OM4T versus Leica M7 ?

Any Leica M users here? I'm wondering how an M6 or M7 compares to an

OM4.

 

I am wondering what it would be like to trade in my OM system for an

M7. I know I'm comparing rangefinder to slr, but am thinking about

the size and handling of the Leica M versus the OM4T.

 

I seem to use my OM for the kinds of photos Leica users take, but

everytime I read the pros and cons of the Leica M7, I think "my OM

does it better."

 

Does anyone here have any experience with both systems?

 

Thanks.

Tim, I am only a very recent M4 user, but I have had an OM1n since 1978. Leaving aside the comparative quality of the lenses available to both systems, I'd say that in terms of use and size both cameras are pretty similar, they are both a pleasure to handle and they are both excellent unfussy shooters. The M4 feels somewhat more refined, and it has made me realize how loud the OM's shutter actually is, which, depending on circumstances, might be an issue or not. The size of the lenses is also a plus in the case of the M4: 3 lenses and a body fit in the smallest -and lightest- of bags. On the other hand, the OM doesn't require external viewfinders at all, it enables you to make use of telelenses and it feels somehow sturdier (or let's say less expensively fragile) than the M4. It is also more versatile in as much as it can be used for macrophotography as well.

 

I use both cameras: I love the M4 when I shoot with it as much as I love shooting with the OM1.

 

If a quiet shutter is important to you, and you like carrying more than one lens while street shooting, then a Leica M does make sense. Otherwise, stick to your OM system and don't feel any worse for it.

Both are great cameras. But the Leica is a rangefinder, and the OM-4T is an SLR. Rangefinders are quieter, and easier to rapid focus, and easier to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. But SLRs are better for exact framing of the image, using telephotos, or doing closeup work. And Leicas are incredibly expensive. Your OM-4T is better than a Leica for some things, and a Leica is better for other things. But certainly, the OM-4T is more versatile, and less expensive 2nd hand.

 

What you might want to consider is a much less costly Rangefinder than a Leica M7, such as a Voigtlander Bessa R2, or a Konica Hexar RF. You could get one of those, with a couple of lenses, AND an Olympus OM-4T with a couple of lenses ALL for less than the cost of a Leica M7 with one lens. And then you'd have the best of both worlds.

Well, you can get a 21mm for each system... but only the OM offers a 21mm f/2!! There's no comparison... :-)

I was a longtime Olympus user who left and went full-speed into Leicadom. The Leicas were excellent tools with excellent lenses, but I eventually got sick and tired of their 'fiddyliness", the film loading, the whole 'what frameline is in the viewfinder?'issue, the need to carry around an accessory viewfinder for wide lenses, the abysmal flash options, the different filter size for each lens that I owned, the always need to carry 3 or 4 lenses around, and the seemingly as much time spent changing lenses as actual shooting pictures.

 

I very soon realized that my Olympus OM-4T was just about the perfect camera, the metering system is unmatched, and I could buy some fast, kickass lenses for around $150 to $250 each, as opposed to the $1000 to $2000 each for the Leitz lenses.

 

I'm now back with Olympus as happy as ever, but I do still have a Leica CL and a Canon Leica screwmount body and a couple of 'bargain' lenses to fulfill my RF fantasy. Keep your Olympus gear and don't worry, be happy!

Well, I'm a long-term OM-System user and currently have only an OM1 and an OM4t left to use after most my extensive OM stuff has been sold. I've also got a Leica M7, having upgraded from an M6 a couple of years ago. So I've got a lot of experience with both systems.

 

I'm not really in George's camp, never having totally abandoned my OM's when I bought into Leica. His points are certainly valid, but I have comments about each.

 

Lenses? Yes, the Leica lenses are a little better, but the photographer is the issue in most cases. Don't buy into the Leica system just to spend a fortune on their latest lenses. I spent my money on a few, select Leica lenses (35/2, 90/2.8), and Konica M-Hexanon or Voigtlander for the other focal lengths that I wanted; much more cost-effective. I don't think that carrying multiple lenses is dependent on the system, but your habits. The disadvantage is that you don't have many zoom option with the Leica, only the Tri-Elmar or the Konica 21/35. I went to Ireland with three lenses on my M7 and wasn't dissatisfied (21,35,90). I didn't carry so many lenses, so I didn't need to swap.

 

I don't mind the accessory finders. In fact they're better than SLR finders for wide angle lenses, IMO. It is a pain to carry a different one for each lens though.

 

Frameline confusion - That's something you get used to quickly. If it's a real big problem, you can have extra ones permanently removed...at a cost.

 

Film loading - no big deal. Actually I find it equally fiddly to thread the film leader into an OM's take-up spool's slots or open the bottom of my Leica and drop the film in. Neither of these measures up to a camera that auto-loads like a Hexar RF or modern AF/Motor-driven camera.

 

Flash - The OM T-Series flash is of course better. The Leica flash isn't bad, though. I have a Metz that works with the M7. No big disadvantage, IMO.

 

Filter size? Yes, that can be a hassle. But I typically put B+W MRC Haze filters on all my lenses and then carry a 72mm polarizer with step-down rings for all my lens' filter sizes. The Leica's polarizing solution is pretty wacky though. I use the Leica, swing-out Universal Polarizer. In general it's much nicer to use filters on an SLR.

 

What I really like about the Leicas is the way you interact with the subject through a RF camera, instead of hiding behind and SLR camera. Face it, with an SLR, you are looking as a few that looks much like a transparancy and tend to put the camera between you and your subject. With a RF (assuming you use it right eyed), you look at your subject with both your bare left eye and the right one through the finder. I know that this whole explaination seems wacky, but it really does make a difference for many types of pictures.

 

Other comments: The Leica can go about 2 stops below the OM's for equal vibration with its smoother shutter. AE exposure accuracy is about equal, but the OM4t's metering system is superior. The normal RF/SLR differences apply. The camera systems are about the same size/weight (the M7 is a solid, heavy camera).

 

You should find some way to rent/borrow an M7 before buying one. Have you shot with a RF?

 

Skip

The Leica system is great! I own two as of now, with lenses from 21 to 135.

 

My advice...keep the OM and use it for tele lenses (85mm and up). I have trouble nailing focus on Leica tele lenses from 90mm up, especially at wider apertures. The Leica is perfect for lenes 50mm on down.

 

A lot of photojournalists in Vietnam used the Leicas for the same reason. Great for WA or normal lenses...but used Nikons for tele lenses. Plus, with an slr, it's easier to see DOF with tele lenses when useing the stop-down button.

I myself, decided to try rangefinders from both a Contax G2 and Mamiya 7 standpoints. The G2 took a while to get used to, it's compactness and sense of quality matches that of Olympus. While it doesn't have the big, clear framelines of traditional rfs, the G2 uses a zoom VF that gives a much more exact, slr type frame composition than a standard rf like a Leica M. I get perfectly framed (as far as I can tell) shots from the 45 and 90, but the 28 frame is slightly off from perfect. This last may be correctable by adjustment. Optically, the Zeiss lenses are superb (said to equal Leica), but so are my Olympus 28F2.0 and 100F2.0 Zuikos. These 2 Zuikos (my samples at least) match the Contax 28F2.8 Biogon and 90F2.8 Sonar in terms of sharpness and contrast despite being a full stop faster. The 28 Biogon undoubtedly has less distortion due to it's symmetrical design. The 45F2.0 planar does edge out my 50F1.2 Zuiko, but the Zuiko has more diaphragm blades and is a stop and a half faster. Zeiss has only recently begun to pay attention to the merits of bokeh. I don't have the Zeiss 21 to compare to the Olympus 21F3.5MC, but the later seems to give excellent pictures with no detectable flare or linear distortion, and is extremely compact besides. Plus I don't have to mess with an external VF. But what I really, really miss on the G2 is the built-in spot meter of the OM4T. IF it had that, then I think it would have won legions more of converts as it is the most compact and elegant of systems. The autowind and AF are very nice features also. Overall, I prefer the OM system, but the G2 is my second choice for 35mm.

 

The Mamiya 7 is a 67 medium format RF with leaf shutters and consequently has the smoothest shutter release and least noise of almost any camera. I have the 80mm (wide normal) and 50mm (about a 25mm in 35mm terms). The 50 comes with an external VF, but one can forego it and use the entire camera VF instead. Being used to slr, I find it disconcerting to not get exactly what I see in the VF. That's the major difference between slr and standard RF. Overcoming or getting used to it, will be a matter of practice and study.

 

IMHO, Olympus OM holds it's own against RFs, but if you need an even more unobtrusive camera, a Leica M is the way to go. If it's perceptible improvements in print quality, then don't kid around and go straight to medium format to go far beyond merely "squint" differences!

I forgot to point out, that all Contax G lenses (28, 35, 45, 90 and 35-70 zoom) have the same filter thread--46mm, except for the 21F2.8 Biogon (55mm thread) and the 16mm Hologon (special). Also, the metallic silver finish is far more prevalent than black, both bodies and lenses. Unfortunately for those of us that prefer it, black was only available in special "collector's item" kits.

I own a Contax G2, not a true rangefinder as the purists will note, but an excellent

camera that behaves much like a rangefinder. My favorite aspect of the rangefinder

camera is its non-reflex viewfinder; not only does this correct distortion on wide

angle

lenses, it also allows the decisive moment (hmm) to be seen -- the simple fact that

the viewfinder doesn't go black when clicking the shutter means a lot to me. I also

love that the viewfinder is always "in" focus.

 

Still, do not drop that SLR -- firstly, how much money are you really going to get for

it in this digital age? Secondly, SLR's are essential for close focusing -- my G2 lenses

don't focus closer than .5 meter, for example...

 

Tim

Unless you are independently wealthy, don't do it, man.

 

You'll get screwed on the trade-in. You'll have to spend 5 times

what you sell your old gear for to build a decent Leica M system.

And then you may or may not like life in the RF world.

 

If you buy new M gear, turn around and sell it, and then rebuld an

Olympus system, you're going to get screwed 3 times (the 3rd

time being when you have to pay more for a used good used OM

4T than they sold for new.)

 

Pick up a Voightlander Bessa R and one lens for less than $450.

See how you Leica it. If you get hooked, then take the plunge.

I changed from Olympus OM (OM-2S and OM-2n, with 21/3.5, 28/2.8, 35-70/4, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro and 100/2.8 lenses) to Leica R, then Leica M. The Leica R7 was a much nicer camera than my OMs but still disappointing in some ways. The lenses, not the bodies, are the strong point of Leica R anyway.

 

Leica M lenses are equally as good as R (and in some cases better), although the M lens range is naturally much smaller. My Leica M7 (used to have M6TTL) is a very simple camera with features rather like the OM-2n, except that the metering isn't off the film (OTF) unless you're using flash.

 

One thing you may find, if you change to a Leica M7, is that you'll end up owning fewer lenses. This is partly due to the much higher cost of Leica glass, of course, but is also due to the more limited capabilities of a rangefinder camera. Maximum usable focal length is 135mm and some would argue that 90mm is the longest useful lens. Shortest focal length accommodated by the camera's built-in framelines, with .58 or .72 finder, is 28mm. However, the 28mm framelines are really difficult to see in the .72 version, especailly for spectacle wearers. Wider lenses are available, from 24mm right down to 12mm (Cosina / Voigtlander) but they need a separate viewfinder.

 

Many Leica M users find that they routinely use only three focal lengths and quite a few use only two. I used to be of the 35-50-90 persuasion but now I have only one 50mm lens to use with my M7, and that's not even a Leica lens! It's a Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f/2 and its performance is every bit as good as a Leica 50 f/2 current version Summicron. It does what I need, so it's all that I need (for now, at least).

 

I would agree with those who urge you to keep your OM gear. It'll be worth more to you than the price you'd likely be able to sell it for. It will enable you to do things that a rangefinder camera can't do, like macro photography, long lens photography and accurately framed portrait photography (believe it or not, portraits are not a strong point of rangefinder cameras).

Excellent comments on the relative usability of Leica versus Olympus, Ray! However, I have to point out that you may not have had the best of Olympus optics which are generally speaking, the F2.0/MC series. A number of critical people (including Mike Johnston) consider the Olympus 50F2.0 macro (to pick just one example) equal to or better than the Leica M 50 Summicron. Again, very thoughtful comments.