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

[Bromo33333]

To what end though. At least Leica has a digital or two, and teamed up with panasonic for their market. If a graflex company of some sort would been revised, I can't think of what they'd do to survive or compete, and not like Kodak would want to team up with them. No offense to the kodak lovers (I could care less bout their stuff lately aside from emulsions), but the last time kodak ever made a serious contender of a camera was the Kodak Ektra, or least their finest attempt at a camera.

This woz just a joke! Relax!

But if Graflex were to be reborn in their original place (here in Rochester), they could easily team up with Kodak.

I think the real money in optics isn't cameras but industrial imaging as well as so-called "electro-optics."

 

[kb244]

This woz just a joke! Relax!

But if Graflex were to be reborn in their original place (here in Rochester), they could easily team up with Kodak.

I think the real money in optics isn't cameras but industrial imaging as well as so-called "electro-optics."

I know it was a joke, but I like to get hypothetical, in my opinion Kodak wouldn't bother, but thats just my opinion of them.

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

My wife is going back to school - she went to community college for 2 years, and now she is at a University. All paid for with loans. THis is how people do it here - and you can borrow enough to do it. And given 70% of the population have some form of higher education shows that the system certainly works in getting people educated. Rarely are financial considerations the main driver.

The key word here is 'wife.' She's not a single parent, or even an individual who must pay for rent and sustenance and transportation on her own while financing and attending school. She's in an area with ready access to a community college and a university without transportation hardships (or being forced to relocate).

It also means that she's a reasonable candidate for loans - something an unmarried, high-school diploma'd woman (or man) without means might not be.

I'm not sure where you get that 70% of the population has some form of higher education - the national percentage of individuals who hold a bachelor's degree is around 25 to 27%.

There are people from other countries that do this - no lie. But again - so what.

The so what is that the story is patently and identifiably false, just a string in the 'brown menace' charges we in the southwest have grown so accustomed to lately.

Think about it logically - these are women with enough wealth and status to fly into the US - requiring visas - stay here, and give birth... but they're doing it to screw one single unnamed hospital in Texas? Why Texas? If they're flying, why not California? If they're wealthy, why not fly to any number of equally reputable clinics in Central and South America?

It's apocryphal and it's bigotry. And it's pathetic that anyone might believe this crap, much less spread it further.

 

[Bromo33333]

The key word here is 'wife.' She's not a single parent, or even an individual who must pay for rent and sustenance and transportation on her own while financing and attending school. She's in an area with ready access to a community college and a university without transportation hardships (or being forced to relocate).

You have a good point, but I would like to add that anyone in that situation will have a hard time going to school. A lot of people manage to - my wife met a number of folks in a similar situation to the one you described pursuing a number of courses of study that would lead to a variety of professions. New York has a couple of program that help a little (but only a little).

Though, a single parent will have a heck of a time without any sort of family help in the US, even after the degree is earned.

It also means that she's a reasonable candidate for loans - something an unmarried, high-school diploma'd woman (or man) without means might not be.

Actually loans are easy to get if you are studying towards a known profession. This is not a barrier. You may qualify for assistance if your situation is even more finanacially strapped - and if this is your first degree thatere are thousands of dollars available in the form of grants and scholarships. The toughest cases for funding are families of middle class means that didn't save for their kids' school, and the kids will have to take out all kinds of private loans since no aid is forthcoming. The wealthy and the very poor have the easiest time paying for school.

I'm not sure where you get that 70% of the population has some form of higher education - the national percentage of individuals who hold a bachelor's degree is around 25 to 27%.

Here is a source - looks like it is more like 50%, my mistake. LINK

 

[kb244]

Bromo you are reading the graph wrong. Its around 13 - 15% for someone holding a bachelor degree. About 30% for those with a High School Diploma or GED. If you scroll down you'll see the numbers themselves if you cant quite decipher the bar graph.

 

[Andy K]

What's the big deal about Leica? These days they are just another digicam maker (and not a very good one at that), so who gives a shit?

 

[Bromo33333]

Bromo you are reading the graph wrong. Its around 13 - 15% for someone holding a bachelor degree. About 30% for those with a High School Diploma or GED. If you scroll down you'll see the numbers themselves if you cant quite decipher the bar graph.

The way I see it:

Graduate and professional + Bachelors' + Associates + some college w/o degree = 50%+

So I am not sure what you are coming from, it appears you are discounting 'grad school', 'associates' and 'some college w/o degree.'

 

[kb244]

The way I see it:

Graduate and professional + Bachelors' + Associates + some college w/o degree = 50%+

So I am not sure what you are coming from, it appears you are discounting 'grad school', 'associates' and 'some college w/o degree.'

True True, was being too literal.

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

I was discounting associates' degrees (the impact of an AA is fairly minor - in terms of income and social status), and post-grad is inclusive of those who hold a BA/BS.

Even if you include AA/AS on the graph shown, they show right at 30% - nowhere near 50%.

'Some college,' of course, means that the individual didn't receive a degree or any of the benefits - and would go to my argument about the difficulties faced by some individuals in attaining a degree. They had to drop out, did they not? Is that not generally an economic decision?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

This is not a debate about formats. When a MF camera is produced that is as small as a Leica M, then "if you are serious you need to shoot MF+" would hold some water (there still being DOF isses). Anyone who thinks that ANY MF camera can match 35mm for portability and speed of operation is deluded. I own one of the smallest MF cameras around - the Bronica RF645 and it is still substantially bigger and heavier than a 35mm RF...appreciably less portable than my Leica M. If format size was the be all and end all in image making we would all be shooting 10x8 wouldn't we??? If you do not understand that the practical handling of a camera has a distinct bearing on the images you can capture (or not) then, well, blimey! If you dont get the shot or it is not focussed it is a bit academic whether it would have been sharper and with finer grain....

The point surely is why Leica....assuming 35mm is the most appropriate format for your ends?

Well, they are exceedingly expensive but they are also exceedingly good at certain things. An SLR is better for 'most' situations but if your interest is in quick street shooting where you need something tiny to carry under your jacket, something quiet, the Leica M is a superb option. I would never sell up my other kit and use Leica M only as my Leica M is not that flexible and cannot cover the full gammut of 35mm applications. It is however exceptional for street and ultra light travel work. The lenses I cannot comment on, but the opinions of objective people do tend to suggest that they really are exceptional. I own Zeiss ZM lenses and one Leica 90mm which I have just recieved and so not used yet. The lenses are also tiny. The wide open performance is borne out by tests i.e. very good indeed and this is in part related again to their application - not generally used stopped down on a tripod for landscapes! I would suggest confidently that there are very few if any lenses in use that can compete with a Leica 35 f2 or 501.4 ASPH wide open...thats if they are as fast to start with. If you shoot at f1.4 and f2 a lot this matters, if not it is irrellevant, which is also OK....

The only answer to this thread is "what does Leica do for you". If the answer is 'nothing', that is just fine. I am sure any sensible Leica owner would understand this as we all have different priorities. I had always held the opnion that Leicas were lovely but offered nothing I needed until I got into street shooting. I then found that (regrettably - because of the cost!) Leica Ms did offer what I wanted but I balked at the obscene price. Up until this point they did offer me nothing. My LF was king for landscapes, MF for general travel perhaps with a 35mm SLR thrown in for longer lenses, motordrive and where AF was preferable. I only bought the Leica, despite accepting that it di offer me some benefits, because I found that for the first time I would afford one. Were this not the case I would have aimed for a Voigtlander or possibly Zeiss Ikon Z1 and would have gotten 90% of what i wanted.

