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

eddym · Nov 20, 2006

André E.C. said:
Leica shooters make the wide open shooting rendition as an advantage, now I ask, how often users shoot wide open?

I do, a lot. Probably 90% or more of my work with my Leicas is shot wide open. In a theater, my normal exposure is 1/125 at f2, with HP5 at 1600. Sometimes it's darker, and I have to use Delta 3200. But rarely do I get to stop down.
And yes, Leicas are expensive, but if they are the tool you need to do your job, you have to pay for them. And you can also buy used instead of new. I bought my M6 new for $2,400 because it had the .85x finder. I bought my M3 for $199. Don't remember how much my M4-2 was, but it was affordable. But the bottom line is that there is no other tool that I have found that will do my job as well as a Leica M.

Tom Stanworth · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo,

I agree that in some respects that Mam 7 and Leica M have similarities, but even more differences.

My point was that despite being 'so close' they are also so very different directly and indirectly:

Directly - Mamiya 7 is double the weight and double the size as are the lenses, which are 2-3 stops slower and linked to a shutter speed half as fast as an M.

Indirectly - The weight affects how you carry your kit and its use (Access, spare bodies, film changes...). The leaf shutter means lens blinds need opening and closing. The list goes on.

Superficially similar (both RFs) but quite different in the detail and reality of use under certain circumstances. I dont want anyone to think I am suggesting that a Mamiya 7 is not suitable for street use or bad at it. Absolutely not, but this environment is where 35mm RFs are in their element which is why so many people use them for that purpose.

I could use either for street photography and be happy about it, but feel I am getting a better balance of characteristics with my Leica M. I own a RF645 and it is not the same shooting experience as a 35mm RF in the circumstances I described in previous posts and the RF645 is certainly closer to a 35mm RF than the Mamiya 7 (smaller, faster handling,fewer film changes).

I have no problem admitting that a Mamiya 7 is the 'better landscape tool' (By FAR). Why when the requirements are turned on their head does the mamiya 7 end up being 'like a Leica M but with bigger negs' in a street context? It just is not the case...the 'it's only a bit bigger, bit heavier, bit slower to use, bit slower lenses, bit slower shutter speed, bit more guzzly on film (bit bulkier) and bit more frequent changes, bit more of a problem with longer lenses all add up! Its the 'total package' that matters and that is that when added up these factors make quite a big difference IMO. If I was more working slowly and deliberately and not on my feet excessively (often in heat etc) and not shooting people and not taking 'reflex shots' or requiring narrow DOF I would drop the Leica and use my RF645 in a heartbeats....This is why I shot my spanish derelict house series on my RF645 as it allowed the fluidity and quality under more predictable circumstances. I did not have the Leica M then, but would not have used it even if I had.

Best to own both

Bromo33333 · Nov 20, 2006

eddym said:
I do, a lot. Probably 90% or more of my work with my Leicas is shot wide open. In a theater, my normal exposure is 1/125 at f2, with HP5 at 1600. Sometimes it's darker, and I have to use Delta 3200. But rarely do I get to stop down.
And yes, Leicas are expensive, but if they are the tool you need to do your job, you have to pay for them. And you can also buy used instead of new. I bought my M6 new for $2,400 because it had the .85x finder. I bought my M3 for $199. Don't remember how much my M4-2 was, but it was affordable. But the bottom line is that there is no other tool that I have found that will do my job as well as a Leica M.

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?

dmr · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Couldn't you get a Leica lens and a Cosina body and produce pictures indistinguishable from a "all Leica" system?

It's obvious that a lens has more to do with the "look" of a photo than the body, but in many cases I'm beginning to doubt that very many people, even those with years of experience, can consistently identify the brand of lens (maybe the focal length, yes, brand no), let alone things as the brand or model of camera (format perhaps, brand of camera, no), and in many cases whether the shot was film or digital, just from viewing a print.

André E.C. · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Couldn't you get a Leica lens and a Cosina body and produce pictures indistinguishable from a "all Leica" system?

Kiev 4a body, Leica M shoulder strap, Leitz finder, Zeiss Opton Sonnar 5/1.5 optic!
What about that for a cocktail?

Cheers

André

David H. Bebbington · Nov 20, 2006

André E.C. said:
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!

It may be interesting to recall that, for a brief period in the 1920s, the state-of-the-art answer to a candid/street phtographer's needs WAS a medium-format camera (actually called a miniature at the time) by the name of Ermanox, which first appeared with an f2 lens and then shortly afterwards with an f1.8. This was a 6 x 4.5 cm plate camera and was taken up with great enthusiasm by photojournalists (for example, Dr. Erich Salomon), who however soon switched to 35 mm when the Leica became available with a large-aperture lens, since 35 mm cameras were fractionally but crucially more compact, faster to use and less conspicuous. The Mamiya 7 has been designed as a travel camera and is perfect for this, but for street photography most people would find it just a tad too big and slow.

Regards,

David

Tom Stanworth · Nov 20, 2006

[QUOTE

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

Now thats the question that puts the willies up Leicaphiles!

The answer is largely yes. The 'better' that you have with a leica is:

Quieter - appreciably so.
Longer lasting build.
Physcially more robust, more reliable RF.
Less Battery dependence.

Whether this is important is up to the potential buyer. Certainly Leica get better value the longer they keep chugging away when the less expensive cameras have for one reason or another largely been replaced by something else.

I bought a Leica M with Zeiss ZM lenses. I was in it for the body! The ZM lenses are for me, plenty good enough. Having just done the maths, with the best deals I can find, the prices of the below two kits are the same, pretty well exactly:

R3A
Leica 28 2.8 Elmarit M
Leica 35 2 Summicron
Leica 50 f Summicron

Leica Mp/M7 (grey)
Zeiss Biogon 2.8 28
Zeiss Biogon 2 35
Zeiss Planar 2 50

Of course the R3A with Zeiss lenses would be far cheaper han both.
I may add some Leica lenses at a late date but only if I want more speed (such as the f1.4 summiluxes) or in a head to head can see a difference worth paying for.

It is generally regarded that the ZM lose a touch to the Leicas in the centre, but have better resolution at the edges. Again, whats important to you?

Tom

Biogon Bill · Nov 20, 2006

To add to your list of "betters with a Leica", Tom . . .

- A Leica offers more precise focusing - as does a Zeiss Ikon for that matter.
- A Leica offers 28 mm frame lines even with .72 mag - ZI too.
- A Leica offers TTL flash metering on M6 TTL & M7.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

Biogon Bill said:
To add to your list of "betters with a Leica", Tom . . .

- A Leica offers more precise focusing - as does a Zeiss Ikon for that matter.
- A Leica offers 28 mm frame lines even with .72 mag - ZI too.
- A Leica offers TTL flash metering on M6 TTL & M7.

Co-worker of mine says thats all irrelevant, if you can get a leica lens on a box and focus it just right, it may be indistinguishable from a leica system. also says the leica body are excellent, but irrelevant if the question is image quality.

Tom Stanworth · Nov 20, 2006

The new Z1s sound like a great combination of factors. I have not handled one. I guess time will tell to see what their reliability is like. The VF sounds very good indeed.

My only concern with the ZM lenses was the odd wobbly one where the internals soundl ike they came loose. Have not heard recent examples and hope that Zeiss have sorted the problem during manufacture in Japan. I would imagine that this has been done otherwise theyll all end up coming back like boomerangs at some point or other (seems to be only a few 35s biogons and 50 planars affected). If it is a congenital fault so to speak, they'll end up having to fix them irrespective of whether they are in warranty or not. One can expect such occassional teething probs I guess if you buy new products. Leica lenses are not immune to faults either.

Bromo33333 · Nov 20, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
The new Z1s sound like a great combination of factors. I have not handled one. I guess time will tell to see what their reliability is like. The VF sounds very good indeed.

My only concern with the ZM lenses was the odd wobbly one where the internals soundl ike they came loose. Have not heard recent examples and hope that Zeiss have sorted the problem during manufacture in Japan. I would imagine that this has been done otherwise theyll all end up coming back like boomerangs at some point or other (seems to be only a few 35s biogons and 50 planars affected). If it is a congenital fault so to speak, they'll end up having to fix them irrespective of whether they are in warranty or not. One can expect such occassional teething probs I guess if you buy new products. Leica lenses are not immune to faults either.

I think the main source of cost difference between ZI and Leica M's are that the inexpensive ZI's are all made in Japan, and the Leicas are all made in Germany. There may be some materials differences, but the cost of labor being what it is, isn't as much a consideration.

Hadn't heard about the ZM lens problems - do you have any links or details?

Jim Jones · Nov 20, 2006

It's not the tool, but the craftsman, that makes the most difference. Of course modern cameras make street photography better than Jacob Riis could do with a LF camera, tripod, and flash powder a hundred years ago. Today's film also helps. A few decades ago, to get well exposed negatives of local indoor sports, I had to use a Canon f/1.4 lens wide open at 1/125 second on a Leica. Then Kodak produced T-Max 3200. This permitted using the much better Summicron wide open at 1/250 second. Negatives were granier, but sharper and more satisfying. Better photographers than me could still make great photos with the older lenses and film.

The difference between the Summicron and many other lenses when stopped down isn't as conspicuous. However, if one must occasionally shoot wide open, a Leica or other top quality lens may be a worthwhile investment. So is a great rangefinder system.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

Sorry had to do it.

So.... what is the big deal about Leica?

André E.C. · Nov 20, 2006

kb244 said:
So.... what is the big deal about Leica?

Good question!

PS- That M8 is uggly, how much is the price tag of that thing?

Cheers

André

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

André E.C. said:
Good question!

PS- That M8 is uggly, how much is the price tag of that thing?

Cheers

André

4795$ without lens , its a little thick, and bout the same weight as my Canon P and the 50mm (both of which are brass) lol. But I thought I'd have some fun getting a shot with the camera since I know some people who would hate me because of it. It does not seem to have the same charm as an M6 that I toyed with before, but the viewfinder is about the same. Course at that price tag one can really ask... "What's up with that?"

Seeing as I've touched the M8, am I going to hell now, or will I just get a furry palm.

André E.C. · Nov 20, 2006

kb244 said:
4795$ without lens...

Ouch!:confused:

kb244 said:
Course at that price tag one can really ask... "What's up with that?"

Cheers

André

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

Hrm right now the rep trying to get that M8 to work, first the battery was drained so charged that up, then tried to turn it on but nothing would show. Checked the card, battery etc, and still nada on the camera functioning. He left without being able to demostrate the 5,000$ camera to us since could not get it to work.

Andy K · Nov 20, 2006

kb244 said:
Hrm right now the rep trying to get that M8 to work, first the battery was drained so charged that up, then tried to turn it on but nothing would show. Checked the card, battery etc, and still nada on the camera functioning. He left without being able to demostrate the 5,000$ camera to us since could not get it to work.

Maybe they should make it clockwork, like the radios.

Bromo33333 · Nov 20, 2006

kb244 said:
4795$ without lens , [...]

Seeing as I've touched the M8, am I going to hell now, or will I just get a furry palm.

Nah - just folks wondering who would shell out $4795 for a digicam ... ?

But if your palms grow fur, you knew the risks!

Bromo33333 · Nov 20, 2006

Jim Jones said:
It's not the tool, but the craftsman, that makes the most difference. [...caveats deleted...]

The difference between the Summicron and many other lenses when stopped down isn't as conspicuous. However, if one must occasionally shoot wide open, a Leica or other top quality lens may be a worthwhile investment. So is a great rangefinder system.

Agreed. WIth the right tools, a photographer's skill will make all the difference. But with street shooting or other quick shots, I have found my personal "keeper" rate to be about 1 in 5 or so. If I slow down it is about 2 in 5. If I really slowed down, it might be even higher.

As far as lenses:
The closer to the edge of the lens you are, the larger the aberration and the differences between well designed/manufactured lenses and one of average or below average quality will make themselves shown.

If you take a f1.4 lens and always use it at f5.6 almost any lens will do really well.

eddym · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
Couldn't you get a Leica lens and a Cosina body and produce pictures indistinguishable from a "all Leica" system?

I dunno. Maybe. But for myself, it's irrelevant, because I already have three Leica bodies. For anyone else, I say, hey go for it. I don't care what anybody else buys. I'm happy with what I have, and have no need nor desire to buy anything else.
And for the record, the Cosina bodies were not available when I began buying my Leica system.

Biogon Bill · Nov 20, 2006

kb244 said:
Co-worker of mine says thats all irrelevant, if you can get a leica lens on a box and focus it just right, it may be indistinguishable from a leica system. also says the leica body are excellent, but irrelevant if the question is image quality.

Your co-worker is right of course. But that IF is the big word. Rangefinder photography is less about flash and more about fast lenses at wide apertures. Even normal & wide angle lenses shot at full aperture & up close can have their moments when focusing is challenging. It's also about the ease of focusing under less difficult circumstances, i.e. being able to snap into focus quickly & easily. EVen the best lens will not provide as sharp a picture if it is not properly focused.

For me the lack of 28 mm frame lines on the Bessa cameras is a big deal since I use this focal length a lot. Sure I can get a 28 mm lens focused on a Bessa but I have to compose with a separate viewfinder since 35 is the widest set of framelines available.

Although not a big deal to me, the quieter Leica shutter is very important to some. And to others the TTL flash metering is important. Bottom line is that anyone needs the right tool for the job. For some jobs a Bessa is the right tool; for others, it's a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon.

Bromo33333 · Nov 20, 2006

Biogon Bill said:
[...] Rangefinder photography is less about flash and more about fast lenses at wide apertures. Even normal & wide angle lenses shot at full aperture & up close can have their moments when focusing is challenging. It's also about the ease of focusing under less difficult circumstances, i.e. being able to snap into focus quickly & easily. EVen the best lens will not provide as sharp a picture if it is not properly focused.

I find my rangefinder shooting "style" isn't always about large apertures - though it is easy to focus if you have a small DOF. I like its compactness and its (relative) quietness.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

Biogon Bill said:
Your co-worker is right of course. But that IF is the big word. Rangefinder photography is less about flash and more about fast lenses at wide apertures. Even normal & wide angle lenses shot at full aperture & up close can have their moments when focusing is challenging. It's also about the ease of focusing under less difficult circumstances, i.e. being able to snap into focus quickly & easily. EVen the best lens will not provide as sharp a picture if it is not properly focused.

For me the lack of 28 mm frame lines on the Bessa cameras is a big deal since I use this focal length a lot. Sure I can get a 28 mm lens focused on a Bessa but I have to compose with a separate viewfinder since 35 is the widest set of framelines available.

Although not a big deal to me, the quieter Leica shutter is very important to some. And to others the TTL flash metering is important. Bottom line is that anyone needs the right tool for the job. For some jobs a Bessa is the right tool; for others, it's a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon.

I remember being told that for the longest time that Leica refused to put a PC sync or any other kind of flash connection terminal on their rangefinders, as range finders according to them were "Available light only" cameras. You pretty much used the appropriate lens and film speed for the situation. Though I am glad my Canon P has a PC sync socket, sometimes it comes in handy in the dead of night.

kb244 · Nov 20, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
I find my rangefinder shooting "style" isn't always about large apertures - though it is easy to focus if you have a small DOF. I like its compactness and its (relative) quietness.

I find as long as you can see your rangefinder focus spot, and the aperture and shutter is available for the given film speed and exposure you are good to go. Though thats where a nice wide lens comes in handy if you really don't care to focus

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency