Rangefinder users on this forum...

[adrian_morgan]

What Al said.

 

The handling is something I love about Leica. The ergonomic pleasure of using the rangefinder and setting the shutter and apeture. The difference in handling between the lenses isn't that much, but the difference in handling between a Bessa R and a Leica M is miles apart.

 

As far as results go, I don't see any issues with the results I get from the CV50/1.5, 35/1.7 or the 15/4.5. For what i paid for those 3 lenses, I could not have bought the new summilux.

 

I do have an L for the back of my 15mm, it is OK, has a light meter and keeps dust off the rear element. Do I expect it to still be working in 50 years time? Not a hope, but my M3 has been going for 48 years now.

[jsbc]

Steven:

 

Marc may have suggested the RX, which is a good machine, but it is assuredly not a rangefinder!

[fotografz]

The RX suggestion wasn't in reference to a Rangefinder. It was a suggestion for a SLR with

great optics that can be had for a song these days because it is a dead end system since

the launch of the Contax N line. The G series is the Contax Rangefinder offering. I had and

used a black G2 kit which is auto focus and highly automated compared to a Leica M. I

hated the camera, and was luke warm concerning some of the lenses. I returned to using a

M for rangefinder work.

 

I don't subscribe to the "hot dog without mustard" analogy above ... IF, (big IF), you use a

rangefinder infrequently, or certain lenses less than others. I used the 28/1.8 for awhile

because I had a Leica 24mm and 35mm, and used 28 less. That lens was very good

optically, as are some other C/V lenses. I eventually sold the 24 because it required a

separate clip on viewfinder and defeated the mobility and speed of using a M in my

experience. I replaced it, and the C/V 28mm, with a Leica 28/2 ASPH which doesn't

require a separate viewfinder.

[al_kaplan1]

I guess it's the shared lensmount that causes folks to lump finderless or rangefinderless cameras together with rangefinder bodies. I'm talking about the Bessa L, Bess T and some older Leica models that require a seperate finder. When used with ultra wide angle lenses there's no need to use the rangefinder to focus each and every shot. Some of these lenses (C.V. 12, 15 and 25mm) aren't even rangefinder coupled! You soon get used to NOT having to move your eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder. You just look through the viewfinder from the git-go!

 

The Cosina Voigtlander ultra-wides are screw mount and extend deeply into the body. They come with a very deep thread mount rear cap. When you add an M bayonet adapter ($50 for the C.V. adapter, more for Leica) you'll then need to buy the bayonet rear cap from Leica that was made for the 21mm Super Angulon. Suddenly you'll know why the Bessa L is so popular! The Leica cap alone costs more than what you can get an L body for. A lot of us think of the Bessa L as a deep rear cap for ultra-wides, complete with shutter, film transport mechanism and quite good behind the lens light meter. I do carry a bayonet adapter with me also. Long term it'll pay for itself in film savings by being able to occasionally move the 15 to an M body, but mostly the lens just stays on the L in situations where I think I'm going to be using it.

[kevin m.]

Wow, how did I miss this thread?

 

The M is a limited tool, for sure, but I find that 90% of what I shoot

falls right within its limits. The old-fashioned M is a much better

available-light (or available dark) camera than my EOS-3. If

there's enough light to see, then the bright framelines and

rangefinder patch work better than autofocus.<div></div>

[asimh]

well, the one thing that discourages me from going the M3 route and lean more likely towards the Bessa route is the builtin meter. yes, i am still novice enough that i can't just really guess what settings should be used (nor do i financially want to back my guessing via film), nor do i want to use an external meter. the latter to me sorta defeats the purpose of having a quick and light system in the first place. now if an M6 TTL sells for in the $500 range one day, i'll be sure to snap that one up!

 

thanks for all the insightful responses here.

 

- asim

[kevin m.]

Asim, try out the Bessa R2. It's an M-mount body and you can fit

any Leica glass to it. The Konica Hexar RF is an even better

choice if you like its features, because the Konica glass is equal

to Leica optically as far as I can tell, and even better

mechanically, and they usually sell for about 1/2 of the Leica

price. $250 for the 50, $400 for the 28, etc..

[al_kaplan1]

A built in meter read-out in the finder begs you to adjust the exposure by fractional stops every time you reframe the photo! Get yourself a good incident meter, and when you first arrive at a location wander about take readings of the light here and there. After that, you'll know where to expose at 1/60 at f/4 and where to open up 2 or maybe 3 stops. It's really a MUCH faster system, and gives better exposures, than making reflected readings. The money you saved by getting a user M2 over an M6TTL will pay for the meter and then some. Also, you won't be without a camera when your meter is in the shop. And meters, built in or seperate, break down much more often than the rest of the Leica.

