Leica Itch

<p>I'm a large format (Horseman 4x5) and medium format (Hasselblad) shooter. I also have a large Nikon system with both film and digital cameras. The problem is, I've had this Leica itch for a few years and I think I'd like to scratch it. Am I really missing something by not experiencing Leica photography? I don't intend to sell any of my other equipment. I'm wondering if any of you have dabbled in the Leica waters even though you had a quite capable system of the same format. If so, why did you do it and are you happy you did? I'm leaning towards a M7 with a couple of lenses, any thoughts?</p>

<p>Similar to yours...I have medium format (hasselblad), played with Large format a little bit (never own), have Xpan, set of couple Nikon film and digital camera/equipments. Wanted a Leica for so long, went to store to check it couple times. Finally, got one, and ever regret. I didn't sell any others though. <br>

I was in between MP, and M7...but, don't know why I didn't pick M7 at that time, I end up with MP, with 35mm/f2, and super happy with...I am thinking to get another wider lens in the future (haven't decided which one to go for yet). I have it with me everyday, light, and easy, I love it.<br>

So, go for it :)</p>

<p>Eric, Yes, you are missing something. Just don't rub yourself raw over that itch. The prices will do that<g>.</p>

<p>I'm in exactly the same boat as you (4x5 Sinar and Toyo, Hasselblad, and Nikon for many years), and have owned Leica's in the past, but was never really that invested in them. I carry my Leica with me everywhere these days. I absolutely love the experience of shooting with them as much as the results I get. I've been shooting as much Kodachrome and Fuji Acros as I can pump through my Leicas lately. I used to avoid grain, but after shooting with Nikon digital, I can't get enough of that splendid film look.</p>

<p>The reality is I've been selling off a lot of my extra Nikon and Hasselblad inventory to pay for my Leica habit. But truthfully I have been shooting as much Hasselblad again. M7 would be great, but I enjoy the simplicity of the M4-Ps I own. Lenses? Just get the 35mm 'Lux and call it good for awhile. Happy freebasing.</p>

<p>I've had that itch also...but so far haven't stratched. But I have a question.....how do you intend to get those great prints? Scan. Darkroom? What keeps me hesitating into buying more film gear is the concern that Nikon might stop producing their superb scanners, which would end the last affordable, high quality dedicated film scanner. I have the Nikon 9000, and just hope it keeps working for me.</p>

<p>A guy from Virginia I do business with told me of a Leica M3 his Dad had purchased around 1960 at the factory in Germany that had a bad shutter. I told him to bring it up to New Jersey the next time he visited me and I would take it in to have it serviced. After having the shutter curtains replaced, I ran a role of film through it to make sure the camera was repaired. Big mistake or life changing event, depending on your point of view. I had never shot a Leica before. I traded in a Nikon F5 and four lenses to afford the purchase of an M3 with 50mm Summicaron. </p>

<p>Be careful, you will want to toss your Nikon film cameras. I am using Nikon D700 for digital, but have been disappointed with Nikons for film.<br>

The problem is you will need to print the negs and that requires top enlarging lenses and well alligned machines. No El Nikkors please. No four element cheapies. No original Focotars from 1960 made for 5x magnification. I recommend the large front element Focotar or Focotar 2. <br>

I have even tried Rodenstock apo`s. No go. The imaging chain is but as strong as the weakest link.</p>

<p>So now I carry two sets of lenses, Leica for film and Nikon for digital. Like I said, be careful. If you get prints at the drug store, don`t bother with Leica. The image improvements are somewhat subtle until you see perfectly made ones that you did yourself. Then you are addicted . The addiction will make digital seen cheap so be prepared.</p>

<p>Slides will also show it in spades. Shoot a half roll with a Nikon, finish the roll with a Leica. Same subjects, same time, same lighting. There is a little known loaner program out there. Calumet in Chicago is a participant. Call Leica USA for others.<br>

It is free and you get a camera and lens for a week. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, you're missing something. Freedom and speed of use.<br>

I went the other way, I started out in Leicas before using Hassy's. Using Leica's is extremely fast by comparison. So a large format camera being even slower to use than an MF camera means you'll find shooting with Leica's extremely fast.<br>

And for once, you can shoot without tripods! And in low light, at 1/8 handheld, perhaps even at F0.95!</p>

 

<p>The best thing to do if you even think you want a Leica is to buy it and a lot of expensive Leica glass. You are going to anyway, and you bypass all the angst by just doing it.</p>

<p>There are some idiosyncrasies/frustrations with Leica M:<br />(1) The framing is innacurate (and it varies by focal length and distance) for someone coming from the precision of the Large Format, Hassy, SLR world.<br />(2) Focusing subjects that are outside the central part of the viewfinder will take some getting used to, because the rectangular focus patch is in the center of the viewfinder. This is even more difficult when you use wide open apertures, where the depth of field is very narrow.<br />(3) You cannot see any depth of field, so will have to imagine/visualize what the final photograph will look like, and only see the result after the film has been developed (unless you go digital).<br />(4) I'm sure there are others.</p>

<p>Pros:<br>

(6) There is a lot of extremely fast glass available. The f1.4 Asph series are astounding.<br>

(7) I can't think of any other industrail product that arouses so much passion in people, both for and against the products. (This ha snothing to do with your question, but worth noting.)<br>

(8) You can use lenses that go as far back as the original Leitz LTM lenses from the 1930's and the current cameras are fully compatible with any of these lenses. Other than the Nikon F mount, I can't think of another brand with such functionality. Most manufacturers have changed their mounts without even a thought about tradition, history and quality. (Granted, in LF photography you can mount any lens, but in the 35mm world it is very different.)<br>

(9) I'm sure there are others.<br>

(10) It's probably the highest quality to weight/volume ratio in photography, or as a senior member stated recently, Leica punches far above its weight.</p>

<p>Other than that, it's the 35mm photographic equivalent of heroin, as you can tell from the posters above.</p>

<p>If you want quality, speed, lightness and a great rangefinder..get an M7, that is a Mamiya 7..it will blow any Leica out of the water for IQ and is very fast and easy to use.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The problem is that it is perfect to itself, and it doesn't take long before what it does is what you like and what you want. Then you still have to use other tools for certain objectives, but they are not as satisfying even though they are effective and necessary.</p>

<p>Eric,<br>

I come from large format as well, (with Schneider lenses) and Hasselblad as well. I used to have a Nikon system but dumped it as soon as I bought a Leica R. I got into the R system and simply loved it. Never went back to Nikon! I will not express how I feel about Nikon lenses after using Leica, because I could get into trouble for expressing my sincere opinion. But I can tell you, that I am still using my R glass on a Canon 5D and the quality I get from the Leica glass is exactly what I want ( specially the Summicron 90 f2 Apo Asph ). Then I bought an M6 and then it was when I really learnt about what Leica is all about. I started with an M6 .72 and a 35 summicron + 90 elmarit. I sold it in favor a M6 .85 and the best lens I have ever used the Leica Summilux 35 f1.4 Asph. Simply the best camera lens combo I have ever used!<br>

Back to your question. Are you missing something?<br>

In my experience, YES.<br>

But this may not be true for everyone. I can't tell you why, but Leica isn't great for every photographer.<br>

But sice I bought this Summilux 35 f1.4 Asph. from our fellow PhotoNet member Vic. my life was absolutely ruined, as I have never found any other lens that can match it's virtues. Alongside it's image quality, it is also it's compact size and handling on a camera such as the Leica M.<br>

I am still on my search with the current lenses on the market for the Canon DSLR system, but I doubt I can find something that handles and delivers the quality the Leica does.<br>

Good luck in your search.</p>

 

i had that itch, too. ten years ago, it was already five years old. i went through numerous systems/brands over seven

years, finally plumping for what i thought was the ultimate outfit: two nikon F2 bodies, five lenses, and an array of

accessories. two years - or even eighteen months - after accumulating all that gear, i part-exchanged All of it to get a brand

new leica m6 & 50mm summicron. that was in 1998. i have never looked back.

<blockquote>

<p>I have even tried Rodenstock apo`s. No go</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny....I compared Schneider enlarging lenses against the Apo Rodagons, and the Rodagons won hands down for color separation in the far ends of the spectrum (reds / blues). For sharpness, both brands were equal, but the contrast and color rendering of the Apo Rodagons was much, much better. I sold all of my Schneider enlarging lenses based upon testing the 50mm and 90mm Apo Rodagons against the Schneider Componon-S lenses. Haven't tried the Apo Componon HM series as they were not available at the time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I really missing something by not experiencing Leica photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends why you want to use the equipment. The cameras are small, and uncomplicated to use. The lenses are very, very good (and very expensive). I have two Leicas because I like the small size and the range finder is easier for me to use. I don't know what Leica "experience" you're looking for - it's a camera....to me that's like asking, "What am I missing by not owning a Rigid pipe wrench?"</p>

<p>I personally don't care about the "use experience" - I just want a reliable tool that gives me the image I'm trying to get. After 500 exposures, you should be at the point where you forget about the equipment and the operation is intuitive and automatic. They're just tools...really....</p>

<p>Well my feeling, as a Leica user for 25 years, is that it might be worth taking the plunge. The main issue, as I see it, is the ultimate longevity of film and the industry that supports it. I suspect there will always be black and white film and enlargers that can be bought and maintained, because they are unique and are straightforward and there are huge legacy collections out there in the market. If you already have a nice black and white darkroom, then I suggest there is no need to hold back.</p>

<p>However if you are like me and are largely a color photographer then that technology is dying or is almost dead already and you have to end up scanning everything - this is possible, but when scanning one always ends up asking whether one should cut out the middle man and go straight to digital, which for final quality is quite frankly better. Everytime I get a roll of slides back for example, I wonder how long this E6 processing will remain available. I, too, share Benny's concern about the future availability of film scanners and their parts (at a cost one is willing to bear).</p>

<p>By the way, E6 slides when projected I think are superior to digital at current pixel densities and will remain so for some time, but this is not the issue, the issue is that translating this superiority into a final print or a computer-viewed file is very difficult if not impossible. At least in a black and white darkroom with a fine optical chain (see Ronald's response) very high quality remains an option, but I don't think that the majority of people would use anything other than a digital process now to produce color prints. </p>

<p>It is my experience that Leica optics are, taken as a whole, the finest in 35mm photography both M and R (I don't make a big distinction between them). You pay for this of course though, but it does depend on you whether it is worth it.</p>

<p><em>"No El Nikkors please. No four element cheapies. No original Focotars from 1960 made for 5x magnification. I recommend the large front element Focotar or Focotar 2. <br />I have even tried Rodenstock apo`s. No go. The imaging chain is but as strong as the weakest link.'</em><br>

I started with El-Nikkor 50/2.8, not bad but nothing special, this is 30 years ago, then I got another El-Nikkor, 63mm/3.5 Fax, this enlarging lens cost 4 times more than the 50/2.8, the sharpest enlarging lens corner to corner, nothing comes close, some of my TechPan 16x20's resemble large format prints.<br>

Vahe</p>

<p>To scatch that itch, I suggest an M2 with the reasonably-priced and wonderful 35mm 1:2.8 Summaron. Classic Leica; better for your itch than cornstarch IMHO!</p>

<i>"If you want quality, speed, lightness and a great rangefinder..get an M7, that is a Mamiya 7..it will blow any Leica out of the water for IQ and is very fast and easy to use."</i>

<p>

If you want a great number of passengers, faster top speed, and much greater altitude, get a B7, that is, a Boeing 747 ..it will blow any Piper Cub out of the water for built-in technologies, and it is very fast and easy to fly.

<blockquote>

<p>If you want quality, speed, lightness and a great rangefinder..get an M7, that is a Mamiya 7..it will blow any Leica out of the water for IQ and is very fast and easy to use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only 10 or 20 shots per film - camera over twice the size, lenses max aperture only f4, not nearly so many lens options, requires 120/220 film...</p>

<p>35/1.4 asph as Marco said is very, very hard to beat. Nothing I've tried yet from Canon, on the 5DII, comes close.</p>

<p>I've been a Leica M shooter since 1970. I still have that original M2 but when I do used my Leica these days, it's my M7. The autoexposure is SO much more convenient than guestimating and/or using a handheld meter.<br>

Ilford XP Super scans very nicely but cannot compare to the quality of files I get with my Nikon 300. To my way of thinking Leica M film cameras and wet darkrooms are the way to go. Prints are not superior, simply different, from Epson R2400 prints from either scans or digital capture. In sum, you really want to work in the darkroom if you hope to enjoy a Leica M camera. <br>

I've gone about as far as I'm going down the digital path in the near future and in fact I'm doing a $500 upgrade to my home darkroom.<br>

Either way, good luck!</p>

<p>Greetings Eric, Having spent most of my photgraphic shooting with large and medium format, and later inheriting a Leica M2 stocked with a 50mm dual range Summicron, I can tell you of a few advantages. First, some Leitz Leica lenses (to my eye at least) seem to render small format negs to medium format sharpness and detail. I also seem to get more out of my Summicron wide open than I do with other lenses. Having bad eyes, I've come to also appreciate rangefinder focussing over TLR. I have less issues with sharpness. There is also the added advantage of more simplicity with a Leica, thus having less cary and bulk as with medium and large formats. When I shoot with my Leica, people seem to be less aware of the camera and behave more naturally and at ease. Just my 10cents worth. </p>

<p>@ Barry Fisher: I knew your comment would draw some barbs, but I'm proud you stuck that out there. IMHO, Leica shooters shoot Leica for a myriad of reasons, but IQ is not one of them -- if it was, they'd be using MF or LF. Steve Swinehart, in his post above, is right on: Leicas are just tools. Be leery of putting too much emotion into a tool.</p>

<p>I got the Leica itch last year, bought a Leica III with Sumitar 5cm f2. It is/was fun in a retro way. The most amazing bit of all was the constant marvelling at the engineering quality/precision, being an engineer myself. For a 72 year old camera it is absolutely outstanding. In fact, if it were brand new and straight out of the factory it would not surprise me, given the condition and flawless performance. German engineering at its best, unmatched by any other nation.</p>

<p>But I come from the SLR world, so was not used to no metering, limited lenses, film. Yes, painful film, has finally put me off and diverted me back to my trusty Canon 5D with arsenal of lenses. The Leica is small and quiet. But focussing is a pain in the butt, and metering is also painful but thankfully my guesses are usually correct. But the expense and pain in the rear of not being able to instantly check my histogram, having to wait for the film to be developed, then having to scan the negatives, dealing with dust and specs of dirt...... No thanks. The only thing I will really miss is the unmatched "look" of film photographs, but personally I do not think I could be bothered to go the the time and expense to achieve that look. I might just keep my Leica purely out of engineering marvel, so that I can carress and fondle it every now and again when I've had a few gin and tonics. Overall I am very glad I took the plunge and tried it. In fact I couldn't help myself, it wasn't my choice, I was being driven by a third force, unable to prevent me clicking the "buy" button on the computer. As they say, you will never know until you try it.</p>

<p>So my suggestion to you is to go out and buy one! Be it an M whatever. Enjoy it. If you, like me, later decide otherwise then so be it. At least you would have travelled down that road. If not, you are guaranteed many years of enjoyment with it, as long as film is still for sale....</p>