So, What's the big deal with Leica?

[disneyry]

Ok, first off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

 

Before I learned much about photography, like I am sure many others

can attest too, I had heard about Leica, but only talked about in

hushed tones.

 

Leica seems to be viewed as some anomaly/divinely presented

gift/superior alien technology.

 

Camera equipment, like a great many other things, suffers from the

notion that a high price tag is an evaluation of intrinsic worth.

While I will admit one often gets-what-they-pay-for, this rabid

loyalty doesn?t seem universal as horseman, alpa, even hasselblad fans

don?t have their own category on photo.net.

 

Within the week, I will be receiving my first Leica. It?s a family

piece; I don?t know the model. I don?t even know if it will work, or

what kind of money I?ll have to put into it to make it do so. It?s

WWII vintage (sadly, the first owner was killed in the Pacific days

after the war was officially over, though I wouldn?t be here if it

weren?t true).

 

I guess I can?t help but be a little skeptical. I can?t recall

hearing(reading) anyone say much bad about Leica, but I still have to

wonder; So, what?s the big deal with Leica?

 

Leica ?glow? aside, will the mythology stand up? Did Leica make a

?bad? camera? Did Leica make a Porsche 914? A Black Sheep?

 

What can I expect from a pre-1945 Leica that might not have been fired

since the 1970?s? Many thanks.

[johnmarkpainter]

Pre 1945 will be a Scewmount (LTM or Leica Thread Mount) camera. Go to

www.cameraquest.com "Classic Camera Profiles" to read about the different

"Barnack" models.

 

They are a pain to use if you aren't an experienced Photog (they are still a pain if you are,

you just will be more intimidated).

 

You will probably have to get it worked on a bit. A CLA (Clean Lubricate Adjust) and will

probably be GREAT if it isn't rusted or too detoriated otherwise.

 

The "Big Deal" with those cameras is the workmanship. They are so well crafted..like an

old Swiss watch.

 

If your Photos suck on a modern camera then they will still suck on a Leica :)

[johnmarkpainter]

The short answer....it's a Zen thing

[walterh]

Zen and the art of camera maintenance?

 

The good thing about leicas is that they can accomodate leica lenses. This in turn will bring you to Zen and the art of .....

 

Actually you can take pictures with leicas - in some situations leicas can be very good tools to do the job - besides the zen thing :-) If you want to take snapshots and post in WWW sell in ebay and get a decent point and shoot camera that will last at least 2 full years.

[jerry_lehrer]

Ryan,

 

There is NO big deal over Leicas. They are just a very fine tool that

can produce fine results when handled by a craftsman.

 

Or I could say that they are the Porsche 911 of the camera world. Not

an instrument that can do everything, but what they do, they can do extremely well. In good hands, that is. In the hands of a clod, they

can crash and burn.

 

Jerry

[dan flanders]

The loading difficulties of the LTM Leicas are grossly overstated. It is true that they load in a different manner than later model Leicas, as well as many other more modern cameras, but familiarity with its method and careful adherance to certain practices can overcome the percieved complications. I have examples of both the LTM and M Leicas and have timed loading, finding only a fraction of a second difference between the two systems. It is true that I have owned various Leica models over the past sixty odd years so it may be that my opinion is biased in favor of the older models. However, all things considered, I have experienced bad loadings in both systems and consider the score about even. In any event I would suggest that you read the "Camera Quest" articles and then if it is operational at all, run several rolls through the camera just to learn how it operates, then you may wish to send it to one of the recommended service technicians for a CLA. If you are seriously interested in further photographic experience I am sure you will find that even the older Leicas are masterpieces of workmanship that when properly maintained will render exemplary service and probably outlive the owner.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>Within the week, I will be receiving my first Leica. . . . What can I expect from a pre-1945 Leica that might not have been fired since the 1970?s?</em></p><p>Why bother asking? Just wait one little week and find out. Meanwhile, if you want to read what the big deal is (or isn't) with Leica, just read the old threads.</p>

[h._p.]

There's no major difference between Leicas and other cameras in my experience. I use a M3 which is a nice piece of machinery with good lenses but the same can be said of many cameras.

 

For many years, from the 'sixties to the 'nineties, the Leica range were the only cameras you could purchase new which offered both rangefinder viewing and interchangeable lenses. This, coupled with very high prices gave the brand an aura of exclusivity which attracts a certain kind of buyer.

 

In its favour, the M-series (and perticularly the M3) offers a very quiet shutter and an excellent viewfinder. The screw mount cameras have quiet shutters and rather horrible viewfinders in my opinion.

 

Some people claim that Leica lenses give particularly sharp/luminous/smooth/[insert word here] images. In my experience, the images are as good as you can get from 35mm but no better than those achievable with Nikon or Canon.

 

In short, I see the 'big deal' as being largely hyperbole although I would not like to part with my own Leica which I really enjoy using.<div></div>

[wai_leong_lee]

How many cameras from the 50's or even the 30's are still working today, and worth more than what you paid for it 50 years ago? As the O&M ad brochure goes, the M3 is a tool for expressing your creativity, and it gives you the same pleasure as it did when you first bought it. Leicas from the 50's (or even earlier) are still working today, and worth more than what the owners paid for them then. It is one of the few things in life that do not lose value, but have in fact increased in value over time.

 

I have a Star Wars-inspired take on Leicas. To paraphrase Dante Stella, a Leica is a light saber-- a more elegant weapon from a more civilised time. Autofocus motordriven SLRs/DSLR's are just so uncivilised by comparison (apologies to Obi Wan).

[erin.e]

Light sabre is a poor and laughable analogy, a sabre is a slashing weapon designed mainly to be used from horse back against foot troops and a light sabre as portrayed in the star wars movies is an even cruder chomper that will cut through anything in its path.

 

 

If a Leica is to be compared to a somewhat specialist sword that requires considerable finesse to use successfully, (not often seen in this forum of mainly fondler's and elitists) then a rapier would be a much better choice of comparison.

[kenny allyn]

I personally never thought of it as a big deal ... actually I came to use them them through the back-door if you will. I used (and still do) Minoltas for many years, and there is a Leica-Minolta connection, and I own some of the cameras that collaberation produced the Minolta XD11 and Leica CL. I was in looking at a Summicron lens at my local shop one day, and he had a M3 body for sale so I got it too ... that simple ... as time has passed it has grown into a favorite of mine (it's a viewfinder thing) ... I later purchased a Konica Hexar RF though not a Leica, it uses Leica M type lens, and consider it to be one of the finest of all the cameras I own ... hope this helps ... and I hope you enjoy yours ...

 

Reguards ... Kenny.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>I have a Star Wars-inspired take on Leicas. To paraphrase Dante Stella, a Leica is a light saber-- a more elegant weapon from a more civilised time..</em></p><p>Eh? <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html">Dante is talking about a Nikkor 135/3.5</a>.</p><p>Actually this is one of the few places where I had no idea of what he was on about, as I dozed through one "Star Wars" concoction (what a congeries of drivel!) and never bothered with the others. But later I googled around and discovered that the "lightsaber" wasn't a Nikkor but an <a href="http://www.partsofsw.com/dvesbsab.htm">MPP Microflash</a>.</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

The key point is that fighting with a light sabre is more elegant than fighting with a laser pistol-- which as you may have seen from the Star Wars movies, is certainly true, with all the acrobatic moves the Jedi used.

 

Certainly, anyone who knows about swordfighting can tell you it requires skill and years of practice to learn, and the art of swordfighting is even a martial art in some countries (eg kendo/kenjutsu in Japan).

 

You can say the same for fencing as well-- takes time to learn well, very elegant-- but don't get distracted by the term "sabre". That's just star wars terminology, perhaps Lucas felt light sword would not have been as cool.

 

The analogy with Leica is obvious-- it takes years of practice and skill to use well, and the M certainly comes from a more civilised time in human history-- the air was cleaner and purer then, no Al Qaeda, people wore hats and were more polite to each other, men actually opened doors for ladies, etc.

 

Wai Leong

===

[Andrew in Austin]

<i>What can I expect from a pre-1945 Leica that might not have been fired since the 1970?s? </i>

 

<p>Without seeing the camera, my presumption is before shooting it will need to be cleaned, lubed and adjusted, CLA'd for short.   A CLA from the best technician will run about $250, without parts replacement.   From someone less exclusive, about a $100 on up.</p>

 

<p>To make the old screw mount III series work for you, two things come to mind.   One you must learn the camera's limitations and its strength's.   Two, to speed things up it is good to learn how to set the exposure by using the "Sunny 16" rule to set the exposure.   In other words, it will take some patience and experience to master this camera.</p>

 

<p>What the camera isn't is important.   On a recent vacation I witnessed a vast majority of tourist alighting from which ever vehicle they were in, then frantically scurring about, shooting away with their digicams like Speedy Gonzales.   Maybe they did well or maybe not.   With the III series one must slow down a bit to set the exposure, set the focus, try to visualize what the final print will look like while composing through a small viewfinder and then shoot.   It is after all is said and done a 1930's design.</p>

 

<p>Bottom line: A III series Lecia is the quintessential think-before-you-shoot camera in a modern point and shoot world.   In that respect, it is very dated.   If you are thinking Porsche, then the III series is one step before the <a href="http://vista.pca.org/stl/356.htm" target=_blank>Porsche 356</a>

[h._p.]

"the air was cleaner and purer then,"

 

In the 'twenties to the 'fifties the air was certainly NOT cleaner. Anyone who's walked through a London fog, coughing their lungs inside out, could tell you that.

 

Nor can I agree with the assertion that a Leica takes much effort to use. In my opinion, Leicas are pleasantly simple tools to use.

[stephen_w.]

WRT to the 356:

 

How does one make engines and gearing w/o a machine shop? Does he, and it's gotta be a he, think WWII engines/jet turbines/tank, gun bores were made? A true romanticist, like many Leica owners with their hand ground ASPH element comments, etc., pure BS.

[stephen_w.]

It should be: How does he...

[jeremy_tok]

With grit, water and sticks -- just like the jade carvers of yore.

[jtk]

The biggest deal is the way they feel in your hand.

 

But if you use non-Leica lenses you'll give away part of the fun (pride). There's some ego gratification in using a device that slowly makes beautiful photos if you are good enough.

 

Loading and the focus and lenses are slower than modern cameras, the knob advance is nearly as fast as a lever if the camera's in good physical condition (just pull your finger past it). The Elmars of that era were exquisite.

[stephen_w.]

Do you seriously think any 19-20th century mass produced item made of glass or metal is made with grit, water and sticks?

[stephen_w.]

And the sand and metals are melted in crucibles over carbon fueled fires, forcing air to the coals using a bellows, and alloys are mixed with stone tools. C'mon Jeremy, you have proven better than that in your past posts.

 

Back on topic: I use Leicas because they are compact, I'm guaranteed imaging quality (if I do my part), they're manual (I'm in total control), and they end up being free (if I shop and sell carefully and I am patient).

 

I could care less what HCB or anyone else used/uses because I don't emulate anyone. I use Leica for completely personal purposes. What famous photographer used/use a Hassy SWC? I didn't care when I bought one (CF T*), then later, bought another (older C T* for the self timer, not for self portraits, but for overhead Spanish festival photos when mounted on a raised monopod) for personal reasons. My personal needs changed, so I sold them both.

 

Forget about myth, buy what you need. I'd keep the camera, even if it doesn't work, for sentimental/personal reasons. It has a family story. There's a reason your father kept it for so long, eh?

[jeremy_tok]

I was joking!

[peter_white2]

Leica did and does make the equivalent of the 914. The first one was called the CL. For those not familiar with sports cars, the Porsche 914 was just a Volkswagen Beetle with the transaxle reversed and a different body. Porssche did the design. All it had in common with the Porsche 911 was the brand name. For those not familiar with 1970s Leicas, the CL was a Minolta designed by Leica. All it had in common with the M5 was the lens mount.

 

Nowadays the Leica 914s are made by Panasonic.

[john_boyle3]

Chances are that you have a Leica IIIC which is a very well-made camera. The Cameraquest link above will provide some background information and the suggestion for a CLA is very sound. Gerry Smith at Kindermann Canada in Toronto has a lot of experience with the screw mount Leicas and is highly recommended. Send it off for the CLA then when you use it most of your questions about Leica will be answered.

[stephen_w.]

But Porsche made the 914. I miss the 914-6. I'd compare the CL with the 944: Audi/Porsche designed and made by Audi with a, gasp, watercooled engine.