So, just what is so good about a Leica?

Now PLEASE understand, I'm not being facetious, or trying to stir up trouble, I

genuinely want to know... Just what is it that makes a Leica so good?

 

In one of the first books on 35mm photography I read as a child I distinctly

remember seeing the picture of a Leica M3 and thinking "WOW!". It had an extra

attachment of some sort on top (I've only seen it on a few other M3's that I've

seen pictures of) that made it look real "gadgety". I then remember a few years

ago when Robin William's film "One Hour Photo" came out he made reference to

the "Best camera in the world" being a Leica Minilux (going from memory here).

Just recently, I've been reading a lot of stories of people travelling the

world on going on wild adventures with nothing but their "tried and true Leica

M7" (and probably a small bag of clothes).

 

Silent shooting does sound very appealing, since I'm the sort of person who

doesn't like drawing attention to myself with a loud "CLUNK!" when I hit the "I

want a photo of that" button, but what else is there about these little things

that makes them so appealing to so many people, and as a result, fetch the

prices they do?

With respect to the lenses, you get what you pay for. Quality control is extremely good and you generally don't get much variation from lens to lens (ie of the exact same model). There's very little sample variation.

 

JJ

In a world in which the objects around us have more and more features and less and less

quality, the feel of the Leica alone is reassuring. If someone purchases a Leica for this

reassurance, and not for any practical photographic use, it's fine with me. Live and let live.

No amount of reading articles, ads, promotional movies, or looking at photos will replace the

simple act of borrowing one and using it for a while to see if it's for you. This is true for any

camera, musical instrument, buzz saw, tennis racket...

... lawn mower, MP3 player, cell phone...

... PDA, car, bicycle, shoes, stereo, baseball glove, sunglasses...

Asher: with all due respect, there have to be some objective reasons that can be used to answer the question. Different people have different requirements, and thus different standards when evaluating those objective things... but there are concrete differences between one design or feature set and the next. I'll confess to often wondering the same thing that Steve has asked, and understand that the chatter here is between Leica enthusiasts that don't feel the need to remind each <i>other</i> why they like the cameras... but the much wider audience could use something to sink some teeth into.

<br><br>

Like Steve, I continually see the "it's quiet" issue mentioned... but not much else that would seem to add up to the level of devotion. So, I'm curious too - but since this is a venue for the written word and images, one would hope for a little more to go on than the recommendation to buy or borrow one. I know I could tell you why I like one lawnmower over another (to use your example)... so... do tell! Thanks.

And.....I am using one that has been made 1937 ( 70 year ago ) , together with leneses ( IIIa+Summitar), also I am using M2 that has been made 1965 ( 42 years ago), with same accuracy and same passion....the other older bodies do not have such timeless feeling and do not behevie like cameras that you can use and trust now ....

 

 

..darko

Matt- it's fundamental Zen philosophy: The experience is everything. If you truly are curious

about how quiet a Leica is, the only way to answer that question for yourself is to actually

shoot with one. Maybe I'm hard of hearing, so how could that help you if I say it's quiet?<p>

Discuss away, be my guest, but you're fooling yourself if you think that's going to substitute

for using one in your own hands.<p>

 

... computer hardware, computer software, luggage, "how to" books, espresso machines...

It's compact. It's simple. It's solid. It gives you the confidence that any shortcoming in the

end result just HAS to be the limits of your own skill. It has lineage so long you feel like

you're part of the heritage. It requires that you know how the image is recorded by

camera, lens, media, so you feel like you've learned something more than just how to push

the button.

 

It encourages you to learn how to use just one lens, or maybe two. There's always room

for body and one lens. No excuses. It's quiet. It's discreet. It's old fashioned. It's

uncommon. It's different.

 

It might NOT be for you. Lots of people try and change their mind. But you'll never know

for sure unless you try it yourself.

Lenses: fully usable wide apertures, great performance overall

 

Viewfinder: direct vision - no barrier between you and subject

 

Rangefinder: works well in low light and with wide angles

 

Shutter: quiet and robust, handholdable at slow speeds (no mirror)

 

Size & Weight: portable but stable when handheld

 

Build Quality: robust; easily repaired when necessary

 

User Interface: simple, intuitive

 

System Compatibility: accepts virtually all lenses from 70+ years

 

These are some of the more or less objective advantages of Leica. In addition, many users feel a sense of satisfaction from using a fine mechanical instrument. The Leica is fun to use!

 

Some, but not all, of the advantages listed above apply to the Leica reflex system as well. In the reflex system, the primary advantage is the quality of the lenses.

I bought my first Leica (M6 classic) five weeks ago to see what all of the hoop-la was about. I really like shooting medium format and never thought I'd go back to 35mm. The seller did not like using a rangefinder. He was more of the auto focus/P&S type. His loss was my gain. I'm still learning how to use it to the best of its abilities (not mine). It is a very well built camera with all of the features I want and none of the gadetry that I would rather do without. It just feels so good in my hands!

 

My M6 has already been superceded by newer models, but I doubt that it will ever become obsolete or lose its value (look at the current prices of the M3).

 

As for quiet, I have several rangefinders in my collection (I use them all, they are not shelf queens)that are just as quiet. However, the sound of a Leica shutter can be more closely described as "The Sound of One Hand Clapping."

 

Beg, borrow or steal one (just kidding) and you'll be hooked!

Have you ever used one? After that, any other 35 feels like junk. Pictures are much better too.

It's good in the same way that a Bentley is better than a Toyota.

more like in the same way Great grandfather's Packard with a new muffler is better than

Mom's Toyota.

lenses good wide opened.

 

camera quiet and focus well in very low light.

 

not to mention they are dirt cheap.

Some things in life live up to their hype and some do not. Many of those that do are far out of my reach. I will never own a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari. But I can and do own such items as a Browning Auto-5 shotgun (in production for over 90 years). Thanks to my formerly rich Uncle Sam, I do have two masters degrees from MIT. And I do own an M3 and several screwmounts. None of the above have ever let me down and they still will be ticking decades after I am long gone. They all will weather the hardships of life and come through in a clutch. It is like having a personal legend. It works for me.

I had a Leica M6 TTL, and sold it. Then I missed it, so I got another M6 TTL. And sold it. Then I missed it, so I got a M6. And sold it. That last one was sold on Thursday - and I already miss it.

 

To me it's not rational at all: When I have one, I doesn't use it very often. And then I sell to get some dSLR lens or whatever. But I always keep coming back to Leica.

 

If someone put a gun to my head, and forced me to come up with 5 reasons to use a Leica, I think they would be;

 

1) It's a Leica. Simple as that. The craftmanship is extremely good.

2) For low-light/available light it is great! Easy to focus, even in extreme conditions.

3) Small size, low weight.

4) No fuss - aperture, focus, shutter speed. That's all. You can't really go wrong.

5) The viewfinder is crystal clear, and you have the ability to see outside the framelines.

 

Does it take better images than a Canon 30D and a good prime? Not really, but the experience is very different. Could I live with a rangefinder as my only camera? No. That's what I have been trying to do for the last couple of years. So, to help myself getting used to dSLR's, I will be using one exclusively for 6 months. After that I plan to get another Leica. If I can hold out that long...

The great thing about Ms is the handling. Most important is the fast shutter response - great photography is more about when you press the button than where you point the camera.

 

No blackout (ala SLRs) when you take the picture is also very important. I also like the rangefinder view which is very open compared to the tunnel vision of an SLR.

 

Ms also just sit it your hands beautifully and as you mentioned, are very discreet.

 

Lenses, I think, are secondary in this. (Except the wonderful Noctilux which has no peer). Most modern (last 40 years) lenses from any manufacturer can take wonderful photographs. But, of course, not so many can fit on an M!

Steve, as many of the previous contributors demonstrate, this forum is for Leica enthusiasts and you are unlikely to get much in the way of negative comments. I am also enthusiastic about Leicas but I recognise their limitations. I have used SLRs since my first Pentax 40 years ago and now have a couple of Canon DSLRs which have travelled with me around the world. They have never, but never, let me down and can be used for all kinds of shots. But they are heavy. I have always been attracted to Leicas and bought an M6 classic some year ago. Even after a lot of time I still find focussing in a hurry a little difficult which is not often the case for an autofocus DSLR. This forum often reports problems about rangefinder alignment which has not happened to me on a Leica but which has happened on another rangefinder (Hexar RF) and which I had to get realigned. No such problem with a DSLR.

 

I have had an M7 which had a shutter problem and I now have an M8, which I think is less quiet than my Canon DSLR despite mirror slap. The M8 makes a funny plop sound!

 

The advantage of the Leicas as others have said is that they are small, sturdy and feel good. But at the price they must feel good otherwise you would exhibit signs of cognitive dissonance!

 

Leica lenses are considered by many as the best.

 

When you are out and about you don't get much attention because they look rather old-fashioned and unsexy (except to an enthusiast) so you can take street pictures where a big camera with a long lens might lead to problems.

 

The main problem with film cameras is...film. It is very frustrating to expose a roll of colour negative film and then find the developed film disappointing. I have tried all sorts of labs and am constantly disappointed. This is why I have got bought an M8.

 

So, in my view Leicas are beautiful, feel good, make you feel more like a photographer, distance you from the regular camera crowd, are well suited to street photography, make you feel closer to the subject, etc. I always take one on travels. But I also always take a DSLR and I usually come back with more DSLR exposures than Leica pictures. My neighbour has a lovely 1950s Bentley in excellent condition and full working order which he uses out and about and takes to local rallies, etc. But if he has to travel to Scotland reliably, he uses his two year old car!

For me, I prefered rangefinder focussing to that of an SLR. Leicas were the only rangefinder camera around at that time apart from cameras like the Olympus 35RD, which I used for a while. So the Leica brand was forced upon me. Sorry, but there is nothing special about it.

 

After about 20 years with a rangefinder I still could not comfortably hold it in the portrait format. Great for landscape format, but not for uprights. I have two Leica rangefinder bodies and a number of lenses of different manufacture and I couldn't tell the difference between them in terms of quality. For me the pictures are more important than the stuff used to create them. Just over a year ago I bought a DSLR. I suspect I will never touch any of my rangefinder gear again, except to eventually sell it.

 

Have a look at the description of this forum in the forum list. I love it!

 

Cheers

 

Alan

Leica remains the only manufacturer that produces a pro-user built, heavy duty build quality, long-based rangefinder camera with a superb line of interchangable lenses. All the elements of Leica are in that one sentence. To break them down:

 

1) Pick up a Leica M2 or M6 and a Bessa R2. Feel the difference in weight and the solid feel of 3,000 metal parts in the Leica versus some 600 in the Bessa. The difference in build quality is substantial.

 

2) The long-based rangefinder is a biggie. An M6 has an effective base length of 50mm. An M3 has an EBL of 62mm. A Bessa R2 has an EBL of 25mm and a Hexar RF an EBL of 41mm. The longer based rangefinder means you can more accurately focus longer and faster lenses. Example: With the EBL's above, The Leicas can accurately focus the 75mm Lux, and the Hexar can just about do it, but the Bessas are not accurate enough. Of the three cameras above, only the M3 can accurately focus a 135mm f3.4, and none can focus a 135mm f2.8 without a boost in magnification that increases the machine's EBL. While all three can focus a 50mm f1, the Bessa's 25mm EBL is right on the theoretical cusp of being able to do it.

 

3. Lenses. Other manufacturers make some great lenses. Some of those lenses are even good enough reasons on their own to by a camera made by that manufacturer. But in my honest opinion, Leica makes a set of lenses to consistently high standards right across the lineup that are really, really hard to beat. It's also important to me that with very, very few exceptions, Leica's lenses offer outstanding performance wide open. Leica's design philosophy is that you pay for a fast lens in order to use it wide open. Other manufacturers optimize their fast lenses to perform at least as well as slower examples of the focal length, and accept less performance out of the widest aperture.

 

4. Finally, this has to do with the whole rangefinder vs SLR shooting paradigm. The biggest difference in shooting between an SLR and a Leica M is the mirror slap and blackout you get with the SLR. When I am shooting people, the uninterrupted view through a Leica's finder is unbeatable. Combine this with the great lens lineup, the great build quality, and the focusing accuracy, and you have a killer combination.

 

5) Caveat: Leicas and rangefinders aren't good for everything. They are terrible for macro work and work with longer lenses. That's why you don't see rangefinder lenses longer than 135mm unless you start working with mirror boxes. They are also not the best when working with polarizers, or shooting through glass. For my money, it's a toolbox, and when I shoot inside three feet or through glass, I'd rather have an SLR. When I shoot long lenses, I'd rather have an SLR again.

"The main problem with film cameras is...film. It is very frustrating to expose a roll of

colour negative film and then find the developed film disappointing. I have tried all sorts

of labs and am constantly disappointed."

 

Harry, I'm curious. What do you find so disappointing? If you have tried all sorts of labs

then maybe it's not them but you? I don't mean this in a nasty way- honest! If I look at my

photos, once they're back from Snappy Snaps or where ever, and I'm disappointed it's

because of something I've done rather than them, usually underexposing the neg.

 

Meanwhile, in answer to the original question, I think the handling and viewfinder of the

M3 is very special. For me, it's not so much the quality of the lenses but quality of the

camera. YMMV.

Personal experience: for the past decade, I've been shooting almost exclusively with a Leicaflex. I own a telephoto lens, but I use the 50mm, also, almost exclusively. The camera is a tank. I hate to admit how much abuse I've put it through, but it's stood up to it all (and three decades of someone else's abuse before that). The body/lens combination produces incomparable quality (focus, color, distortion). The camera is so incredibly reliable that I've been able to grow into it and really get to know the piece of machinery and what it can and can't do. For capturing subtlties of light and space, very few cameras could stand up to this one, and no digital could come even close. Yeah, it's frustrating that the Leica name is perceived to be such a status symbol/mark of snobbery, because the camera's renown stems from good, solid engineering.

 

Of course, that's not to say that Leica itself doesn't prey on consumers who don't understand this distinction: rebranding the Panasonic DMC-FX01 the C-Lux and slapping on a 250% price premium, anyone??

 

But yes, my Leica is very heavy compared to today's cameras, and very expensive to use. Shooting Kodak Ektachrome, I can figure that each frame will cost me about 50 Yen (forty cents). It doesn't sound like a lot, but it really adds up when you're clicking away. Yes, for a lot of things the camera is total overkill. I also picked up a Nikon D40x, recently, which weighs so little that I can toss it in my bag when I go out just to snap off a couple hundred people shots over the course of a night. For all its precision, my Leica is terrible for that kind of thing. There's a lot that I wouldn't shoot with it, but it does an amazing job on the tough shots that another camera wouldn't be able to handle.

i don't know if my opinion is valid since i am very new to photography. only took it up as a serious hobby in october 2006. my experience has been with the olympus om system, an om40 and now om4, various zuiko and vivitar lenses from 19mm to 300. i liked the om system as i have small hands and abhor larger systems.

 

one rainy sunday afternoon last february i bought a voigtlander bessa r with a 25mm colour skopar lens. since then i have acquired a leitz elman 90mm (1938), a jupiter 8 50mm and another jupiter 85mm lens. i have had the pleasure to hold leica m6 and m7 camaera's although not used them yet. i find the size of m series camera's very close to my bessa r and have not moved onto leicas as yet because firstly, i don't have the money and secondly, i love the feel of the bessa r, eventhough it is comparatively flimsy compared to a m system leica.

 

am i adequately experienced in commenting on leica? not sure. i now operate both the om4 and bessa r regularly. i have more lenses for the om series but i have to say that the rangefinder is a joy to use. the framelines on bessa r with the very bright viewfinder, and metering that i understand makes it a total pleasure to use. when i have some money i would like to get an m8, perhaps in 18 months time. if i saw a heavily scratched m6 or m7 body offered cheaply on ebay i would purchase it immediately!