Why Buy a Leica?

Ian Tindale · Sep 23, 2007

Contax TVS: step onto train; hold hand out; lens falls apart; catch various circular bits in hand; step off train and walk into shop it was originally bought from; hand them the pile of camera; wait five months for eventual refund.

benjiboy · Sep 23, 2007

The question I would ask myself in your situation is will buying a Leica make me a better photographer?, and am I such a good photographer that I can tell the difference between that and my R3A ?, because I personally have been taking pictures for more than fifty years , and on reflection have never owned a camera that was not a better camera than I'm a Photographer.
I already have medium priced equipment that I bought about twenty years ago second hand ,and if I have spare cash to spend I spend it on materials, and trying to improve my photographic knowledge by buying books, attending courses , and master classes ,to try and become a better photographer, experience has taught me that excellence can't be achieved by acquisition, some of the worlds greatest photographers use equipment held together by string and Gaffer Tape.

eddym · Sep 23, 2007

Andy K said:
Bessa: Rewind exposed film, open back, remove film, insert new roll, wind once, close back.

No bits and pieces to be dropped on a dark floor.
Having to dismantle your camera to change rolls, in 2007, is ludicrous.

I don't call removing the bottom plate "dismantling a camera." Nor do I find it ludicrous.
Maybe you missed the part about the wrist strap. A Leica on a wrist strap becomes an extension of your hand. And it prevents anything from falling.
I've never dropped any "bits and pieces" onto a dark floor.
I'll repeat that practice makes perfect.
However, if you prefer another camera, by all means use it. But please don't denigrate those who prefer a tool that is perfect for the work that they do.

Andy K · Sep 23, 2007

I have not denigrated anyone. I said that a camera design (35mm), in 2007, that requires the camera to be dismantled to load film, is ludicrous.

Why is it when Leicas are criticised people take it personally? Its a camera, nothing more nothing less.

bruce terry · Sep 23, 2007

Yeah, the hinged 35mm camera back was one of the great camera improvements of all time.

Funny tho, using Oscar's offspring for over 49 years now (along with Nikons), I've never dropped one or been slowed down by that silly, archaic, totally-removable bottom plate.

Never gave it much thought until AndyK broached the subject.

Guess all it does is make the body solid as a medium-sized rock.

But that's not a bad thing.

aldevo · Sep 23, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
Every time I've considered it, I've come to the conclusion that it's too much money for such a small piece of film.

I quite agree.

I recently inherited a mint M3 and two lenses (1st generation 50mm Summilux, 90mm Elmar). It was made clear to me that I was bequeathed the items because I would have the best idea (of all her heirs) of what they were worth.

I ran two rolls through the camera and promptly sold it and the lenses to a collector.

The camera and the lenses certainly performed remarkably (wonderfully, actually), but the proceeds will enable me to buy a very complete Mamiya RZ system with more than a bit left over for 120/220 film.

A cold-blooded decision based on my priorities and one that I doubt I'll regret.

mark · Sep 23, 2007

If I had the money to spare (no where in this life time) I would buy one. It is like they belong in your hand.

David H. Bebbington · Sep 23, 2007

bruce terry said:
Yeah, the hinged 35mm camera back was one of the great camera improvements of all time.

Funny tho, using Oscar's offspring for over 49 years now (along with Nikons), I've never dropped one or been slowed down by that silly, archaic, totally-removable bottom plate.

Never gave it much thought until AndyK broached the subject.

Guess all it does is make the body solid as a medium-sized rock.

But that's not a bad thing.

As a confirmed Leica fan, I have always been mystified by the reasoning behind the baseloading idea. As far as I am concerned, what a 35 mm camera needs is precision in the alignment of the lens mount and film gate. It then needs the film to be held flat against the film gate, which can be achieved perfectly well by a hinged back and spring-loaded pressure plate. Yes, a one-piece body with a fixed back (or a fixed back with a hinged flap, as in M-series Leicas) does give more rigidity, but I can't for the life of me see that it is needed!

bruce terry · Sep 24, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
Yes, a one-piece body with a fixed back (or a fixed back with a hinged flap, as in M-series Leicas) does give more rigidity, but I can't for the life of me see that it is needed!

I agree, not really needed, but a Leica rangefinder (or old viewfinder) camera body with a nasty hinge along one end and an ugly slide lock on the other would be Blasphemy!

Gone would be those caressable, perfectly-rounded, plain-jane corners that let's be honest are the only reason one buys M's nowadays instead of everything else.

It's not mystique. It's not perfection. It's just lust. That Barnackravian cameras work well forever and sport good glass is secondary. After using a Nikon all day you hang it up. With an M, you fondle those voluptuous ends recalling where the two of you have been, then you hang it up, maybe.

Palantiri7 · Sep 24, 2007

I must admit I was initially quite appalled by new Leica prices which are not too dissimilar to the cost my new large format camera. I consequently bought a Bessa R system. Then one day I got the opportunity to handle a Leica M4-P, and, boy, I understand a little better now. Admittedly, the Bessa rangefinder patch was better, but that was about it.

temujin · Sep 25, 2007

hey, i've got a bag of magic beans here, anybody in this thread interested in buying it? lets say $30,000?

Ed Sukach · Sep 26, 2007

temujin said:
hey, i've got a bag of magic beans here, anybody in this thread interested in buying it? lets say $30,000?

Will you accept "magic money"?

eddym · Sep 26, 2007

temujin said:
hey, i've got a bag of magic beans here, anybody in this thread interested in buying it? lets say $30,000?

It depends. Fifty years from now, will they be still able to take pictures? Heck, can they take pictures now?

John Koehrer · Sep 27, 2007

temujin said:
hey, i've got a bag of magic beans here, anybody in this thread interested in buying it? lets say $30,000?

Well, My plastic money card is full.......Will you take my personal check? I guarantee it will stop bouncing when pigs begin to fly.

KenS · Sep 27, 2007

leica accessories

aldevo said:
I quite agree.

I recently inherited a mint M3 and two lenses (1st generation 50mm Summilux, 90mm Elmar). It was made clear to me that I was bequeathed the items because I would have the best idea (of all her heirs) of what they were worth.

Tht is how I acquired the Leica template for cutting the 'take-up' end of bulk film loads when I had my M3

It's still around in case I ever need it again.. But I seriouslydoubt I can ever afford another base load model M

Ken

Uncle Bill · Oct 3, 2007

aldevo said:
I quite agree.

I recently inherited a mint M3 and two lenses (1st generation 50mm Summilux, 90mm Elmar). It was made clear to me that I was bequeathed the items because I would have the best idea (of all her heirs) of what they were worth.

I ran two rolls through the camera and promptly sold it and the lenses to a collector.

The camera and the lenses certainly performed remarkably (wonderfully, actually), but the proceeds will enable me to buy a very complete Mamiya RZ system with more than a bit left over for 120/220 film.

A cold-blooded decision based on my priorities and one that I doubt I'll regret.

I inherited a similar set up from my late dad (a DS M3 with a collapsable 50 f2Summicron and 90f 4 Elmar) unlike you I am not letting go of mine. My leica gets used.

boilerdoc · Oct 3, 2007

The single most practical reason is for the rangefinder. You can focus a f/1.0 and long telephotos with a Leica. Good luck trying it with the Bessa. I have an R3a but I wouldn't try anything longer than a 50/2.0 lens on it.

Andy K · Oct 3, 2007

boilerdoc said:
The single most practical reason is for the rangefinder. You can focus a f/1.0 and long telephotos with a Leica. Good luck trying it with the Bessa. I have an R3a but I wouldn't try anything longer than a 50/2.0 lens on it.

I regularly use a 90mm on my R3M with no problems.

reinierv · Oct 4, 2007

wow, I never thought that in the digital era a discussion like this was still possible

I have an M6 with 15/35/50/90mm, changes I will soon part from it...extremely slim to none. Answers more than enough. I have more recent cams that will go first if needed.

michiel fokkema · Oct 8, 2007

Hi,

I have a lot of camera's. From 4x5 to 35mm. But in the end I always come back to my Leica's. I also used a Canon P, but the M2 is better. I also use a Konica RF, but I think the M6 is still better.
As others say Leica's are not that expensive. As long as you don't buy the latest stuff new, it is very reasonable. Thye also keep good value. I bought my first Leica for 1000 guilders. I sold it 10 years later for 1100. Is that expensive? I don't think so. And it never failed in these 10 years and never needed a CLA.
If you don't like ?oke too. If you rather spent your money on something else? oke too. Do what suits you best and for me that is leica.
Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

Venchka · Oct 12, 2007

Looks like I'm coming to the party a bit late.

In 1969 the US Army sent me to Germany. I lusted for a Leica M4. Bought Nikon SLR stuff instead.

When the M5 was introduced, I lusted after it. Bought 6x7 gear instead.

Backgound: I bought a Canon EF in 1975. I still use it.

Last year the Leica Lust reared it's head once more. I went to a local shop and handled 3 bodies: M3, M5 and M4-P.

When I picked up the M5 and found the same shutter speed dial arrangement as my Canon EF, I knew it was the Leica for me. I did a bit more shopping and bought my first M5, a.k.a. Bigfoot, from a member of the Rangefinder Forum. I liked Bigfoot so much that I bought a second M5, a.k.a. Bubba, from a LUG member.

So, why buy a Leica? I can only speak for myself. Two reasons:

1. Be
2. Cause

Cheers!

Philippe-Georges · Oct 12, 2007

Dear Venchka,

You did the most reasonable thing a man can do when the Leica GAS attacks, buying M5's!

Good luck whit them,

Philippe

Jedidiah Smith · Oct 12, 2007

Tim, did you ever try a Minolta XD-11? Yes, that X-370 you had was their cheapest and crappiest body ever made! I'm willing to bet that the XD-11 and a good rokkor prime such as the 24mm f2.8, the 28mm f2 and etc...would easily be an even match for your Nikon and comparable lenses.
We'll have to swap a print sometime...I'm sure it would be next to impossible to tell which camera/lens combo took the shot.
Which just goes to show...if you want the Leica...get it because you LOVE it. And then go shoot it - don't let it just sit there on a shelf!
Jed

k_jupiter · Oct 12, 2007

Jedidiah Smith said:
Tim, did you ever try a Minolta XD-11? Yes, that X-370 you had was their cheapest and crappiest body ever made! I'm willing to bet that the XD-11 and a good rokkor prime such as the 24mm f2.8, the 28mm f2 and etc...would easily be an even match for your Nikon and comparable lenses.
We'll have to swap a print sometime...I'm sure it would be next to impossible to tell which camera/lens combo took the shot.
Which just goes to show...if you want the Leica...get it because you LOVE it. And then go shoot it - don't let it just sit there on a shelf!
Jed

My first real camera was a XD-11. Bought it at the Base Exchange in Spangdahlem Germany. Owned it almost a year before someone broke into my car in Amsterdam and made my Minolta into their Minolta. I agonized for weeks as to whether to get the XD-11 or a Mamiya 645. Don't remember why I chose the Minolta. It was a nice camera. Nobody has to hold their heads in shame carrying around an XD or XE series camera.

I only shoot primes. While I have heard that zooms are much better these days, I don't see the need.

Anyhow, this isn't the place to argue whether a Rokkor is better or worse than a Nikkor. This is a place for rich people to argue whether a M is better'n a R lens system. And I ain't rich.

My personal opinion is my Mamiya rb67 is better than any Leica optically, it's just not as convenient.

tim in san jose

Alexz · Oct 12, 2007

Tim, with all due respect, can't fetch the point out of such kind of claim as you did, namely: "My personal opinion is my Mamiya rb67 is better than any Leica optically, it's just not as convenient."
IMHO, this is exactly as to claim that someone's 40 ton truck is better then someone's family range Toyota (you may replace Toyota by any other regular private car). Those things just of totally different cathegory, may only compliment each other, but certainly not to compete with each other.
You obviously meant Mamiya RB lens is better then Leica lens, right ?
If this is what you intend to imply, I cannot agree with that either...
We all realize that the larger is the format, the lesser enlargement needs to be performed for given size, hence the less are sharpness requirements from the lenses of larger formats. A good/best medium format lenses may actually be somewhat less sharp then best 35mm lenses, yet still provide better percieved quality of final print per given enlargement, just thansk to achieving the final size with much less enlargement of the original.
However, I'd expect best 35mm lenses technically outperform those in larger formats and this is OK for me bearing in mind the original format (perhaps Mamiya 7/7II lenses can be exceptional on sharpness according to what I keep hearing). Certainly, on a stable tripod, aimed with proper technique, there are good chances nearly all, even inexpensive MF systems will allow finer enlargements over Leica (or other high quality 35mm brand), but no matter how better the final results can be, if no appropriate technique (tripod, proper scanning, etc...) is going to be applied - I pick Leica (or other ample 35mm tool).

Why Buy a Leica?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency