Leica Itch

<p>I don't know why anyone would buy into a 35mm film system at this point. MF is still worth it IMO. I reckon Barry said it right, go for a Mamiya 7 (or 6).<br>

Awesome IQ. Rangefinder.</p>

<p>Robin, 110 or 120 film is a good thing...when you look at a 6x7 negative...<br>

Tony, so brilliant..</p>

<p>I started with an R8 5 lenses. During that time I acquired an M6ttl titanium, 35 1/4 Asph titanium, 50 f/2 titanium, 90 f/2 Asph titanium lens and a 135 f/4 tele-elmar.. Found I enjoyed the rangefinder shooting more so I traded off the R8 system for an M8 and 28 f2.8 Asph and a 50 f2/8. Later I found that I missed the telephoto reach and macro capabilities an SLR can give so I purchased a Nikon D80 with a 100mm VR micro, 70-300 VR zoom and 16-85 VR zoom. Recently traded off the D80 for a D300. So...oh yeah, I understand the "itch". It is a terribly hard thing to deal with. The more you "scratch", the worse the "itch" becomes!!</p>

<p>I scratched my itch. It's a money pit but go on, do it. Bought a M4 with a 50mm DR, then a 35/3.5 just to play, I am seriously considering selling some gear to afford more Leica stuff.... the 35/1.4 Asph is just insane (price wise).... gonna have to hold off. The only problem is that I do not have a lot of time for the darkroom, and so far I lack a good scanner....</p>

<p>About 6 or 7 years ago, I couldn't stand wondering, and bought a demo M6-TTL and 50mm Summicron. It was pretty wonderful for the sorts of photographs I take the most, and I agree that everyone should try one.<br>

While I'm not sure I ever bought into the mythology surrounding the lenses (my Contax G2 kit gave up *nothing* to Leica glass, nor some of my Nikon primes), the shooting experience surpassed everything I've tried before and since. I've long since sold the lenses and body, and regret it at some level.<br>

But, all that said, I agree with Ian's comments a few posts above. Why on earth get into 35mm film at this point?</p>

<p>The Leica mystique smacks of the Apple 'thing'. MAC owners swear by their MACs and become evangelists for them but the reality is MACs offer some benefits that PCs don't and vice versa, and they're not perfect by any means nor do they necessarily make life easier. My MAC Pro crashes just as often if not moreso than my PC. When you sort through the smoke and mirros, Leica is a well-made, high-end boutique brand that offers a nice solution for a certain workstyle and type of photography.</p>

<p>I rented an M6. Didn't like it because it was not my auto focus, super quick SLR. Then I got my images back and that had me sold. Eventually got an M3. Moved on to an M4 years ago and have not owned a SLR in years.</p>

<p>Daniel Bayer, you are as crazy as I am. Maybe we had the same mother!</p>

<p>Well naturally, a larger negative will give you a might better image than smaller negative for a given print size. That's beyond arguing. But let's face it, you can make photographs with a smaller camera that are difficult or impossible to do with something as large as a Mamiya 7. The reverse is just as valid. The OP has the Leica itch. Why try to convince him to move into a medium format rangefinder?</p>

<p>I don't own a Leica. I have used an M6 on several occasions and loved it. Everything about the camera just feels right. It feels good in the hand. All three controls that matter are well placed, and function more smoothly and accurately than anything on any other camera I've used. The viewfinder is better than good, and focusing is dead on accurate. It is, in short, a photographer's camera that demands you know what you're doing. It is not something your Aunt Millie would use to make a family snapshot; though she could with a minimal bit of instruction. If I could afford one now, I'd get one and never look back. Take all the Nikon, Canon, and whatever other auto everything cameras and toss them and I'd never miss them.</p>

<p>Then there is that legendary Leitz glass. One can, and I have, argued that it is much ado about nothing; that it is overpriced and matched by lesser lenses. In some cases, yes that's true. One can argue that some lenses will out-resolve equivalent Leitz lenses. That may be true too. But the more I look at photographs made with Leitz lenses and compare them to photographs made with Nikon, Canon, and other brands, the more I see the subtle differences. The photographs made with the Leitz lenses look more "alive."</p>

<p>To the OP. If you want a Leica, and can afford it, then get it. In the unlikely event that you don't like it, then sell it. You won't take a loss. Life's too short to fret about these things.</p>

