Why Buy a Leica?

[Sirius Glass]

It's certainly true that a camera you enjoy using is more likely to be taken with you and consequently get the shot. On the other hand I've recently starting buying the plastic fantastic SLRs of the 1990s. They have none of the qualities of a Leica, or indeed my old school Nikons, but they are dirt cheap to buy, highly automated, often come with decent glass and are light to carry.
It's a different buzz from the heritage click - more of a fizz-whirr-slap - but the negatives have as high a hit rate as my classics and the change is fun. And who is to condemn the joy of foolin' round with cameras?

I buy Hasselblads because they have a higher standard. [ROTFLMAO!!]

 

[2F/2F]

Why buy them? Cuz they's good cameras.

Why spend a lot more money on them than you'd spend for many other cameras?

I have no bloody idea!!

 

[Q.G.]

I know a guy, an avid photographer, who won a Leica in a photographic competition.
The winning photo was made using his (inexpensive) Minolta.

I asked him, considering he could make 'Leica-winning' photographs using a Minolta, what he would need that Leica for.
He never did manage to come up with a reply.

 

[guitstik]

The local camera store I deal with (the last in Memphis as the oldest store closed recently and I wept) has an M3, an M4 and an R3 for sale. I held the R3 and played with it for a little bit but figured why by another Minolta 'cause that it was it is based on. I also fondled the M3 that had recently been CLA'd, it was nice in the hands but the finder was off at infinity and when I checked it from the other side you could see that the it was experiencing separation of the rangefinder. They want $900 large for the M3 but you could have the R3 for a measly $198. Those prices DO NOT include lenses, those are extra and for the M3 that would bump the price up to about 2K. One thing I don't like about the M3 is that if you want to shoot with a 35mm lens you need the adapter 'cause the RF does not show 35 lines and that adds to the weight and diminishes the picture quality IMHBVAO.

 

[fotch]

The M2 has the 35mm lines. I think you can find a better deal used, add the cost of having one of the better Leica techs overhaul and calibrate, and have spent less money.

 

[guitstik]

That was used.

 

[2F/2F]

I buy Hasselblads because they have a higher standard. [ROTFLMAO!!]

Wait...I thought that standards were only found on view cameras, not Hassies. :confused:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wait...I thought that standards were only found on view cameras, not Hassies. :confused:

Hasselblads for MF. FlexBody and ArcBody have standards too.

Others for LF.

We must maintain our standards

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

We must maintain our standards

Do you know a good place for a CLA of my standards? I have several of them that need to be looked at.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Start with Samys.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why buy a Leica? If I could have thought of a good reason, I would have done it long ago. Other 35mm cameras can handle a greater range of focal lengths and are easier to use with polarizors. Leica's SLRs were over weight and over priced. Instead I added MF, a darkroom and now LF.

Steve

 

[fotch]

Steve, I use to think that way also. Then I had a commercial account that requested I obtain a used Leica M3 for them. I ended up buying a couple of them to make sure I got at least one good one, and later, they traded it back to me. After looking them over and shooting with them, I like them. I ended up keeping all of them.

Although not my first choice most of the time, I do like taking them out and shooting with them. Like owning a nice car, a good pair of shoes, or a fine watch, its for some but not everyone. Regardless, Leica is an amazing picture taking machine, unlike any other.

 

[Brian Legge]

I like small, quiet cameras. The ability to change lenses is a bug adavantage over fixed lens cameras. And film obviously.

What other options are there? The OM2/etc is close. What other options are there? I'm still shooting primarily fixed lens rangefinders as the Leica iiic I picked up just doesn't compete - or rather I can't afford lenses that produce an equivalent lens

 

[fotch]

How about Russian lens? I have no personal experience however, others have posted good results.

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

Do you know the Leica joke about - Daddy is this a Dinosaurier?

 

[Q.G.]

[...] Like owning a nice car, a good pair of shoes, or a fine watch, its for some but not everyone.

Which made it very 'fitting' that Hermes took over Leica back then.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Steve, I use to think that way also. Then I had a commercial account that requested I obtain a used Leica M3 for them. I ended up buying a couple of them to make sure I got at least one good one, and later, they traded it back to me. After looking them over and shooting with them, I like them. I ended up keeping all of them.

Although not my first choice most of the time, I do like taking them out and shooting with them. Like owning a nice car, a good pair of shoes, or a fine watch, its for some but not everyone. Regardless, Leica is an amazing picture taking machine, unlike any other.

I agree RF Leicas are great cameras and are a joy to handle, after learning to load them properly. But I have 35 mm well covered and I would not have much added value by adding them to my camera posse.

Steve

 

[takef586]

I have shot with SLR cameras all my life. Then, one day I had this idea to start a series on shots of coffee cups in Milan bars - drinking coffee in Italy is such a ritual, and bars are always full of interesting subjects... When I showed the photos to my friendly salesman in a photography shop, he said : why don't you use a Leica?, you will be able to shoot at slower speeds... But I thought Leicas and Leica lenses were overpriced snobbery... I always liked Zeiss glass, and had beautiful ZF lenses for my Nikons FM3A... So I started cautiously, by buying a Bessa R3A and Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 lens. Then I added an Elmarit 90. When started using this camera, the first reaction was disbelief, because the C Sonnar photos were just out of this world. I have never seen anything comparable before... but there were some problems with the focus shift. When I tried the Elmarit 90, the photos looked like coke bottle lens results - AHA, I thought, The Zeiss superiority is obvious! A pity, that after some time I discovered, my Bessa was misaligned right out of the factory... After few more weks, the paint wore off on the rewind crank, and even with the loving care of a nice Luigi case, the shutter was quite loud. What was also quite annoying, was the tendency of the camera to tilt backwards when it was hanging from my neck, with the lens looking up to the sky, ready to collect dust and raindrops. The worst thing of all though, has been the difficulty to see the 50mm framellines ( I wear glasses). I decided to try something better, I bought a Zeiss Ikon. The quality jump has been quite big - huge VF, more silent shutter, better handling, much better (more accurate) focusing due to the longer base, better vision with bigger lenses, much better finish. This camera has been a pleasure to use. I added some Zeiss rf lenses, and shot with it happily for some time. I added then a Bessa R4A for the wide angles, and a Minolta CLE for travel. However slowly, slowly I noticed I was gravitating towards shooting mainly with a 50mm lens, and the Zeiss Ikon 50mm frame is somewhat smallish, so one day I bought a second hand 0.85x M7. I have modified the camera, removing the 75mm frameline ( I think the 50/75mm frame coupling is the worst Leica invention ever). I started using my Leica cursing its awkward film loading scheme, bothered by its weight and by the need to protect the lens from pointing into the sun to avoid burning the shutter. I thought it was going to be my camera for shooting in interiors - silent and with long base, which was good for fast 50mm lenses. Well, to make the long story short, with time the Leica grew on me. It is technically inferior to Zeiss Ikon, but I find myself invariably reaching out for a Leica first, when I have to go out. It just feels right, it gives you the impresion of solidity and reliability. The rf is easy to focus and contrasty (in the meantime I had to align my ZI too), the shutter is incredibly silent, the weight can actually be an asset when using slow speeds. With time, Leica has become second nature. I added an 0.58x M7 and an M4, and the sensation is the same. As to the lenses, I would say that it really depends on what you like and what you need. I have tried many lenses from CV, Zeiss, Leica and Canon. There are gems in each line. However, if I had to keep only one lens, I would probably opt for the 50/2 DR/Rigid Summicron - I am exclusively a B&W shooter, and I find that the rendering of these old style, high resolution, low contrast lenses is insuperable. If you want to check wheather Leica has any appeal to you, you should try to borrow a Leica with this lens for a few days and shoot some rolls of Tri X or HP5+ with it to see for yourself. After all, if photography is your main passion in life, an M3 with the DR Summicron can be found in good conditions for about 1000 EUR, and it will last you decades - not a big difference in price relative to a Bessa R3A with a CV lens. Check the story of this guy: Gary Stochl - I think he has been shooting with this kind of combo for the last 40 years...

 

[chrismoret]

Did 'Leica-on-a-budget'. A '86 M4-p, with one new Biogon 35mm last May. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have shot with SLR cameras all my life. Then, one day I had this idea to start a series on shots of coffee cups in Milan bars - drinking coffee in Italy is such a ritual, and bars are always full of interesting subjects... When I showed the photos to my friendly salesman in a photography shop, he said : why don't you use a Leica?, you will be able to shoot at slower speeds... But I thought Leicas and Leica lenses were overpriced snobbery... I always liked Zeiss glass, and had beautiful ZF lenses for my Nikons FM3A... So I started cautiously, by buying a Bessa R3A and Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 lens. Then I added an Elmarit 90. When started using this camera, the first reaction was disbelief, because the C Sonnar photos were just out of this world. I have never seen anything comparable before... but there were some problems with the focus shift. When I tried the Elmarit 90, the photos looked like coke bottle lens results - AHA, I thought, The Zeiss superiority is obvious! A pity, that after some time I discovered, my Bessa was misaligned right out of the factory... After few more weks, the paint wore off on the rewind crank, and even with the loving care of a nice Luigi case, the shutter was quite loud. What was also quite annoying, was the tendency of the camera to tilt backwards when it was hanging from my neck, with the lens looking up to the sky, ready to collect dust and raindrops. The worst thing of all though, has been the difficulty to see the 50mm framellines ( I wear glasses). I decided to try something better, I bought a Zeiss Ikon. The quality jump has been quite big - huge VF, more silent shutter, better handling, much better (more accurate) focusing due to the longer base, better vision with bigger lenses, much better finish. This camera has been a pleasure to use. I added some Zeiss rf lenses, and shot with it happily for some time. I added then a Bessa R4A for the wide angles, and a Minolta CLE for travel. However slowly, slowly I noticed I was gravitating towards shooting mainly with a 50mm lens, and the Zeiss Ikon 50mm frame is somewhat smallish, so one day I bought a second hand 0.85x M7. I have modified the camera, removing the 75mm frameline ( I think the 50/75mm frame coupling is the worst Leica invention ever). I started using my Leica cursing its awkward film loading scheme, bothered by its weight and by the need to protect the lens from pointing into the sun to avoid burning the shutter. I thought it was going to be my camera for shooting in interiors - silent and with long base, which was good for fast 50mm lenses. Well, to make the long story short, with time the Leica grew on me. It is technically inferior to Zeiss Ikon, but I find myself invariably reaching out for a Leica first, when I have to go out. It just feels right, it gives you the impresion of solidity and reliability. The rf is easy to focus and contrasty (in the meantime I had to align my ZI too), the shutter is incredibly silent, the weight can actually be an asset when using slow speeds. With time, Leica has become second nature. I added an 0.58x M7 and an M4, and the sensation is the same. As to the lenses, I would say that it really depends on what you like and what you need. I have tried many lenses from CV, Zeiss, Leica and Canon. There are gems in each line. However, if I had to keep only one lens, I would probably opt for the 50/2 DR/Rigid Summicron - I am exclusively a B&W shooter, and I find that the rendering of these old style, high resolution, low contrast lenses is insuperable. If you want to check wheather Leica has any appeal to you, you should try to borrow a Leica with this lens for a few days and shoot some rolls of Tri X or HP5+ with it to see for yourself. After all, if photography is your main passion in life, an M3 with the DR Summicron can be found in good conditions for about 1000 EUR, and it will last you decades - not a big difference in price relative to a Bessa R3A with a CV lens. Check the story of this guy: Gary Stochl - I think he has been shooting with this kind of combo for the last 40 years...

G.A.S. will get you every time. I have enough expensive cameras so I will stay away from Leica.

Steve

 

[takef586]

And lastly, it might be fun to read this article to find out the answer:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html

 

[2F/2F]

You just had to bring up the "I can shoot more stably at lower shutter speeds with a Leica" thingy, didn't you?

I have shot with SLR cameras all my life. Then, one day I had this idea to start a series on shots of coffee cups in Milan bars - drinking coffee in Italy is such a ritual, and bars are always full of interesting subjects... When I showed the photos to my friendly salesman in a photography shop, he said : why don't you use a Leica?, you will be able to shoot at slower speeds... But I thought Leicas and Leica lenses were overpriced snobbery... I always liked Zeiss glass, and had beautiful ZF lenses for my Nikons FM3A... So I started cautiously, by buying a Bessa R3A and Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 lens. Then I added an Elmarit 90. When started using this camera, the first reaction was disbelief, because the C Sonnar photos were just out of this world. I have never seen anything comparable before... but there were some problems with the focus shift. When I tried the Elmarit 90, the photos looked like coke bottle lens results - AHA, I thought, The Zeiss superiority is obvious! A pity, that after some time I discovered, my Bessa was misaligned right out of the factory... After few more weks, the paint wore off on the rewind crank, and even with the loving care of a nice Luigi case, the shutter was quite loud. What was also quite annoying, was the tendency of the camera to tilt backwards when it was hanging from my neck, with the lens looking up to the sky, ready to collect dust and raindrops. The worst thing of all though, has been the difficulty to see the 50mm framellines ( I wear glasses). I decided to try something better, I bought a Zeiss Ikon. The quality jump has been quite big - huge VF, more silent shutter, better handling, much better (more accurate) focusing due to the longer base, better vision with bigger lenses, much better finish. This camera has been a pleasure to use. I added some Zeiss rf lenses, and shot with it happily for some time. I added then a Bessa R4A for the wide angles, and a Minolta CLE for travel. However slowly, slowly I noticed I was gravitating towards shooting mainly with a 50mm lens, and the Zeiss Ikon 50mm frame is somewhat smallish, so one day I bought a second hand 0.85x M7. I have modified the camera, removing the 75mm frameline ( I think the 50/75mm frame coupling is the worst Leica invention ever). I started using my Leica cursing its awkward film loading scheme, bothered by its weight and by the need to protect the lens from pointing into the sun to avoid burning the shutter. I thought it was going to be my camera for shooting in interiors - silent and with long base, which was good for fast 50mm lenses. Well, to make the long story short, with time the Leica grew on me. It is technically inferior to Zeiss Ikon, but I find myself invariably reaching out for a Leica first, when I have to go out. It just feels right, it gives you the impresion of solidity and reliability. The rf is easy to focus and contrasty (in the meantime I had to align my ZI too), the shutter is incredibly silent, the weight can actually be an asset when using slow speeds. With time, Leica has become second nature. I added an 0.58x M7 and an M4, and the sensation is the same. As to the lenses, I would say that it really depends on what you like and what you need. I have tried many lenses from CV, Zeiss, Leica and Canon. There are gems in each line. However, if I had to keep only one lens, I would probably opt for the 50/2 DR/Rigid Summicron - I am exclusively a B&W shooter, and I find that the rendering of these old style, high resolution, low contrast lenses is insuperable. If you want to check wheather Leica has any appeal to you, you should try to borrow a Leica with this lens for a few days and shoot some rolls of Tri X or HP5+ with it to see for yourself. After all, if photography is your main passion in life, an M3 with the DR Summicron can be found in good conditions for about 1000 EUR, and it will last you decades - not a big difference in price relative to a Bessa R3A with a CV lens. Check the story of this guy: Gary Stochl - I think he has been shooting with this kind of combo for the last 40 years...

 

[Holger]

not a question of money...

I too lack the money to even dream of a new MP or some apsh. lenses. So I waited, until I got a near mint M2 for half the price of a new Bessa, and finally a 50 mm Summicron from the 90s for a few hundred, about the cost of a new CV. What had me wait with some patience for a while were two details: I like the build quality of the Leicas, and I know I can sell my M2 and lens anytime for even more than I paid for it. I may spend something one day for a CLA, but for everything else, cost of ownership is near nothing.

 

[MaximusM3]

I credit Leica for giving me a new lease on photographic life. Until I got off my butt and dusted off a Leica M3 and a Summicron 50 DR (I do agree with takef586, as that would be my desert island lens, closely followed by the Summitar) I had wasted years on digi-crap, with no motivation and/or creative spark.
I've recently returned from a short trip to S. Korea and took my two M3 bodies, three lenses and a bag of film. If anyone is interested in the results, you can check this: Dead Link Removed
I know it sounds silly to some, but there is nothing like a Leica when it comes to street-shooting and, considering that I've recently picked up a second M3 with 50m, Summitar, mint, recently for $800 the cost of admission for these setups is still reasonable.

 

[benjiboy]

I wouldn't give a lot of money for any 35mm camera any more when even a medium priced medium format camera gives much better image quality, especially when you consider how cheap they are second hand even Hasselblads.