Why Buy a Leica?

[Lee L]

My point was that at least D3 filled a niche in the photographic world, whereas Leica rangefinders don't seem to do anything any better than a Nikon FM or FE. Please tell me that I'm missing something here.

You're missing something. Leica and other rangefinders fill a niche. Have you noticed what's happened to the 35mm RF offerings in Leica screw and M mounts in the last 6-10 years or so?

I've shot Nikon FM/FE and dozens of other models of SLRs, 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10. (Try getting a left-eyed photographer to shoot comfortably with an FM or FE without a motor drive.) Leica rangefinders are a different animal from an SLR, especially a heavily automated one. As I said earlier, there's less camera in the way if you know how to use a rangefinder and it suits your style. If I'm shooting 75mm or shorter (except macro), I'd choose several of my rangefinders over my FE2 or N8008s any day for almost any subject.

Leica and other rangefinders are both technically and psychologically different from an SLR in use. You can find people who are obsessed with any camera brand, but if you decide to judge the cameras by what you perceive to be illogical users (usually a vocal minority with any brand), then you're the one not being objective.

There are other threads on rangefinder usage here on APUG. You should read those rather than asking why a Leica rangefinder isn't designed to have the features of the SLR cameras you prefer. The simple answer is that it wasn't designed to work that way. No one wants to spend the time to rewrite the volumes that are already here (and elsewhere) on that subject, especially when you pose the question in such a pejorative fashion. Even after reading about the differences, it's hard to conceive of what's important about the differences without actually shooting an RF for a while.

I shoot rangefinders in 35mm and 120, 35mm SLRs, and sheet and roll film in 4x5 cameras. I use what's appropriate for the kind of shooting I want to do. You might like a rangefinder if you learned to use one properly. If you want in at a lower price point than Leica to test the 35mm RF waters, there are options. If you want to know what it's like to use a Leica, then borrow or rent one and look at what you get on film, and ask for advice on using one from someone who knows how to use one properly, including metering, prefocusing, holding the camera properly, etc.

I'd suggest that you don't tell the person you're borrowing or renting from that the camera they're loaning you isn't any better than or worth more than a used $30 SLR.

If you want to justify a Leica purchase for yourself, you're going to have to do it yourself.

As for this:

I get the sense that Leica users love their cameras because they assign deep mystical personal meaning to them, even though a cheap $30 Nikon SLR beats them in every technical aspect and is every bit as durable.

You're confusing the cameras with some of their owners, and your contention about the $30 Nikon (used FM/FE?) is completely contrary to my experience using both Nikons and Leicas over the last 30 years. I think you need to justify with facts exactly how the Nikons are superior in every technical aspect to a Leica RF. Exactly which Leica bodies are you comparing to the Nikon FE/FM? Which lenses? That's what you're demanding of people who prefer Leica.

Can I see the subject at the very instant of exposure with the Nikon SLR? Does it focus wides or normals as accurately? Does it have less shutter lag? Are the wide angles not retrofocus compromises? Can I keep shooting if the battery fails? Can I quickly preview other fixed focal length lens coverages with the flip of a lever?

People use cameras in many different ways. If you want to claim every technical advantage for any given camera, you're the one being unreasonable.

Lee

 

[firecracker]

leicas are popular with street photographers but often such people get mobbed taking pictures in the cities and get their leicas stolen. besides, the US Government recently banned taking pictures of public places anyway.

Wow, where exactly did that happen? You should specify. But I bet that has nothing to do with expensive camera robbery. I think laptop computers and ATM cards are worth more and easier for the criminals to see the values.

 

[Tom Duffy]

fine, if you want to compare apples, one can ask why one should buy the Leica over the cheaper Zeiss Ikon.

It's the shutter, stupid.

 

[Karl K]

Here are some reasons to use the Leica

Originally Posted by cotdt
My point was that at least D3 filled a niche in the photographic world, whereas Leica rangefinders don't seem to do anything any better than a Nikon FM or FE. Please tell me that I'm missing something here.

cotdt, here is something you are missing:

I photographed the Professional Pool Players of America (as well as the Women's WPPA) touring around the USA from the beginning of 1990 to the end of 1991. I had front row seats for every big match, during which I used the Leica M cameras and lenses with 800 ASA color print film.

The basic exposure was 1/60th at f2.0, so I had to shoot wide open most of the time....and, most important, with as little noise as possible. Can you imagine shooting with a Nikon FE or FM at a distance of 15 feet from a pool player who is silently stroking his cue on a $10,000 9-ball money shot? As you would imagine, the room was dead silent during each shot and any SLR mirror-slap would get you killed if not by the player, then surely by the crowd.

Yes, the Leica M3 with the 90mm Summicron made me lots of friends and captured images that would have been impossible to shoot with any 35mm SLR. By the way, I still have that M3 and the 90 'Cron.

 

[Mateo]

Wow! in 25 pages there was no mention of lens design, shutter quietness, ergonomics, focusing advantages, mirror blackout, or resale value. Read again please.

And then if you don't want one don't get one.

I found a use for one of them cameras, and I ain't too proud to use my Nikormat if it does the job. It's prolly worth about $30. My M6 cost a bunch more so something musta been necessary for a tightwad like me to ante up the dough.

 

[cahayapemburu]

What a sad world it would be if we had to justify our passions, or even our preferrences. I can't work up much sympathy for one who wants a Leica but can't afford one; we all want things we can't have, or we lack imagination, or we've acheived some level of enlightenment that divorces us from desire. If you want one and can afford it, but are prevented from indulging yourself because you need some technical justification, don't buy one. If you don't want one, don't buy one. If you want one and can afford one, and don't feel the need to justify the expense, buy one, or two. If you want one but can't afford or justify one, but buy one anyway just because you want one, welcome to the club.

 

[Jim Jones]

Tonight I'll be using my M4 to photograph a dance recital. The low noise, low vibration, precise focusing, and excellent optics are more appropriate than my Nikon arsenal for this shoot. In some other circumstances the Nikon gear is better. However, this Leica has served me well for almost 38 years. Most of my Nikon bodies from that era are sidelined for CLAs.

 

[zeroseven]

Can I see the subject at the very instant of exposure with the Nikon SLR? Does it focus wides or normals as accurately? Does it have less shutter lag? Are the wide angles not retrofocus compromises? Can I keep shooting if the battery fails? Can I quickly preview other fixed focal length lens coverages with the flip of a lever?

People use cameras in many different ways. If you want to claim every technical advantage for any given camera, you're the one being unreasonable.

Lee

Then maybe where you do claim superiority you should pick better examples.

With an FM I can indeed shoot if the battery fails, at ALL speeds. What shutter lag? I can focus infinitely more accurately on ANY SLR with ANY lens.....without reframing.....over my MP. Name any motion picture camera, where focus is far more critical than still (can you keep 24/25 images a second sharp on a moving subject at T1.3?) that still works with a rangefinder. How long ago was that? 35 years? Whats more I can see the actual DoF at the time of exposure, how do you judge that accurately on RF? Work out a split on an RF. I can set Polas and grads

I bought an MP for one reason only, Noctilux. Yes the body is nicely built, but it in no way helps my photography not gives any illusions about my ability. If it were technically possible to mount the Noctilux (extremely flawed but thats its appeal) onto an SLR I'd pay 1000's to do so. Sadly its not for obvious reasons.

I find the entire Leica RF thing to be emperors clothes. When I take the MP out the people who say "Oh wow, a Leica" are the people who dont have to work with cameras. Does it make a good point and shoot? Sure. Bit expensive for that though..........

I'm really quite shocked that so little credit is given to the M series lenses. THEY are amazing. But everyone bleats on about the bodies, the bit that actually makes no difference to the image.

Hello by the way....

 

[cotdt]

Nice to have you on board, zeroseven! Those are great points you make.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

...

I find the entire Leica RF thing to be emperors clothes.

...

Then you are in the happy position of being able to save a bundle by not buying one! (Except that you seem to have bought one ??????).

Everyone has their reasons for choosing one camera over another - personally, as the owner of 4 Leica RFs and 4 SLRs, I would never buy a Leica RF just to get a Noctilux rather than use an f1.2 on a Nikon - I can't imagine needing an extra half stop that badly, leaving aside issues of shutter quietness. At the age of 60, though, I do find I can focus lenses 28 mm and wider infinitely better with an RF than an SLR.

You say "The body doesn't matter" - this is a curious fiction which surprisingly larger numbers of people seem to believe, whereas in fact more unsharp pictures result from camera vibration than any other cause, an area where RFs are outstanding - or just why are SLR manufacturers spending so much money developing image stabilization systems?

DoF preview - in my (extensive) experience, using DoF preview on an SLR shows you that the screen gets darker and things get a bit sharper when you stop down! Can you judge critical sharpness? If so, you're a far better man than me! The movie camera thing is a red herring - you obviously want to view and focus while filming, so through-the-lens viewing is the obvious choice. You will not use a movie camera in anything like the low lighting levels that you may use for still work.

Ultimately, I am not trying to sell Leicas, or the concept of Leicas, to anyone. But for me, they do have their uses!

Regards,

David

 

[jolefler]

Back in the '70's I bought a used M3DS & Summicron. Hated it....couldn't wait to get back to my F system. Just wasn't partial to it then.

30+ years later I dumped three Nikon bodies and eight prime lenses to move to two Leica bodies and three lenses....tastes and preferences sometimes change over time. Both are wonderful, but my aging eyes deal with a split image better that a screen now, especially with a wide angle.

Jo

 

[Dan Fromm]

<snip>

You say "The body doesn't matter" - this is a curious fiction which surprisingly larger numbers of people seem to believe, whereas in fact more unsharp pictures result from camera vibration than any other cause, an area where RFs are outstanding - or just why are SLR manufacturers spending so much money developing image stabilization systems?

<snip>

Interesting question. But isn't image stablilization intended to reduce the ill effects of unsteadiness (people will shoot handheld) rather than of mirror slap?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Interesting question. But isn't image stablilization intended to reduce the ill effects of unsteadiness (people will shoot handheld) rather than of mirror slap?

Cheers,

Dan

Since I have no cameras with this modern refinement, I can't say for sure! I assumed IS deals with all kinds of vibration - after all, mirror slap in mechanical terms I would think is like the photographer's hands wobbling just as a shot is taken?

Regards,

David

 

[Dan Fromm]

Since I have no cameras with this modern refinement, I can't say for sure! I assumed IS deals with all kinds of vibration - after all, mirror slap in mechanical terms I would think is like the photographer's hands wobbling just as a shot is taken?

Regards,

David

Well, I don't know how bad your tremor is. I'm older than you, like to think I'm still fairly steady, but I'm convinced, rightly or wrongly, that my tremor is orders of magnitudes slower and larger than the effects of mirror slap. I don't think the IS mechanisms deal well with high frequency movements.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Ian Tindale]

Many of the stated advantages of rangefinders in this thread are making me want to load up my TLR right now.

 

[zeroseven]

Then you are in the happy position of being able to save a bundle by not buying one! (Except that you seem to have bought one ??????).

,

Yes I did. For the Noctilux. Lenses are not all about f stop, they have other characteristics. And surely you would not expect any comment to be considered if I had not owned one? I could hardly be expected to learn of the true failings without doing so. One question mark will suffice. Maybe use :confused: if something confuses you. I hope I have cleared up any..... confusion

You say "The body doesn't matter" - this is a curious fiction which surprisingly larger numbers of people seem to believe, whereas in fact more unsharp pictures result from camera vibration than any other cause, an area where RFs are outstanding - or just why are SLR manufacturers spending so much money developing image stabilization systems?