<p>I have an M7II with an 80mm and love it to bits.<br>

...But....<br>

Rangefinders are just fun anyway, it's a different way to work. Much more fun than an SLR. With a rangefinder, what you see, you catch! <strong>Play with both, then make your decision without fear nor favour, because you'll not be dissapointed in either!</strong> (although I can see you've started in one direction ... hehe).</p>

<p>Reflecting upon what everyone has said, I think the reason I got the Leica itch is a bit complex. As I mentioned in my original post, I've been shooting large and medium format for a while and, prior to that, did a considerable amount of shooting with my Nikons. When the digital "thing" happened, I tried that, too. Starting with a D70S, then a D200 and now I have a D700 full frame. The problem is, I don't enjoy digital. </p>

<p>I wasn't attracted to photography because I enjoyed sitting in front of my computer. And I think there is a real difference between a <em>photographer</em> creating a <em>photograph</em> and a photographic technician creating a graphic image in Photo Shop. I know that will offend some people, but I don't mean it to. I've seen some striking images since the onset of the digital photography age and they are outstanding pieces of art. But to me, that's not photography. They may have started with a photographic image, but somewhere the photograph was lost and a computer generated graphic image was the end product. That's certainly not true for all digital images, but it is certainly a path that many follow.</p>

<p>So for me, my desire to enter the Leica world is, I think, a desire to return to simplicity. A guy with a relatively simple camera and the image that is created is a result of that individual's skill at the moment of image creation. A negative and a wet darkroom, an appreciation for tradition; no "fixing" it in Photo Shop. I like that.</p>

<p>The second reason that caused me to decide last night to invest in a Lecia system was admiration for the engineering. To some extent, I disagree with some of the commenters that said a camera is a camera; that tools don't matter. I understand what you are saying, but I find that I do have an appreciation for the tools and, for me, they do matter. To me, the process of image creation is very enjoyable. I enjoy working with my Hasselblads because they are wonderfully designed and constructed. Working with such fine equipment is an enjoyable part of the process. It's not the end image that solely matters, but the journey as well. </p>

<p>So this will be fun. A simple, discrete camera I can carry most everywhere (it's hard to be discrete with a view camera or even a Hasselblad!). The Leica is not a camera for all reasons, but I think it's the right camera for me right now.</p>

<p>Many thanks for all that took the time to comment. We may not agree on everything, but what a pleasure it is to have the dialog. </p>

<p>- Eric</p>

<p>Wow. uh...What Eric said. That's what I meant. A Leica camera is more than a little black box with a piece of glass stuck onto it. Yes, Leica is a brand. But it is also a way. For all of the reasons mentioned above. And more.</p>

<p>Oh, and don't tell me not to get "emotional" about my tools. To me, photography is art. Pure and simple and I am emotional about every aspect of it. Including the paint brush I choose to use.</p>

<p>Well done Eric!</p>

<p>Apply 0.1% Betaderm cream twice a day and take an antihistamine, use cool baths and baby soap; use light fitting cotton clothing and stay away from wool and synthetics. The itch should go away.<br>

But seriously, if you do buy Leica (and I recommend it) and find out you think you don't like it, just put it away for a few months and don't sell -- the itch is guaranteed to return, and you'll just end up rebuying (personal experience). Plan on spending at least three times what you think you'll spend. I had an M7, but suggest an M6 or older to satisfy the itch.</p>

<p>Eric, I agree with you 100%, especially about the rampant use of photoshop, this site, unfortunately, reeks of it. <br>

Tools do matter simply because if you enjoy them more, then you are more likely to become comfortable with it on a level that makes the tool an after thought as you are in the act of shooting. That will most likely lead to better photographs. I use digital, have for 14 years, will continue to do so. But if I ever won the lottery and no longer had to rely on paying my bills with photography, I would never shoot it again, because I like everything about film photography that much better.</p>

<p>And funny that you are getting the itch to shoot Leica after using Hassy for years. I got the itch to start using Hassy about this time last year and built up a nice set. You are right, the tools...they are designed and crafted so nicely, they make you want to go out and shoot. <br>

People get into Leica for all kinds of reasons. I got into it because I wanted optics that gave me the best images I could get on Kodachrome. I find my decision very well placed in using Leica glass.</p>

