Jump to content

Should I buy a leica M


xu_che

Recommended Posts

I don't know what is right to suggest these days. I own both a basic DSLRs and battered M outfit. When I got into M, upgrading to digital rangefinder was something I really had in mind. - I might have lost track, but yesterday a buddy figured out that he pays more per BW film frame than I do for space on SD cards. Add processing costs, scanning hassle and so on and ask yourself if a bigger film camera wouldn't be a better choice than a film Leica only approach that maybe doesn't work much better than digital under similar conditions. Keep also in mind that compromizing between Leica and DSLR can become frustrating as soon as you feel unable to carry both with you or start dreming about a combination of their virtutes. As evil as empty batteries are, processing film is a bit more hassle and if you own a vehicle recharging camera batteries shouldn't be a big problem.

 

Anyhow: I wouldn't own Leicas if there wasn't something about them, I just can't find a bulletproof rational reason for that, making it more than a quirk.

 

Keep in mind that mechanics and reputation are no guarantee that everything will work forever. Rangefinders might need readjustment, shutters CLAs synch contacts can break... Leicas are usually worth fixing, but having some kind of backup can't be wrong either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a big (and expensive) decision. I suggest you put some miles on a rental or used camera before you make the plunge. If you buy an used Leica, you will probably recover your purchase price if you change your mind.

 

If your primary needs are a manual camera that uses film, the choice is a little broader than Leica or nothing. Someone mentioned the Nikon F3 - which is not technically battery-free, but the little watch batteries are used only for shutter timing and last a long, long time. The F3 is very compact (compared to newer SLRs) and very smooth and precise feeling. It is about as close to the feel of a Leica that I've encountered in an SLR, even if it sounds like a train on a loose rail when you fire it.

 

As a rangefinder camera, the Leica is smaller and quieter than any 35mm SLR. The lenses are much smaller and simpler than comparable SLR lenses, since they do not have to fit around a swinging mirror. A rangefinder (the Leica anyway) is much easier to focus precisely, and in much dimmer light than for an SLR.

 

The Leica has an exceptionally clear viewfinder, oversized with bright line frames for various lenses, and corrected for parallax and field of view as you focus. The down side is that it is only useful over a limited range of focal lengths - typically 35-50-90. Leica stretches that traditional range a bit since the early "M" days, but you'll need an auxillary finder for anything shorter than 20mm or longer than 135mm or so.

 

An SLR has no parallax, and pro cameras like the F3 have 100% framing accuracy. It can be used equally well with a lens of any focal length, wide or long. To most photographers, these features trump those unique to the rangefinder. I can't imagine a better camera for candid street photography than a Leica, however, even if those bent on using an F5, DSLR or even an Hasselblad for that purpose are unconvinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everybody !

Thanks for your response.

 

I got a small DC Nikon Coolpix 3700 2 years ago from my parents

it don't have manual control,so if I get a successful result in college entrance exam in 2008,they promise me a camera I want ! :)

 

It seems not only Leica takes excellent photos.

I'll reconsider my plan.

 

I'll tell you later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...