[dzeanah]

Al's right. I used to chase kids around outdoors with a Bronica 645 without a metered finder. Checking lighting in highlight/shade with an incident meter was enough to let me know how to adjust as the subject moved, and worked really well.

 

The problem is that now you're talking about a camera around your neck *and* an incident light meter tucked somewhere. For me that's one item too many for casual photography, but ymmv.

[gmahler5th]

What is the difference between single stroke and double stroke on the Lecia Ms? Does one or the other cost more?

[gmahler5th]

What do you guys think of the Nikon F2 Rangefinder?

[gmahler5th]

Oh wait, the F2 is not a rangefinder. sorry.

[adrian_morgan]

Double stroke are cheaper than Single because you can't get parts for DS anymore. if it breaks it has to be converted to single stroke.

 

Double stroke refers to the winding mechanism. it takes 2 strokes of thelever to advance 1 frame. Not as cumbersome as you might imagine

[jeffascough]

Actually, I tend to double stroke when I'm winding on as a matter of habit on an M6TTL. My fingers and thumbs are short and I find it quite difficult to wind on in a single stroke with the camera up to my eye.

 

I just want to underline what Al said about the metering. You know I've shot over 100 weddings exclusively on Leica, and in that time I've used the camera's meter and a spot meter for tricky lighting situations. Last month the camera battery died and I lost the meter. My spot meter was in the car, and the only meter I had to hand was my beat up Minolta. Anyway, I used the Minolta for pretty much the whole wedding...five weddings later, I haven't used the camera's meter at all. It is so much simpler to take the reading and apply it to the camera knowing that you can ignore the flashing lights in the VF. I chuckled to myself when he mentioned adjusting the exposure everytime you put the camera up to your eye...that's me!!!

 

The exposure accuracy has also been far more consistent. What I did notice though is that I have to rate 400 iso film at 250 iso on the Minolta to get the same readings as my camera meter and spot meter.

[steve_levine]

I can see a slight edge to the RF's for candid work,but for everything else my choice is always an SLR.IMHO,the only reason most own expensive RF's is to participate in a form of hardware snobbery,(a particularly boring sort of elitism).As you sit and stroke your camera,keep telling yourselves,"how great the optics are".

[al_kaplan1]

Steve, what snobbery? I'm one of the most parsimonious (look it up!) people you're likely to run into which is why I use Leica cameras and Gitzo tripods and mostly buy used. If you go back to that thread where Marc William's photo of me with my Leicas appears you'll see Leica bodies that were old enough to vote when George Bush Senior first ran for president. I covered the 1972 Democratic National Convention with most of that same stuff! After all those years of putting bread on the table and it all still works!

 

Reliability means a lot to me. I don't want to wonder if my camera is going to work or not, or if the battery is fresh enough to power the shutter. I want a nice quiet buttery smooth mechanism that exposes film when my index finger pushes the button.

 

Now all those "over priced" cameras that bought cars and vacations, paid for my house (yes, it's paid for), fed and educated my kids, are worth 5 or 10 times what I paid for them even as "users" that nobody would want in their collection. I get far more consistant exposures by making incident light readings than I ever got with my occasional forays into TTL metering. That's why the movie industry relies on incident. Enough ranting. Instead of wasting your money on another latest bestest newest auto-everything piece of plastic crap with it's "gee, it's sharp at f/5.6" zoom lens try a Leica and a couple of fast quality lenses. Then you can critisize...

[fotografz]

Leica threads always end up with a post like Steve's. Nothing else to say of a concrete

nature, so it deteriorates to some sort of elitists, snobbery retort... which has to be based

solely on the cost of the gear as opposed to actual experience using the stuff.

 

Let's cut to the chase ... again ... based on actual use, the Leica M is the best camera I've

ever owned. Other cameras have come and gone, the Ms stay. Lost huge amounts of

money on most other camera systems, lost very little, or gained a profit with every Leica

piece I sold. In fact, one set of old Leica's I owned and used, fetched such a huge profit,

that it paid for all my current new stuff and then some.

 

Had a fair amount of gear failures, very few with the Leicas (and fixed everyone of them

myself in minutes). Jeff mentioned that he runs 1500 rolls a year through his Ms. Look at

the shooting schedule on his web site, he isn't kidding. At one time, I only had an M6

classic, and I put 400 to 500 rolls a year through it for 7 years before selling it. Worked

even better than when I first got it (it was just getting broken in).

 

People who own these cameras like them a lot for a darn good reason ... experience using

them.

[steve_levine]

There are 2 types of Leica owners,one group actually carries & shoots these.I should mention that I owned and used M2's & M3's for several years,and always thought they were a complete pain in the a%% to use.Under certain high flare situations,the lenses were higher contrast(crisper) than my various SLR's.Sorry though,I never felt any "Leica" magic while using these,(and I prefer the heft and viewfinder of an SLR).As always your mileage may vary.I have always felt that the camera brand,is the least important part of the equation anyway.If having a jewel like instrument,helps you take better pictures in your mind,than by all means get one.

[kevin m.]

You're right, Steve, the camera brand is definitely the least

important part of the equation. But once you know what you want

to do, and how you want to shoot, then finding the right tool to

achieve that goal sure is helpful.

 

If you're happy working with an f2.8 maximum aperture on your

zoom lens, and having to stop down to f4.0 or so to get a really

crisp image, plus having to use on-camera fill flash more often

than necessary because of those factors, then the Leica would

be a waste of your money. But if you've ever been curious to try

shooting by available light, and want a lens that's as good at f1.4

as your zoom is at f4.0, then you owe it to yourself to borrow or

rent an M body and a 35mm Aspherical Summilux for the

weekend. I kid you not.

[fotografz]

Kevin, actually, Steve has a good point. Some people can't tell the difference. In which case

it would indeed seem silly to spend that much to shoot available light images @ f/1.4

when there are so many other choices that will get the job done to their satisfaction.

 

Some people connect with any given camera, while others just don't get it. I've "connected"

with only 2 cameras in all my years of shooting. The Leica M and the Hasselblad V series.

Maybe it has to do with the tactile feeling of precision or something.

 

Creative tools are a funny thing, it's all very personal. I like SLRs a lot (my first real

cameras were 35mm SLRs), yet I've never really "connected" with one yet, not even a Leica

SLR. I feel nothing about my current Canons (which, BTW Steve, cost a lot more than my

Leicas).

 

In some ways my Canon SLRs are the ridiculous extravagance IMO. For the sake of

"convenience" I get to cart around a mega pound chunk of complex gear with a stupidly

huge, brick of a lens hanging off of it along with a bracket and a huge flash, and pay

through the nose for the sake of staying "current". Then in the end not have anything any

better than what I ended up with 20 years ago with a Leica M4 and an old Hasselblad...

both of which I know for a fact are still working. But, hey, business is business.

 

Finally, it's not for nothing that these threads are dominated by endlessly redundant

questions on how to operate these current SLRs and their flash systems. The controls rival

those in the cockpit of an F-18 and differ from camera to camera. All designed to make

life easier?

 

Oh well, to each his or her own.

[kevin m.]

I agree, Marc. I'll never understand why I seem to make a

connection to some tools, while others - even though they're

technically superior in some way - leave me cold. I just liked the

M the first time I tried it and I've never looked back. I'd never even

heard of Leica until the day I picked one up, either.

 

I have to say that the EOS really comes into its own shooting

longer focal lengths, though. Even though the 100f2.0 isn't as

good wide open as the 90 Summicron, it delivers more keepers

for me. The systems complement each other really well.

[al_kaplan1]

And then there are people like Mykal who is jealous of my LTM 85mm f/2 Nikkor, a fifty year old single coated lens based on a pre-war Zeiss Sonnar design. It does nice things to light and has good bokeh. I have no desire to replace it with any generation of 90/2 Summicron. Some lenses might be bitingly sharp and some lenses have magic;-) This one is magical.

[jtdnyc]

I have to agree with Al about the superiority, in many situations, of incident metering; and with Jeff, about the need to downrate film when using an incident meter. I think the reason is that many common scenes generally reflect more than the 18% that reflectance meters assume. Quick readings of reflected light thus can lead to underexposure.

 

Careful relflectance readings can give very accurate results, but I seldom have time for that. Too often the moment would be lost.

 

My only experience in wedding photography came about 8 years ago, when I took an M camera and a 35mm lens to a friend's wedding on Martha's Vineyard. The bride had specifically requested a black & white album, but the official photographer inexplicably shot color negative film and never achieved prints with the tonality the bride had expected.

 

An album of my "spectator" shots on TX and TMY became her wedding present.

 

As to Marc's point about selling Leica equipment, I'd like to thank him publicly for selling me a late-production 135 Elmarit for a very fair price. Despite all its problems, the Leica Forum is still a great place for fair deals on used equipment.

 

Steve, I can understand that most professionals might choose another camera system. But, for me as an amateur, I find the Leica is just more fun to use. I wonder if you might someday join the ranks of professional photographers who use whatever in their pro work, but grab a Leica on their days off.