What Makes a Leica "Different?"

This is the Leica Photography Forum.

 

What makes as Leica unique and special for YOU? (Why not a Nikon F5

or a Hassleblad, etc?)

Sorry, I'm a grammar neurotic: "What mask "a" Leica unique and special for YOU?"

Good, clear VF with white lines. That's all.

<ol>

<LI>For much of the photography I do, I get better images from them, and...

<LI>because they are small and compact, I usually have them with me when I might not have bothered with an SLR or MF rig, and...

<LI>they force me to think about making an image as opposed to taking a picture, so...

<LI>I am more engaged with my photography, hence...

<LI>I generally get better images with them.

</ol><P>

 

;>),

Oh God, more of Todd's "touchy, feely" questions! I was hoping he had gotten this stuff out of his system. No such luck.

I'll rephrase....

 

"Why did I recently switch from Nikon to Leica even though I

shoot Auto Racing, and all of the other racing photographers

think I am insane..."

 

#1 Better glass. Given the limting factors of my particular skill

and talent level, I felt that I was getting the most out of what Nikon

had to offer. When I switched to Leica, I got better pictures, all

other things being equal. There is something very seductive

about the way the Leica glass renders color that even

non-photographers can spot in a chrome.

 

#2 Build quality. I got very tired of constantly having to replace

my Nikon gear. I found that under heavy use, most of the recent

AF stuff lasted just long enough to make it out of the warranty.

The breaking point for me was when I had Three F5s die on me

in the first 3 months of this year, none of which were more than

18 months old. I have bought a new 80-200 2.8 each of the last

six years, because after 3 or 4 months the screws are falling out,

and after a season of use they get soft as the elements start to

move around. If you send them back to Nikon, they put the

screws back in for you, charge you $300, and send the same

crappy soft optic back without touchng it! I was also pretty sick of

collapsing flash feet, dead battery chargers, built-in defects (D1,

80-400-IS, !!!) etc.

 

#3 Service. After 20 years of Nikon shooting, and 10 of NPS

membership, they were nasty and condescending. And they

couldn't fix things properly - I can tell some stories about

cameras that had to go back over and over to get fixed properly.

 

Before the switch, I called Leica with some questions, which

were answered promptly and courteously. That was enough!

Since then they have been great, and have even modified some

stuff (for free...) just to make me happier....

 

#4 The modular lens system. I had to have one as soon as I

saw it. To be able to carry a 400, a 600 and an 800 in a single

backpack is just awesome....

 

#5 The view through the finder. By far better than anything else I

hae ever seen. I don't autofocus, but as Nikon becomes more

autofocus-centric, their viewfinders have becoe harder to focus

manually (losing contrast??? sharpness? - not sure). Looking

through the R8 is like taking the vaseline off the lens!

 

 

In addition, there have been some unintended side efects....

 

I found that the R8 metering, and flash metering (with 54MZ3) is

better than the F5 - which was shocking.

 

I took a major face-plant while holding 2 bodies, one with a 180

2.8, the other with a 21-35. The only damage was a bent lens

hood - and if I had been carrying the Nikon 80-200, it would have

either split in the middle, or ripped the front of the body off - ask

me how I know. The bodies and lenses survived with no

problems, and I'm using them all without having them serviced.

 

On the negative side, the R8 is clunky and slow compared to the

state of the art, and was obviously not designed by somebody

who carries a lot of gear around. You have to constantly check

the controls, cause they move easily, but I have learned to just

tape everything down! I'm hoping that the next R body will do

about 8FPS, and have a little less shutter lag, which is a problem

with the R8 and motor.

 

But I'm willing to live with the body to get at the lenses!

size, rangefinder view, presetting and thinking, dependability,simplicity !

I dont know but there had better be 'something' because I have been saving up for a long time!

 

Maybe I will be disappointed and find my Contax gear is better than I thought and that Leica is all hype , but I doubt it. I am not a bad photographer and the Contax's are great. I am not looking to Leica to 'rescue' anything.

 

I am looking forward to those pre-war lenses and RF for an alternative 'look' not a better look. The Contax SLRs will stay.

 

The only modern Leica item I really , really crave for is a Noctilux but that is never never gonna happen!

 

I guess Leica has a mystique like Bentleys and Rolex and it is even more cool if the Leica is a little old and dinged and brassed. (It says.. "I have so much wealth I can treat my Leicas with contempt as mere cameras.) I sort of get the feeling that people carrying shiny , cherished Leica's are like me , not at all wealthy , and had to save up for ages to get one!

 

The difference is that mine will have to perform at least as well as I expect it to otherwise it will be sold. My Contax / Zeiss gear (and Minolta before them) will provide a demanding yardstick against which to compare. There will be no allowances made for the red spot.

Alec..."Touchy, Feely?"...YES...Always (that's what photography is all about...feely-ing). I am a '60s/'70s person, really, so get used to it! ;>)

 

Mike...I'm not at all familiar with the R system...from your description,it sounds great...I thought it was just Leica's token version of a Nikon! Tell me more, please.

 

If you don't know me yet here...I try to get dialogue going ("extreme debate")!

 

Truly, such debate is a great learning tool...I know my job!

I like a rangefinder because at the moment I press the shutter

the viewfinder doesn't blank out! That is the most important part

of taking pictures and it is ridiculous to think that people like an

SLR that does this.

 

I like Leica because of the first class build quality and quietness.

ANd, ok, I admit it..prestige.

I hate to admit it but I think I enjoy shooting with my M3 more so than my M6 or even M7, although I suppose the M7 is easier and more accurate. I fitted my M3 with a VC meter. The butterry smooth shutter click and film advance is unmatched. I suppose its the brass gears. It just seems to have a better feel to it all around and I just love the chrome. The vintage Ms are what makes Leica cameras an artform and sets it apart from the plastic stuff.

Compact size, high quality, simple mechanical and manual aesthetics and advantages. The results above all else though. For a camera, pretty inconspicuous. The history and careful evolution as well. Plus, the darn thing looks sooo cool for a camera! The fact I use my film camera more now that it's a Leica, as opposed the the huge Canon 1N and 28-70L zoom I had before.

The hell with the black-out! I just like the fact that when my index finger pushes, the shutter goes off. NOW. Not after the camera picks an exposure, the lens chooses a focus, and the mirror flops out of the way. Some of the Auto-Everythings I've played with take a second or more if the light is low. The "Indecisive Moment"! Henri would have commited suicide if he had to use some of today's cameras.

John...I totally agree. I first had an M3 in the early 1960s (along with a Rollei!) and now more than 40 years later I have an M2...BY CHOICE.

 

Some here think I should "upgrade" to an M7, but I want to "downgrade" and get back into "down and dirty" basic (wow..."I've gotta think about this"...photography). It's just good for my spirit.

 

Thank you for your comment.

Some time ago I think I answered a similar question on the subject so apologies for the duplication beforehand.

 

Long, long ago ('56 through '62 or so), I ran the film machine and printed the enlargments for the family business. Retail photographic sales and photofinishing. Part of film machine operations was to chamois the 135 film as it ran through the driers. As this was done holding a work light as a backlight, I noted that some rolls just jumped out at you regarding sharpness and contrast. Same story at the enlarger.

 

In time I asked my Dad why this seemed characteristic of those rolls and his reply was that they were most probably taken with a Leica.

 

Found that to be true when I began to shoot my first stuff with Leica equipment ("borrowing" it of course from behind the counter at the retail end of the business until I could buy my own).

 

They seemed then to be head and shoulders above anything else at the time. They may have only the "head" portion of that today with the advancement of others, but that's still enough for me.

 

Jerry

great 'carry all the time' street camera.

<p>

<img

src="http://www.tristantom.com/photo/recent/images/2sfhorse.jp

g">©2002 Tristan Tom, <a

href="http:;www.tristantom.com/">www.tristantom.com</a>

<<What makes a Leica unique and special for YOU? (Why not a Nikon F5 or a Hassleblad, etc?)>>

 

I shoot with Leica, *and* with Hasselblad and Canon EOS.

 

But despite the challenge of its non-WYSIWYG finder, the Leica gives me near-Image Stabilization steadiness and near-medium-format quality in a package I can comfortably carry around all day, and without looking like a one-man circus.

And yet, had Tom shot that image with a $200 Rebel 2000 the "closest-subject-priority" AF would have ensured the horse's face would have been in focus rather than the flagpoles in the distance, and the dinky little pop-up flash would have put a little catchlight in his eye (of course that's what *I* would have wanted, not necessarily what he wanted). I don't make a secret of the fact that moving subjects are the bane of my existence when using the Leica.

Part of what makes Leica gear so "different" is the astronomical prices which lead people to wax about how special it is compared to other gear.

But maybe there's something very special, different, emotive, and evocative about Tom's photos of the horse that a Canon Rebel 2000 could never capture.

 

What is that quality?

