Why Should I Use A Leica ?

[rehor]

I presently enjoy using a N80 Nikon (99% same camera with 1/2 the

weight of an F100) with a 24-120mm 3 stop advantage vibration

reduction lens. I use the camera on manual mode quite a lot (but there

is excellent Nikon TTL matrix and spot metering which are easy to

adjust). I also have several 135 format Lomo point and shoots

(Colorflash, Sampler, and a Loreo 3D).

 

I however mainly use my Blad 500 CM with 80mm Zeiss lens and Yashica

Mat 124 with 80mm Yashinon to take photos.

 

Reading about the Leicas and seeing other people with them, I have

succumbed to Leica envy.

 

I am guessing that this must be due to 3 reasons: They have a real

tradition with quality, they have a brilliant marketing system that

convinces everyone to buy them, and/or after you buy one you won't

want to part with it because you just mortgaged your house to buy one.

 

The dilemma that I face is, I do have the cashiola to buy an M1, 2, 3

or 4, but with the Nikon already, why am I thinking that I need to buy

a Leica?

 

Should I? Please dont be biased, I know that this is the Leica forum.

[carl_bretteville]

Rehor,

I bought an M4-P with three lenses earlier this year because I found a good deal. I've wanted an M since I was a kid. I used my heart on this one and haven't regretted it a second.

 

- Carl

[Karim Ghantous]

Leica cameras are excellent for hand-held, available-light work. They are used for different applications than a Hasselblad would. If I had a Leica M and a couple of lenses, that would be great for travelling or just carrying around with me to social occasions. If I had the Hassleblad I'd use it for interiors, landscapes and formal portraits.

 

The Leica has advantages over your Nikon SLRs (BTW I have an F3 and a D50 but no Leica M bodies). They're quiet, offer great viewfinders, are unobtrusive and the lenses are really compact, the way 35mm system lenses should be. The Leica M would also be great for reportage and such.

 

I don't have the money to own both systems so I can't. I'd love to use something like a Hasselblad someday but I'll likey just go straight to 4x5 for the times I need really high image quality.

 

Keep in mind that this question gets asked quite frequently so one or two replies might be a little blunt. But don't worry about that because most of use enjoy talking about that stuff. That's why we're here!

[michael_kastner]

Well, I once had Nikons (F2 and F3) Nikonoses and Yashica, and rated them all fine. But I now have and use only my M6 TTL and 7 lenses. Can't do without them. Now I don't work for Leica either, but here's my motto. Sort of Leica's own creed. I'me the boss and not the camera. I have to do/adjust everything on it myself and that's the serious thing, also the fun part. It's pretty mechaqnical, very robust and will outlive me. An M3 and any old III already has outlived almost any other camera.

[andy m.]

<i>'why am I thinking that I need to buy a Leica?'</i><p>

 

Only you can really answer that. FWIW, you won't see much difference in your images. M Leicas are nice and quiet though, and well made. However, I reckon that digital imaging is becoming increasingly attractive, the instant feedback being a great learning aid for the experienced and less-so alike.

[SCL]

Great build, excellent glass. So are your other cameras. If they do the job for you and cash is tight, don't make the additional purchase now, they may get cheaper as more people switch to digital. BTW I currently own 2 Nikons and a Bronica in addition to the Leicas (one of which I've owned for 34 years), so I feel that there is something special there.

[michael_matsil]

Rehor....

I think folks have outlined the main advantages of using a rangefinder camera, more

specifically a Leica very well. You seem to own a number of very good camera

systems.....so far, I can say you have good taste in equipment. I'm sure in someways each

of those systems serves your photography in a particular way. If you are to get Leica, I

would ask myself, how is this system to help me in what I want to do photographically.

That's my rule....don't get it if your work doesn't demand it. On the other hand,

sometimes a new tool opens a door in your perception you didn't see before and it can

actually change your work in ways you had not anticipated. That can be exciting. But that

route, requires a fairly mature and experienced vantage point to take advantage

of....usually. All I can say is good luck with your Leica. If you're gonna get it, you're gonna

get it! If you do, I think there will be more of a learning curve than you think going from

your Nikon SLR to rangefinder. They are totally different animals from a use standpoint.

