Why do you shoot am M?

[fp1]

Hi. Just bought an M6 and 1.5 summilux. I have my reasons, wondering if they

coincide with yours, as it was ridiculously expensive. (Could have had 2 Contax

G bodies and a couple of lenses for the price!).

(p.s., this is a sincere question, not looking for a fight)

[ray .]

Let me stop you. First you tell me: What were your reasons?

[fp1]

I like to shoot wide open in the dark. I like sharp images shot wide open in the dark. My 80mm planar is great at this, but a bit too big and not quite fast enough to do this without pushing the film 2-3 stops.

[fp1]

That's on a Blad, by the way.

[Karim Ghantous]

Just about all reasons are valid. 'Focussing accuracy' isn't as valid as people say - perhaps it is better to say 'RF focussing has advantages'. And Leica's RF and viewfinder is one of the best around.

 

I guess if the price isn't justified then you wouldn't have one. So everyone who owns one (just about) has no problem with the price. But my reasons would be (if I had an M):

 

- RF camera suits certain situations

 

- It's a beautiful looking camera

 

- Lenses are compact

 

- Lenses can give a nicer look than SLR optics

 

- The camera isn't obtrusive (although only a digital compact is 100% silent)

 

- It can be repaired by the owner without too much outlay or training (unlike electronic and digital cameras) provided said owner is interested in doing so

 

- Low-light photography is somewhat easier than with an SLR

 

- Good, wide range of lenses to choose from (no need to worry about stop-down metering etc.)

[vic_.]

Because I'm extremely insecure and lack self-esteem, and by toting around an M camera (usually without any film in it) and a Summilux Asph lens (current version), I feel above the rabble and their $7,000 DSLRs. It's a rapturous experience. Then I go home and place the gear safely in its climate controlled camera humidor. I have yet to develop any of the film. My wife thinks I'm crazy, but I tell her its cheaper than a mistress. Now she has a Leica too, and dumped her lover.

[35mmdelux]

Lot easier to focus, quality, reliability, no batteries, small, unobtrusuive, fabulous lenses.

[jt-photos]

I used to carry around my Canon F-1 or A-1 with 28, 50 and 85 lenses. All that weighs almost 3 kilos, my back started to hurt after going around for whole day.

 

M's are light weight.

 

I photograph a lot in cities. Walking around with an SLR, even only with Canon A-1, people started to look at me.

 

An M hanging around my neck and nobody cares.

 

I do a lot of my street photography in the evening, I photograph also small jazz jam sessions in bars, theater and so on. In these environments I need slow shutter speeds and clear viewfinder to focus.

 

And the last but not the least, the picture quality. The subjects just jump out from the pictures.

 

The only thing I am disappointed about is the noise the camera makes. It is more quiet than SLRs, but anyway advancing the film and shutter release make too much noise.

Before I got a Leica I used a Rollei 35S. After using that, Leica sounded just too loud. Of course with a Rollei 35S you cannot focus precisely, but now I was just talking about the sound.

 

In the end, knowing that I have this camera in my bag, I just want to go out and shoot. I cannot understand people who put their Leicas in a cupboard and just look at them. It is a tool, meant to be used!

[dennis_cheng1]

Light, intuitive, well-made, and quiet.

[35mmdelux]

does it matter in a Jazz bar? Put it in half leather case!

[Jochen_S]

It feels good and I can focus it. Pictures seem to be better than those taken with old cheapo zooms.

[eric friedemann]

Disclaimer- These reasons for shooting a Leica M are posted strictly to add much-needed levity to this post. Obviously, what follows could not possibly be mistaken for actual reasons Leica M cameras are purchased:

 

 

1. It was imperative that I spend more than $6,000 on a new 35mm rangefinder camera with a 50mm f/1.4 lens that the manufacturer patronizingly called a "Starter Set."

 

 

2. I buy all my photographic hard goods at the Hermes Boutique and it was the only camera the retailer had for sale.

 

 

3. Take photographs with a camera that doesn't have Ralph Gibson's signature stenciled on it? That's crazy talk.

 

 

4. With the German unemployment rate over 10%, if Leica goes out of business, the German economy will resemble that of the Weimar Republic.

 

 

5. Nikon SP replica cameras just aren't pretentious enough.

 

 

6. It was the only camera I could have custom-covered in elephant penis skin.

 

 

7. The shutters of other cameras are too loud- they hurt my ears.

 

 

8. You haven't lived until you've partied with the Leica Historical Society of America, and they wouldn't let me in the door at meetings carrying a Pentax K1000.

 

 

9. I wanted a "Hammertone" camera with a gray, lead-like finish that appeared to have sustained severe hail damage.

 

 

10. Carrying a Leica, I snag more pelt than Sinatra in Vegas.

[al_kaplan1]

They "feel" right, using them is instinctive, and they're as reliable as it gets. My button rewind M2 body has been in for one CLA and the installation of M4 synch contacts since I bought it from a Miami based Associated Press photographer who covered the Democratic & Republican conventions in 1971(?). She'd bought it from a guy who had it at the '68 Mexico City Olympics. I knew both of them back then ~ we all frequented the same Leica dealer, Browne's Photo Center. I've no idea who had it for the ten or so years before that. It looked "well used" when I got it. I think I paid $100 at the time, back in '71 or '72. It's still in regular use. Right now it's loaded with Tri-X, wearing a 21/3.4 Super Angulon with a Leitz finder with a chipped front glass, and the add-on rewind crank has a set-screw that's corroded in place.

 

Even figuring in maintanance costs over the years it's only been about a penny a day to shoot with a Leica M. What could be cheaper?

[blowingsky]

I desired a Hammertone M real bad because I wanted to come out in support of Rap Music, but then I found out it wasn't a celebrity endorsement so I got the Ralph Gibson model because I really like guitars.

[james_reuter1]

Because it is an elegant device from a more civilized age.

[j_sevigny]

Hey! Watch what you say about my K-1000. I just dug out my dad's old Pentax kit. The body, a 28, 40, 50, and an 80, along with a patching Pentax spotmeter. Not an M, but a fine, reliable camera nonetheless.

[charles_hess2]

I shoot with an M6 and a Contax G2. The lenses for both are superb, and I enjoy both the automation of the G as well as the manual control of the M. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, so I am fortunate to have the best of both worlds. I can say, though, that my new 75/2 Summicron Asph. is perhaps the best lens I've ever owned.

[x-ray]

In the 60's there was Nikon F, Nikon RF and Leica M's for the pro photo journalist. One of my mentors used M's and the other Nikon F's. I wound up with both and have used them ever since. I do documentary B&W work with my M's primarily but from time to time drag out the Nikons and equally love using them but they are different tools for different shoots. The M's work best when you want to be the least obvious and under lighting conditions other cameras would be difficult to use. Dependability is another big factor. Lenses are a toss up with many excellent Nikon, CV, Zeiss and other makes of lenses. My Nikons come out when I want a zoom or long glass and to use those special lenses like the 105 2.5 and the 24 2.8.

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

[robbie_caswell]

But there is something nostalgic, something permanent, something boardering on perfection that even my D200 lacks.

 

I'm battling digital demons and my new Photoshop class has me wondering why bother with film. Throw the D200 on a bracket with a flash, and it all becomes a big production. Sniping away with a Leica is kinda cool, kinda retro.

[working camera]

The only valid reason for choosing a Leica M is because you want one.

 

If they do hold any advantage over other options it?s the inherent restrictions M cameras

impose on the photographer.

 

A DSLR is a lot easier to focus than any Leica

[jose_angel]

A sincere question? Ok, a will write a sincere answer...

 

Yes, IMO they are very expensive. The same as Rolex, MontBlanc, Loewe, Louis Vuiton; I think the reasons to use this high quality prestigious objets go beyond technical or practical reasons.

Is there anybody who likes a Rolex because the time is more readable than with a Swatch? Who use a MontBlanc fountain pen because is more ergonomic than a Pilot? Do you really need a Loewe leather coat to be more confortable in cold weather? What about a Vuiton bag? Are this items really the best in certain situations?

 

 

Of course there is a quality ingredient, but it is absolutely secondary. Main reason is distinction, privilege, pleasure, self-improving desire, etc. We pay for it.

 

Probably there is no other reason to buy a M8.

[fjords]

1.5 summilux, would be ridiculously expensive:)

[vinay_patel]

"The only valid reason for choosing a Leica M is because you want one."

 

You're not playing the game! How do you expect the bashers to be able to shoot you down if you use a bulletproof reason like that?

[eric friedemann]

Don D. gives them most persuasive sales pitch for M cameras. That selection of B&W photos he links to- presumably his- are outstanding. They represent exactly the sort of B&W reportage that M-variant cameras were designed for and excel at.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>Of course there is a quality ingredient, but it is absolutely secondary. Main reason is distinction, privilege, pleasure, self-improving desire, etc. We pay for it. <p>

 

Probably there is no other reason to buy a M8.</i><p>

 

Oy! Well, my daughter picked up my M4 one day and said, "Does this make my ass look big?" <p>