Buy Leica M in 2004?

Seriously, what are the OBJECTIVE key factors that would make a M

purchase possible over a DSLR? I have read about size, quality of

lenses, noise, discretion, reliability, ergonomy, other much more

subjective factors (feeling, pleasure, bokeh)

 

I really want to get one for these reasons, except I already have

DSLR + prime lenses. I guess I am looking for stronger reasons.

 

What would a M bring to me, and are there technical arguments that

make a M better than a DSLR (range of tones, ability to print in

larger size)?

 

Thanks!

To buy a rangefinder camera of any brand you have to WANT one! Then use and enjoy it and put up reasons for the expense later :-)

Use both. <BR><BR>With a Leica M3; I can set the shutter to 1/25 second; in total darkness; by feel of the notch. Then when in a brighter area of a club; one can shoot with a Noctilux; at F1; with iso 800 print film; or darker areas with a lower shutter speed; and no flash . I happen to like the LACK of a zillion features; Lack of a zillion dinky buttons; menus; sub ,menus; flash on flash off modes. <BR><BR>

If you have to ask... just kidding.

 

There is not "better" system, just like film isn't "better" than digital, Canon isn't "better" than Nikon, blah blah, etc. Each are just different from the others...each have pros/cons.

 

Leica M's *usually* lend to a different style of shooting and in some intangible ways feeling. If you are looking for stronger reasons than the ones you sited (size, lens quality, noise, discretion, reliability, ergonomics, bokeh, etc) then you probably don't need one. If you are happy with your DSLR and get fine results, then why question switching or looking for something "superior"?

 

Then again, if you crazy for something a little more discreet, lighter, smaller, subjectively better lenses (and bokeh), less noise then by all means the Leica M is a great system to get into.

reliability and resale are important to some.

I ask the same objective questions when choosing a girlfriend.

There are none. However, I sold my D100 after using it for 2 years because I found that didn't enjoy using it. I went back to using a Leica M because I do enjoy using it.

 

In every technical example I can imagine, a SLR (film or digital)makes more sense due to the range of capabilities/lenses. So trying to find an objective reason to buy an M is pretty difficult.

Depending on the objective reasons, why not get Medium or Large Format. i.e., your list of "objective reasons" can be rather subjective. Every system has its pros and cons. Quite often, the lusters and detractors of a particular system are people who have never tried that camera, but are trying to get over their angst by writing drivel. It's a waste of time IMO.

Thanks for your various answers that made me think about it again.

 

I think I am unable to enjoy a single print from my DSLR. That's my decisive factor, print result and feeling. Not on-screen display.

 

It is a machinegun which makes me lose capacity to concentrate and wait for THE moment, rather makes me shoot 10 photos when 2 would be enough. RAW mode allows to compensate for badly exposed shots, USM compensates for shaky arms etc ...

 

In fact M allows to fly manual vs. computer assisted and saves hours of Photoshop. Resale is also a good point.

Go get it. You might be happy with it and if not you can sell it. I haven't shot digital for the past 3 weeks since I've used Leica. I'm not saying I won't shoot digital but I'm sure it will only for situations where it is decisively better option than film or Leica for that matter.

Buy your M ..If you look at the digital attempts in Top Photos of PN, you will notice lack of clarity, which translates to lack of fine contrasts and thereby loss of vibrancy and life in the digit photos. The clouds are all drab and lifeless, sunlit parts have no brilliance and colors, compared to velvia and agfa ultra 100 are artificial and dreary..Buy an M. Black and white lacks the clarity and makes it a joke when compared to the b and w leica and hassy shots displayed. And then, keep shooting your M, because in two years time, all the digits that you stored on CD ROM, which use dyes for this storage process, instead of pits as in the aluminium music CDs, will have FADED, and... all your DIGI PHOTOS will be lost..What you have saved on your hard disk, can be digested by a virus any minute. Buy an M..And you must realise that todays digital camera will be on the technology scrapheap in a couple of years, without having given you any superlative shots... Buy an M..

-

Pierre, there are so many reasons NOT to use a Leica that it becomes supect.

Leica is specially designed for ostentative, rebels, pedants, elitistic, new richs and so on. If you are not one of them you are still tolerated if you keep it discrete and shoot only when nobody is looking.

 

-

-

To Pierre: I can't give you reasons why should you buy one or the other but here are my reasons. I belong to the LHSA and enjoy the camaraderie and also the history and details of the Leica rangefinder. I appreciate the feel of a fine instrument (I have used Pentax screwmount for many, many years and the Leicas just feel more substantial, more finesse)and while the camera per se doesn't improve my shots, the morale boost/adrenaline rush (however you can describe it) does, of using a camera I like as opposed to one that I'm lukewarm over. I recently even got my toe into the Leica SLR field, but the R8 doesn't feel the same amount better than (for example)a Nikon F5 the way my MP feels better than (for example)a Contax G2. I bought an adaptor so I can use my wife's Canon rebel as a backup camera to the R8 because so many people have told me the R8 will give me trouble. Whether I will go for the digital module or just get a digital rebel will hinge on how well the R8 holds up between now and then. So far my wife has a digital Elph and for the small number of shots I do compared to a pro, I'm satisfied to shoot film as long as I can buy it. I haven't gotten into home printing yet, maybe that will influence me later. For now the Leica M is my favorite camera and I enjoy using it. Being able to see someone's expression uninterrupted by a flopping mirror is a real help to me.

Rene : what situations would you describe as proper for film vs digital? low light, close ups, landscape?

 

Thomas: is this story about dye widely known, I had no idea i could lose my 80+ CD's?

 

Jordi: I am planning to gaff my equipment as I do not like being spotted ostentative

Ok. I'm still just testing the RF waters with a Bessa R kit. I'm not a long time user or "fanatic." I also have an SLR Nikon F/N80 based kit which I like just fine.

 

So I'm an *actual* person who's diving into RF in 2004. Some good reasons I can think of:

 

(1) You want to take pictures with the 50 'cron. Or some other Leica lens that just has "that look" or quality you really like. Best reason to add just about any camera system to your arsenal that I can think of.

 

(2) You want a highly portable, interchangable prime lens camera with some shooting control. That was my main reason. Before I got the Bessa R, I snagged a Rollei AFM35 P&S. Nice small camera. Didn't do the trick for me. I really wanted the 50mm focal length. AF was too limiting/sometimes fails. Same for AE. And I'm just a newbie!

 

(3) You want an RF and you want a really nicely made camera. I'm starting to learn that learning the nuances of a camera system to get a reasonable level of control is ALOT of work. At least for me, maybe I'm thick. A nice camera system like a Leica M (lots of others, of course) should have some longevity - that's *both* durability of your sample and longevity of the design. An M can be repaired and is worth repairing many years down the road. Why are the FM2n and F3 and F5 and so on so beloved? Partly for the same reasons.

 

(4) Cost is a personal issue, not a systemic one. Leica's are simply not all that expensive! I almost think the cost issue might be a conceit of happy Leica collectors :-) But in the Nikon system, look at the price of: F5, 105 f2 DC AF, 28 f1.4 AFD - you get the idea. Or look at the price of a new medium format system - Contax, Mamiya, etc.

 

The issue isn't direct comparison - the issue is that outside of the mass market "sweet spot" prices are high and pretty much all over the map. I'm a software engineer and same goes for computers. Want/need a Sun Workstation - I have one :-) - well, it costs more than a Dell laptop. So what?

 

(5) I think everyone should go out and buy a nice, relatively inexpensive P&S. I have an $80 Oly Epic. If that's not enough, then also buy a nice "value leader" (or better) SLR system and a zoom or two. I got an F/N80, but go snag a Canon or Pentax or whatever. Oh, want digital? Then go get a digicam or a D70 or a fancier one if it floats your boat. Get a big Nova 5 bag, a big flash, a tripod and some other stuff. Now, you can focus real close, see through polarizers, mount long telephotos, zoom around, play sports/action photographer, preview DOF and what not.

 

Enjoy it. Take pictures. Get it out of (or into) your system. Beyond a P&S, I think everyone should have some SLR system. Camera swiss army knives and pretty cheap at that. Now, do you want a Leica? If you have to *choose* for economic reasons between a Leica and a $450 N80 + zoom (or whatever), don't even think about a Leica. Be happy with an SLR. Better value for your shooting budget.

 

But maybe you want some of the best primes in 35mm format. Maybe you want something that's not made out of plastic. Maybe you want a *small* bag (or no bag) with decent glass in it. Whatever. Then a Leica might be for you.

 

But if you *don't*??? If you think it represents bad value for you, then just stay with the more popular camera system offerings and take pictures. Who cares? Maybe you do want to spend $$$$ but want a MF system. Great! Go buy that instead. Who cares?

 

(6) This whole Leica "debate" baffles me, must be from some bygone era or something. Let's see - I have fine Gibson archtop guitars, a Mercedes, Brooks Brothers clothes for beating around on the weekends, hand made Italian shoes, a Sun Workstation at home, real Turkish rugs and whatever. Are these "value leaders"? No. Are these "technology leaders"? Some are, but not so very much.

