Jump to content

Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical


chris c

Recommended Posts

After 20+ years of shooting Nikon or Canon equipment I decided to buy

a Leica "M" Body. As other have done before me I tried to rationalize

the decision to pay thousands of dollars for a essentially manual

body and then be faced with the prospect of thousands more for glass.

<P> At the time I read the posts and struggled with why would a group

of seemingly intelligent(?) people would chose to do this. To read

the Nikon or Canon posts one would assume it is all about status or

was related to some type of mid life crisis. <P> After having owned

and seen the results of this expensive foray this is where I have

arrived. I would like to hear from others your "elevator speech"

about why you shoot Leica. Here is mine:

<P> I took a picture of my daughter which when I developed it caused

me to have to sit down. It captured the soul of an individual in an

ungaurded moment. When the momemt arrived I was glad I had a Leica in

my hands. <P> I received an unsolicited phone call from Leica to tell

me that my rebate check had been misdirected to a customer in

Colorado and he was going to send it to me directly. Like it or not

that is service. You think Nikon would call you? <P> I can learn more

about photography in a day at the Leica forum than a year in Nikon

School. Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought. <P> I used to

think that a fast lens was 2.8 <P> B&W film is not something they

used in the 50's. <P> I find myself in the search of the shot as

opposed to pointing and rattling off 8 fps with a zoom lens in the

hopes that the computer caught it. <P> Digital is bulls**t and Jack

is making a huge mistake. <P> Marc W gets it. <P> After 20+ years I

am coming to understand how much I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

" I can learn more about photography in a day at the Leica forum than a year in Nikon School. Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought."

 

I guess you never bothered to read any other forums? Or you couldn't learn from a forum without buying specific products?

 

Some clarity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago I decided to haul out my SLR just for the heck of it--I have shot

nothing but rangefinders for the last 7 months. I was shooting at an art

museum as I often do. The first thing I noticed is that people notice you a

whole bunch more when you're toting an SLR, for better or for worse. The

second was that at the "moment of truth", when light hits film, I have no idea

what's being recorded. I never remember the mirror blackout being a problem

before picking up a rangefinder. Now I find it completely unacceptable.

 

If I didn't care if people reacted to me as "a professional photographer" and I

did shoots where people were supposed to pose while I made sure I "got a

good one", an SLR would be fine.

 

The glass is nice too, but I find that capturing expressive moments means

being willing to press the shutter button even when the conditions are not

right: no time to focus perfectly or reset the apeture. In conditions like these I

think the difference between good and great lenses is negligible in terms of

the impact of the final print. Who was it who said "the best photographs are

not always the sharpest ones."?

 

My .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some wise 21 year old sage told this young 18 year old novice photographer that Leica cameras and lenses were the best, and worth the little extra they cost. In 1962 Leica, Nikon and Canon prices were very close. The next few years were a golden age for getting into the system. People were dumping screw mounts for M bayonet, RFDR cameras in general were being traded in for those new fangled SLRs which now had automatic diaphragms on SOME lenses, and more and more cameras sported instant return mirrors. You could buy a IIIC body for under $40, a black dial IIIF for $65 and a red dial with self timer for $85. Leicavits went for $25 used. $15 would buy you a 50mm Summar or Elmar, $20 a collapsable Canon Serenar. An 85/2 Nikkor was about $90 or you could get a used 90 'cron for about $125.

 

Within 5 years I'd moved into the M system and never looked back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can make more technically better pictures per roll with my EOS 1V than any other camera I've ever owned. Digital is great for its immediacy (I think of it as 21st-century Polaroid). But these four cameras make the process of photographing as thrilling to me as the photos themselves, and that's the way I like it: Hasselblad, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon FTn and Leica M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. The Bessa is a lot noisier, and I doubt that it can compete with the longevity of my button rewind M2, 1958 vintage, that I bought in used 1971 and is still going strong! Or the used D.S. M3 I bought in 1969 and sold for over $700 on The Auction Site last year because I'd found a newer one for less at an estate sale. I'd paid $100 each for the M2 and the M3 back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical"

 

An old friend of mine is a pretty decent M user, allthough his pictures from when he started could just as well have been taken with any other equipment. I once asked him why the H*ll he used Leica M(considering the cost and the cheezy metering of the M3 with MR meter). He said:

 

MY LEICA LOVES TO BE LOVED

 

Well i cant argue with that, i do take better pictures with equipment i like best, the absense of irritation makes it so much easier to concentrate. Maybe one fine day my hands shrink or i will get a little less impatient............

 

Greetings, and have fun ;)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"MY LEICA LOVES TO BE LOVED"</i>

<br>Don't anthropomorphize your cameras - they hate that...

<p>

So how do I justify using Leica? I usually don't, but if I'm pressed on the issue, I simply say that I've never found another type of camera that I enjoy using so much. Does that improve my photography? Arguably, yes - because I enjoy it more, I do it more and pay more attention when I'm doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I don't agree with all of your personal rationalizations, Chris, I suspect we all have a batch of them that makes sense to us individually. For me, what I was looking for when I stuck my toe into the Leica lake was a different, fresh way of "seeing" - something akin to the style of operation associated with view cameras, but far more quick and convenient. The rangefinder approach seems to provide that for me, and Leica glass provides the same level of quality I was accustomed to, so I've continued to splash around in the lake. Although other rangefinders might have provided some of what I was looking for, they also have their own set of compromises.

 

I continue to use my Nikons, my Hassy, and my view cameras - but for different things - things the M isn't well-suited for. For me, the M simply adds another dimension to the tools available to get the job done in the best possible way. Sometimes the job really needs the 8 FPS approach, a really long tele, or a 6x6 or 4x5 negative. For some things, digital may even be the only viable option. For the introspective projects, or low-light situations where quiet operation adds to the ability of getting the shot, the M is great, though. But, it is still just a tool (albeit a very good one), not an obsession.

 

Any woodworker who has used a really fine dozuki or a Japanese chisel will understand the difference, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"MY LEICA LOVES TO BE LOVED"

Don't anthropomorphize your cameras - they hate that...

 

Lets reverse that,

 

Im cranky, not objective and if you dont push the right buttons i wont shut up.....

 

Who am i?

 

Greetings^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, that the overwhelming majority of these positive attributes are due to the TYPE of camera, not the fact that it is a Leica. I get all of the same set of benefits with my Minolta CLE and my Voigtlander Bessa-T, and I have no doubt that I COULD get them with a Hexar RF as well. I sold my M4 and CL and have never looked back in regret.

 

I will give Leica credit for perseverence. But there is no doubt that their cameras (as distinguished from their lenses) are not competitive with Cosina Voigtlander or Konica anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's a practical matter: the Leicas are quite robust (but nothing exceptional), focus really well, and are small and portable. That's it, I think.

 

I'll drop them like a shot as soon as someone makes a digital camera that I can use for a week without an external power supply and storage equivalent to 100 rolls of film. Until then, the Leicas meet my needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Douglas, I've got a Minolta 7S somebody gave me. Since it's a rangefinder, maybe you'd care to trade for it and make some money in the bargain. I'll throw in 500 bucks in return for an M6. I've been waiting for a good opportunity to pick up a 2nd body, and since it's all the same to you, you'll still have substantially the same photographic capabilities and cash in your pocket. What do ya say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

£In these days of Fuzzy logic, all reaction about the M system seems acceptable....

 

Ahem..er.

 

I discovered that using CL of 1976 is quite fun after all. Pictures are not improving as my IQ is rather low but at least it's a pleasure for an acceptable amount of money.

 

But a M6 or M7? Not really A Honica Hexar RF, yes, rather.

FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first SLR I had was a Nikon N70 that I received as a gift(on my Christmas list) a few years ago. Seem neat at the time--all sorts of different modes etc. After using it for about 6 months I got a good deal on a used F100 and traded the N70 in. A few months later I read an article about the Bessa R and thought it might be a neat second camera, especially for travel. As I learned more about rangefinders I made the decision to just look at a Leica, never thinking I could afford one. The body was a joy to hold that didn't compare with the Bessa. Loved the lenses as well. I found a used M6TTL and a 50 summicron. Added a 90, 35 and an extra body--after trading in my F100 and have not looked back. A quick summary of my likes:

 

The fast, high quality lenses-I shoot wide open frequently.

The ability to see the whole scene as I take the picture.

Size-my whole kit fits in a Domke 803 bag that is easy to lug around.

Total control of exposer-my photography has improved more w/camera.

Feel of using the body and lenses.

 

These are just some of the main reasons why I use the M6. Leica M's are not for everyone and will not allow you to do every type of photography, but what they do, they do well. I learned that I don't need all the program modes etc. to take pictures and while I would consider getting an SLR again--macro and telephoto work, at this point it is not a big urge and it would be in addition and not a replacement for my Leica's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After using 35mm gear for so many years I came to the conclusion years ago I needed to move on from my 35mm Nikon gear. Fortunately I was in a position to have hands on with virtually every format and camera type in existence.<P>

 

I liked the 'M' series, and always considered rangfinder based photography to offer several ergonomic advantages over SLR based 'snapshooting'. <P>

 

I also weighed out common sense alternatives, and the brutal reality that after looking at proofs and custom printing all formats on a daily basis that when it came down to it, and everything else being equal, more film equals better pictures. 35mm photography all looks the same, and german lenses don't make up for raw film area.<P>This may account for why every pofessional photographer I know who lives, breathes, eats and provides their family income from photography DOESN'T use Leica. They either use bigger formats, or if 35mm based are rapidly migrating to digital. <p>This forces me to the conclusion that most Leica users (most here) are nothing more than arrogant, hatefull hobbiests that are overwhelmed by their images only because their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to get decent results in the first place. <P>Basically, if your photography was that good, you woulnd't be wasting such time telling others how wonderfull it is. Any *good* artist in any media tends to shy away from those tactics because their work stands on it's own.<P><I>Somehow with Leica comes clarity of thought.</i><P>Like drinking bleach? As I stated, the majority of professionals I know don't use Leica, and produce better images than you. You will of course spend incredible amounts of time bragging to others how wonderfull your images are. Then the more you are ignored, the more you will start to attack other formats, brands, and digital. You call it 'clarity of thought' while I call it a crutch for lacking other skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chill out, Scott. Plenty of pros use 35mm, though many of them are migrating to digital. Journalists, sports shooters, fashionistas, even many wedding photogs shoot 35 to feed their families. Those redoubtable pockets of equipment iconoclasts, Magnum and NatGeo contain a good representation of Leica shooters.

 

Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's butt what "the pros" are using. Their objectives and mine are entirely different. Thank goodness I don't need anyone's approval of the gear I prefer (well, except maybe for my financial manager :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...