If you walk the streets and want a small, solid, well made, quiet camera which is instinctive to use, has fantastic lenses, 35mm RF makes sense. Voigtlander has only just produced a camera with a mechanical shutter. None are as quiet or solidly made as a Leica and they all handle differently. Leicas arguably (and who cares why) hold their value exceptionally well, esp if you buy used. They can be repaired and kept on the road for decades in a way that few cameras can (so you get continuity of handling) , have a very simple operation and are also a pleasure to own. There are alo tonnes of used bodies and lenses about and you can bet there will be for a long time to come. Yes the pleasure of ownership and use is important to some but bear in mind plenty of pros still use Leica Ms for certain work and this is purely for practical reasons.

As for Leica Rs, they dont do it for me. I would rather use an eos 3. There may be those who would rather use a manual camera and who want the exceptional wide open performace of Leica lenses in which case a Leica R might be a good bet (if you can affod it and justify it). Now that the new Zeiss lenses are available in Nikon mount etc, I suspect that there will be an adverse impact on Leica R tho....Just as the Zeiss ZM lenses muct be having a big impact on Leic M lens sales. They offer IMO a better price performance ratio. I bought my ZMs for half or less of the price of the Leica equivalents. I went for a Leica M body because at present, there is no direct equivalent for me and my reasons.

 

[Bromo33333]

This is not a debate about formats. When a MF camera is produced that is as small as a Leica M, then "if you are serious you need to shoot MF+" would hold some water

It all depends upon your goals - so there aren't hard an fast absolute answers.

If you want the sharpest photo possible, the larger formats give you the best results. You do trade off some potability and some speed (though the Mamiya 7ii may be one of the most production RF (compact) in MF, followed by the Fuji's)

If you want to shoot a whole lot of photos Leica-style and the 35mm format is sharp enough for you - then this is the best choice.

I owne small and medium format cameras.

 

[Tom Duffy]

What's the big deal about Leica? These days they are just another digicam maker (and not a very good one at that), so who gives a shit?

Wow! What an incredible contribution to the debate! I'm so glad I checked back on this thread!

 

[removed account4]

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?

they are good cameras + lenses that hold their value with a cult following ( as you have been able to tell )

 

[Tom Stanworth]

they are good cameras + lenses that hold their value with a cult following ( as you have been able to tell )

True. Cults are both good and bad! I have heard the horror stories about people going to camera clubs and finding that the conversation revolves around the one member who has a special Leica, the owner being treated with reverence (and whose crappy snapshots are admired for their 'amazing microcontrast') . The cult does have insanity about it at times and I cannot stand that BS. My ownership is related to practical 'M' issues and an appreciation for the engineering but with the context of real photographic pursuit.

There are utter idiots out there who shoot down anything non-leica esp if it begins to challenge their idols. Look at the early attack used against Zeiss ZM lenses by a few cretins....when unbeknown to them Putz of all people was breaking ranks saying that the ZM lenses were superb (but differnet in character), rivalling or equallying Leica optics and representing fantastic price-performance relationship! Many take such positions without ever having laid hand on let alone used the competitor lenses they are criticising! Its laughable. one interesting exercise is to have a look thru the galleries of people with such views. It tells you a LOT. It really is akin to the pitiful online debates about which would win 'Lion vs Tiger' or which was the best WW2 fighter bomber.....(ignorant schoolboy squabling).

Equally there are those who will slag off Leica kit regardless as they simply refuse to acknowledge that Leicas have anything to offer over and above a box brownie. It cuts both ways, both extremes tending to throw any objecivity out of the window from the off.

 

[eddym]

Obviously the big deal about Leica is that just asking the question generates 190 replies in this forum. Shall we try for 200?

 

[André E.C.]

Obviously the big deal about Leica is that just asking the question generates 190 replies in this forum. Shall we try for 200?

So many replies because there`s no consensus on "What`s the big deal about Leica", if everyone knew "what `s the big deal about it", we will end up with 5 or 10 replies.
I can`t see "what`s the big deal about Leica", even if I recognize the superior workmanship of the Leitz products, I can`t possibly understand those prices.
Leica shooters make the wide open shooting rendition as an advantage, now I ask, how often users shoot wide open?
I can`t really understand why someone wanting top quality would spend serious money on 35mm, for the outrageous sum of a Leica, I buy a bigger negative 6x7 size M7II.
Still an RF, top quality optics, bigger negative, portable, etc etc etc!

So, whats the big deal about Leica?

Cheers

André

 

[David H. Bebbington]

So, whats the big deal about Leica?

Cheers

André

No definitive answer, but a small case study: I recently noticed that the rangefinder of my Bessa T was out of alignment. I sent it to my usual repairman. When I spoke to him on the phone about this, he remarked that the Bessa rangefinder mechanism is relatively crude compared with Leica, which makes it firstly more susceptible to knocks and secondly harder to adjust.

As I have already noted on this thread, for the kind of personal project photography I do these days, almost always in Northern Europe and not too far from a mailbox, a Bessa at 1/5 of the price of a Leica is fine. If I was going further afield and shooting pictures that I was going to sell for a lot of money, I probably couldn't afford NOT to have a Leica (others have questioned what the point is of Leica R cameras. They could get one answer from the National Geographic photographers who choose Leica R as being able to stand up to extreme conditions (jungle, desert), even though at the end of a trip 2 bodies may still be working out of 20).

A true comparison of price would, I think, be between a Leica M and, say, a Nikon F6. The price difference here simply reflects the fact that Nikon is able to spread development costs over a much longer production and is also able to spend more on production engineering in the first place to make their cameras cheaper to build. In turn the longer production runs simply indicate that an SLR camera is overall more versatile than a rangefinder, which is why Leica sales have been dwindling ever since the Nikon F appeared back in 1959

Regards,

David

 

[frank]

When you buy a new car, you can spend $15000 or you can spend $60000 and more. What's not to get about Leica prices? You have a choice of cameras just as you do with cars. What's not to get?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

.....Leica shooters make the wide open shooting rendition as an advantage, now I ask, how often users shoot wide open?
I can`t really understand why someone wanting top quality would spend serious money on 35mm, for the outrageous sum of a Leica, I buy a bigger negative 6x7 size M7II.
Still an RF, top quality optics, bigger negative, portable, etc etc etc!

So, whats the big deal about Leica?

Cheers
'
André

Your post in many respects answers the question of 'why is there no clear answer?". The closest you can find is a Mamiya 7 which is a totally different type of camera compared to a Leica M! Compare Leica Ms to Voigtlanders or Z1s by all means but you suggest anyone who wants 'top quality' has to ditch 35mm!!!! Of course the Mamiya 7 wins hands down on image quality alone, as does my Bronica RF645 (I know some Leicaphiles would debate this but I think they must be insane). If I had one camera in the world for everything, for me I would also pick the mamiya. If I was doing landscape work I would pick the Mamiya 7 any day. BUT if I needed a 35mm rangefinder (inconspicuos, small, lightish, fast lenses etc) and could afford it I would pick a Leica M...because a 35mm RF has many advantages over a bigger, slower camera! Technical quality is poorer with the 35mm, but the speed and small size allows for opportunities bigger cameras do not.

If you understand street shooting you would know that a lot of the best of that genre would never have happened had the Henri CB's of this world been toting about Mamiya 7s....

The 'whats special about Leicas' is two seperate questions as I tried to suggest before:

Why Leica M (because until recently it had no competition and in some specific respects still doesn't)?

Why Leica R (Because there are so many other SLR options)?

The answers are always going to be personal and some may run common to both (quality etc), but most people think Leica M when they think Leica.

Andre, in response to your posting, I think you miss the point: It would seem top quality to you would mean fine grain and the utmost detail. This is not the same for everyone and it is not always possible without tripod. For some top quality means 'being able or inclined' to get the shot in the first place. If you miss the shot on a bigger camera/format, youve got nothing, obviously. A grainer 35mm is obviously 'better quality' as it exists..... Tripods not exactly being practical for street/documentary photography..see the below scenarios, all of which are from experience.

Just some thoughts on RFs (as you suggest a Mamiya 7 for 'better quality' [results]). I can fit my Leica M (or any small 35mmRF) under my coat and a 4 lens kit in my pockets or in tiny belt pouches. I can walk about all day unencumbered. I can even carry a spare body (at just over an inch think) under my coat on a strap without noticing. Can you do this with a mamiya 7? - No. You need a camera bag over your shoulder or you have to leave lenses at home. How do you think this freedom from bags affects my mobility, freshness, enjoyment of a solid day (or days) on the street? The Mamiya 7 is most definetely not an under the coat camera, but an over the coat camera - do you ever get concerned walking about with it in full view for hour upon hour upon hour, sometimes in the same area (or do you put it in your case and miss opportunities?). The use of a second body means even more bulk for you - an even bigger bag. For me, another 500g under the coat on a strap - its no bother. I can put 50/100 speed in one and 800-1600 in another. Along with fast lenses, who will be more flexible in varying light (yes you can put fast film in the mamiya 7, but your lenses are slower so you still are, well, much slower). I also now have that slow film body to close the gap on your 800 iso now even in comparative terms....You are now really screwed if you come out into the light as you have 800 film loaded and only a 1/500 top speed! Mine might be only 1000 (or 2000 if bessa) but I have a slow film body so can still shoot opened up. To be as flexible you really need that second body but get tired from the weight and walking...I stay out longer and take more shots....Where we can both shoot at 1/125 @ f8/11 your shots look better. But you have to mess about with shutter curtains to change lenses which you have to get from your zipped and strapped bag. I dont. You have to change film nerly 4x more often than I do, so I dont run out nearly as often mid flow' as you do. My camera focuses much closer for people shots and is less intrusive as it is half the size. I have no problem focusing my 90mm. Your 150 gives you tonnes of grief. Your rangefinder may (in case of quite a few Mamiya 7s) keeps losing alignment. Mine does not.

PS. If you choose aperture to get a specific DOF effect you need to stop down one to two stops more for the same DOF effect in any case. You therefore NEED a faster film to maintain a shake free shutter speed. You still have better quality overall even with faster film as you have whopper negs, but when you run out of F stops you are in real trouble. I keep shooting. Think this never happens? Ever tried taking handheld shots indoors, in train stations....cafes?

The Mamiya 7 is incredible, as is the RF645 (which I own). A competitor for a 35mm RF (Leica M) they are not, in many areas. They are far better in other way, but horses for courses. The only competition for a Leica M is another 35mm RF (or for R series, an SLR)! Then ask why Leica.........

 

[DBP]

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 P-51 Mustang was a completely original design, which suffered in early versions from the Allison engines that powered many American fighters. Refitting it with the Merlin used in many Spitfire marks resulted in a fighter with extraordinary range, a reliable powerplant, and fine performance. (I understand that it was not nearly as pleasant to fly as the Spitfire.) Saying the Mustang was derived from the Spitfire is as accurate as saying that the Hurricane was. Same powerplant, that's all.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

The P-51 Mustang was a completely original design, which suffered in early versions from the Allison engines that powered many American fighters. Refitting it with the Merlin used in many Spitfire marks resulted in a fighter with extraordinary range, a reliable powerplant, and fine performance. (I understand that it was not nearly as pleasant to fly as the Spitfire.) Saying the Mustang was derived from the Spitfire is as accurate as saying that the Hurricane was. Same powerplant, that's all.

I should not have mentioned WW2 warbirds should I?

Absolutely. The P51 airframe was in no way derived from the Spitfire. As for being the 'fighter that won the war' I think this is more because of incredible range rather than speed or maneoverability. It was a fine fighter, but the various marks of FW190 were as good if not better in a dogfight. The briliance of the P51(D) was that it could get there and back with the bombers with something approaching parity even in a dogfight. A heck of an achievement. P51s were knocked out like tin cans. FW190s were hard to replace as plants were being bombed and A.Hitler was making a pigs ear of the M262 program by insisting 90% be converted to carry bombs to destroy the hordes of Shermans!

 

[André E.C.]

Andre, in response to your posting, I think you miss the point: It would seem top quality to you would mean fine grain and the utmost detail. This is not the same for everyone and it is not always possible without tripod. For some top quality means 'being able or inclined' to get the shot in the first place. If you miss the shot on a bigger camera/format, youve got nothing, obviously. A grainer 35mm is obviously 'better quality' as it exists..... Tripods not exactly being practical for street/documentary photography..see the below scenarios, all of which are from experience.

Just some thoughts on RFs (as you suggest a Mamiya 7 for 'better quality' [results]). I can fit my Leica M (or any small 35mmRF) under my coat and a 4 lens kit in my pockets or in tiny belt pouches. I can walk about all day unencumbered. I can even carry a spare body (at just over an inch think) under my coat on a strap without noticing. Can you do this with a mamiya 7? - No. You need a camera bag over your shoulder or you have to leave lenses at home. How do you think this freedom from bags affects my mobility, freshness, enjoyment of a solid day (or days) on the street? The Mamiya 7 is most definetely not an under the coat camera, but an over the coat camera - do you ever get concerned walking about with it in full view for hour upon hour upon hour, sometimes in the same area (or do you put it in your case and miss opportunities?). The use of a second body means even more bulk for you - an even bigger bag. For me, another 500g under the coat on a strap - its no bother. I can put 50/100 speed in one and 800-1600 in another. Along with fast lenses, who will be more flexible in varying light (yes you can put fast film in the mamiya 7, but your lenses are slower so you still are, well, much slower). I also now have that slow film body to close the gap on your 800 iso now even in comparative terms....You are now really screwed if you come out into the light as you have 800 film loaded and only a 1/500 top speed!

Bag on the shoulder? Where`s the problem? The same bag will take 2 M7II`s, one loaded with Delta 3200 (right, grain isn`t an issue, higher if needed and no worries), the other with FP4+, and let`s shoot.
The weight isn`t as much as you try to put it.

Cheers

André

 

[DBP]

I should not have mentioned WW2 warbirds should I?

Absolutely. The P51 airframe was in no way derived from the Spitfire. As for being the 'fighter that won the war' I think this is more because of incredible range rather than speed or maneoverability. It was a fine fighter, but the various marks of FW190 were as good if not better in a dogfight. The briliance of the P51(D) was that it could get there and back with the bombers with something approaching parity even in a dogfight. A heck of an achievement.

Yes. That's a subject that generates even more heat than Leica quality and prices. There are entire books and web sites devoted to it. Though in fairness to the original disputants, 60 years ago, whether a P-51 (or Spit or P-47, F4U, La-5, etc.) could best an FW190 (or Bf109, A6M5, etc.)really was a life or death question.

There is a curious parallel, though, now that I think about it. There are a number of instances of World War II fighters doing very well in one environment and poorly in another. The best example is the P-38, largely a failure in northern Europe (those Allison engines and turbochargers didn't do well at high altitudes in cold weather), but a great success in the Pacific. How much of the debates about which camera to buy are biased by the writer's expectations of how it will be used? Admittedly, many of the posters on APUG are careful to add qualifiers such as "for street photography", not always seen elsewhere.

As an aside, I believe Eisenhower gave most of the credit (from an equipment perspective) to the Higgins boats and the C-47.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Bag on the shoulder? Where`s the problem? The same bag will take 2 M7II`s, one loaded with Delta 3200 (right, grain isn`t an issue, higher if needed and no worries), the other with FP4+, and let`s shoot.
The weight isn`t as much as you try to put it.