 

But in any case, no one calls me an idiot for having nice stuff. If I couldn't eat or afford gas or save for retirement, then yes, I'd be an idiot for buying a Gibson archtop guitar. After all, that expensive guitar doesn't have super-distortion phase inverting double whammy action, and the $500 Fender ToneMangler does!!! But I've got my basics covered and I like the way a Gibson archtop sounds and feels - so who really cares?

 

Everyone agrees that the Leica M's and lenses are nicely made and designed. If you want one and it's personally prudent, then go out and try/buy one. Otherwise, don't. Where's the real "debate?"

 

Scott

Pierre: I don't want to get too philosophical, but Vic, in his first post had the answer, but not exactly for what he said.

 

Vic, I'll bet most of the time she chooses you, not the other way around. That's the way it is with Lieca. It is different, in many ways better, damned expensive, but when you get that feeling, that's what I want to do, you're stuck. Forget about logic, go with it, and enjoy.

Gee, I can't set my M3 to 1/25 of a second even in total daylight.

<p><i><b>Pierre Verlhac , apr 29, 2004; 12:01 p.m. wrote</b><br>

I think I am unable to enjoy a single print from my DSLR. That's my decisive factor, print result and feeling. Not on-screen display. </i>

</p>

<p>

You can get very nice prints from decent digital cameras. If you can't, then there is either something wrong with your camera, or, more likely, something wrong with your process. I recently bought my first digital camera (not a DSLR...but it has dedicated controls for aperture and shutter so please spare me the nannerings about sub-menu this, sub-menu that) and depending on the lab I went to, the prints were either quite good, or quite flat. The lab that was closest to me and had the fastest turn-over time (same day processing, even if I sent my files via the Internet) produced flat prints. So I made up 3 test files, each with a specific amount of colour saturation added and had the lab print them with no colour corrections. The result is that I now know what saturation level I need when sending to that lab, and I have created a saved batch action that I can apply to multiple files at once. I do not have to spend hours with Photoshop.</p>

<p><i>

It is a machinegun which makes me lose capacity to concentrate and wait for THE moment, rather makes me shoot 10 photos when 2 would be enough. </i></p>

<p>This sounds like something that LF shooters said when the Leica first came out. ;-)

</p>

<p><i>RAW mode allows to compensate for badly exposed shots, </i></p>

<p>So does Tri-X and other great b/w films.</p>

<p><i>USM compensates for shaky arms etc ... </i></p>

<p>Likewise, RF shooters often tout the lack of mirror slap allowing them to shoot at lower speeds.<br>

These are all <b>benefits</b> that many, many RF users rely upon. Why are they disadvantages when seen on a digital camera?</p>

<p><i>In fact M allows to fly manual vs. computer assisted and saves hours of Photoshop.</i>

</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying your DSLR allows no manual control?</p>

<p>RF cameras are FUN to use and I'm sure there's a huge pleasure in using a fine piece of equipment like a Leica. Quit trying to come up with objective reasons for why you NEED one. Buy one if it'll make you happy. But if your goal is better prints, you really should concentrate on your process.</p>

Not specifically an 'M' but film in general. If your thing is B&W, traditional B&W film

provides you with tonal and density characteristics that digital *cannot* achieve yet. The

'M' form factor just works much better for certaining styles of shooting...

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

I agree with the idea of getting one and trying it for a couple months at least. If you get a good used one and don't like it, you can sell for about what you paid for it. The two cams are obviously entirely different experiences. The end result is going to be simialar though.

Key factors in choosing a Leica M over a DSLR? It's NOT digital, first of all. Second of all, it's not digital. Third....

 

Pierre, you need to do some soul-searching. I have to ask you, what type of photography do you do? What are your subjects and what are your aspirations in photography? If you just want to shoot a lot of snapshots of the family and vacations as cheaply as possible and you want more flexibility than a digital point and shoot, the DSLR is likely to cover it. If you aspire to professional photography, particularly in the journalism field, the DSLR is a first step to learning the technology that drives the industry. On the other hand, if you are inclined toward the hands-on process and the traditional photographic methods, the Leica is simply the basic 35mm camera.

 

As much as is said about Leicas being reliable, ergonomic and having great lens quality, in reality I think these attributes are over-rated because most other brands are good in those respects. They are quiet, small and discreet but so are point and shoot cameras. The fondle factor is a distant second to other things I prefer to fondle.

 

Objectively, there is no reason to choose a Leica over any other camera. I like using them because I like the connection to tradition. Why be objective?

Pierre,

 

I don't think there are clear cut reasons when to use film and when digital but for me:

 

Digital - Need quick results. Can't wait for film. Need plenty shots to cover everything. Can't miss any shots even if they were badly framed. My prime use for digital SLR. Shooting hockey for parents and customers. Shooting images for webpages I administer (although I also use film for some) like vising a customer and doing a shoot of their business operations. In situation like this I don't have time to come back therefore Digital helps me nail the shots better even though the shots won't look as good as film.

 

Film - Hobby - if I miss a shot I don't care because there will be other shots. Like shooting slides and looking at them and have them in my hand. Like the look of film more. Like messing around with film and developing my own film. Dislike plastic. Enjoy metal insruments like cameras and camera lenses. Like to move the dials on my machines and generally like to operate a mechanical instrument. Enjoy the portability and quality of Leica but also shoot Konica T1 with Hexanons.

It is a modern design classic that will not date and will accept lenses made by Leitz/Leica (and lots of others like Zeiss and Voigtlander) from the 1930's until the present day with only a handful of exceptions. It has superb engineering and a large element of craftsmanship involved in its fabrication. It is the right size and is quiet and smooth.

 

Economics.

 

Assuming reasonable care and good maintenance it will (a) In the short term, reduce in value very slowly (b)In the medium term, hold value very well © In the long term will be sure to be worth more than what you paid.

 

Buy a nice used example for a fair price. Use it for as long as you want/need then if you are not happy sell it for what you bought it for. Total cost = films used plus processing. Leica ownership = free assuming camera still in good order.

 

Aesthetics.

 

It looks like a 'pure' camera design. There is nothing on the standard M that is not camera or looks like anything but camera. (Apart from a red dot) Every single square inch of it looks (and is) entirely functional and therefore right. Almost austere as anything with its roots in the Bauhaus will seem. But with the resultant simplicity AND sophistication that the title 'classic' infers.

 

Heritage.

 

Its lineage defined 35mm photography. Leitz Cameras made the first 35mm still camera, defined the size and shape of the negative and the film canister and a host of other variables that are used to this day on every other makers 35mm cameras.

 

Continuity.

 

In this age of mock 'retro' and post modernist ironic consumerism gone mad there are objects that just dont seem to need to change much like the Kenwood Chef, Zippo lighter, Caterham 7 sports car, Claude Butler touring bike, Lockheed Hercules C-130 and of course (you lucky lucrative lot!) your collective favourite, the Rolex Oyster chronometer. Leica M seems to qualify in this group in all respects. (Mind you, so does a Spacehopper!)

 

I say all this as someone who does'nt have an M yet but really needs one.

There are no "objective" reasons for anything in the camera/photography world, it all depends on your vision, circumstances and personal preferences. </p>

 

I wouldn't necessarily picka Leica M "over" a DSLR. In my book they have different purposes and rather complement each other very well. I feel handicaped without either. </p>

 

I have shown this photo a couple of times before as a reason to own a Leica M (taken with a 1964 M3 and a 50/1.4 Summilux): </p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1922709&size=md"></center> </p>

 

I highly doubt that I could have taken this (and a series of shots) of my son at the ER on a Saturday night if I wipt out my 10D with a large zoom lens. I would, needless to say, interfered with the MDs diagnosis of my son, and furhter worried my wife, perpahs also my sick kid. The M is quite, portable, dependable and ideal for taking environmental portraits in available light like this one. It is a tool to have with you at many occations to document. You don't need a computer degree and if something goes wrong it is not because you messed up the settings, it is because you didn't apply your brain. </p>

 

Having said all of this, there are plenty of occastions that a DSLR is much more effective and sensible. </p>

 

If you are looking to buy/use a M in 2004, find your own SUBJECTIVE reasons. If you do buy one, don't expect phenomenal shots from the start, it takes some adapting and learning. Well worth the effort, IMO, but opinios do differ.

Pierre:

 

To be honest, while I am shopping to replace the lost M6, I have encountered this question quite often. This is not just from the salespersons in the stores, it comes mostly from my photographer friends. Almost everyone, in one form or the other and at one point or the other of a conversation, threw me the thoughts of getting a Nikon D70 instead of a used Leica M6. Well, for one thing, the price is about the same. And I own both Leica and Nikon equipments. I actually have more Nikon lenses than Leicas. So I think their suggestion is legitimate.

 

But it all boils down to...LOVE. I keep picturing myself holding a D70 instead of an M6. Something just keeps pulling me in the direction of Leica. Almost every reason I come out to buy a D70, there is always a better reason for me to buy an M6.

 

So, for me, it's too late now. I am in love. Leica is going to work for me. And D70 is fighting a losing battle here.