Falling in love with Leicas?

Hi folks

 

I'd like to share a story with you lucky Leica users. I've always

considered Leicas to be very fascinating objects and yet couldn't

help wondering whether I would ever be willing to sell all of my

Nikon and/or Hasselblad gear plus spend a lot of money just to buy an

M body and one lens. Most of all, I kept wondering: what's the deal

with such cameras? how can it be that great to use rangefinders? what

really makes Leicas so unique and worth sacrifices? I had read

something on this forum but didn't dare to ask such naive questions...

 

Yesterday, for the very first time, I had the opportunity to play 5

minutes with a brand new M7 + Summilux 50 f1.4 and suddenly

understood much of the above... Beside any image quality issue, what

a powerful feeling of technical perfection and attention to details!!

what a great feeling to handle that camera and to smoothly focus

despite (or thanks to?) the rangefinder way!! And what a great

travel outfit it appeared to be!! Ok, folks, now I (partly) know

what you all are talking about :-) I may soon learn more by getting

an used M6+35mm... Sorry if my post seems stupid or naive, but

amateur photography is also about personal pleasure, kind of being in

love, isn't it?

If I hadn't seen your folio I'd think you were just another nut with too much money. As it is, I can see you know a picture when you see one.

 

Take my advice, if you want a Leica to use, buy an old beaten up one at a bargain price and keep the difference to spend on lots of film. That way you can keep taking the excellent pictures!

Yes, Leicas are very nice. You should however think long and hard about the feasibility of selling everything to get one. More than one person that came up on SLRs bought into the rangefinder mystique, and found that as much as they tried (especially after the expense), it was not for them.<P>

 

Speaking for myself, I was deep into Nikon SLRs, and of course lusted after Leica Ms, but I never considered it an either / or proposition. There are still some things that an SLR excels at, just as the rangefinder is better in other situations. For me, they compliment each other. I got my Ms, but still use the Nikons often.<P>

 

You might read this old thread from another SLR user that bought into Leica, did a "first impression" thread (linked within), and then after some time posted his"last impression" thread... he realized that rangefinders were not for him and sold off the Leica gear. It does not happen to everyone, but it does happen. Save up and get the Leica, or save some money and buy used (as many of us have done) while retaining your old gear until you know that you will not miss it.<P>

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002mk7"> Old thread on this subject </a>

I had planned that, after going Leica, I would sell off my Nikon gear. It didn't happen. As a matter of fact, I got so interested in photography again that I bought even more Nikon stuff. And more Leica too, of course. You can go really broke this way!

Well, perhaps I should have said what I like the most about photography: the satisfaction I get when a photo comes out as I wanted it AND at the same time I know that it was taken (=composed, set on the wanted depth of field, metered, exposed and dark-room-printed) by no one and nothing but me. I wish my Hassy was half its weight and size, so I wouldn't even want my Nikon F80 (or a Leica M). I love so much spot-metering with my L-508 and using my smattering of zone system, sharp-focusing manually, studying composition and deciding what depth of field I want so that I don't get a random one. Of course, I'm learning and often the results do not satisfy me. But so far I got the best of my photography and the greatest satisfaction when I decided to forget about my Nikon and carry along only my fascinating Hassy. Why don't I do that more often then, instead of wishing I had a Leica M? Cause the charming Hassy is also heavy, cumbersome and almost "tripod-demanding". That's why yesterday, in that Leica M, I saw a tool as fascinating and manual as my Hassy but much lighter and more pleasant to have along all the time...

 

PS: thanks a lot for taking a look at my shots

After looking at your portfolio I'd say that you and a Leica M would get along very nicely together.

I know exactly what you mean about the Hasselblad. That big, bright screen just begs you to find nice images to fill it with but there's the weight to lug around. I've just made it worse by adding a prism finder which adds even more weight BUT it's nice to see things the right way round :-)

 

If you can find the wherewithall a Leica gives you a different way of looking at things and now I've got one I wouldn't want to be without it. You really don't need to break the bank to buy one, though. I bought my M3/Summicron 50 from a dealer, with a guarantee, for less than £700 and a nice 90mm Elmar cost me £180. None of it is pretty, which doesn't worry me and it all works as advertised.

 

So if you can afford it, treat yourself, but don't give up the Hasselblad, it seems to suit your way of seeing.

unless you are after the rangefinder features/quirks, this novelty feeling you are currently going through really wears of rather easily after a while...

You may buy a Leica but, do not sell your Hasselblad. It would be difficult to expose a negative, as the one of the Railroad on your portfolio, because you would have to place yourself at ground level, when "shooting" with a rangefinder camera. Or, be at floor level to obtain the same effect as you did with your Spiral Stairway picture. BTW, you have nice pictures.

Hi again

 

Sounds like most of you have understood the spirit behind my post. Of course one can call it "effects of too much wealth", but from such perspective I guess very few people really need Leicas, Hasselblads,..... as for each of them there are *much* cheaper cameras and lenses capable of producing substantially identical results. Bessas aren't as fascinating and reliable as Leicas, they do not give you the same feeling of technical perfection, attention to details and sturdiness as Leicas, but they do let you take excellent pictures provided you're good at doing that. So, having been said that many people get to own a Leica after financial sacrifices or by choosing second (third, fourth...) hand stuff, the question remains: why do we love spending money for the most expensive gear although we are humble amateurs and don't really need excellence? I believe amateur photography is mostly about personal pleasure, fun. I'll now be thought to be an idiot but I can't conceal that I'm delighted simply handling, setting and firing my Hassy (won't sell it, don't worry) regardless of what picture will eventually come out. We may say that such top brand cameras give our photos kind of a unique signature that makes us say "wow, this photo could have been taken by nothing by a Hassy (or Leica)"... but in most cases it is because we *know* what camera was used. Cameras are just tools? Maybe, but I'd rather believe that photography often is like being in love... Thank you all for your posts

Actually, I'm always just a little suspicous of people who say that a camera is 'just' a tool. Friends of mine who are car mechanics are very picky about their tools and scathing of poorly made ones, ditto a friend who is a carpenter of the old fashioned kind. An ex-colleague who is still in the hardware side of the IT business has very clear ideas about which oscilloscope to use and which multimeter suits him best. Given that photography is about art as much as technique I don't find it surprising that photographers have clear ideas about what suits them best.

<<couldn't help wondering whether I would ever be willing to sell all of my Nikon and/or Hasselblad gear plus spend a lot of money just to buy an M body and one lens>>

 

Oh come on. Unless your Nikon and/or Hasselblad gear is beaten to death or "all your gear" isn't really that much gear, I hardly think you'd need to sell all of it *and* add cash just to get an M body and one lens. Hasselblad prices are way down but the lenses especially are still up there in Leica territory.

Good tools help the user instead of impeding, and earn respect. But good tools often cost more, and it's not all about "status". I also respect that each of us has our own set of priorities, and for some the apparent economy of making do with minimally adequate gear has its own satisfactions. :-)

 

I'll echo the suggestion of picking up a decent used M and Summicron to keep your exploratory costs in line. Maybe an M6? I did that many years ago with an M2 and 35 'cron which I still happily use. And if the M suits you, you can use that experience in picking out a new one and keep the other as a spare.

Andrea, you have the ability to see a photograph from life and this is more important than any particular camera. However, having always owned at least one Leica at all times over the last 40 years--I now have four--you will find that it is a magnificent tool, at times indispensible. Don't sell your Nikon or Hasselblad however; you'll only end up buying them back in some form or another at a higher price. Knowing which tool to use at what time is equally important. If you reach for the tool and it isn't there, you sacrifice the opportunity to do your best work.