Can you Suggest A Leica Camera for Portraits & Weddings Reasonable

<p>Is there such an animal? I would like to shoot a wedding with just a Leica camera BUT something reasonable. I know I should be looking for a Canon or Nikon DSLR instead. Just a thought. Thanks, rollsman</p>

<p>Reasonable Leica Camera is an oxymoron.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<p>why dont you get the poor mans leica. it can be had for 350 or thereabouts and is built just as well as a leica with solid image quality. the samsung tl500/ex1. just a thought. ll</p>

<p>As already pointed out, "Leica . . . Reasonable" is essentially an oxymoron. Also, is it just the <em>name</em> Leica that you want, or something specific? Because Leica makes or has made 35mm rangefinders, 35mm SLR's, DSLR's, D-rangefinders, andt a medium-ish format DSLR--in other words, a reasonably diverse range, of which we can't tell what you mean. (Leica has also <em>sold</em> both film and digital point-and-shoots, but AFAIK, these were always essentially rebrandings of others' cameras--currently Panasonic's.) I realize this is the digital cameras forum, but as even the cheapest digital that is truly a Leica (as opposed to a re-branded Panasonic) is going to be an M8--at, what, $2500 just for the body, used?--I'm going to assume that "reasonable" means you're willing to consider film.</p>

<p>If you want the classic 35mm film rangefinder experience, maybe one of the recent/current Cosina Voigtlander rangefinders with a CV lens or two would be the answer. A new camera and lens could probably be had for starting around, what, $800 US new?</p>

<p>If you just want a Leica, any Leica, then a 35mm film SLR is probably the cheapest route. I suspect the older R-system manual focus cameras and lenses are cheapest, but the newer, auto-focus N-system is out there too.</p>

<p>If you really want "Leica" <em>and</em> "reasonable" there's only one alternative. That's to go back to the early stages of Leica development and get one of the excellent Soviet copies together with their excellent lenses.</p>

<p>These were almost exact copies of the early Leica (many of them have been 'retrofitted' into collectible Leicas with swastikas and all), but they were mass-production cameras. I personally recommend the FEDs over the Zorkiis.</p>

<p>Of course a FED doesn't exactly project the same je ne sais quoi ambience of the real thing. Their snob appeal except in a sort of reverse way is nil. :)</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to shoot a wedding with just a Leica camera BUT something reasonable</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The only "reasonable" Leica to shoot a wedding is the one you already have. If you don't have any Leica yet, then it's not reasonable to buy one for wedding</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>with just a Leica camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you already have more than one Leica cameras, you should bring more than one. It's not "reasonable" to restrict to one</p>

<p>Dennis, Reason comes after you've paid for your Leica and get your first transparencies back. As my Leica rep used to say, "The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten." Perhaps it took me a bit longer to forget the price than most people.</p>

<p>You could get the Leica camera that doesn't carry the Leica badge .... that is the Panasonic FZ 50. But I think as to if it would be suitable largely depends on the maximum print size your clients require and the style of photography you do*. It would be a fantastic camera for the weddings I used to do way back, far superior to the Leica's I used then, but I'm not so sure after I watched the photographer working at a wedding I was a guest at a week or so ago. Times and styles have changed. In my day there was a set formulae and I would shoot perhaps 160 frames whereas I saw this photographer change his card twice during the wedding and he had two cameras with different lens set-ups .... I never had more than one camera in my day, and just a 50mm lens on it .... are/were film cameras more dependable than the current digital?<br>

*10x12 inch was the biggest I remember making while today some clients want much bigger and I'm not sure the FZ50 would do this in the rush and bustle of a wedding, snap shooting as this tog was doing.</p>

<p>Dennis,<br>

Are you already a wedding photographer?</p>

<p><em>the Leica camera that doesn't carry the Leica badge .... that is the Panasonic FZ 50</em></p>

<p>Are you sure about that? Because of the cameras where both Leica and Panasonic sell versions, I strongly suspect that Panasonic does 80 - 90% of the engineering and 95%+ of the manufacturing, and Leica only plays a small role, so these cameras are really much more Panasonics than Leicas. In other words, I think there are Panasonics that are sold as Leicas ("carry the Leica badge"), but not Leicas that are sold as Panaonics. If somebody knows differently I'd be curious to hear.</p>

 

<p>You can get an used M4 body for about $1200 or M6 for $1800. TTL metering of the M6 is probably worth the extra money. The basic set of used f/2 Summicrons, 35, 50 and 90, go for between $600 and $1000 each. In short, you can be off and running for the price of a D300s and a pro zoom (e.g., 17-55/2.8). A 28mm lens is somewhat more effective than 35mm, but you will pay more for it.</p>

<p>Despite the limited range of lenses, you could probably get by at a wedding. I use a D3 (fx) and 28-70/2.8 for over 80% of the shots. Of course I don't have to change film or lenses, set the exposure or focus by hand, and can change the ISO in an instant, up to a very useable 6400. That gives me a lot more time to pay attention to the subjects and watch for opportunities.</p>

<p>I think you've got it right, Dave.</p>

<p>Reasonable to use, or reasonably priced? Your question could be read either way. </p>

<p>Reasonable to use. . . Film: Leica M7, with any lenses you require. It has a meter with an Aperture priority setting, so you can set the camera to A and shoot without fiddling with the exposure constantly. Body will cost in the vicinity of $2,000 used. Digital: M9. $7,000.</p>

<p>Reasonably priced . . . Film, without meter: Leica M2. Framelines for 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm. Simply Leica; easy to use; built like a tank. Can be had for $500-$1000 depending on condition. Film, with meter: Leica M6. Framelines for 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, and 135mm. Well built; accurate meter; lot of lens flexibility. Figure $1,000-$1,300 depending on condition. Digital: none.</p>

<p>Lens prices present a wide variable. But, for a 35mm f/2.0 Summicron ASPH, figure about $1,800-$2,000. A recent 50mm f/2.0 Summicron will be $800-$1,000; a 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH will be more like $2,500-$3,000. A 90mm f/2.0 Summicron APO-ASPH will be in the vicinity of $2,000. [All prices are for used lenses.] Older versions of each of these lenses may be had for less, but this is a ballpark starting point.</p>

<p>I hope this helps, and clarifying what you are actually looking for and you experience level will help. For example, if you are a competent film photographer who is very comfortable with meterless cameras, the M@ could actually work for you as a wedding tool. I would NEVER recommend it to someone as a wedding camera who has not lived with a meterless camera for some time.</p>

<p>I was just curious BUT NOW I am off the subject of Leica. Yes I am a wedding photographer and use 5D. I guess I had a bug up my A__ . Its over and I am back to Reality. I will stick to my Canon. Thank you all. Dennis</p>

<p>Pre-ASPH Leica lenses are still very good, yet priced in the same category as used Hasselblad or professional Nikon lenses. If you have to be seen with only the latest and greatest, you can certainly spend a lot more.</p>

<p>You can say, with confidence, that a Leica M is quiet and discrete. You can use the rangefinder in light too low to see the controls, and the distance scale on the lenses is accurate. You can fit all three lenses (35, 80 and 90) together in one jacket pocket. You want bokeh? The aperture diaphram is almost perfectly round. I've never managed to count the number of blades - it has to be at least a dozen, and rounded.</p>

<p>On the other hand, My Leica lenses from the mid-60's don't compare well with the latest Nikon lenses in contrast or resolution, and 35mm film doesn't compare well with a modern DSLR. My autofocus Nikons (F5 through D3) will work in light even dimmer than the Leica rangefinder.</p>

<p>I've almost talked myself into taking the Leica on my next non-business excursion. The light meter can go in the other jacket pocket ;-)</p>

<p>The closest thing to "reasonable" might be a Canon 5D MkII with three Ziess lenses. The IQ would be very good and you'd have some money left over for some lights, a car and a downpayment on a house.</p>

<p>Of course because it is an electronic device it is logical that as one of if not the leading firm that Panasonic will provide the goods with good optics from the Leitz contribution. Plus there is a different bias in the software between the cameras but essentially they are the same beastie.<br>

I have been very happy with the various Panasonic equipment I have used over the years.<br>

I suggest that in our digital age that the electronic firms are the ones to be followed rather than blind adherence to the old masters who are struggling to exist, or have gone.</p>