<p>The difference between Leica and Nikon is huge. I formerly used Nikon film cameras in my professional studio. When I changed to Leica reflexes the quality doubled. It was so good that when Agfapan 25 and Panatomic X were discontinued I had to switch to a Hasselblad to get acceptable quality. Even then the 8x10 prints from the Hass and T Max 100 were not nearly as good as those from the Leica R4 and Agfa 25. That is saying a lot! Later I got some M series Leicas, the M3 and M6, and found the quality was a hair better than with the reflexes. If you can afford a Leica film camera, get it. It is worth the money if you really care about quality and have eyes to see.</p>

<p>Eric, and Kristine too --</p>

<p> While Leica equipment might seem like an unjustifiable indulgence in the current economic climate, the equipment is so good that it's worth some effort to search out good used Leica equipment at more affordable prices. If you want to try shooting with a Leica and don't want to spend too much money doing it, there are a couple of places to start. If you live in a city with photo stores that serve professional photographers, you might try renting a Leica M body and a lens for a weekend and shooting a couple of rolls of film to see whether you like it enough to justify buying one. If you're sure that you want to buy one, but don't want to spend too much money to start, you will probably get a lot of conflicting advice, as people have different personal preferences. My own, admittedly subjective, suggestions for moderately priced Leica equipment follow. </p>

<p> I would discount the advice to buy a medium format camera instead. Some of them are quite good, and they deliver high quality negatives, but they are for a different kind of photography. They are larger, heavier, offer a more limited range of generally slower lenses, and are really more for shooting under controlled studio conditions than for candid photography in available light under a wide range of field conditions, which is the Leica's greatest strength.</p>

<p> I would suggest getting a used Leica M2 or M4P body in good working order, and paying a good professional service such as Kindermann or Sherry Krauter to have it cleaned, lubricated and adjusted (CLA'd). You might consider buying a used hand-held light meter such as a Gossen Digital Luna-Pro or a Gossen Scout 2 to go with it. While there may be bargains on auction sites, if you want some reasonable assurance of condition, you might consider a well-known dealer such as KEH. An M6 would cost more, but give you an M body with the convenience of built-in metering.</p>

<p> For a first lens, you might want to consider a 35mm f/2.8 or f/2 as being light, compact, and fast enough for shooting in available light. The old Canon 35mm f/2 LTM, with a bayonet adapter, would be a good place to start at moderate cost, or you might consider a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar or 35mm f/1.7 Ultron from CameraQuest. A used Leitz 35mm f/2.8 Summaron or one of the older versions of the Leitz 35mm f/2 Summicron might also be a good though slightly more expensive choice. Leica currently offers a high quality 35mm f/2.5 Summarit lens for a price that is moderate by Leica standards, but expensive compared to other manufacturers. </p>

<p> For a second lens, I would suggest a short telephoto lens for portraits. If you are on a budget, the old Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM with a bayonet adapter might be a good place to start, or maybe an old Canon 85mm f/1.9 LTM, or a Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Color Heliar. For a bit more, you might consider a used Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit or 90mm f/2 Summicron. Leica currently offers a 75mm f/2.5 Summarit and a 90mm f/2.5 Summarit with high optical quality for prices that, again, are moderate by Leica standards but expensive for other brands.</p>

<p> For a third lens, I would suggest considering a 50mm f/1.4 for shooting in dim available light. Both the old Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM and the old Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 LTM (if you can find one) had excellent reputations, and would be less expensive than Leica glass. CameraQuest also offers a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton aspherical lens. For a bit more, you might consider a used Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron or 50mm f/1.4 Summilux. The Summicron in particular has had a longstanding reputation for very high optical quality. Leica currently offers a 50mm f/2.5 Summarit lens with high optical quality but a relatively small maximum aperture, a little too slow for shooting in really dim available light, and moderately high cost.</p>

<p> On a long-term basis, the best reason to buy a Leica is the current-production range of high-speed Leica M lenses. These lenses have higher optical and mechanical quality than just about anything else ever made, but they are quite expensive. Leica currently offers aspherical versions of the 35mm f/2 Summicron, 35mm f/1.4 Summilux, 75mm f/2 Summicron (a truly superb lens!), 90mm f/2 Summicron, and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens; and still makes the non-aspherical 50mm f/2. (Leica offers high quality M lenses in 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 135mm focal lengths too, but these are arguably more specialized lenses for experienced photographers with specific needs.) Leica also offers one lens in a category all its own, the astonishingly fast but astoundingly expensive 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux, a lens fast enough to take pictures of a black cat in a pitch-black closet at midnight, but costing as much or more than a decent used BMW.</p>

<p> So if you're on a budget, go buy a used M2, a Gossen Scout 2, a Canon 35mm f/2 LTM or Leica 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, a Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM, maybe an old Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM, bayonet adapters for the LTM lenses, and an old Tamrac bag to hold them in, and go take pictures. If you can afford to spend a little more, get a used 35mm f/2 Summicron and 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit or 90mm f/2 Summicron instead. Eric, it sounds as though you are an experienced pro, so I won't offer you any advice on using them. For Kristine, though, I would suggest that you learn to use the budget equipment you buy as effectively as possible while you are saving up for some newer, faster, sharper Leica glass, so that by the time you can afford one or more of the current lenses, you will be able to make good use of them.</p>

<p>-- Pete</p>

In the fall, when I shot Velvia 50 with Mamiya RB67 (65mm and 180mm lenses, always with tripod and mirror-up exposure), I used a M6 (with 50mm lens) set to 40 ASA as light meter and not only it was a lot of fun, I also got very good results! but before I practiced with a M6 for many years - and I'll keep both sets.

-- g.

<p>You won't regret taking the plunge. it. I affirm the earlier poster's mention of Sherry Krauter for possible careful checking and repair, as needed, of any used Leica you might buy. My M6 is in her hands as we speak for MP modification. See <a href="http://www.sherrykrauter.com">www.<strong>sherrykrauter.com</strong>. </a>And I'm dead-on with the notion that the creative challenge is to get the shot, not to manipulate the image. Leica, correctly used, can't be beat for meeting that challenge.</p>

<p>I want to add my 3 cents worth to this discussion. In 1998 I dumped all of my Nikon stuff for the Leica R8. Within a year I had accumulated another R8, and several gorgeous lenses. The resolution and color rendition of the lenses were fantastic. As the digital era approached I considered buying the Leica back so I could continue with my beautiful glass. Unfortunately when the DMR back finally made its debut (at about $6k at the time) I found out that it wasn't full frame. Imagine my disappointment when I realized my favorite lens, my 19MM, would be an effective 28MM. That did it. I was really pissed at Leica. All of my beautiful glass was rendered irrelevant by their decision to pursue digital before they could go full frame. I sold off the last of my Leica gear in 2006 when the Canon 5D full frame came out. I have since changed to Nikon D700 and a series of beautiful lenses because, in my opinion, the combination of their sensor, software and glass get as close to a Leica image as possible in digital format. All that said, I can't wait to see what the new Leica S2 produces. </p>

<p>...or, for twenty bucks, one can get an adapter that allows use of the marvelous Leica R lenses on a Canon like the 21-megapixel 5D Mark II--not too shabby a combination either, and that 19mm would be a 19mm, not a 28mm.<br /><br />For me, though, when people say they "feel the Leica itch," it usually implies M, not R. Maybe that's inaccurate, but from the language they use it usually seems that way.</p>

<p>Yeah, man, do it.<br /> I was shooting a DigiRebel and then a D300 for a couple of years--I love it--but was getting sick at the number of pictures I was taking and hwo much time it took to go through them. I bought a Leica CL (teeny-weenie-Japanese-made-for German company-thatLeicasnobs-like-to-snub) with a German made Summicron 40/2. I have not shot the D300, nor my Mamiya medium format gear, much at all since starting with the Leica.<br /> I do theink there is something to framing and seeing "outside the box" (in this case, literally). I have since acquired an Elmar 90/4 and shot an M6 and M7, but so far prefer the CL for it's size and the match needle meter. Everyone says the shortish rangefinder base makes focusing less accurate but I have not had too much trouble.<br /> Please feel free to take a look at my folder here "Recently..." The last 60 or so photos are all from the Leica, with a couple of Mamiya 7 photos mixed it.<br /> The Mamiya 7 and 35mm rangefinders are different beasts. I do love the monster negative of the Mamiya. Scanned at 5000 dpi, you can make a file 15000 pixels wide The Mamiya is big--seriously--and people notice it. People barely notice my Leica. Also, once they see you winding film they think you are kind of a wierdo for still using film and know they can't ask you to see the picture right away. Then you are free to shoot. Killer.<br /> I have no specific attachment to Leica as a company, though I cannot deny the sex appeal. Their optics and bodies are overpriced, outrageously so. Why not consider a new Voigtlander that is mechanical? They are supposed to be quite nice.<br /> Finally, to the poster who showed his Leica rig up above...that's the photographic equivalent of an old school pinup girl...or maybe Angelina Jolie dressed up sexy and shot in black and white. Also, I noticed the box of Kodachrome 25 and started drooling. <br /> As far as the future of film goes...who knows? I think you have some time. And can you really put a price on a bunch of lovely prints you created hanging on your wall?<br>

I am not sure the Leica optics are a whole lot better than Nikon's good primes, my Dad just got a bunch of chromes back from his Nikon FE with some older 35 and 28 mm lenses and they are just magnificent. I, however, prefer the rangefinder.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br /> Jay</p>

<p>Nobody picked up on discussing the Bronica rangefinder that is in the 645 format, 16 shots a roll,<br>

about the same width as an M camera and the thing has very sharp lenses. A lot of folks on the rangefinder forum even like it over the Mamiya 7 but both these cameras will produce better enlargements than a 35mm camera, and the Bronica is said to handle just as well,<br>

Read this review of the Bronica vs. the Mamiya 7<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60012</p>

<p>I'm kind of confused at some of the answers here.....The OP said he shoots large and medium format, medium with a Hasselblad. He also said he wants to scratch the Leica R/F itch ( mentions the M7 and a couple of lenses ).<br /> So he is getting advice for all kinds of things like medium format rangefinders, Bronicas, all kinds of glass that is not Leitz.<br /> To be blunt, there is only one way to scratch that itch, you buy a good Leica M body like an M2, M3, M4, M6, M7 or MP and you put on a nice fast Leitz lens like a 35 or 50 Summicron or Summilux and then you have at it. That is how you scratch that itch. If you do it any other way, as far as my professional opinion with the M system is concerned, you are simply not scratching it.<br /> If you are even considering Leica M in the first place, then you should take price out of the equation in a general sense and home in on what you want. Sure, you can go nuts and get a brand new MP and 35 Lux from B&H and spend around 8 grand, or you can get a nice used M6 with a decent 35 Summicron for less than 2K, either way, if you are looking at Leica, then you honestly have to be prepared to part with higher than average amounts of cash, period.</p>

<p>@David R. <br>

I think with the lens choices for the Mamiya 7 you can take the same kind of head shots that you would with a Leica M. Of course, generally speaking for head shots, a SLR with 100% view like a Hassy or Nikon/Cannon etc is better for precise framing, but it's not hard to do and if you do have to crop, I'd much rather do it on a 6x7 negative than a 35mm neg. <br>

In any event, the OP should grab a Leica. They are cool and fun to use and the lenses are good. If you don't need a meter, as you probably have several, I think the M2, and M3 are beautiful cameras, exhibiting the height of the machine age technology. I'd suggest a 35 and a 50 summicron or a 28 and 50. If you want a meter and just want to get into the system and try it, than a M6 classic may be a good start. You really can't go wrong with any of the choices from well, pre-M which are really interesting to use to the M8..</p>

<p>Eric, I simply want to express solidarity and to compliment you on articulating my sentiments so precisely. You said it in three words: "I don't like digital."<br>

I have a Nikon D3 with some good glass and I love its ability to squirt a string of action shots in almost any light; but I don't get half the satisfaction from photography that I did in the pre-digital days.<br>

I have some experience of using Leica m cameras (and indeed earlier Leicas as well). I still have several of them and many Leica/Leitz lenses. I also meet your criterion of having a capable system of the same format in that I have a couple of Pentax Spotmatixs with a few lenses and accessories as well as a nice set of Nikon film gear. I also use a variety of medium format cameras including Hasselblad.<br>

Why did I dabble in Leica waters and am I happy I did? I'm very happy that I did although it's certainly been expensive. I got into it because I have a photographer friend who is a Leicaphile and I managed to pick up a bargain in the classifieds.<br>

I get more pleasure shooting with an m Leica than with any other camera. It feels right in the hand, there's no viewfinder blackout, very little noise and the image quality is superb.<br>

Just a couple of thoughts about your proposed purchase. You want to return to simplicity and there's no better reason to turn to Leica in my opinion. Instead of an m7 why don't you consider an m3 or an m2. If you must have a meter and want a newer camera then look at an mp or a classic m6.<br />As regards lenses my recommendation would be the cheapest of all the bayonet mount 50's: the collapsible f2.8 Elmar. I speak with some authority here. I've used most of the Leica standard lenses and currently own about 12 of them, including the asph. summilux which is truly outstanding. If you can live with the slower speed, the Elmar will be the perfect introduction to Leica photography. But make sure you get a good one.</p>