Leica SLR or Leica M

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

So i'm attending college next year majoring in photography. Fortunately i'm able to rent almost any camera id like to shoot with while at school, but i'm required to bring a 35mm. I love film and hope to continue it somehow in a career. So far i've come down to a tough decision, Leica R and Leicaflex or Leica M? I shoot mostly street and travel photography (Photojournalism). I understand that i'm really paying the money for the lenses, but the tough part is deciding which body. Also price is a little bit of an issue considering i am a student, so i'm looking for a 50mm summicron f/2.0 lens with some leica body. Suggestions?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Elliot</p>

<p>If price is an issue, get Leica R, it will cost about half what an equivalent M would. I have an MP and an R8 with several lenses, they're both fantastic and price aside, it really comes down to whether a rangefinder or an SLR would suit your needs better. An M6 is about $1200, 2/50 Summicron M around $800. An R8 is around $800, with 2/50 Summicron R around $300.</p>

<p>For street and travel, I would prefer a rangefinder, but an SLR can definately cover that too.</p>

For the sake of versatility, and to cover most situations, I'd take an SLR with. Rangefinder cameras are tools for precise and especific situations in street photography and photojournalism. Now, while some of the situations to use rangefinders coincide with the instances in which you'd use SLRs, those cases that don't, like sports and macro, are the ones that give SLRs the edge.

 

In short, cover yourself for any type of assignment.

 

BTW, I am aware of the existence of macro and telephoto lenses for Leica M-bodies, but the OP is a college student posing a very precise question: whether to take an SLR or a rangefinder to college.

<p>Which R body would you recommend? Although the Leicaflex SL is older, i've heard nothing but good things about it.. but the same goes for the r6.2 and the r8</p>

<p>Do you want something basic, or higher tech? Mechanical or electronic? Concerned about size and weight?<br>

I havn't used a Leicaflex, but they have a great reputation for quality, and a nice bright finder. They're pretty old now though, and most likely would need a CLA if one hasn't been done in the last few years. I'd like to get one, as a basic but beautiful camera.<br>

The R8 has a fantastic viewfinder, an electronic shutter, and is fairly high tech, by mid 90s standards. There is also a digital back you can use if you wanted to. The R9 is practically the same, but costs a lot more. The down side is that is is big and heavy.<br>

The R6/R6.2 is the last of the mechanical R series. R6 is limited 1/1000 fastest shutter speed, R6.2 has 1/2000, but costs significantly more. Smaller and lighter than an R8/R9.<br>

I had an R3 for a while, and found it unreliable. I didn't like it in general, either. They are very cheap though, and quite small.</p>

<p>Elliot<br>

What's needed here is a dose of reality ,if price is an issue there are hundreds of very good 35mm cameras that will do what a Leica will do for much much less money. For the price of a 50mm Summicron you could buy a useable film camera, three lenses, a brick of film and a bus ticket, please don't buy in to the myth, a Leica isn't going to make you into a Salgado or HCB. Secondly If you really want a career in film consider being a projectionist or an may be an actor because there's precious little future in a career in film photography.<br>

good luck<br>

Steve</p>

<p>This is true, there are plenty of great cameras for a lot less than a Leica, all depends on your budget. I'd also suggest a bulk film loader and 100ft roll of film, if you're not already doing this. Each roll will be about 70% cheaper than pre rolled film, and there's a lot less waste in packaging.</p>

<p>Get a Leica M2 which will give you the flexibility to add a 35mm lens. A rangefinder can change the way you see.</p>

<p>Steve,<br>

I understand that there are many more cameras that can do what a leica can, but what i'm truly purchasing are the lenses and their quality. Also, i plan on going into photojournalism if there are any jobs still left, but i just love film much more than any of my digital images.</p>

<p>Also, what other cheaper SLR's would you guys recommend?</p>

<p>Lots of good "student" cameras that can be had for little cash. Nikon Fe2 or FE, FMN/2 F2, F3..Cannon AE1 etc. Look at Cameraquest.com he runs down all the Leica M's and Classic SLR's as well as Leica and Cannon. It's a useful read. I know Doug Herr, who is a fantastic photographer uses a Lecia SL and other Leica SLR's and it seems the SL1? is a really good camera that is not as expensive, but it is a basic manual camera. The older cameras will be more basic and less expensive and you may have to pay extra to have them serviced, but they will give a long time of great service. Lots of choices. I did my first class in school with a FE2 and a 50 1.8, then a M6 with a 50 Summicron. You should be able to find something very useful. I don't mean to say "student camera" like it's not a top notch tool, I just meant generally older, simpler manual camera. All of those are still great cameras.</p>

<p>If you want a Leica now and get another brand of camera, you will always have a nagging voice in the back of your mind to get a Leica, haha. That's what happened to me. I dreamt of having a Leica since I first saw one and I eventually got a M2. I loved it and I still do. Then I took a break from RFs and got searching for a SLR system. Had a Canon first. Hate the lenses and the electro-whizz cameras. Had a Nikon but I hated the lenses. Nice MF bodies though. Then went Pentax. Got me an LX and 3 MXs I did. That got me fixed for a while. Damn I love those things, even now. The lenses are cheap and they are beatiful. Then the Leica devil came back out. I recently (3 days ago haha) got a Leica RE and Macro Elmarit 60 combo. That cost me the same price as my M2 body did! Why did I get/want the Leica? Well it wasn't sharpness or colour or tones or whatever, my Pentax did that for me for a fraction of the cost. What got me hooked on Leica was the bokeh. Well, OK, not just bokeh, but the overall look of an image taken with Leica glass. There's something retro about it. There's something analogue about it. It just looks beautiful to me! My wife has a Contax SLR system. She swears by it. Says its like magic. The pictures look 3D and have depth. Honestly, I do think the lenses are quite special... mostly. They're maybe about the same as my Pentax (although she argues her stuff is better ;)). I love Pentax glass. Its just more pleasing than Canikon imaging to me.<br>

Anyway, where is all this going? Well if you want to just shoot pictures and more importantly *learn* photography, then I would argue another brand would suit you just fine. Of course, I would recommend Pentax, specifically the MX or if you can stretch, the LX. My LX + 50/1.4 cost me about the same as the RE, and I got the RE for cheaps! Both about $400 for mint examples.<br>

If however you want to explore more into photography as a creative process and not just as a record making process (and make your wallet shallower) then go for the Leica off the bat and never look back. Not that you can't make great pictures with Pentax or whatever gear, but you will always have that little voice in your head and it will never go away. Never I tell you ;)</p>

<p>Now on to SLR vs RF. As I said, I have both and have used both types extensively. They are very different tools. For snaps and spontaneous people shots, you can't beat the RF. They're small and quick to use. However, they have many drawbacks. Close focus is a pain in the butt, no DOF preview, parallax errors... For general photography an SLR rules. When I go out and I know I want to take people photos then I take my M2 and make do for situations where its not so good. If however I'm just out for a stroll and feel I might want to take some photos, then a SLR comes with me. But there are no rules saying you can't use an RF for macro or you can't use a SLR for people shots. Use what feels right for you.<br>

I get the impression that you are influenced by the greats such as HCB and the rest (who isn't) and because they used Leica, you should too. They liked Leicas and it worked for them but it might not work for you. You have to try it yourself and see. You say you can rent any camera you want, so rent a RF for a month and then see if you like its way of working. I assume you have a digi SLR now so you know what a SLR can/can't do right?</p>

<p>As for work, I think you would be hard pressed to find a job in photojournalism nowadays using a film 135 camera. I use and love film too for the colours etc but if I were to work as a pro then I'd just get a digi SLR. Keep your private stuff in film if you want but nowadays, people want speed and digi rules over film in that area. No competition. And even if film were accepted, it would be likely medium format was required. I'm not trying to put you off getting a 135 camera but as far as work is concerned, you will be better off getting this 135 camera for personal use and get whatever camera is needed when you start looking for jobs.</p>

<p>Good luck in your studies!</p>

<p>I would ask the school before buying a rangefinder. If your class requires macro or long telephoto work then you will be limited by a rangefinder.</p>

<p>What is your current camera? Why not use it or buy something compatible with it? Leicas are great, I have a Leica, but there are plenty of cheaper cameras out there that work great. I started off using a Nikon FE2.</p>

<p>If you make photography a career you will probably be shooting digital for a variety of reasons. If you buy Leica R now then the only digital option is a very expensive digital back. The Leica M digital is also very expensive. If you stick with Nikon, Canon EOS (not FD), and probably Pentax then you could use any lenses you buy now with a digital SLR later.</p>

<p>You may only be really interested in street and travel, but a general education in photography (as most undergraduate degrees are) will require that you become proficient in several different areas. That means a system that is versatile. Look at the entire program and look at what the other expenses will be before you blow the bulk of your budget on a system that is very limited in what it can do.</p>

<p>Why Leica, anyway? I hope you're not already being poisoned by brand name fanaticism this early in your career. You'll do a lot better for yourself with a fraction of the budget in, say, a solid Nikon FM2 with a 50/1.8, and still have enough left over to not worry about film costs. Take the $2000 you would have blown on a Leica and invest in <a href="http://www.theworkshops.com/workshops/photo" target="_blank">a summer workshop or two</a> with a couple of photographers you admire. This will do a lot more for your photography than an expensive camera, but it all depends on your priorities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but what i'm truly purchasing are the lenses and their quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of which matters at this stage in your career. A bad undergrad student is learning technique. A better undergrad is learning how to see. The best undergrad is already working on a personal style. An undergrad who is fixated on "lenses and their quality" is a non-starter.</p>

<p>If you're going to be a photojournalist you'll very probably end up using a Nikon or Canon dSLR. Why not get a film camera that works the same way and uses most of the same lenses, including those your school is likely to lend out? (DX/EF-S excepted). Various recent pro and semi-pro models (Nikon F100, F5, Canon Eos-3, 1n, 1v, etc.) are now available pretty cheaply and will handle pretty much any assignment you care to throw at them. If your instructors are purists who for some reason prefer their students to use manual cameras for film, a Nikon FM2, FE2 or F3 will be pretty bulletproof and retain a lot of compatibility with the modern Nikon system. A Leica M is a great camera suited to specific types of photography, and you may well want to try one at some point, but it wouldn't be my first choice to comply with course requirements.</p>

<p>I own both systems with various bodies and lenses. In my opinion, have a go with an R6.2; acceptable fully working bodies can be found at around $500 with some luck. Then, the 50mm Summicron-R is practically as good as the 'cron-M. But, for your intended photo work, I suggest you later acquire the 28-90/2.8-4.5 ASPH ... and never regret for that!<br>

Eventually, however, will have to turn to M; with the FF M9, you will always be able to build up a dream set of M lenses, which are simply unparalleled (and I am not talking about sharpness only!)</p>

<p>Well, like a lot of people, I have owned all of them; contax , nikon, canon, and Leica R. To me, there is something different about a Leica image, you either see it or you don't. I suggest a leica R 8 body and a 60 2.8 lens; go shoot for a while, and see if you see it also. If not, you gave it a go and can sell and get back 50 % of what you paid, and you will have it out of your system. Like the girl in high school you never asked out, but wish you had, what might have been ?</p>

<p>If you want to buy Leica due to the lens quality and you're buying an SLR, you'll have to buy the latest aspheric lenses to get there; older lenses won't be any better than the pro level offerings from the big Japanese companies. And let's face it, a career in photojournalism involves shooting a lot of digital (you might shoot film professionally, but then you need to make a name first), the quality of the Japanese offerings is not too shabby and the companies that made more lenses also have a more active second hand market. Just don't get too obsessed about lens quality; in photojournalism, the image quality is often limited by other things than the lens quality, the last 10% of quality doubles the price and image quality is not just one number, it will take experience to tell what kind of quality you want to get out of a lens.</p>

<p>I know this won't go over well on the Leica forum, but if your career plan is photojournalism, go with Nikon or Canon digital. I work in Washington, DC, arguably one of the news centers of the world, and news photographers simply don't use anything else, at least not in numbers beyond what I can count on my fingers. If you want Leica, go with the rangefinders since they do something that SLRs don't do. But it's been well over five years since I've seen a news photographer with a film camera of any brand. Camera brands aside, someone learning photography today and hoping to make a career of it needs to focus on digital.</p>

<p>If you intend to go to photography school, you need to bring an SLR. Rangefinders have their place, but are simply not flexible enough to handle all the things that you will be taught through the course of a photography education.</p>

<p>I would not purchase the Leica R-series, seeing as how they have been discontinued, and considering how much cheaper Nikon and Canon SLRs are. As others have mentioned, the Nikon FE series and Canon AE series are a staple of the college student arsenal. Cheap, durable, and very good. For a little bit more money, you could buy, say, a Nikon N70 or Canon Elan7. All these cameras will work very well for your studies, offer a huge assortment of lenses and accessories, and most importantly cost less than Leica for someone on a student budget. Once you are done with your education and earning money, then you can consider spending the money to get a nice Leica system, but I would not consider it while you are still in school.</p>

<p>Get a goof leica M mount 50, find a beater M body, or heck, maybe a Voightlander R3 or R4, and pick up a nikon F100 or EOS A2 or 3, and a 35-70 2.8 and a longer lens. I love my M6 to pieces, but it's not an all-purpose camera - and you will be using either a Nikon or Canon DSLR, so might as well get used to one system at least.</p>

<p>Take a look from a different view point ... coming from a practicing photojournalist at NY Times ...</p>

<p>http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html</p>

<p>As nice as it would be to own a Leica, I really don't see the point, for your purposes. I'm an undergrad photo student too, and I can tell you for sure that I've been happy with my Nikon FE. Unless you have really deep pockets, I'd suggest spending a fraction of what you'd pay for a Leica and buying a Nikon or Canon SLR instead. As a couple people have said, if you're planning on going into photojournalism, you'll probably end up using a Nikon or Canon anyway. Then you can spend the extra $ on a couple hundred foot rolls of film and a bulk loader.<br>

I'm a Nikon user so I'd reccomend an FE, FM, or F2 - or if you want to go another direction, an F100 or F5 - but Canon would just as good, I'm sure.</p>

<p>Oh, another reason to not buy a Leica: if you're serious about photojournalism, you're almost definitely going to have to buy a digital camera sooner or later. Save your pennies.</p>