...but its still just a light proof box basically right??

[orvillerobertson]

My suggestion is to go to a good camera store that will give you the time to really check out a Leica, maybe even rent one for a

few days.

[andrew_clark1]

I stopped reading this after:

 

"Nor have i used one"

[jamescpurcell]

AM, RH, JG and OR, thanks for the feed back, and orville your right, best way is for me to rent one no doubt and give it a whirl to make my own mind up but like i said i was just interested to hear what owners thought themselves as well. Charles-gee thanks bunch of help that comment was, and Andrew if my post continued that i'd found a box of these old things cloggin up my attic-would anyone take them off my hands i reckon you'd have gotten around to readin it somehow-if your not bothered with the question kindly don't bother with an answer at all-it doesn't contribute and as theres no pressure on anyone to answer these forums i can't for the life of me understand why people feel compelled to be deliberatly unhelpful. Again thanks to all who have given their thoughts, it was nice hear

[cpj]

This is a discussion for the sake of discussion.

 

Leicas are akin to sexual partner preferences.

 

Some guys think women who are overly endowed up top are just the greatest.

 

Others feel one with small gentle curves that just fit your hand is much preferred by far.

 

And other guys prefer guys, not women at all.

 

So when it comes to Leica M-series rangefinders, my preference is for the small size that perfectly fits your hand.

 

That really sums it up; its a matter of personal preference that's impossible to explain until you've held one one--or two.

[bill_hoffman1]

James, If Leica is just a lightproof box, then we might call the Hope Diamond just a hunk of carbon! To know it is to love it. Best wishes, Bill

[steve_mareno]

Because they make excellent, dependable, high quality cameras and their lenses are the best optics you can buy?

[Jerry_]

...Having once owned a Canon EOS RT body, it was almost as "no noise" as a Leica. The Canon concept (a good idea) of a silvered mirror that stayed put as the film was exposed.

 

 

...Having (and still own) a couple of film Nikon SLR bodies, the ease of use of a micro-Nikkor lens for macro and close up photography makes life much easier compared to finding something in the finder of a M6 body, then doing a shift to see if you can capture the image on film. Flowers may co-operate but insects tend to move away. Yes, Leica has a 90mm makro lens, but easier to use on a M body?

 

 

...And now the Leica M8 has the same battery needs as a digital SLR body. No battery, no photography. That is progress and you will have to decide if that makes a Leica better or not?

[lake_0571]

"but its still just a light proof box......"

 

Yet diamond is only but a stone;)

[b30307]

Hi,

If we're comparing a Leica to other rangefinder 35's then it's a matter of quality and precision.

I've owned some really crappy Rangefinders like the Canonet 28, Zorki 6, FED 3, Voigtlanders' , and similar cool junk, - and made photos I really like with all of them. The Leica is just such a fine machine though. All the buttons, switches, and dials have only one function each. Everything on a Leica is finely machined and silky smooth. The range/viewfinder is clean and precise. Lesser cameras seem rough and crude, because they are.

Once you learn the controls, it's all muscle memory. You don't think about the camera - you just photograph.

Yep, you can take great photos with any number of cameras: cheap or expensive.

The Leica is just better. As someone once said, it's a perfect example of good industrial design.

[02Pete]

All cameras of any description whatever are basically just a lightproof box with a controllable opening on one side, a chemical or electronic sensor on the other side of the inside, and (maybe) a glass or plastic lens to focus the image. All the other aspects of camera design are just details and elaborations. This is neither more nor less true of Leicas than of any other cameras.

 

Leica M cameras have a basic but flexible interchangeable lens rangefinder design. They evolved from an earlier generation of designs (screwmount Leicas). Leica's engineers had several decades to evaluate comments and suggestions from photographers about desired features before they did the basic M-camera designs in the 1950s. Leica M cameras have exceptionally good ergonomics, with controls located so that they are comfortable, intuitive and easy to use. They are also exceptionally well manufactured out of high quality materials to close tolerances, and are very durable. They are relatively compact, have a quiet shutter, and have a long-baseline rangefinder that can focus lenses accurately in very dim light, including even wide-angle lenses and lenses with large maximum apertures, so they are good for candid shooting in available light. Leica also makes a range of lenses of exceptionally high optical quality. Having said that, Leicas are also (a) primarily mechanical rather than electronic cameras; (b) rangefinder rather than SLR cameras, great with lenses in the range from 24mm to 90mm but not as good as SLRs for long telephoto lenses and macro lenses; © manual control rather than automatic cameras; and (d) generally quite expensive, even for old used ones in average condition. They are not for everyone, but for those people who like what they do, they are habit forming. Your mileage may vary...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I can place my 1200 buck LTM New summicron 50mm F2 on my Zorki 3C and it works well. The shutter is alot louder than the Leica M3; its even got a nice diopter adjust.; the body cost me 1/15 the M3's price. <BR><BR>The Zorki 3C was bought used about 12 years ago and has worked well for several hundred rolls; often I would use the faster 50mm F1.2 canon on it as poor mans Noct settup with Fuji 800 Superia. <BR><BR>I have many Russian bodies; 4 Zorkis; 2 Feds; 1 Lennigrad.<BR><BR><b> The Russian LTM stuff *has no roller cam* thus it uses a *subset* of LTM lenses.</b> It uses a pie cam instead of a roller cam; a stub type lens will not mount; unless one puts one's finger thru the open shutter on Bulb; and lifts the pie cam out of the way, while screwing on the stub type lens. A stub type lens is say a maybe longer lens like a 10.5mcm F2.5 Nikkor.<BR><BR>The difference between a Leica M3 and Zorki 3C is alot like the difference in a Millwauke saw and a Harbour Freight one; both may work. A newcomer might not know whats really better until they use the tools somewhat; it might not even matter to your dog building his house. With the Zorki a good hunting dog always seems to be fasinated with the Zorki's case; because many are cured with urine. Plus there is less loss if the Zorki is used as a chew toy compared to the M3. The Zorki here has the medium movie camera 3/8" tripod socket instead of the 1/4-20; some Zorki's for export have 1/4-20 sockets. In Russian lenses the Jupiter-8 5cm F2 is great lens. Most of my Zorki/Fed stuff was bought before 9/11 when shipping was nil; camera, case, lens and shipping total was about 12 to 17 bucks.

[berg_na]

James - Although you were extra careful in expressing your genuine curiosity about the fascination some have for the

Leica name, it seems that the mere question still railsed the blood pressure in some folks here...<br>    I

agree

that it is an interesting phenomenon. I did own a Leica once , a M3 single stroke with a 50mm f/2 summicron. After

the initial excitement, I gradually grew tired of its 'special traits and character', from the way you load the film, to the

focusing and framing of the image. In the end, I sold it and never missed it. I prefer the convenience, focus and

framing accuracy of slr cameras.<br>   It's all a personal preference, you may like it or maybe you won't, but

it's worth a try...

[brucecahn]

Josh: Good answer. I prefer sculpture to photography, only it doesn't fit in my flat files and my wife hates the stone chips (though marble dust will get rid of dandruff). James: Get one and you will find out what is good about them. All I can say is that I resisted Leicas for the first 25 years that I was a photographer. After I finally got one in 1989, the improvement was so considerable that I saw B&W film as a different medium than it had been before.

[doug_hagerman]

It's just a light proof box, but it has the following advantages--in my opinion--over the other light proof boxes.

 

1.) Works without batteries. I lost a whole vacation's worth of pictures in Africa because of battery problems, and am

prejudiced.

 

2.) I can focus it. Which I can't do with SLRs.

 

3.) Film provides automatic long-term archiving in the form of shoeboxes full of negatives. I recently inherited my

grandfather's slides from the 1940s, which had not been touched in decades. Tell me how you plan to read your

fancy digital camera's backup CDs in 2030...

 

It's obvious why a reporter would prefer a digital camera, because the images can be sent over a wire to the

customer only minutes after they're taken. But I'm not a reporter, I'm just fooling around taking pictures of birthday

parties and vacations.

[diego_di_michele]

I don't own a leica, but sure i would if i had the extra money.

I could buy one for the following reasons though, and i am talking analog, i haven't seen a digital one:

(by priority)

 

1. very lightweight and compactness

2. exceptional resolution (the best you could get for a 35mm)

3. workhorse

 

I own a hasselblad 500C/M, and i think of it as some sort of analogy of leica into MF.

 

best regards,

diego.

[fredonian]

They're beautiful.

[lookupinwonder]

Ahh, a Hasselblad 500 C/M. Very high on my list of 'my next camera'.

 

Leica M2, Hasselblad 500 C/M, Nikon FM2.

 

Mechanical perfection that just suits me.

[mohir_ali]

Sure it's just a light-tight box, but one made of about a 1000 seperate precision parts, whose material per application has been refined over more than 50-years, largely hand inspected, fitted, adjusted, checked and adjusted again until correct (in Portugal, Canada, and Germany). Its rangefinder can translate 0.8M to infinity in only a couple on mm in camera with great precision. Its body must be rigid enough to maintain, measured in microns, film plane to lensmount parallelity (new word) over its working lifetime (decades). It's designed to be maintained/adjusted, usually not more than once a decade of hard use (sometimes abuse). It is a platform for some of the best and most respected optics ever made for any format. One can carry quite a big kit with out being weighed down. Resale value is second to none (limited editions excluded); the "value" of some selected items have actually increased in value the past few years.

[paul_goutiere]

As an object, in and of itself the Leica is a beautiful thing no question.

 

As a religion it holds it's own with Stradivarius, Hasselblad, Porshe, and certain historic individuals from the

middle east.

 

As a tool, my M2 at least, excels in the way my Stanley (wood) plane from the 50s excels. It's always there,

always works, doesn't require batteries and responds to my hands.

