Why Buy a Leica?

[Jersey Vic]

A think that buying a Leica M7 would be insane for you and most people.
I think that a user-quality body M series body bought at around $800-1200 would never lose it's value and provide you with many years of wonderful reliable service. I have a Bessa and a IIIf and there is no comparision in the workmanship and in the sheer joy of using and holding something so finely made. It makes you want to use it.

 

[jon koss]

Well said! This would be the ideal time to lock this thread.

J

A think that buying a Leica M7 would be insane for you and most people.
I think that a user-quality body M series body bought at around $800-1200 would never lose it's value and provide you with many years of wonderful reliable service. I have a Bessa and a IIIf and there is no comparision in the workmanship and in the sheer joy of using and holding something so finely made. It makes you want to use it.

 

[k_jupiter]

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).

*L*

You know exactly what I meant. A rb lens will give you better prints for any given final size than any 35mm system. If used correctly.

I also acknowledged that the Leica was a hell of a lot more convenient to use than the rb.

Last time I checked, a 40 ton truck couldn't shoot worth a damn.

tim in san jose

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Last time I checked, a 40 ton truck couldn't shoot worth a damn.

tim in san jose

The miniature version is more convenient :
Dead Link Removed

Regards,

David

 

[whitecat]

Instead of the Leica look at the Zeiss Ikon. I have had them both and the ZI has so much more going for it especially the viewfinder.

 

[Lee Shively]

A 40-ton truck can haul 40 tons. The family Toyota can't. That's why trucking companies use the big rigs instead of Camrys.

An RB obviously can produce better final prints than a Leica. I routinely get better prints out of my Pentax 645 and Mamiya C330 than my Leica M6. Poor old Leica. Guess I oughta just toss it out. Along with my Canons, Nikons, Kievs and all the other 35mm cameras.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Instead of the Leica look at the Zeiss Ikon. I have had them both and the ZI has so much more going for it especially the viewfinder.

Provided you don't mind battery dependence (OK same as M7 but not other Ms). I find the upside-down, backwards film wind awkward; my wife doesn't. Also, I have a weakness for cameras where frame spaces don't go through the middle of perforations (I've just finished cutting up some negs shot with the 18/4 on the Zeiss Ikon SW). The 85mm and 90mm frames are neither here nor there: both are identical, within experimental error. No 135 frame, on the other hand. But then there's the Leicavit, which I love -- no equivalent on the ZI -- and sheer personal preference. My wife reckons the ZI sits better in her hands, with the MP a close second. I'd reverse that...

The ZI is a great camera, but I'd only agree with the above statement if 'more' were dropped, to read, 'the ZI has so much going for it'.

 

[dslater]

Provided you don't mind battery dependence (OK same as M7 but not other Ms). I find the upside-down, backwards film wind awkward; my wife doesn't. Also, I have a weakness for cameras where frame spaces don't go through the middle of perforations (I've just finished cutting up some negs shot with the 18/4 on the Zeiss Ikon SW). The 85mm and 90mm frames are neither here nor there: both are identical, within experimental error. No 135 frame, on the other hand. But then there's the Leicavit, which I love -- no equivalent on the ZI -- and sheer personal preference. My wife reckons the ZI sits better in her hands, with the MP a close second. I'd reverse that...

The ZI is a great camera, but I'd only agree with the above statement if 'more' were dropped, to read, 'the ZI has so much going for it'.

Personally, I think people make far too much out of battery dependence in film cameras. They simply don't eat batteries that fast. Additionally for a camera like the ZI, aren't the batteries quite small and light so you could keep a bunch of them in your camera bag quite easily?
I agree with you about the frame spaces falling in the middle of the perforations. In todays market where so many people scan their negatives, this is simply unacceptable. I have a Nikon Coolscan that won't accept negative strips that have been cut through the sprocket holes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally, I think people make far too much out of battery dependence in film cameras.

Those who hate battery dependence, and those who can't see the problem, will never understand one another. A lot depends on where and when and how often you have run out of batteries, and how used you are to cameras that don't depend on the beastly things.

As for carrying spares, as you say, film cameras don't eat batteries (unlike digi) so you don't need to change then very often. This means that if you have more than one camera bag, or if you aren't carrying a camera bag, you may well not have batteries with you when they pack up.

Or you may forget to pack them -- not much fun if they die in the Forbidden City as they did with my MP, though fortunately on that occasion my wife had a couple of spares for her Voigtlanders. And if you have several cameras that need SR44 batteries, it's Sod's Law they'll all need new batteries at once. If it's just meters that don't work, not so bad: if it's the whole camera that packs up, no thanks.

If there were a mechanical ZI, my wife reckons she might prefer it to an MP. As it is, she prefers the MP.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Woolliscroft]

I am coming to the party rather late, but to go back to first few posts and why are Leicas so expensive, I think the law of diminishing returns comes into play here. A cheap camera can be made markedly better very cheaply. On the other hand, to improve on a superb camera, even by a fairly small amount, can cost a small fortune. Is a Leica M six times better than a good camera with even better lenses, like a Bessa, of course not, but it is noticeably better and that costs real money to achieve, after that it's just a matter of deciding if a relatively modest improvement is worth six times as much money to you.

For my twopence worth, I had dreamt of buying Leicas for 30 years but couldn't afford them, and at the same time rather hoped their reputation was all hype (so that I wasn't missing much). Then I got to use one: it wasn't hype and now I use little else in 35mm. I still can't afford the new prices, but fortunately all the people going digital have left a trail of much reduced used prices behind them and I'm taking full advantage.

David

 

[dslater]

Those who hate battery dependence, and those who can't see the problem, will never understand one another. A lot depends on where and when and how often you have run out of batteries, and how used you are to cameras that don't depend on the beastly things.

As for carrying spares, as you say, film cameras don't eat batteries (unlike digi) so you don't need to change then very often. This means that if you have more than one camera bag, or if you aren't carrying a camera bag, you may well not have batteries with you when they pack up.

Or you may forget to pack them -- not much fun if they die in the Forbidden City as they did with my MP, though fortunately on that occasion my wife had a couple of spares for her Voigtlanders. And if you have several cameras that need SR44 batteries, it's Sod's Law they'll all need new batteries at once. If it's just meters that don't work, not so bad: if it's the whole camera that packs up, no thanks.

If there were a mechanical ZI, my wife reckons she might prefer it to an MP. As it is, she prefers the MP.

Cheers,

Roger

Do you mean the M7? I thought the MP was completely mechanical. For small batteries like SR44's I think you can get a camera strap that has a small pocket to hold a spare. Also, to be honest, I usually don't wait for my batteries to die before replacing them. If I'm going somewhere where I know picture taking is important, I'll replace the batteries if I can't remember the last time they were replaced. Since I usually use my F100 and it takes AA batteries, I have about a dozen NiMH rechargeable batteries so changing them early doesn't create any waste. I also keep a set of alkaline cells in my bag just in case - unlike NiMH batteries, they can sit there for a long time without losing charge. Of course this adds some weight, but compared to the weight of my lenses, it's just not that important.
I see your point about not bringing a camera bag, but I never really do that. If I am going somewhere where I don't want to take the whole camera bag in with me, I'll still take the bag and leave it in the car. For me the advantages of not having to carry a separate meter outweigh the advantages of a mechanical camera.

 

[Fotohuis]

Battery problem?

http://www.leicagoodies.com/ --> SPARE

"Problem" solved
It will work on a C.V. and Zeiss ZM too

 

[dslater]

Battery problem?

http://www.leicagoodies.com/ --> SPARE

"Problem" solved
It will work on a C.V. and Zeiss ZM too

Cool - do you think it will work with my F3 or is it Leica only?

 

[Fotohuis]

This is working only with MY Leica. (And of course with Leica batteries only)

The system is a bit critical so you have to wear gloves otherwise you could damage your camera.........

 

[Fotohuis]

More serious: My M7 is powered by 2x CR1/3N (Lithium) or 4x AG13 1,5V alkaline in the showed spare unit in case I am with empty batteries. The M7 will work mechanically on 1/60 S and 1/125 S only without batteries (Quarz controlled shutter). The MP doesn't need any batteries for operation, only for the exposure meter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you mean the M7? I thought the MP was completely mechanical.

No, MP. It was only the meter that went.

For small batteries like SR44's I think you can get a camera strap that has a small pocket to hold a spare.

Quite possibly, but I prefer the Artist and Artisan straps that I have on my two main Leicas (and Frances has on her Voigtlanders).

If I'm going somewhere where I know picture taking is important, I'll replace the batteries if I can't remember the last time they were replaced.

If I did that I'd be changing batteries all the time -- and of course I can't use rechargeables. Then again, my camera, lenses and batteries are all far smaller.

I see your point about not bringing a camera bag, but I never really do that. If I am going somewhere where I don't want to take the whole camera bag in with me, I'll still take the bag and leave it in the car.

I often don't carry a bag at all, and when I do, I have a choice of a ridiculous number. The choice depends on where I'm going, what I'm carrying, how far I have to walk, what I'm shooting, whether I have cameras on loan to test...

For me the advantages of not having to carry a separate meter outweigh the advantages of a mechanical camera.

I don't carry a separate meter either. If the meter fails, I guess. Usually quite accurately. In fact, I often guess anyway, and merely check how well the meter agrees with me.

As I say, it's a different world-picture...

 

[eddym]

For small batteries like SR44's I think you can get a camera strap that has a small pocket to hold a spare.

Camera strap??? On a Leica? How silly! Camera straps are for big heavy cameras like Nikons and Hasselblads. A Leica deserves to live on a wrist strap! Why do you think they put the tripod threads over on the right side like that? Certainly not for a tripod!

 

[Fotohuis]

You mean like this one: http://www.leicagoodies.com/ --> STRAP

 

[eddym]

You mean like this one: http://www.leicagoodies.com/ --> STRAP

WAY too big and bulky!! Wrist strap, my friend, WRIST strap! Sorry, but I don't have a picture of mine.

 

[Fotohuis]

Yes, THIS one: http://www.leicagoodies.com/ --> SLING

 

[Lee Shively]

I'm sure a wrist strap works well for some people but, for me, it takes my right hand out of the equation for anything except holding the camera. Sometimes I need the use of both hands at the same time. Maybe to lift my glass of beer while trying to get the attention of the pretty young waitress to bring another round. So, I'll stick to neck straps. Besides, I can carry more than one camera at the same time that way.

 

[dslater]

Camera strap??? On a Leica? How silly! Camera straps are for big heavy cameras like Nikons and Hasselblads. A Leica deserves to live on a wrist strap! Why do you think they put the tripod threads over on the right side like that? Certainly not for a tripod!

Sounds great as long as you don't mind being having only one hand available for things other than photography. In fact, when I'm out walking I routinely use my camera strap as a wrist strap.
BTW, I would bet that my Nikon N80 lighter than a Leica M.

 

[Erik Hartmann]

Why dont you have (find/bye) a 'real' Leica.. Like my 'new' Leica II (1940) ... take a look at this link: http://www.fotokritik.dk/kritik.html?pic=353289....
Never had anything like that.....

Erik
(now in Jasper National Park (AL,Ca))

 

[Peter Black]

BTW, I would bet that my Nikon N80 lighter than a Leica M.

With absolutely no offence intended, "Frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn." Nor do I care about earlier posts which suggest that MF may be better quality, since I believe the thread to be about whether or not there is a reasonable case for buying a Leica rangefinder in general, but an M in paricular.

By highlighting the above anomalies, I feel that I am really pointing out that debates of this nature (PC v Mac, Nikon V Canon, Film V Digital, Tri-X V HP5+, whatever!) will automatically lead to others drawing in unequal comparisons, which does not really help any of us at all. If you want a quality 35mm rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, your choice is relatively limited and may well boil down to the perceived differences between a new(ish) Voigtlander against a 40 or 50 year old anachronism, but at the same time you might(should) be looking at whether or not that camera will be repairable in maybe 5 or 10 years.

There is much to be said for a camera like the M3 which will run without batteries and may still be serviced and repaired at 50 years old. Having seen reputable companies such as Konica, Minolta, Contax, etc go to the wall over the last few years, we should be thankful that Leica soldiers on and parts are available.

Are Leicas really the ultimate camera and should we all be shooting them? Absolutely NOT! Should those who understand what they're all about still buy them and use them? Yes (but said in much the same way that Meg Ryan said it in When Harry Met Sally )

 

[dslater]

With absolutely no offence intended, "Frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn." Nor do I care about earlier posts which suggest that MF may be better quality, since I believe the thread to be about whether or not there is a reasonable case for buying a Leica rangefinder in general, but an M in paricular.

By highlighting the above anomalies, I feel that I am really pointing out that debates of this nature (PC v Mac, Nikon V Canon, Film V Digital, Tri-X V HP5+, whatever!) will automatically lead to others drawing in unequal comparisons, which does not really help any of us at all. If you want a quality 35mm rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, your choice is relatively limited and may well boil down to the perceived differences between a new(ish) Voigtlander against a 40 or 50 year old anachronism, but at the same time you might(should) be looking at whether or not that camera will be repairable in maybe 5 or 10 years.

There is much to be said for a camera like the M3 which will run without batteries and may still be serviced and repaired at 50 years old. Having seen reputable companies such as Konica, Minolta, Contax, etc go to the wall over the last few years, we should be thankful that Leica soldiers on and parts are available.

Are Leicas really the ultimate camera and should we all be shooting them? Absolutely NOT! Should those who understand what they're all about still buy them and use them? Yes (but said in much the same way that Meg Ryan said it in When Harry Met Sally)

That's O.K. - I wasn't talking to you anyway. My post had nothing to do with Nikon vs. Leica. If you read the posts, you'll see that first Eddy called me "silly" for suggesting the use of a camera strap on a Leica, then went on to say camera straps are for big heavy cameras like Nikons - my only point was that not all SLR's are big and heavy. BTW -I have Nikons and a Leica and enjoy using them all equally well.