Switch to Leica?

[emud]

I am a graduate student (Animation) and have been doing photography for about three

years, mainly with Canon SLR equipment. I currently own an EOS A2 with 50 1.4, 24 2.8,

135 2L, and 50 macro primes (I started with the 50 1.4 and added the rest after a year). I

chose to buy primes so that I could train my eye to what those respective focal lengths

look like and because I liked available light photography (I never use a flash) and needed

fast lenses.

 

Recently, I've been using my system less and less because it's a real pain to take it

anywhere, and only use it to complete exercises for photo courses. This is mainly

because of the system size and weight so I have started thinking about getting a leica.

I also really enjoy taking candid pictures, and it becomes really tough when I pull out

my camera with the vertical grip, especially when the 135 + hood is attached. It just

attracts so much attention. I also do most of my photography while traveling with my

wife, and on our latest trip (Kauai) the equipment was really wearing me down, and I

started to feel like it was a photography trip, rather than photographing our trip.

 

I really like the quality of pictures that I get with my system, especially with the 50 and

135 primes. Looking through my favorite pictures though, I think that my favorite ones

could be achieved (perhaps better) with a leica.

 

I've been reading much of what's posted on this forum for the past couple weeks but I'm

still not sure what to do. In order to afford to buy a leica (mp .72 with 50 summicron,

hopefully with student discount), I will need to sell my system. I've read many

recommendations for renting a leica before buying it, but I don't think that one weekend

will make me any more certain of what to do, and I'll be out $100. Plus, I will have a 14

day return policy so if I were turned off in a couple days I can return it. My worry is that I

sell my system and after a year or so miss the versitality (telephoto, macro) and

affordability of the slr.

 

I'm curious to hear from people who switched from slr (with quality primes) to a leica m.

 

Thanks,

Emud

 

PS. I'm not really interested in buying a voigtlander. I'd rather have one great system, than

multiple ones. Plus, if I like the voigtlander, I will eventually be tempted to sell it to buy the

leica and lose more money that way. Plus, I'm curious to see the leica "glow" and the feel

of an m.

[vick_ko]

First, you don't need to buy a Leica MP.

 

I suggest you learn to use a handheld meter, and buy either an M4, M2, or M3. Then spend money on lenses. It is the lenses that matter.

 

If you want metering, buy an M5 or M6. It is much more economical than the new MP.

 

Again, buy any body and save for spending on lenses.

 

Good luck

 

Vick

[terry_rory]

I would not be too expectant about that 'glow'.

[al_kaplan1]

Wow, you've gotten yourself into a real quandry! To some extent the Leic M and Canon SLR systems CAN be used for many of the same things. Many photographers end up with more than one system, a RFDR and an SLR system, maybe even a medium format system, and a bunch of digital stuff too.

 

You've listed a bunch of reasons yourself, from the financial consideration to the handling to the "glow". The latest Leica glass seems to lack the "glow", which was probably just an artifact of the Leitz design philosophy of which abberations to design out and which to live with in an era where both weren't possible.

 

Why not look about for a good used M2 body with an older 50/2 Summicron that has clean glass? You can likely get that plus a decent seperate meter for around a thousand if you shop carefully and live with a few dings and scratches in the chrome. I get along just fine with cameras that look that way! And buy your wife a Valentines gift while you're at it. She'll be much more understanding...LOL

[brambor]

Eud,<P>I switched to Leica from Canon SLR with primes. I have EOS film and digital bodies with 24, 50, 85, 135 and 200mm primes. <P>Leica RF really is a big difference in focusing. If you have never tried it you should really try it before you buy. I bought a M6TTL body first and the waited almost a month before I could afford my first lens. It was a 35m Summicron. I did not try it first and remember a huge shock when I first used the camera. The fact that a lens hood could encroach into the viewfinder view, the focusing square alignment technique were a radical departure for me. You really need to know yourself and your perseverance or you willingness to try new things. I stayed with it and now I wouldn't part with it for my life. <P>I have recently upgraded my film body to 1V as I shoot lots of hockey and whiile I was running a test roll with general photography I was painfully reminded why I love Leica. My bag had three lenses in it but it was busting at the seams and it was putting a strain on my shoulders. I was thinking more about what function to use or whether I haven't accidentally moved the wheel to engage compensation or whether I should switch the focusing point or not. It was kind of fun but I was thinking more about the camera than the actual subjects.I am now ready foor my first hockey shoot and I'm sure the EOS will perform well but I was quickly longing for the lightness and simplicity of my M6. If you use L lenses then the size difference really is dramatic. Look at the history of my posts and find one where I made pictorial size comparisons with both systems. I think part of my title was 'David vs Goliath'.<P>IMHO if you just want a small camera with exeptional lenses and simplicity the there is nothing better than Leica.

[randall ellis]

> Recently, I've been using my system less and less because it's a real pain to take it anywhere, and only use it to complete exercises for photo courses. This is mainly because of the system size and weight so I have started thinking about getting a leica

 

A Leica will have also have a number of lenses, not to mention viewfinders for each lens or a turet-style finder, all of which will be very expensive. Sure the camera is somewhat smaller but you will still have all the gear to lug around plus the added worry that if you drop it, you're out a hell of a lot of cash!

 

>I really like the quality of pictures that I get with my system, especially with the 50 and 135 primes. Looking through my favorite pictures though, I think that my favorite ones could be achieved (perhaps better) with a leica.

 

If you like your camera now, why would you think something else would be better sight unseen? What makes you think that the images would have been better taken with another camera? A great picture is great on it's own merits, not those of the equipment used to make it.

 

> and I'll be out $100

 

Try $2300

 

Stick with the camera that you have now, you like it and it works for you. How do you know you will like a rangefinder? How do you know you will be able to find/afford the lenses you want? How will you take it when/if it gets stolen?

 

Don't worry about what other people are shooting with. A great image is a great image and no one can look at any image and say "Hot damn! That was taken with a (fill in the blank) camera!" (unless it's a Holga...) Some of the most moving and powerful images were taken with old cameras (most all of them actualy) and what equipment was used is trivial compared to the image itself. Spend your money on film, not cameras.

 

Photography exists about 2 inches behind the viewfinder, not in the photographers hands.

 

Just my $0.02

 

- Randy

[wai_leong_lee]

I switched from a Canon EOS 30 + 50/1.8 + 28-105 to an M4.

 

The 50/1.8 sucks wide open. Really soft. I guess it's to be expected, sub-$100 lens, but still...

 

I now have a 50/2 DR, 35/1.4 Asph, 90/2.8 TE and 50/1 Nocti.

 

To get comparable quality to Leica, you'd need L lenses, which are big as hell. If you're just starting out, you don't need an MP-- M6 will do just as well, and will cost much less so you prob don't have to sell your system. Perhaps just keep the Canon for use with long teles and macros, which Leica isn't good for.

 

I haven't seen a specific "glow", but I like my projected slides much better compared to the 50/1.8 output. I also have some stunning B&W's from my 35/1.4 Asph, which seems worth its $$.

 

PS. Leicas are compact, but they are all metal, and are not light to carry either.

[paul_ebbe]

Here's a cheap experiment. Borrow a light meter and set your A2 and 50 1.4 to manual. Pre-focus the lens by using the scale and only use the viewfinder to compose the shot. Try this for a month for all your photography, see how you like it and go from there.

[lee_shively]

I love using Leicas but I've never been without SLR cameras. I don't my Canon equipment nearly as much as my Leica equipment. But I like being able to do close-ups and having a 400mm lens and having the versatility of a fast zoom lens and....

 

Have you used a rangefinder before? Leicas are great cameras but some people simply can't get used to using a rangefinder camera after using SLRs for years.

[jim_a]

Emud, if you buy used you stand a good chance of selling your body and lens (or lenses) for close to what you paid for them should you decide you don't shooting with M cameras. You have to give yourself at least 6 months, better yet, a year, to live with the camera and get used to it. It does take time to get the hang of using an M. After a year you if sell and you take a small loss (~$200) think of that as your rental fee for the year. You'll take a huge loss selling an MP. I'm with Al. Get an M2 and a 35 or 50, depending on your preference. The M2 is the best all-around M ever made.

[scott_mcloughlin]

I got a Leica for a smaller kit with good lenses - to supplement film and digital Nikon SLR gear. I ended up with a pair of M6TTL's and some lenses and an SF24 flash.

 

But I started out with a lovely little Bessa R and a couple screwmount CV lenses - 4/21, 2.5/35 and 1.5/50. Little Oly S20 cheap flash. Not a bad kit at all - takes great pictures, small and lite. Not too pricey either.

 

I had some extra change to spring for the Leica gear, but if I didn't, I imagine I'd be happily snapping away with the CV stuff. I still use many of the CV lenses on my M6's.

[EricM]

if you find a simple slr with a prime a pain, i think you just don't want photogrpahy in your life bad enough. millions of others make do and find it a pleasure.

[Brad_]

An excellent point from Eric...

[Guest]

I switched from an SLR for two reasons.

 

1. I was using my SLR like an old manual rangefinder (no AF, no AE, not looking much through my multi-metering removeable prism) but was carrying the bulk.

 

2. My shooting tends towards manually focusing wideangles at night.

 

The first reason isn't so compelling because it's easy to get a smallish SLR kit together. The second reason *is* compelling, as that's the strong suit of RF focusing.

 

But there's no point switching to an RF if you're not comfortable with the split-image focusing and loose framing. I'd suggest what Paul says, and add that if you can get a split-image microprism screen for your Canon, do that as well, and try to get a feel for not having DOF/OOF areas in your finder.

 

Also, Voigtlander is a great system. If it weren't for Voigtlander and non-Leica lenses, I wouldn't be interested in Leica. Voigtlander makes very good lenses that seem to me to be in the same league as Nikkors and the rest. And Voigtlander makes it fun - not everyone on this forum could afford a Leica 28/2, especially if it's for occasional use, and Leica doesn't go anywhere near 12mm and 15mm. I think most of us here run a mixed bag of Leica, Voigtlander and other odds and sods, so don't knock it until you've tried it.

[stephen_w.]

My advice? Shoot with what you have. There is little advantage to switching systems from what you have, maybe a stop or two in "special" situations like a pub. You don't need to take it all with you. Many a good photo has been produced with "lesser" regarded equipment. I think it unethical to the seller to return new gear that you're not "satisfied with", unless you're using Daddy's money. I switched to the M because I've traveled for 15-years, am well paid, so I could afford to. Gear is NEVER the solution. There are several economical solutions to your RF envy. Do your due diligence, pay your dues, and if you make enough dough, buy your dream Leica. They're not going to go away anytime soon. I broke my eyeteeth on a Nikon Nikkormat some 30-years ago. There is a place for RF and SLR in anyone's toolbox.

[Guest]

Or buy a Canonet for the cost of a couple of focusing screens. If you take that everywhere with you, and take photographs, every day for a few months, and like it and want a bit more, then look at Voigtlander/Leica.

[rj]

I have not worked with a leica camera for years and years, having recently picked up a small kit, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

If I am shooting 35mm I use a leica along with a small pentax kit, the camera is a pentax mx. The pentax is basically smaller than the leica body, and the lenses aren't all that big. I use the slr very much the same way I use the leica, but I use longer lenses on the slr. 135mm and 200mm in my case. (these are small lenses in the slr world, the current 135 and 200mm for pentax are quite larger) The leica gets the shorter lenses. It has been working well for me, and it didn't take all too long to get used to the differences with focusing. The big difference is when I am in darker places, the leica m camera really shines. I have a bit harder time focusing the pentax camera, it is just too dark and I find I have to focus my attention on focusing too much, so the leica tends to take over then. I find the whole system to be very complimentary to my shooting style, one that covers all the bases for me.

 

I would second the opinion that you start with a used leica, m 6ttl which seem to go for a good price these days and actually will meter a scene, plus they wouldn't be that old so a full cleaning and adjusting probably will not be in order. If you find it doesn't fit your needs, than you can sell it and not loose much. Starting with a 50 cron is probably a good idea since they definately aren't the most expensive lenses and are very highly though of optically.

[stephen_w.]