Not a problem for a few hours, but it is a pain in the butt after a long period, especially if you make day longer forrays onr your feet the whole time for a number of days. The weight is a nuissance as is the physical restriction of a bag that you have to control (if its on your back it is too slow - those slingshot bags look interesting as a compromise on speed and security tho!) and whilst I cannot put my finger on it, your pattern of life changes if the camera bag (worth a lot of money with its contents) is not there. You drop into a cafe for a brew and what do you do with your camera bag? Put it on the seat, on the floor? Paranoid about forgetting it? One of your arms becomes partially inhibited. Concerned about a bag snatch. If you think I am being too vague, try walking about with a small camera for a protracted period and compare it to your shoulder bag based kit. I think there is a huge difference (bear in mind I am a very athletic 31 years and 6' 1" rather than small and old with a gammy leg!). In a subtle way it does affect how you behave and what you do - with small light cameras you remain so much fresher. with no camera bag you go out and have a day doing whatever, uninhibited, as a 'normal person, feeling that way'. That opens your eyes to a lot. With a camera bag you are 'out taking photos' and that closes your eyes to a lot IMO. Try it when you are next in a new city and doing the street thing - take something very small and keep it round your neck under a coat and or jacket, ready for use but not clonking away by your side like a bigger camera or bag. It is hugely liberating and this to me is a huge bonus. It changes your outlook as well as how people see you. A person with a camera bag is either a (serious/geeky/annoying) photographer or tourist or both. A person with a little rangefinder is not, thats if they even see it.

If you have both bodies in your bag you are slow to ready yourself. If you have one in teh bag and one over your shoulder, you now have a largeish camera AND a camera bag strapped to you.....The 35mm RF user does not.

This is just one issue, let alone the others mentioned. The Mamiya 7 has no fast lenses for focus seperation. No close focus. Probs with longer lenses due to Baselength. Mores sensitive rangefinder mechanism in many cases...

Dont get me wrong, the Mamiya 7 is an incredible camera (a mate has one and I print his negs) and in many respects a better all rounder than the Leica M as that big neg is super for landscapes esp. As said before If I would chose one camera, that would be it. However, it cannot take on a Leica M/Bessa R?/Zeiss Z1 in the street photography niche IMO. The system may be small for a 120 RF, but it is not remotely close to a 35mm RF if portabilty, fuildity, speed etc are your goal. It depends what you want. If you shoot mainly static scenes outdoors its weaknesses are unlikely to be exposed, but for those who are covering more ground and need smaller, lighter, faster, less visible, the 35mm RF is king. The Leica M for many is top of that pile, which is not neccessarily to mean that it is 'good value' at the same time. To admit that the 35mm RF has this niche stitched up takes nothing away from the Mamiya 7 which is far 'better' in other areas. Again, horses for courses.

 

[Bromo33333]

Your post in many respects answers the question of 'why is there no clear answer?". The closest you can find is a Mamiya 7 which is a totally different type of camera compared to a Leica M!

Actually, they are very close in that they are both rangefinders, the main difference is that the Mamiya has a in-the-lens shutter and takes 120 film (and is larger therefore), the Leica is a focal plane shutter and takes 35mm.

Compare Leica Ms to Voigtlanders or Z1s by all means but you suggest anyone who wants 'top quality' has to ditch 35mm!!!! Of course the Mamiya 7 wins hands down on image quality alone, [...]

I think that is EXACTLY what he was saying.

I agree 100% - if image quality/sharpness/etc is you main concern, then you cannot ignore MF - and would have to justify the greater expense and smaller format of the Leica (or indeed any other 35mm system) in some manner.

If you understand street shooting you would know that a lot of the best of that genre would never have happened had the Henri CB's of this world been toting about Mamiya 7s....

I don't think you could say that. But HCB was more about the subject than overall technical image quality, so you have a point. I don't think he was spending much time talking about the great technical image quality as he was about capturing the subject.

And his stuff was "already done" so to speak.