 

However in the most creative hands any camera will perform. Leica or not. If it is the image and not the tool

that is important, darned near anything will do the job.

[bruno_menilli1]

James

 

Why do you ask this question ?

 

You say you don't have one, but probably, might, get around to buying one, yet you insist on people answering the way you want answers to be given - why ? we all answer in our own way - not the way you feel is necessary to get at 'the truth' .

 

So - why do people buy Monte Blanc ball point pens when they can get exactly the same result with a Bic or Biro ?

 

Why do people buy Rolexes when they can buy Timex or Swatch and probably get better timing?

 

The list goes on, so I suggest you go and find answers to those types of questions and then you can come to your own conclusion - after all what does it matter what we think - it is you that matters in your decision making ? or do you just want to be one of the guys and do and have what the others have ? that's a serious question by the way, and not a p.ss take !

 

I think that things that are used in conjunction with our 'senses' appeal on many levels, and Leicas seem to hit the mark on most - touch and contact through our hands, sight through the viewfinder, sound through the shutter and even smell - only taste seems to be missing [ although maybe there are some who do lick their Leicas ? ] and these reasons could affect the appeal of one item over another - I don't know but I feel the answer is somewhere there.

 

Buy one, use it and then decide if you too feel the same as those you question.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[steve_swinehart]

"Ahh, a Hasselblad 500 C/M. Very high on my list of 'my next camera'.

 

Leica M2, Hasselblad 500 C/M, Nikon FM2.

 

Mechanical perfection that just suits me."

 

If you get the Hasselblad - make sure you buy a lens / body rewind tool and keep it with the camera....especially if you're using extension tubes. Perfection - right up until you can't get the lens and body to mate because one or the other has tripped and needs to be recocked.

 

Why a Leica? I can carry a body + 4 lenses in a case that is smaller than my Hasselblad 500CM + PME finder and 50mm Distagon. The entire Leica kit in the bag weighs less than 6lbs.

 

"...so is it more a case of being willing to spend big just to get something to hold leica lenses?"

 

Yes - the other alternatives don't provide the same range of frame lines (Zeiss Ikon has 28/85; 35; and 50mm). For comparison - the frame lines on the Leica MP and M7 are 28/90; 35/135; 50/75.

 

The Leica system is not for everyone - for many it's too expensive. Others don't need or want to use a range finder system. But, if you want a small package, light weight, with exceptional lenses - there are few alternatives.

 

The Zeiss Ikon system is the only other alternative. Having never used the ZM system with the Zeiss lenses it's hard to make a comparison - but, if you're interested in a range finder for shooting film that should certainly be on your short list for evaluation.

[brucecahn]

A few people have compared the Leica to the Hasselblad in this thread. I used both extensively in my portrait studio. Believe me, Hass is no Leica. Much as I like them, and I have owned quite a few, they have problems (talking about the 500 series). They cannot be hand held as steadily as a Leica. They tend to jam at the worst times. The lenses are not as good. There is no meter, and the meter prism is not very good. The more recent ones are not as well made as they used to be. But they are so nice compared to any other 120 that I still keep one.

[steve_swinehart]

"They tend to jam at the worst times."

 

.....yeah....

 

Hasselblad 500 series rule #1 - make sure you buy a lens / body rewind tool and have it with the camera at all times.

[doug herr]

Bruno Menilli wrote: "<I>I think that things that are used in conjunction with our 'senses' appeal on many levels, and Leicas seem to hit the mark on most - touch and contact through our hands, sight through the viewfinder, sound through the shutter and even smell ...</I>"

<P>

Aside from the photographic results, responsiveness and the sensory feedback that Bruno mentioned is important to me. An instrument that tells me with a readout that I've made an exposure or that the camera is working as it should, is different (for me) than sensing that all is as it should be. The Leica (Leicaflex SL in my case) gives me this sensory feedback.

[stephen_pitts]

My favorite type of camera is an ultimate-build, high quality "light box" which preferably helps me in measuring the

quantum of light with lenses that are undeniably the absolute "best" at forming images and with "film" that should be

the "best" at recording the image. "Best" here, of course, in relation to the images you are trying to achieve. I also

like simple, mechanical controls right at my fingertips. Durability and permanence are key, but I also prefer the

camera to be the smallest and lightest possible for the image quality that it achieves.

 

A least a few cameras have been made which ideally fit this description, which among them my favorites are: the

Hasselblad 205FCC (and its cousin, the 203FCC), the 903SWC, the Alpa 12 SWA, the Arcbody, the Linhof 671IIIs

and need I mention: the Leica R8/9 and M series rangefinder. Of these, the only one I don't own anymore is the R

camera (but I kept some of the lenses) since I either use M rangefinder or the Hasselblad 200-series SLRs instead.

The Leica M rangefinder is the most convenient, quick-to-shoot camera of this lot and is the least expensive. It also

has a long and exciting history.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve