Why do I want it so bad?

[Andrew Moxom]

Glad you finally came to a decision..... the tools are important, but the nut behind them makes the shot. I think you've proven that in spades with the images and quality you produce with your current inventory of equipment. In the end, its about how these tools instill confidence and reliability to the equation. For a pro who's livelihood depended on them, or if they help your creative vision, or just plain floats your boat, then having the best is the right answer. For the regular Joe's like ourselves, then we get along and make do with what we have and produce work with just as good a result as the the results that the most expensive equipment produces. This philosophy makes you think about a whole lot of other similar situations when purchasing.... Buy the best and most expensive, or just buy more wisely and have more cash for other things. Food for thought.

 

[Perry Way]

Wow, lots of thought on this matter. To me it is a personal decision. Sex appeal? or... Pure utility at a good price? I think the answer is personal but I also think finances play a role and if you have the expendable cash, there is certainly nothing wrong with spending some of it or a lot of it on something that tickles your heart a certain way. That tickle is priceless. And if you choose to spend good money on things like that, in the end you're greasing the wheel for the fine equipment manufacturers so they can continue making their fine equipment such as the Leica's and Linhofs, and Deardorfs et al, because that's where material value is measured, is in the $'s, ultimately.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interesting thoughts. Well, I was never raised to believe that items can make me happy. But some material things do make life better, others are inevitable. I like how Buddhists call belongings 'attachments'. When I clear the shelves of possessions, and find new homes for things I haven't used in a long time, I feel free. If I purchased a Leica, something within will compel me to get rid of the Pentax, because owning two 35mm cameras of similar size and function would seem redundant to me.
But then it strikes me that the Pentax can do some things the Leica can't, like macro and close-up work, take very long lenses, or ultra wide. So why do I want the Leica again? It was very useful for me to own and use one for a while, it was sobering. The 'tickle' was very nice, but it didn't last. And instead of spending a few thousand dollars on a wonderful camera, three lenses, case, and accessories like shades, caps, and filters, I could spend it taking trips, or on improving my darkroom setup, etc. It isn't about the amount, but it's about spending money on something that I now believe I don't really need.
When I'm rich and famous *grin* I might think differently. But for me I feel privileged to have had a chance to use a camera like that for a few months with no pressure to purchase it, and to discover what the allure is, something that usually comes with ownership. I would hate to have spent the money on it, only to find myself with the 'empty' bucket of feelings I have for the camera at this stage.
For now, critical thinking wins. But later on, who knows? It's such a gorgeous, wonderful, fantastic camera to use. It is amazing. Don't get me wrong. It does nearly everything better than the Pentax, and within its limitations I think there is no better camera, but not where it counts unfortunately - the lens quality and the resulting pictures.

 

[lns]

... It is amazing. Don't get me wrong. It does nearly everything better than the Pentax, and within its limitations I think there is no better camera, but not where it counts unfortunately - the lens quality and the resulting pictures.

I find this fascinating. My experience in every way is opposite to yours. So I was engrossed reading this. I'm really glad you shared this.

I don't use Pentax, but I do use a Nikon SLR alongside my Leica rangefinder. I have found, after taking pictures at the same time with both setups, and comparing the prints, that the Leica does give me noticeably better prints. I don't know if it's the rangefinder lenses (one was a Leica 50mm and one was a Zeiss 35mm) or if I handheld the rangefinder better, but there was a clear difference. Yet I would never get rid of my SLR. The flash capability, the closer focusing, the ability to use longer lenses, the ground glass focusing. I really find that the SLR gives me a different, and essential, tool, and does many important things that the Leica can't do at all.

So I would never say that the Leica is the better camera than the SLR, as you did, because to me it's more limited. But I do think its lenses and the resulting prints are obviously better. Which you don't. And in truth it is my favorite camera, purely because of its smaller size and its simplicity. But if I could only have one camera, I would choose the SLR. Versatility would win, in the end.

I guess maybe I'm lucky that my SLR setup was so cheap, compared to a Leica at least, because it was easy to add. For my path was the opposite of yours, in that I had the Leica first and bought the SLR second. I also don't have your orientation that I must only own one camera. Though I really admire your voluntary simplicity. It's awesome. I wish I were more like that.

Anyway, I totally think you made the right choice. I'm just fascinated that your conclusions are the opposite of mine. And yet we get to the same place.

-Laura

 

[clayne]

One important thing to keep in mind is that a rangefinder usually imparts a different reaction from the subject. SLRs tend to illicit more guarded results from people whereas RFs are more open.

 

[Perry Way]

Well, I was never raised to believe that items can make me happy.

You and me both bud! But I have since come to experience being experienced on that to all extremes (the have's and the have not's) and have repeatedly found that magic can and will happen when one is "fondling" or otherwise admiring the tools of the trade. This process is meditative and puts the brain into a deep trance like mode seeking to find the better shots, because you're holding a masterpiece, a work of art. It sharpens one's resolve like a hunter hunting prey. I'm just sayin'...

 

[mdm]

It is not the camera you want but something else entirely. Get some of that and all will be forgotten.

 

[AgentX]

To discuss the specific camera rather than theories of acquisition and value, Leicas do some things really well, but certainly lack the versatility of an SLR. However, if as a mature photographer, you've determined that the Leica's strengths (well-known and need not be re-enumerated) work with the images you want to make (ie, 35mm closeups of flower petals aren't your thing), go ahead and get it! Taking it out and shooting with it, as you've had the opportunity to do, is the best proof of whether it'll work for you.

And if you want to stick with 50mm and 90mm, get an M3, or maybe an M2, not an M4-P...or a CL with a 40 and a 90 for ultimate compactness. If you're not quite sure, or only want it for limited use, maybe find a much cheaper used Bessa? Skips the mystique and ultimate fetishist mechanical quality, but gives a lot of use-ability with the ability to mount the same optics.

None of the cameras will result in a massive change in your image quality or shooting method, but rangefinders do lead you to different way of interacting with the world as you photograph. Slight, but noticeably better for some photographers and situations. You look directly at the world and what's in it, not a projection of it.

Not that I think anyone else from another photographer knows or cares what kind of camera you're holding...

 

[k_jupiter]

I have actually decided to wait a while. After the romance wore of, and I was able to analyze the results more substantially, I have decided to keep plugging away with the Pentax.
I literally can't tell a difference in the results, scanned or printed; the differences are, as far as I can judge:
1. The Leica handles better for every day shooting.
2. The Leica is wonderfully compact.
3. The frame spacing is more precise (I have to grin at that one)
4. The camera definitely works better at slower shutter speeds.
Other than that, I just cannot justify buying this camera. It just goes to prove how good the Pentax lenses are! But, somehow, I know I will anyway some day. It's just such a sweet camera!

- Thomas

These are the reasons you should reconsider:
1. The Leica handles better for every day shooting.
2. The Leica is wonderfully compact.
3. The frame spacing is more precise (I have to grin at that one)
4. The camera definitely works better at slower shutter speeds.

No, the results on the film technically cannot be defined. But...The tool is an extension of your eye. If you feel comfortable with the tool, the eye will get better. My photography took on a whole new level once I aquired my FM2 many years ago. Is Nikor glass better then the Rokkor glass I had been using? Not particularly. But the camera became an extension of my view. Even my brother, a pretty good amateur photographer in his own right, noticed one day as I was taking photos at a function... No one notices me with the Nikon, it is so... natural. That is what you described in your reasons.

Are my images technically better when I use my Deardorff than when I use my B&J? Of course not, the glass is the same. But... my view is much better because I feel more comfortable with the equipment. It feels right, it feels like I know how to make the image come to life within the camera body.

I hope you reconsider soon. Your work deserves it.

tim