Obviousy, I typed my opinion carefully and slowly, editing along the way, pecking at the keys with my two-finger technique. Unless you're Donald Trumps' Nephew, stick with what you have, which seems the concensus, except those advocating buying a used M2. Study hard and practice often. Develope and print. A new MP is not the solution fow a learning student, when any manual SLR will do. When I was in school (ChE), I took longer to be graduated because I insisted in courses in art, history, and photography courses at great expense (U of Mich.) because I insisted to learn about art, music and design, not just technology, and it has benefitted me.

[del_gray]

Keep your Canon gear for now and spend $50-100 on a fast fixed lens rangefinder from the 1970's (like a Canonet GIII QL 17 - see cameraquest.com for more info). Get one with a real rangefinder and try it for several months. No, it won't be a Leica in build quality or lens performance wide open, but you can get a camera that takes VERY nice pictures in this price range. If you like it, great, go for the Leica. If not, sell it for the same price you bought it. You really DO need to spend some time with a rangefinder the first time to get used to the focusing and viewfinder idiosyncracies before you feel proficient with it. It could be frustrating to have a very expensive Leica kit that you sold all your Canon gear for only to spend weeks/months struggling with it and wondering if you did the right thing. Don't be hasty to rush into committing to something you don't know much about yet. Transition slowly and figure out what you want.

[travis1]

SO how much weight do you intend to save?

[peter_evans4]

<p>In addition to all the other advice you've got.... You say: <em>I really

like the

quality of pictures that I get with my system, especially with the 50 and

<strong>135</strong> primes.</em></p><p>(My emphasis.) Forget the

idea of using a rangefinder for 135mm. Oh yes, it can be done, kind of.

What's more, 135mm lenses for rangefinders are cheap. That's because

they're pretty horrible to use. (They're not even small.)</p>

[Guest]

Since I stopped walking around with my heavy SLR gear, I have gained a stone.

[icuneko]

<I'm curious to see the leica "glow".>

 

 

Remembering Paul N.'s photos of his glowing wife and daughter, the mythical Leica glow seems to come from the subject(s)--not the lens. And as others have pointed out it is often seen in much older lenses and/or actually a product of mild flare. I've also seen "glow" from Hexar lenses and others. Or was it the subject(s)??? Hmmm...

 

 

How long will the myth of Leica "glow" trudge on? If one wants to see it, one will see it. (You get what you pay for. Pay for glow, you get glow.)

[andrew_c2]

Emud,

 

I would add to the above posters who recommended a Canonet G-III QL17. I'm a graduate student as well and funds are always short, so most of the M equipment is out of my reach. The Canonet will do most everything that a Leica will do (it's even quieter and lighter), except for lens interchangeability. Its lens is awesome for the price.

 

Shooting with the Canonet will not tell you, however, whether you want to spend loads on a Leica. Most people here (myself included) want to feel that their photos will improve if they're holding a cultural icon of photography in their hands; that is simply not the case. As for being unassuming, you achieve this not with the instrument (whether a Leica or an 8x10 Deardorff), but with your demeanour and outlook toward others. Regarding the weight issue, I love the idea of being able to carry all of your camera equipment in two coat pockets; one reason why I like Leicas!

[evan_litvin2]

Emud,

I'm an undergrad art student right now. I have been going back and forth on this for quite

sometime. The way I look at it, if you want "the glow" of a leica, your not going to be

satisfied with whatever type of rf you end up getting unless its a Leica. I would hold off on

selling your cannon gear. I have a great Nikon system, D100, N90s, f/2.8 28, f/1.4 50, f/

2.8 180 etc. I wouldnt trade it for the world because of the versatility it gives me. If I have

learned anything from my postings in this forum, it would be that a Leica M system works

great in conjunction with an SLR system. I decided to wait till I have enough money to

purchase the M system with out getting rid of my Nikon system. (This just means I am

going to have to keep working and saving $$$ in the mean time.) Part of the reason why I

dont have too much of a problem shelling out the $$$ for the Leica system is that I have

found if for whatever reason I'm not satisfied (highly doubt I will be) or I am in dire need of

cash, Leica's hold their value as good as anything... I've used an M6ttl several times

(haven't owned one yet) however, I am speaking here from research and the responses to

my postings in this forum. Good luck!