Leica recommendation

In 35mm, I have experience with Nikon and Canon, but am less than knocked out

by the resulting prints. I think a Leica might be the answer for the more portable

format, as I have been inspired by the work of Leica users William Albert Allard

and Roy DeCarava. Of course they are great artists, but the image has that rare

photographic snappiness.

<p>

Anyway, there are so many Leica lenses and cameras available that I am

confused. I would like a 50mm lens, and a reliable manual body with a light meter.

I am after excellent image quality. I would appreciate your recommendations, and

also advice if I am on the right track in expecting a crisper image with the Leica.

Is the German or other glass to be preferred?

<p>

Do you printers prefer a condenser enlarger or cold light?

<p>

Thank you.

John, Leica may be your answer. I have used Leicas for over 30

yrs now and it has become a habit so I cannot discuss this

dispassionately. However, my wife and daughter are using

Nikons and get very nice B&W results. We have a diffusion

enlarger. You might want to read Mike Johnston's recent

discussion of that glow seen in some B&W work.

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sm-02-04-28.htm>

here is the url

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sm-02-04-28.htm

Get an M6 or M6TTL and put any 50mm Summicron on it--Summilux if you

just must have f:1.4.

Depends on what lenses you used probably. I shoot Canon and Leica

professionally and my best Canon lenses are the equal of Leica's.

<p>

However, both Canon and Nikon make lenses to occupy certain price

points or market niches. They may not all be of the same uniform

standard as their best primes or "pro" zooms (though they may be

very good compared to others in their class).

<p>

In my experience technique is (usually) a bigger arbiter of print

quality than lens quality, at least for most users. This may not

apply to you of course, but I would try to rent a Leica for a few

days to see if it really makes a difference in your work.

If you're "less than knocked out" by the prints you get from Nikon

and Canon, that's perhaps a clue that the flaw isn't in the

equipment, and that you should work on your technique more before

putting money into equipment.

...or to take it back another level, since you're asking for enlarger

recommendations, perhaps the problem is with the lab you're using,

not the equipment. If you're not doing your own darkroom work, it's

almost certain you're not getting full value out of the equipment you

have; and after you set up a darkroom, you still won't be there for

several years, probably.

<p>

Several times people have noted here that some aspect of Leica

cameras hasn't come up to their expectations, and then eventually it

comes out that they're getting prints made at the local one-hour lab,

so let's get the full spectrum of what you're doing out, first, to

figure out where the problem is.

Thanks all, for answering. I have been printing for years, and have worked

printing with retired photographer Jack Welpott. I mainly shoot and print 4x5,

and with hard work I get a print that is up to snuff. I find it much more difficult

to print a stellar small neg, and as some here have suggested, more dilligence

and practice is in order. I use a Beseler 45 enlarger with a Zone VI cold light

head.

<p>

I have seen prints that glow at the museums in San Francisco, and I know many

of them were done with 35mm, including the Roy DeCarava show I mentioned at

the beginning of this thread. If I remember, most of his prints were at least

8x10 and up, and they were magical.

<p>

Assuming that I need to work harder, what do some of you Leica users see as

the advantage of Leica? Perhaps it is the way the camera operates, perhaps it is

lens quality. I have always been curious.

<p>

My favorite lens I have used on the Nikon is the 55mm micro. It is quite sharp,

but it is slower to focus than regular lenses, needing more revolutions. Thanks

all again.

There are a lot of reasons besides the lens quality to use a

Leica rangefinder. The cameras are small, quiet and have a very

short shutter lag. They can also be handheld at slower speeds

due to less vibration.

<p>

I have to agree with the others that if you're not blown away by

your results with the Nikon and Cannon gear, there may be other

issues besides which camera you use.

<p>

Clearly you know your stuff when it comes to 4x5 work. You seem

to be happy with your results with the larger format. Forgive me if

I'm off base, but I've had several friends who shoot large format

and don't get great results with their 35mm. Since the cameras

are smaller and quicker to use, they don't take as much time

when it comes to metering or composition, and more

importantly, really looking at the light when photographing.

<p>

The other issue I might suggest looking at is your film/developer

combination. Since you can't exactly tailor the exposure and dev

time for each frame as you can with 4x5, you have to do careful

tests to determine what film and developer give you the right

contrast and tonal range for your lighting situation. An overly

contrasty 35mm negative can be a real bear to print (or scan).

<p>

Having said all that, I have found a certain magical quality in leica

glass, and I would recommend trying out an M to anyone. The M

cameras (except for the new M7) are all manual and I think they

force you to think more as you shoot, but at the same time they

are quick and responsive.

If you don't want to spent too much money on a try-out and still have

the leica top-quality, get a 2nd hand R5, R4 or R4s with a 50

summicron. The 50 summicron is the best lens in history and an R4

(s)/R5 has all the basic features and is very affordable. The whole

set shouldn't cost you more that $7-800 and if you're lucky less on

ebay. If after this you want a more modern body (R8), it is a

excellent spare that allows you to use the same lenses.

<p>

I used to work with an minolta x-700 with minolta 50/1.4. A very good

combination but I always had to push the corners of my prints when I

used larger appertures. Since I went for the Leica I never had to do

that again. Contrast a distortion differences are clear, even on

contact sheets.

<p>

I have a durst605 (condensor), doing very well for me. Again low cost

for good quality. But the many issue in enlargers is the lens.

Given that you're used to 4x5, printing 35mm to any level of quality

is MUCH more difficult, and you need to drag out more tricks to make

it work well. It's pretty easy to make 5x7 prints (remember, that's

the 4x5 equivalent of 20x24!) but beyond that the job gets harder

faster. For intance, I found ferricyanide bleach to be very helpful,

even if you didn't want to use it in a way that was obvious, and

since I've stopped doing silver and gone digital, I've read about

some interesting masking methods I think would be useful in 35mm. If

you want to make really big prints, think about how the same

magnification of 4x5 would look--that's the real direct comparison.

I prefer a color head, which is a diffused light source. The dial-in

filtration makes it a breeze to print on variable contrast papers.

John: Before jumping in try renting... My advice would be either

an M6TTl with 50 'cron or the R8 with a 50 'cron. Work them hard

for a week or two and then decide. This may save you alot of

money in the long run. Good luck!!

I would recommend either an R4s with 50mm summicron or an M6 with 50

mm Summicron.

<p>

If you always use a meter then a rangefinder M of any series with a

50mm Summicron would do you very well.