements are rare.

The friggin' things are just basic camera bodies that have a coeterie of acolytes paying homage to them. Mainly because having spent so much money on a basic brick they HAVE to be "true believers"!

But granted, at least the film bodies had integrity.

Now, the company, no longer much of anything other than a brand, has slapped its name on some cheap glass for DSLRs under the Lumix name.

Then it comes out with it's much vaunted digiRF - the M8. And the damned thing renders black as purple! The solution? Put an IR filter on your lens to compensate for sensor flaws!

There you have it! The company that once made the finest (though only basic) camera bodies and superb glass telling you that in order for your new $5000 digicamera to shoot "true black" you have to put a filter on the lens!

What a crock!

Well George, my M6 cost me not much more than a SLR body and the three lenses a little more than Canon or Nikon glass. I waited and was careful in my purchases, I dont have a lot of money to throw around, unlike some. Personally I think people who buy new (cars, cameras etc) are nuts. I'd rather spend it on travel and creative pursuits, or food.

I have used Canon and Nikon extensively and I still think the Leica has the edge (and it's a big edge) if, and it's a big if, the Leica way of doing things is your way. Two weeks with a borrowed Leica a few years ago was enough to convince me that this was the system for me. Others mileage may vary.

As to the digital stuff, don't know much about that, and probably wont as it doesn't interest me. Film is what I use.

You will get people who buy Leica because of the cachet that goes with it, (was actually one of the things that put me off) but you also get people who buy Nikon because of "the brand" as well as Canon. And for the sort of photography they do a Voigtlander or an old T90 or Nikormat would be fine, but hey, not the same as new [insert camera brand here].

As to innovation, I like that they are simple and uncomplicated, the innovation happens behind the camera.

Well, I guess, I must give a little...

One thing special about Leica!!!! Is the fact it can generate a 13+ page conversation that will never end...

Now, I know for A Fact, if you asked what was special about a Minolta, or a fuji, you wouldn't get even a full page thread!

LOL



Dave