The main difference being the viewing system. A camera's viewing system defines how the

camera is used. In this case, they are as different as they can possibly be!

[john_amiet2]

How did you choose your wife (if you have one)?

 

It's sort of the same. A matter of trust, bundled with desire and a promise of performance! In the long run, what you get out is related to what you put in (!) and how well you use it. It is a two way street. It can't/won't perform by itself, but depends on you as much as you would like to depend on it.

 

Take the plunge. Nothing ventured; nothing gained!

[george_conboy1]

One small, practical reason is the availability of relatively inexpensive wide glass, if that interests you. I am looking to buy a DSLR and have been leaning towards a Nikon D50. Last night I was reviewing the availability of lenses, and if I want something really wide (film equivalent of 24mm, say) it looks like $900-1000 for that lens for the Nikon.

 

While I'll admit that Leica glass in wide focal lengths is expensive, you can get the CV 15, 21, or 25 lenses pretty cheap. Unless I'm reading something wrong an ultrawide equivalent on a Nikon DSLR would cost much more.

[andreatau]

As a former owner of both, I'm not so sure that the N80 is 99% the same camera as an F100... Anyway, if you can live without the excellent TTL matrix of your Nikon NOT only when you use your Hasselblad but also when you go for 35mm film, then you'll love whatever Leica you buy. They feel so wonderful in your hands that it's impossible to not fall in love more and more every time you use them.

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

CV or CZ?

 

If talking about the CZ 21mm...it certainly can't be called cheap anymore!

[paul_neuthaler]

I have ownwed Leicas on and off since 1969! I always come back to their mystique, feel, & fine optics. I will admit that I think my F3 HP is more reliable and my Hasselblad SWC/M more amazing! Toys for boys!

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Why Leica? It's a Zen thing. If you have to ask, you just don't get it. :)

[paul_beavin]

Know what?? I think Rehor Rehor is Frank resurrected!

Hi Frank! we missed you---

[robert_m3]

I know this response doesn't belong in the Leica forum, but really, if you think an N80 is 99%

of an F100, and they're the same two cameras that I have in front of me, you're confused or

have been misled.

 

Other than that, I can't comment on your decision to try a Leica or not. My walk around

camera is an FE.

[larry_kincaid1]

"...they may get cheaper as more people switch to digital." NOT. I check the web prices all the time: new prices are up with the EURO and the used prices seem to be following that lead. Also, there seems to be less used lenses and M6s available now than two years ago, as if someone is buying them all up ahead of us. Regardless of the current prices, history shows that if you just go ahead an spend the money you have on a used camera and one good lens (35mm or 50mm), then you can try it out for as long as you want and then if necessary sell them for hardly any loss, certainly less than the cost of renting. But be careful, if the camera and lenses match your preferred type of photography, you will get hooked and the envy will persist through the purchase of more lenses. I also have a Nikon N80 with great prime lenses. You'll notice a 10-20 percent improvement in your photographs with the Leica (a gain worth the money to me, but not in proportion to the extra cost), and your friends and family will start telling you that your Leica photos look better than the Nikon photos, and they will ask you how you got it took look so 3-dimensional. When you go back to the Nikon viewfinder, it will look too dark for you, and you'll no longer want to use the flash ever again. And so forth. [i still enjoy using my Nikon 180mm prime lens, however, something Leica is just not designed to do.]

[jim_a]

Recently came across an Interview with Ralph Gibson. Here is why he uses Leicas, FWIW...

<p>

Chris/Larry: When you use Leica rangefinders, is there a different type of visualization

because the way the camera?s viewfinder is designed? When you shoot do you crop at all,

or is it all in that frame?

<p>

Ralph: I have spent forty years working with the Leica rangefinder. The rangefinder enables

one to see what?s outside of the frame as well as what?s inside of the frame. You make a

decision predicated on the presence and/or the absence of various aspects of the subject.

With a reflex, the camera determines what is seen, and half the time it's out of focus. One

could follow a reflex around the world and focus it from time to time until it came across a

picture. With a rangefinder you see something, you make the exposure and you continue

to look at what you?re seeing. The rangefinder is ideally matched to the perceptive act, the

personal act of perception. I only use a reflex for extreme close-ups.

<p>

 

From <a href="http://www.bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm">http://

www.bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm</a>

[robert_m3]

>You'll notice a 10-20 percent improvement in your photographs with the Leica

 

That must be like how an 8 megapixel camera makes your shots 33% better than a 6

megapixel camera. Great!!

 

Who was it that said, "What piano should I buy if I want to play like Mozart?"

[ulrik]

I bought an M2 this year because I wanted a high quality camera that I can alway carry with me (in contrast to my Hasselblads). It works much better for me than the digital P&S that my wife uses because there is no shutter delay. I only use very compact lenses (Leica Elmar-M 2,8/50, Tele-Elmarit 2,8/90, Voigtl䮤er 2,5/35 PII and 4,5/15), 3 of them having a 39 mm filter thread which is useful for B&W. Oh yes, and using it is FUN !!!

 

Ulrik

[alastair_anderson]

So, Rehor Rehor.

Having read all the replies what do you think? In this forum bias is unavoidable.

I agree with pretty much everything written above but would add one thing. When I first got interested in photography (circa 1992/1993) I wanted to buy a really good camera and in the end I bought a Canon EOS 5 (Elan in the USA I think). It struck me though that there would always be something better as technology improved. For me a big reason for buying a Leica is to avoid that syndrome. Any M camera is a classic. The design is timeless. The concept is very simple: the best lenses (objectively this is debatable, so let's just say excellent lenses)and complete manual control.

The paradigm shift to digital is somewhat threatening, but even then the lenses still work.

 

A few years ago I swapped the EOS 5 for a user M3 by the way, and currently I own several M bodies and lots of Leica lenses. I was bitten in a big way.

 

I've also own some medium format cameras and a couple of Nikons. For me the Leicas are the most fun to use.

[bob haight]

You have what you need, its only about want now. As stated above you will not see much improvement in your images, but their is a wonderful tactile feel to the Leica and rangefinder photography is really quite different from what your doing. I think Leicas are easier to focus and much better to compose with based upon the fuller than image screen which by the way is always bright no matter what the lens speed.

[charles_hess2]

While there is no question that the quality matches the mystique with the Leica name, especially the Ms, they have their limitations, like most other cameras. Will you get BETTER results with your M than with your Nikon and Hassy? Not really, though quality is subjective and many here will undoubtedly argue this point. For photojournalism, there's not a camera out there that is better, in my opinion, but for telephoto, macro, sports, and other specialities, it's not the camera for you. I am fortunate enough to own an M6, a Contax G2, and got back into Nikon with an FM3a to make use of my good Nikon glass. The M6 is a dream to hold and to operate, but I find that I use the G2 more often. Why, I'm not sure. If you've got the $$, sure, get the Leica of your dreams, but for pure image superiority, you may be disappointed.

[c_d5]

Why don't you try buy a Nikon 28mm f.1.4 lens first. and Nikon 85mm f.1.4 The quality from those lenses is on par with Leica. Buying a Leica, you need to consider about the lenses. If you can afford a M6/7/P with a 35/50/75 Lux(f1.4) or Cron (f2) ASPH(if possible), or Noctilux then go for it. You'll see the difference in the image(in my opinion) and also a difference in the philosophy of shooting. It is an acquired taste.

[glenn_owens1]

I like my M6 because most people that look at it think its an old cheap camera and dont look at it twice, it gets their guard down so you can get more natural pictures in my opinion. When shooting with my D70s or F100 people tend to be edgy because they think it looks professional and expensive creating more tension in their faces, my opinion.

[harvey_trautenberg1]

Its classy.