Todd,

 

I think the R system is far more than a Nikon wannabe. If you

look at the catalog, you'll see that it is really a very

comprehensive system. There are a lot of lenses, but the

common thread in the system seems to be an uncompromising

devotion to image quality. And it is a big system, with lenses

from 15mm to 800mm, with a lot of choices between primes and

zooms, several different 35s and 50s, macros, etc.

 

For example, Nikon and Canon beat each other's brains out

trying to make a wider zoom - 17-35 2.8, etc. For about the same

price you get Leica's 21-35, which is slower, and with less range

- but it is equal in quality to most of the other lenses in the Leica

range. By contrast, Nikon's 20 2.8 is a lot better than the 17-35 at

20mm, and neither one of them is great wide open. I guess it is

a difference in philosophy. Leica's stuff seems to manufactured

to a quality point, while the others are definitely willing to

compromise quality to meet a price point, or to "beat" the

competition.

 

So even though the R system doesn't have the cool operation of

the M system, it does share the same devotion to image quality,

and it is head and shoulders above everything else in the 35mm

reflex world, at least everything I have used (N&C).

 

In my business, everybody is going digital, and the quality is

suffering. There are some clients out there willing to pay a lot for

the best that film + Leica glass can offer, and there's no way that

some guy with a digital is going to get THAT client!

 

So even though I held on to a D1 and a few lenses (for those

times that they can't wait 3 hours.....) I have found that the top end

of the market is becoming less crowded, and more profitable.

 

There's also something to be said for the fact that a simpler

system actually frees up your technique. If you're shooting

manual exposure, and manual focus, you are free to compose

your shots based on your imagination, not in a way that

will"work" with the AF sensor! or meter pattern I work with a lot of

shooters who use AF, and they all suffer from what I call

"autofocusitis," which is the art of composing a picture with the

main subject on the AF sensor. A manual shooter gets to look

at the picture as it happens (you M shooters would say "just

before it happens....and just after) but you get the idea.

 

So I guess that speaking purely from a business standpoint, the

"wonderfulness" of Leica has nothing to do with my decision to

switch, it is just pure greed! Since switching, the quality of my

work has improved, and so has my bottom line.

I'll use some violin analogies to explain two of the things that are special to me about the Leica. (Photography is my beloved hobby, violin playing and teaching my profession.)

1. A violinist doesn't chose a violin by objective criteria alone, it has to respond wonderfuly and sound beautiful to him personally. In the same way, a photographer may be well advised to choose a lens on the basis of his personal reaction to the images it can produce, above objective criteria. If another lens resolves more lines per mm, or another violin produces more decibels on a given frequency, it's of no consequence to me - the bottom line is the pleasure I get from the images of the Leica lens, or the personal pleasure gotten from playing a particular instrument. (Yes, it IS a touchy-feely issue, otherwise we're not discussing Art.)

2. In addition to a hundred other things going on in my head when I play a Stradivari is the thought: "OK no excuses now, it's up to YOU; you're using the same tool as Menuhin and Milstein. What can you do with it?" Similarly, when I pick up my M6TTL I demand more of myself as a result of my awe for the historical achievement associated with such cameras. A "no excuses now" aura comes packed with each Leica camera.

-Ollie

http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

Todd you'd ask a lot less of these questions --which are neither

touchy or feely or probing - if you would read the existing threads

first.<P>1.) the glass<P>2.) the fact that people don't see it as a

'serious camera' the same way they react to bigger camera, the

camera is kind of "innocuous" (it's late and I'm too tired to correct

my spelling or my grammar.)<P> the pleasant ergonomics

from the users point of view. The seeming simplicity.<P>4.0 the

factthat you can see the image as you release the shutter. You

aren't guessing what is going on in that split instant, although

this kind of anticipation can be learned if you use a top quality

SLR.

And if you are more into thinking about the mechanics of making

a photographic image: get a Deardorff.

I have a nikon slr and a leica rf. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Without going into a diatribe about each, why do i like the leica? Cause' my father taught me photography with a nikon sp. I brought that baby to high school for club pictures and retired it when i bought my first slr in college. Then i learned about collectables and how collectable it was. I still yearned for the rf. So i bought a leica a dozen years later. Even more expensive than the sp, but at least they are replaceable and easier to get. My friend the 78 record collector told me a story about a fellow 78 collector who found a very rare jazz recording. He purchased it, took it home and accidently dropped and shattered the record. He lamented that besides the $$$ he was out, he would never find that record again. While my sp hasn't reached that point, it has sentimental family value and i still take it out to shoot. I may even try out those kiev lenses with it. But i digress. A leica is made to be used and will give you some wonderful pictures given the chance and shouldn't be relegated to the trophy case. It is the photos it produces that should be held in high esteem and not just the camera.