Why Leica, my view with new technical research

mynewcolour · Dec 15, 2016

Alan Gales said:
I bought a brand new Contax 139 back in December of 1983 or 1984. It was a great camera!

I've only had my 139 a year but I've really taken to it. It only needed foam replacing and (so far) it's not missed a beat. It's as old as me!

Alan Gales · Dec 15, 2016

mynewcolour said:
I've only had my 139 a year but I've really taken to it. It only needed foam replacing and (so far) it's not missed a beat. It's as old as me!

You are making me feel old! I'm 55.

I believe the 139 came out in 1978 if I remember correctly. The original RTS was Porshe designed so the following cameras were patterned from that. For me it had the best ergonomics of any 35mm SLR camera I have ever held. Besides having friends who owned different cameras, I used to sell new 35mm cameras. I've held and sometimes shot quite a few over the years. After Contax the Leica R series felt great in my hands too. Of course we are all different.

nolanr66 · Dec 15, 2016

darkosaric said:
I know, I wanted to say that I saw that Bruce Gilden used nikon:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7219/7361432044_d3b0389c65_b.jpg

Sorry, I get it now. I have only seen him in some you tube videos but a guy like that has probably had his share of camera's and brands.

nolanr66 · Dec 15, 2016

I have a cat but I won't take her picture.

Marcelo Paniagua · Dec 15, 2016

nolanr66 said:
I have a cat but I won't take her picture.

Why not? cats are cute

zanxion72 · Dec 16, 2016

mynewcolour said:
Could you name the lenses you've most recently tested please?

I use the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G. Compare it to the far more expensive M equivalents and you will be surprised with what it gets you for your money. I have used the humble 50mm 1.8D and it made me think twice of the worth of 1K normal lenses. I have also the 85mm f/1.4 AI-s that although heavy no M lens gets close to it. There are more, many more and not just Nikon branded. For example the Fujinon XF 35mm 1.4 R performs equally with Summicron, but sadly you can use it only on digital.

darkosaric · Dec 16, 2016

Not going in to price discussion: somehow I think that 75mm APO Summicron performs better than 85mm AIs nikkor, also APO summicron 50mm for sure performs better than nikkor 50mm 1.8D. Please - no price as an argument, in any case the whole discussion in this thread is (for me) half serious .

Helinophoto · Dec 16, 2016

Harry Stevens said:
Three cameras I would like to borrow for a day are a Leica M3/M6 and a Holga 120 and all based upon what I have read over the years, the Holga for the craziness and the Leica to see if the hype becomes fact.

I have the M6 and this week I received a lovely M3, 1964 single-stroke (with a Dual range Summicron F2 bought from ZA, which didn't even have the dreaded haze, optically it's damn near perfect condition).

Right now, I am not sure what to say.
The M6 is a little lighter, especially with my Carl Zeiss planar f2.0 (that should set any Leicaphiles off right there, using non-Leica glass on a Leica.....!) , compared to the M3 with the Summicron dr f2.0.

Operation is just about the same, the same is true regarding the crank to wind on the film to the next frame.
Winding the film back again on the M3 is more cumbersome than with the M6 and loading takes a few seconds longer, since you need to attach the film to the spool, which you then insert, as you did with the screwmount Leicas.
No big deal.

Generally they are (IMO) the same camera, 30 years apart, with the M6 upgraded with lighter/different materials and a light-meter.
My M6 feels and operates much smoother than my Voigtländer R3M, and it is also more solid/rugged.
(purists will claim that the M6 is a cheap, poorly built, not a 'real Leica' for some reason, IMO the non TTL M6 is the last 'old-school Leica M', which started with the M3, since it can operate perfectly well with no batteries, later models may not fare as well, opinions may and will differ greatly)

The m3 does feel like it could operate under a much harsher conditions though, because it seems to have more heft and the metal just seems more.....solid.

The Summicron DR f2.0 feels like it was made from 'Krupp Stahl', left over from the war years.....it's glass in a bulletproof steal-barrel, but a smooth, no-slack experience, solid all the way.

I can see where any 'hype' regarding Leicas would come from though, in 1950-1968'ish, when the M3 was produced, it must have been head and shoulders above the competition (and also, in price!).

But competition has a tendency to gain ground, but by then, the M3, M2 and later models were already considered icons I suppose.

Great machines and lenses, incredible build-quality, but not magic and black-art, they are simply very nice tools to use.

As for the screwmount-Leica's, do not forget that every Leicaphile's big hero, HCB, actually only bought his Leica because that was all he could afford at the time(!), he actually wanted a different camera all together and at the time, Leica's seem to have been considered as 'a camera for average joe".
I didn't know that before I saw some documentary online a few days ago, HCB talking about this and that.

guangong · Dec 16, 2016

I can not believe these discussions are still going on. Folks were having these very same discussions when I began using Leicas almost 50 years ago. Leitz, Zeiss,Asahi, Nikon Minolta and Canon were the choices and all had superior build quality and lenses compared with the rest of the competition. Choices were made by individuals based upon tactile feelings and handling preferences. I preferred the compactness and viewfinder of the Leica and not the monster size of a Nikon with metering finder. Others found such a Nikon the answer to their dreams. From my own viewpoint Leica ended with Leitz control (or maybe Wild) and was then owned by various entities that exploited reputation...remember the outrageously priced Hermes leather covered camera... all made cheaper but selling for more. Of course, none of us are restricted to a single camera mark or type. That is the fun we can enjoy when so many quality cameras are now available for what are really cheap prices. There is no way to argue with taste!

darkosaric · Dec 16, 2016

Since you are using 50mm - the biggest advantage to M3 is the viewfinder. It is bigger and more precise on infinity -showing cca 95% of the negative in the frame.
On close range M6 is showing in frame all that goes on negative, M3 in close focus will show in the frame parts that will not be in the negative.

darkosaric · Dec 16, 2016

guangong said:
I can not believe these discussions are still going on.

We are all little bit bored, that's all . I am playing devils advocate, just for fun. I am sure most of the members who are provoking are thinking the same .

NortheastPhotographic · Dec 16, 2016

Helinophoto said:
The M6 is a little lighter, especially with my Carl Zeiss planar f2.0 (that should set any Leicaphiles off right there, using non-Leica glass on a Leica.....!) , compared to the M3 with the Summicron dr f2.0.
.

The 35mm Biogon (both the 2 and 2.8 actually) are gems! small enough, NO distortion, and very sharp. I use a silver one on my chrome M4 and it's a beautiful set up. I'm selling my ZF 50mm 1.4 in the classifieds right now so I can get the ZM 50 Planar to make a pair. The only "Leica" made lenses I would consider are much older optics than the current line up. Between Zeiss, Voigtlander, and the Konica's I just can't see how my pictures would be improved by some uber expensive lens.

Helinophoto · Dec 16, 2016

Sperdynamite said:
I'm selling my ZF 50mm 1.4 in the classifieds right now so I can get the ZM 50 Planar to make a pair.

The Planar is super-nice (it is a little wider than 50 though, more like 46mm or thereabouts).
Also, the silver-version (I have that) is said to be better built than the black ones from the reviews I've seen, but I cannot comment further, because I've never actually tried the black version.
Mine feels just as solid as my Summicron DR, but a different metal all together (seems like some sort of brushed aluminum alloy, it's solid but light), fits my Silver/black M6 perfectly though.

Bought mine form a reputable seller in Japan, in box....came with the hood and a UV-filter, not a scratch anywhere.

NortheastPhotographic · Dec 16, 2016

Helinophoto said:
The Planar is super-nice (it is a little wider than 50 though, more like 46mm or thereabouts).
Also, the silver-version (I have that) is said to be better built than the black ones from the reviews I've seen, but I cannot comment further, because I've never actually tried the black version.
Mine feels just as solid as my Summicron DR, but a different metal all together (seems like some sort of brushed aluminum alloy, it's solid but light), fits my Silver/black M6 perfectly though.

Bought mine form a reputable seller in Japan, in box....came with the hood and a UV-filter, not a scratch anywhere.

If you look at the block diagram it's nearly identical to the Contax 45/2 Planar, I wonder if it is actually just an identical lens haha. Both are top notch IMO. I'm shocked at how different the SLR Planar and ZM Planars are in performance. I like them both! But I have other SLR lenses for Nikon so I'm happier to ditch the ZF for the ZM.

mynewcolour · Dec 17, 2016

zanxion72 said:
I use the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G. Compare it to the far more expensive M equivalents and you will be surprised with what it gets you for your money. I have used the humble 50mm 1.8D and it made me think twice of the worth of 1K normal lenses. I have also the 85mm f/1.4 AI-s that although heavy no M lens gets close to it. There are more, many more and not just Nikon branded. For example the Fujinon XF 35mm 1.4 R performs equally with Summicron, but sadly you can use it only on digital.

And the contemporary Leica glass you've used alongside these?

The Nikkor AF-S 35 1.8G is a lens I own. It's 'sharp' but I wasn't impressed and have noticed I get chromatic aberrations in high contrast areas at infinity. As with the Fujinon lenses the manual focus is also obviously an afterthought. These are also not lenses for full size sensors.

This thread is on the subject of 'why Leica, what makes it?'. This seems to be an invitation to look into how Leica maintains it's position in the photography sector. Nobody is disputing there are valid alternative lenses for less money, but to follow that well-run rabbit hole here is ok but perhaps missing an opportunity.

mynewcolour · Dec 17, 2016

Sperdynamite said:
If you look at the block diagram it's nearly identical to the Contax 45/2 Planar, I wonder if it is actually just an identical lens haha.

I remember reading the Contax G lens focal-length is actually a bit longer than that of the ZM 50 f2.

Huss · Dec 17, 2016

Helinophoto said:
The Planar is super-nice (it is a little wider than 50 though, more like 46mm or thereabouts).
Also, the silver-version (I have that) is said to be better built than the black ones from the reviews I've seen, but I cannot comment further, because I've never actually tried the black version.
Mine feels just as solid as my Summicron DR, but a different metal all together (seems like some sort of brushed aluminum alloy, it's solid but light), fits my Silver/black M6 perfectly though.

Bought mine form a reputable seller in Japan, in box....came with the hood and a UV-filter, not a scratch anywhere.

Hmm my perfect condition silver Planar ZM is nowhere near as solid as my Summicron DR. But I prefer using the Planar as its coatings are far superior so is flare resistant, and its ergos are much better.

Helinophoto · Dec 17, 2016

The Summicron is heavier and seems to be built from steel or something, really tough. My CZ planar is solid (no slack, no wobble) and the metal-alloy, although it seems to be a lighter type, seems both scratch-resistant and very tough, it is also easier to focus than my Summicron DR, and just as precise and solid on the aperture-settings.

I'm no expert though, just voicing my opinion.

chip j · Dec 17, 2016

Wish I had a Zeiss Ikon w/lenses...

Mike Epstein · Dec 18, 2016

Why Leica? If you have the cash and a Leica makes you happy surely that is reason enough? No need to attempt to justify through scientific info or research or whatever. Who cares honestly? You bought it and it makes you happy. Great! Go shoot with it and have fun! A Ferrari owner doesn't justify why he bought the car!

Personally never owned a Leica, or Leica glass. Been very happy with the quality from all kinds of other manufacturers. Mamiya, Pentax SMC, Olympus, Canon & Nikon. Shot with all of these brands and they're all marvellous. Most of the short comings in my photos were the responsibility of the 12 inches behind the camera...

Perhaps some day if I have the cash, I'll buy a Leica. If I enjoy it I'll keep it, if I don't I'll sell it and try something else. I won't attempt to justify it to a forum either way though.

narsuitus · Dec 18, 2016

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
No other camera brand cant match with the color and 3Dness of Leica.

This statement inspired me to perform a simple comparative test of my favorite lenses. With the exception of the zoom slightly underexposing, I see no significant difference between the lenses. They all produce high quality images.

Slightly telephoto lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Ai Print · Dec 18, 2016

narsuitus said:
This statement inspired me to perform a simple comparative test of my favorite lenses. With the exception of the zoom slightly underexposing, I see no significant difference between the lenses. They all produce high quality images.

That is because you are not putting these lenses in the types of lighting situations that Leica especially excels in. In fact, in scrolling through hundreds of images on your Flickr feed...not a single image is even close to being that kind of light.

narsuitus · Dec 18, 2016

Ai Print said:
That is because you are not putting these lenses in the types of lighting situations that Leica especially excels in.

Exactly what is that type of lighting situation?

Cholentpot · Dec 18, 2016

narsuitus said:
Exactly what is that type of lighting situation?

A shaft of light beaming down from a late afternoon angry sky to illuminate the hobo sitting on the corner of an urban meets seaside decaying city.

Ai Print · Dec 18, 2016

narsuitus said:
Exactly what is that type of lighting situation?

Cross-lit, multiple light sources, chiarosuco, Vermeer, in a tight alleyway in Venice with the sun hitting the tops of old buildings as the candles come on in the shop windows, the neon lights of vegas from a bit of a distance competing with the fluorescent overheads of a dreary gas station, etc...

Some examples are by shooters like this one and this one, both friends of mine....

Why Leica, my view with new technical research

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency