...but its still just a light proof box basically right??

OK, before i get torn asunder for blasphemy, i'm goin to declare the following, i have no problem with leicas, their

price, their owners or anything else. Nor have i used one, just havn't got around to it, but out of curiosity at this stage

i'm sure i'll end up giving them a spin when i get the chance...what i wanted to ask was the following, all the leica is

is a rangefinder right? light goes through the lense onto a film at the back....now aside from the rangefinder setup

what makes them so special...don't go comparing them to expensive cars vs average sedans etc, i'm not really after

anologies and they usually aren't good means of comparison anyhow. Its more the technical fascination with them---

do they focus better than other rangefinders? The box after all is no different to another light proof box, and i can

understand the effect of glass...so is it more a case of being willing to spend big just to get something to hold leica

lenses? I really am interested to hear peoples stories on this, esp since most owners seem so passionate about

them. Are the timing settings more accurate/the exposure controls more sensitive than other rangefinders...or....are

leica owners just plain better? :)

Like i said this is a light question and is just out of curiosity but i am interested to hear what people prefer in a leica

to other cameras, and what it is that they think makes the leica the proverbial bees knees of

cameras.

And i'll admit

the force of temptation to go rangefinder camera shopping is growing strong in this photography padawan...

John, in all seriousness, if you love cameras, great lenses, solidly engineered and built cameras, then you owe it to yourself to shoot with one and see if you like it. I wasn't being entirely sarcastic with the Holga joke (well, okay I was<g>), but there are groups of Holga and Diana users out there that just love them because they do something for them that some people don't get. Don't use one because someone else says they're great, do it to see if it satisfies your artistic needs. The same way I'm not intimidated by someone driving a Bimmer because "they're the best". What I drive works for me... and carries all my Leica equipment too<g>.

Yup. You got it. You might as well just buy one of these and save yourself about $5,458 and get a free lens too:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=holga&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2Fcatalog.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=submit

Woohoo, now i just have to wait for it to get in stock...might be better to preorder just in case.... :)

Tell me why Leicas are cool. I've never used one, but I don't want you to use analogies or comparisons to other stuff I might have used to help me understand.

 

What exactly do you want to hear then?

 

Leicas aren't cool. Don't buy one. They are overpriced and make your breath smell bad. Buy another Canon Rebel.

 

That's about the easiest way to answer this.

I've never driven a ferrari either Josh, but if i ask what drivers like about them and someone tells me that the gear shift

is smoother, its ride is softer and its responsivness is quicker, then i can understand what people like about them,

what i didn't want is the usual car analogies that pop up, i never said anything about comparisons which can be

useful. Like i said i'd prefer the technical reasons while people like them, and i phrased it as nice as i can-i'm not

tryin to ruffle anyones feathers, which is apparently very hard to do...

The first answer is yes. The answer to most of your other questions is no. You'll learn quite a bit by looking back over past

threads, including even the last month or looking at the equipment section, especially the M6 review by Kirk Tuck. The

lenses are great but it is the camera that's the thing really. After all, many of us are happy with our Zeiss or Voigtlander

lenses as well as the Leitz/Leica lenses. After using an M Leica it is difficult to go back to another 35mm rangefinder, not

that some of them aren't also great cameras and much more affordable. Now is a good time to buy a second hand one.

I don't have feathers. I'm just trying to get you to ask a question that will get you a useful answer.

 

Your post is based on only getting answers that you think you want to hear. What if there aren't any technical

reasons? Not everything in life can be quantified. Tell me the technical reasons why the mona lisa is a beautiful

painting. Tell me the technical reasons why you like photography better than sculpture.

 

That is the reason you hear so many weird analogies when people talk about Leicas or fancy kitchen knives or even

cars. On some level, a car is a car. On another level, there is no useful technical comparison between a Ferrari and a Honda. They are just too different.

Despite all the stupid pixel peeping and lens graph chart loving that goes on around here, the things you are

asking about don't show up in numbers or technical bullet points in a brochure.

 

If everything were quantifiable by numbers and technical specifics, we would all use the one best camera out there. Because it would be easy to see which one that was. But because photography (or cooking or driving or playing music or anything else in the world) is just as much about the trip as it is the destination, we all have different reasons for why we like the things we do. And frequently those reasons aren't built on numbers, but emotions. Which is why some people can't shut up about Leica and some people can't stop crapping on Leica. They are both right and both wrong.

Why should we be forced to try an convince you how great Leicas are or are not? If you want to try one try one. Many

(worldwide speaking) shops rent them or maybe someone will loan you theirs and then you can see if they live up to the

hype or not.

 

I doubt any Ferrari driver will tell you that the gearshift is smooth or that the ride is soft. They might tell you that it needs

a engine rebuild (kind of) every 3000 miles. Even Ferrari won't try and sell you on a Ferrari, they want you to buy a used

one first to see if you really want one before you spend a huge chunk of cash on a new one.

 

 

Chad

well Josh if there weren't technical reasons that would be cool by me, if people just love the aesthetics of the Leica and how it feels in there hands, or if they feel it inspires them somehow, then if thats a good enough reason for that person, and what causes them to take great photos so be it. But like if i asked someone why do they prefer a canon 1DS over a nikon equivalent, there's usually a few technical reasons as well as the handling and feel etc of why they prefer it..if someone says thats leicas are simply better enginered/built/sturdier then thats what i'd like to hear- i can see why people would look for those things in a system. If someone thinks the leica offers more "play' or control over shooting than other rangefinders, again, thats what i would like to find out, and the reason that i ask at all is that i usually am drawn to the Leica threads, and am sometimes fascinated by how the camera gets the credit when i would have myself apportioned it to the type of film used or development etc...so just seeing if i'm missing something special....only tryin to learn a little! Micheals second post is fairly clear, its build qualityand engineering packaged with the glass wear...super, thats an answer i can relate to...

Missed your post Chad sorry, no pressure to force an answer at all, feel free ignore this question by all means, some people like to talk about their gear, some don't. I'm not lookin to be convinced of anything.. it was i thought just a simple question. if some asked me why i like my camera i've no problem saying what i find to be the pro's and cons, and why i like it.

The best answer without using a car annology is it is a piece of equipment that does exactly what it is supposed to do ,every time, under all conditions, for many many cycles, and does not do anything it is not supposed to do. It is made as well as man knows how to make something. Only God knows better.

 

Every other piece of photographic equipment has some defect that keeps it from meeting all the above conditions.

 

One example, the shutter is tested to work 400,000 cycles WITHOUT showing wear and then it can still be adjusted. Consumer grade slr will go 50,000 to 150,000. Pro Nikon 300,000. Then it is failure.

The metering systems in my D40, D200, D700 Nikon all plain suck as far as I am concerned. The Leica R or M are simple, reliable, and I can make a contact sheet and every frame will be right. Leica will make parts for old M 3 transport systems if they run out. Here you have a 50+ year old camera that can be brought back to new specifications. Try getting a part for a Nikon more than a few years old. Does that translate to cheaper?

 

Hope I answered your question.

In spite of my aversion to responding to trolling, I'll suggest you do a little research and you'll find the answers to your questions. In summary, the light path in the rangefinders of some Leica models is longer than other manufacturer's rangefinders, hence increased focusing accuracy with a wide variety of focal lengths. The lenses are individually factory calibrated and engraved or printed with their actual focal lengths, besides their nominal focal length. The shutter speed controls, in spite of indents at standard speeds are variable throughout most of the range. Accessory light meters, for certain earlier M models, mechanically coupled to the shutter speed dial, something no other rangefinder camera models did. Lots more...if you do some homework.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, the Visoflex, which allows me to use my longer lenses on my M bodies, in the SLR mode. That's why I bought my first M in 1968 in the first place.

James -- you are running into difficulty here because this question gets asked a lot, and any time someone bothers to

answer it, someone else comes along and tells them they are a poser or a snob and that any number of other cheaper

(or more expensive) cameras are more practical and suitable for any given task. <P>So anyway, my answer: I like the

way it handles. It is small, but it fits the hand well. It is very quiet. It focuses wide angles and normal lenses more

accurately than manual SLR's (or AF slrs in manual mode). The viewfinder is big and bright and lets you see around the

image as well as the entire depth of field (no blur in the viewfinder). This is decidedly not WYSIWYG, but once you get

used to it, it is nice to be able to see the whole scene the whole time, and then decide from there what sort of framing

and aperture you want to use. The camera is VERY simple in operation -- just aperture, focus, shutter speed and film

advance. The meter is accurate and reads the exact same area all the time, so after awhile you get used to knowing

exactly what it is responding to. This is different from matrix which makes a different calculation based on every scene.

So while matrix is more often right, when it goes wrong, it is difficult to know when or what exactly caused it. <P>Also,

there is very little to worry about -- assuming it is properly maintained, they are reliable and you basically only need two

things to keep it working -- little watch batteries in case the meter dies (even then, the camera will still work), and then

film. <P>The final thing about it is that it takes Leica M mount lenses. These, along with the Voigtlander, Zeiss and

Konica lenses that also use the M mount, are as a whole dramatically better than any other lineup of lenses available,

with the possible exception of Leica R. As a group, they are sharper, feature less distortion and vignetting, better

performance wide open, have nicer bokeh, and are significantly smaller and lighter than comparable lenses from other

manufactures. <P>So, that is my take. I don't think all of these features are unique to the Leicas, and there are other

great options to consider, like the Zeiss Ikon, but I don't think there are many that combine so many of these things into

one camera as does the Leica. Surely this is the kind of thing you have to think about yourself and decide if it meets

your needs. Also, the Leica is not really a "do it all" sort of camera -- it is very good at working at moderate distances

with super wide angle to short telephoto lenses, but at the extremes, SLR's work better -- things that require macro, long

telephoto, or very high framerates, shutter speeds or very fast AF.

Most assuredly the camera is not "just a lightproof box". Only those who don't understand photography think so.

Silly questions; silly answers IMHO.

James,

 

Hi there. Few questions for you....

 

What camera do you use now and why did you buy it?

What made it stand out for you then?

What sort of work do you use it to do? Sports? Travel? Portrait? Street? Macro?

What lens lengths do you like using and why? Zooms or primes?

 

Why are you now interested in getting a Leica RF. What is that you think it may do for you that your current camera can't?

What sort of budget would you have if you went "rangefinder camera shopping". Would you want a meter and interchangeable lenses? Do you need AE? Would you want film or digital?

 

Can you bothered to answer all these questions?

If you can, then I would love to try and help you decide whether a Leica is for you and which one may suit.

If you can't be bothered well.......that's ok too :-)

 

Gadge

Yes, a Leica is nothing more than a light proof box. I never got it, so I bought one, a 1963 M2. Got a similar vintage Summicron DR as well.

 

The combo takes great pics. Better than the ones I made with my old Nikons? Yes and no. My Nikons are SLRs and the quietness and absence of mirror slap of the Leica is welcome. The 'cron is also quite amazing wide open. But it has no light meter and the shutter is only moderately accurate. Ok, it works smoothly, but more so than my Nikons? No.

 

But the real appeal is the sheer build quality. Mine's old and a bit worn, but it's a jewel you don't want to part with.

A coffin is a lightproof box too! But some people, when they finally go that route, decide to go decked out in gold and silver and oak with silk lining. Others just go.

 

Sometimes it's the pinstripes that makes the Yankee...

hi guys, thanks for the responses, and stuart like i tried to make clear this really wan't a trolling question-the overall

title of it is a bit provocative perhaps but i tried to be as 'non troll like' as possible -if thats such a thing- in the actual

question, i can read spec sheets for almost anything, i was just looking for users own perspectives, which thanks for

giving in spite of by the way. WWL and PN, like i said earlier, no pressure on anyone to respond, i was just

interested hearing from those who wanted to-Stuart and Ronald, exactly type of answers i guess i was hoping to

hear , and thanks. Gadge i own<<shock horror>> a canon 350 d :) and an older fullframe film canon that i bought

after- i enjoy shooting landscape sport and indoor gatherings. The reasons i bought the 350 which is the main one i

use is because i wanted to try digital and for my budget at the time it did what i needed for what i could afford-i've

since gone to spending my money on a few specific lenses instead of chasing cameras to try'n get the best out of

what i have, i like shooting primes but the length of lense i use varies for need obviously-recently got the tokina 11-16

that i really enjoy using, 50mm 1.4 prime is usually glued to my camera and if i want to do a bit of wildlife or sports i

rely on a 300mmL prime- and i reckon thats a lense bag enough for me at the moment- i like both film and digital-the

only reason i favour using my digital over film camera at all is for the ease and speed with which i can get through the

processing- hope that

answers your questions?! Like i said the temptation is there to go rangefinder hunting but i've enough money woes at

the moment to keep it as just temptation! Its just supposed to be a friendly chat and I am genuinly just interested as

to what draws people to them specifically

Leicas are well-built and have historical significance. Thus, they are very expensive. I've handled one only a

couple of times, and I don't recall anything that called for their typical going price. Why pay thousands of

dollars for an old comic book? You can get the same story and images in a re-print. Another analogy you didn't

ask for: Does a Lamborghini handle better than a Toyota? Yes. Better enough to justify the difference in cost?

Depends on whom you ask, but, to the impartial "reasonable person," probably not. Is a Leica superior to to a

C-3? Yes. It's easier to use and more consistent (it also looks much nicer). Is it worth all that extra money...?

At best, you can conclude that people with money (even many without) will sometimes pay very much just for

prestige, or maybe for something they — for many wacky reasons — simply happen to "want."

Just to add a bit to the other Ronald's remarks:

 

We live in a consumer society. If I buy a DVD recorder and the salesperson tries to talk me into an extended warranty, I just laugh at him. 'But Sir, what if it breaks down after thirteen months?'. The obvious answer is: 'I'll throw it away and buy a new one'.

 

It's the same really with cameras. My D200 is better in almost every way than my D70 was (which in itself already delivered fantastic results). A D700 is much better still. I am an availble light shooter so a camera like that is a dream come true. But I won't buy one. Why? In two years time a still better camera will come along. And then another, and another.And in a few short years they will be landfill

 

Even though cameras are getting better and better, my photographs aren't. That's one of the reasons I went back to film. A few old manual Nikons (dirt cheap of course) and I really was enjoying myself again. Then a Leica M2 came along. I never 'got' the mystique so I bought one. And then it indeed hit me. My Nikons are 25 years old and work flawlessly. Of how many things in your household can you say that?

 

My Leica is 45 years old and obviously has seen heavy use. It is in fact older than everything I own. But it still works and still can be serviced without any problem. In all probability it will outlive me. How good will digital be in 30 years? Will film still be made? Does it really matter? I intend to use the M2 until the day I die.

The combination of being lighter, stronger, faster, quieter, and simpler. You might find another camera that's stronger, or quieter, etc. but not all of the above.

If you have to ask, you'll never understand...