I suspect more 'unsharp images' actually result in the inability to focus or too slow a shutter speed

DoF preview - in my (extensive) experience, using DoF preview on an SLR shows you that the screen gets darker and things get a bit sharper when you stop down! Can you judge critical sharpness? If so, you're a far better man than me! The movie camera thing is a red herring - you obviously want to view and focus while filming, so through-the-lens viewing is the obvious choice. You will not use a movie camera in anything like the low lighting levels that you may use for still work.

In my (extensive) experience (13 years as a 35mm focus puller 83 - 96) it was my job to 'judge critical sharpness'. The assistant controlling focus ( and I'd say 50th sec T1.3 @ 500asa is pretty much the norm and quite low level) has no access to the viewfinder whilst shooting.

Granted its horses for courses, I accept that. But my argument is that there is nothing an RF will do that I could not do on an SLR. I could not reverse that argument.

With the exception of shooting with a Noctilux....... which to go back to your original point of confusion, is why I bought one.

The great thing about photography is that you learn every day - so I stand ready to be educated

 

[ntenny]

,
Granted its horses for courses, I accept that. But my argument is that there is nothing an RF will do that I could not do on an SLR.

Wear an infrared filter while still allowing you to compose and focus normally?

OK, it's a niche answer, but it happens to be one that I care about, so it must be important.

-NT

 

[John Koehrer]

Then maybe where you do claim superiority you should pick better examples.

What shutter lag? I can focus infinitely more accurately on ANY SLR with ANY lens.....without reframing.....over my MP. ...

Yep you do have to reframe but,
The shutter lag on an M camera is on the order of 10ms. There is NO SLR that approaches that except MAYBE the Canon or Nikon high speed motor driven cameras.
If you can focus a wide angle lens on an SLR better than an M you are an exceptional human being. Most of humanity cannot.
Doesn't Canon offer a 50mm f1 lens? Maybe you should check that out instead of needing to criticize someone else's choice of equipment.

 

[cosmonaut]

hi all, after shooting with slr's for a while, i became commited to rangefinder cameras- first in medium format, and now in 35mm. my main camera now is a voigtlander R3A. i have been very satisfied with this camera and the CV lenses. for many years, i have wanted to own a leica camera, but i have began to wonder recently- why? yes, some of my favorite photographers shoot with leicas, but is the great expense of these cameras worth it?

i understand the reason for buying the leica lenses, they are top notch optics from all accounts. if i could afford them, i would maybe buy them, but the CV lenses get the job done for me. as a working class person who does fine art photography in his spare time, paying over $3000 for a wide-angle lens is out of the question for me. but i understand the superiority of leica optics.

however, i would have difficulty in justifying buying a leica body, even if i had the money. after all, a camera body is merely a light-tight box. yes, a leica body is more well built than a voigtlander and will easily outlive it. but for the price of a M7 body, i can buy 6 CV R3A bodies! if my R3A craps out, it can be cheaply replaced.

i am certainly not saying that leicas are not great cameras, i am just questioning why one should pay such exorbitant prices for a leica body when cheaper camera models will do the same job. and the leica folks think that just by placing the little "leica" logo on an item, they have justification to ridiculously overprice those items. you can get a leica camera case, a leica strap, and innumerable other little items at twice or three times the cost of similar items without the leica name. and some of leica's digital cameras are merely rebadged panasonics with a big price markup. it seems to me that, in many cases, a leica is merely a status symbol. yes, a good camera, but a status symbol nonetheless.

Alas I was were you are at in my thinking less than a year ago. But reading about religous or mystical experiances using one. I saved and saved and then caved. I now own an M6 and I now have a camera that will outlast me and something I can pass on to my daughter when I am old or gone. I don't know about religous experiance but the mystical one is true. It's magic. There is just something there. I can feel the craftsmanship in my hands and my Bessa, although a heck of a camera feels like a toy, holga.
If you are serious about your photography and plan to do it the rest of your life I think you should own one. Right now I have a Voigtlander lens on it but soon hope to go to a Leica. You can get a M2 or M3 for the price of a good R3 if you shop around. I really don't think the price of bodies are that bad. It's a buyers market right now. I also have a IIIa that I bought here. It is over 70 years old and still works as good if not better than my Bessa R.
I am gald I bought it and have no regrets. I love it.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

,

In my (extensive) experience (13 years as a 35mm focus puller 83 - 96) it was my job to 'judge critical sharpness'. The assistant controlling focus ( and I'd say 50th sec T1.3 @ 500asa is pretty much the norm and quite low level) has no access to the viewfinder whilst shooting.

You have obviously found what works for you, I have never worked with a 35 mm motion picture camera, but I have noted that most 35 mm SLRs are equipped as standard with a viewfinder screen that is optimized for lenses around the standard focal length and with large apertures. I have a variety of screens for my Nikon F3s which are great for telephoto work, macro work, etc. - I still find I can't see well enough to judge critical sharpness with a lens stopped down. As I said, I'm 60 - I have quite good eyesight for my age, but eyesight tends to get worse, not better. Nonetheless, I would tend to use depth-of-field scales to organize depth of sharpness rather than view a stopped-down image. YMMV!

Regards,

David

 

[Lee L]

... focus infinitely more accurately ...

Interesting concept, regardless of the the methodology.

Lee

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

With 28 pages of contention on this topic so far and it ain't over, I'd say the main reason to buy a Leica is to get it out of your system and be done with it if it bothers you that much and go take pictures.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

With 28 pages of contention on this topic so far and it ain't over, I'd say the main reason to buy a Leica is to get it out of your system and be done with it if it bothers you that much and go take pictures.

This view competely ignores the unalloyed pleasure of arguing for arguing's sake (not of course that I personally do)!

 

[zeroseven]

Yep you do have to reframe but,
The shutter lag on an M camera is on the order of 10ms. There is NO SLR that approaches that except MAYBE the Canon or Nikon high speed motor driven cameras.
If you can focus a wide angle lens on an SLR better than an M you are an exceptional human being. Most of humanity cannot.
Doesn't Canon offer a 50mm f1 lens? Maybe you should check that out instead of needing to criticize someone else's choice of equipment.

But the point is John on the SLR what you see is what you get. If an image is sharp on the ground glass its sharp. You dont need split screen, micro whatever they ares..... focusing an 18 mm is easy, either its sharp or its not. The margin for error anyway is enormous, around 2 feet at 6' T1.4 on an 18mm, at 20 feet its probably 20 feet. You wouldn't even have to look through ANY camera with those kind of figures. And please dont anyone start on about actual focus not being the same as apparent focus - that is subject defendant. Stuff I do gets seen on 70 foot screens

I totally concede the point about the infra red filter - very good point. I'd forgotten that.

David - people don't argue on here for the sake of arguing do they?

 

[John Koehrer]

But the point is John on the SLR what you see is what you get. If an image is sharp on the ground glass its sharp. You dont need split screen, micro whatever they ares..... focusing an 18 mm is easy, either its sharp or its not. The margin for error anyway is enormous, around 2 feet at 6' T1.4 on an 18mm, at 20 feet its probably 20 feet. You wouldn't even have to look through ANY camera with those kind of figures. And please dont anyone start on about actual focus not being the same as apparent focus - that is subject defendant. Stuff I do gets seen on 70 foot screens

I totally concede the point about the infra red filter - very good point. I'd forgotten that.

David - people don't argue on here for the sake of arguing do they?

What you see is what you get? Only if you're using one of the few cameras with 100% finder. Most don't at around 95%. Only if your eye is centered in the eyepiece or you've offset the image.
It is horses for courses though and both RF and SLR have their place in the tool box.