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

[User_4136860]

A Leica is indeed just a light tight box and a Rolls Royce is just a car, and sadly I will never own either .

[fredonian]

James-Your posting here can only attest to the obvious, and that is...an unfulfilled yearning. Nothing can be said here that will likely provide an excuse or comfort for you to avoid getting yourself a Leica. I can assure you however, that you can buy a thousand cameras of other makes (that may or may not perform excellent), deep within you will remain...wanting. Aside from newer models, many (film based) Leicas can no longer be accused as being unaffordable. Avoid wasting your money on things you don't need for a few months, study the various models, stalk eBay, and make the plunge to buy yourself a Leica or Leicaflex camera. You will no longer have to live in wonder and you will also come to realize that there never was an ounce of pretentiousness in the Leica camera itself.

[stephen_pitts]

Hey, who said that Leica was pretentious? Actually, James, the real freedom comes when you don't really care about being pretentious or not. I like the camera just to use it (never any fancy edition or special exotic materials -- you have to be able to contemplate losing the camera to be able to use it properly). If people want to think I'm pretentious, they'll have more reasons than a Leica camera. SO don't let that stop you. Just practice hard when you get it -- its a lot of fun, but no loafers please!

[andy_piper2]

Not sure a Holga (link in first response) qualifies as a "light-proof box"....(wink!)

[nzdavid]

The Leica's reputation precedes it. Which can sometimes detract not enhance. Surely it's just the label that makes it special? the

thinking goes for those who haven't actually tried one. Same applies to cars -- as everybody has already mentioned -- and watches. But,

it's not just the label -- Leicas, Ferraris and Rolexes are actually damned good at what they do -- in hard, physical, scientifically

quantifiable terms. If a Leica rangefinder didn't prove ultra reliable due to exacting construction techniques, if Ferrari produced a

lackluster race car that was all looks but zero performance, if a Rolex produced a hopelessly inaccurate trashy watch, then these

products would all, quite justifiably, be rubbished. As soon as they become a mere designer brand or label, they are finished except as

mere fashion accessories. The label has to actually stand for superior performance and quality. The mystique derives from that. It's an

added bonus, but a nice one. -:)

 

And Leicas are certainly very efficient lightproof boxes, but they also house shutters, film transport mechanisms, or in the case of digital

models, digital sensors and LCDs, and for M models, a precision rangefinder. It's how these components are put together that makes

the difference.

[jamie bushley]

A Leica is a very nice light proof box!!! I don't own one but I used them a lot in school (we could borrow them for a day at a time.) I'd like to own one someday, but I'm waiting till I find one (hopefully with some nice lenses) at an estate sale for $100 instead of 20x that on ebay. RFs are cool and fun, and Leica is the cream of the crop for build quality. But some cheaper modern RFs can give the same results if used with the same (Leica) lenses. If you are looking for a "F8 and be there" kind of camera you will do fine with a Bessa, because DOF won't be too big of an issue. If you are looking to do portraits with a wide DOF the Leica's more accurate, larger and brighter RF will make it easier. All through school I used a Canonet QL 17 (widely known as the poor mans Leica) and loved it. It's smaller than a Leica and more portable with a nice sharp lens. I never had trouble focusing it despite it's smaller finder and shorter RF baselength. I used the Canonet more then the Leicas because I was always scared I'd owe the school $6k if someone stole it or I broke it! You can get one on eBay for less than it will cost to rent a Leica for a few days! If you like shooting with a RF go to a camera store and check out a Leica, you'll want it as soon as you touch it! I mostly shoot digital now, so thats where most of my photographic budget goes, but I think it's about time to load up my old Canonet and take it for a spin!

[peteradownunder]

Judging by your photographic interests after looking at your gallery - I would suggest that a Leica will do nothing for you and in fact will most definitely deliver worse results than you currently enjoy.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Many years ago my then boss looked through my (Zeiss) binoculars, and declared grumpily that he could see no difference between them and his own pair costing one-tenth of the price. It's a shame in a way that this pleasure was denied him, but his eyesight wasn't really my problem. I COULD see the difference very clearly, and I valued it to the extent that I paid ten times as much. My bins have brought me irreplaceable visual pleasure.

 

If you do not currently understand why you would want a Leica, then you are not yet ready. Go away and do more photography. Maybe one day you will feel a need and be able to describe it. Then you will be ready and you will come back. Maybe not. Either is fine.

[bobtodrick]

Okay, so I'm assuming you know how rangefinders work. And that the rangefinder base of the M series cameras is much more accurate than the rangefinder base of a conventional film SLR or the A/F sensor in modern SLR's.

 

Try this experiment. Set up a Leica M with 50mm and any full frame digital (to keep things consistent), also with a 50mm on a tripod and aim them at something 25 or so feet away.

 

Set both lens to minimum focus and then focus on your predetermined object. Note exactly where the focus rings fall. Reset to minimum and refocus. Do this 4 or 5 times.

 

The focus ring on the rangefinder lens will focus at exactly the same spot each and every time. The SLR ring, whether manually focused or with A/F engaged will not. It will be close, but it will deviate slightly each time it is refocused.

 

In low light, wide open, this definitely is why M series cameras are still prefered.

[lookupinwonder]

"The focus ring on the rangefinder lens will focus at exactly the same spot each and every time. The SLR ring, whether manually focused or with A/F engaged will not. It will be close, but it will deviate slightly each time it is refocused"

 

True. When I first tried my hand at digital HDR photography, quite a few shots were ruined because my camera refocused every shot. So I had to focus, put the thing to manual focus and shoot the HDR sequence.

[Alex_Es]

Right.

[gadge]

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/rangefinder.html

[gadge]

James

 

Read you answers above and took a look at your portfolio here. There are quite a few shots there you would find hard on a RF (macro, sports and wildlife).

 

Personally, I think you should stick with your DSLR but if you want to try a RF, maybe a cheap Canon or Olympus RF would help you scratch the itch without too much cost and give you a nice fast lens.

 

Gadge

[lookupinwonder]

Respected though Dante Stella is, I have to disagree with him on one point: Camera shake.

 

I am an available light photographer to the core and I really consistently can get better results at long handheld shutter speeds with my rangefinder (Leica M2), than I can get with my Nikon FM, all other things being the same.

 

Sure, there are IS/VR systems, which help a LOT, but in my case (Nikon) I would still be stuck with slowish lenses. There are no fast VR primes. In body stabilisation is better, but of course won't work with film based cameras.

 

Have a look at these:

 

http://ronald.krezipmedia.org/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=103&page=1&sort=na

 

Digital (with VR) would have worked here (sort of), but the contrast range is a bit too much for digital capture. The light was dim, so I needed speed one way or another (hi-ISO or fast lenses). A tripod would have worked, but isn't exactly inconspicuous. Most shots are 1/30th at f2 on Fuji Superia 400. I could not have done this with a film based SLR. Even with something like a Nikon F100 and a VR lens, my shutter speeds would be too long to freeze the people in the shots.

 

This situation is an exception of course. You could also say that my trampoline fashion shoot could not have been done with the M2, because of its antiquated 1/50th flash sync. And you would be right. But I could have done it with my Canonet... 1/500th flash sync, not even my D200 can match that ;-)

[drew bedo]

Isn't it a little like the difference between motor boting and sailing?

[james_evidon]

Having run across this apalling thread, I feel compelled to respond.

Leicas are mainly about the glass and certainly the precision feel of the camera. Leica glass is incredibly sharp as

is the glass from the fixed focus Nikon and Canon lenses. So, what is so great about the Leica glass? It has more

contrast than the higher quality Japanese glass; even a little more than the excellent Zeiss glass. It yeilds a range of

tonality that is unavailabile with any other lens. It has a character all it's own. I own upper end Nikons, both digital

and film. I own a Leica M8 digital. On the M8 I use both Leica and Voightlander glass (Japanese lenses with a

German character to the image). There is a difference and Leica is the best. Expensive? You bet. But, skilled

German labor cost a lot more than Southeast Asian labor, where most cameras are manufacturered these days.

 

One final word on the Leica M8 digital. It's color output in RAW requires little or no post processing unless you are

after special effects. The resolution of the sensor cannot be beat, even by my Nikon D300, which is excellent.

 

The camera itself is a masterpiece of precision and a pleasure to use. Nothing cheap feeling about it. If that is

unimportant to you all, so be it. Throwing rocks at a product you don't own or don't care to own is a silly waste of

time and only displays embarassing ignorance. Not all light proof boxes are created equal. I say that, not out of

snobbery. I say that out of experience.

 

There is nothing more to say in response to these comments without becoming crude.

 

If this is an example of the level of exchange in this forum, count me out.

[james_evidon]

Typographical error. I meant to say in the 1st pp. ...It has more contrat than high quality Japanese glass.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Leica has no real handle on higher contrast versus other lens makers. A lens like the 50mm F2 or a 50mm F3.5 has been studied by lens designers for over 7 decades now; theses are old designs well optomised. The current 50mm Summicron is a 1979 design; one actuall cost reduced with less surfaces to grind. Leica does have a great build quality. Many variants of the 5cm or 50mm F2 Nikkor are on par with Summicrons; adn have great contast too. It might be true that the average 50mm F2 Summicron has a higher contast that a 50mm F2 Nikkor; since many Leica users are just collectors; and thus their old lenses are more "hanger queens" and not used for press work; sports or the dirty grubby real world.

[james_evidon]

I suggest that you go to either RFF or L-Forum and read the thousands of threads by Leica users and not collectors: many of them still shooting regularly with cameras that 50 years old or older, as well as users like myself that shoot regularly with the more modern models. I also suggest that you check with reputable lens testing sites such as Reid Reviews before you generalize about lens performance. The older lenses are used by some to get a certain "vintage" effect, Most are using modern lenses. There are also collectors and let them enjoy a camera on the shelf. Most prefer to shoot with theirs.

 

BTW, while Summicron is an older formula, it has been significantly upgraded since 1979 as have all their lenses currently in production. You have to be careful making broad statements referring to Leica lenses by name. They keep recycling lens names, but the lenses keep changing.

 

And the recent Leica lenses do have significantly more contrast that the recent Nikon and Canon lenses and all of the above naturally have better contrast than any older lens, whether Leica or otherwise. Coatings improve as do glass formulations and that is progress.

 

As to contrast, that is a matter of taste, and not quality. Some photographers prefer a lens with less contrast believing that it improves shadow detail, although I have not noticed blocking of detail in that regard. Higher contrast just gives the picture more "snap", but is not necessarily better.

 

Basically a light proof box? Hardly.

[gubo]

Perhaps this will help:

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane?currentPage=all

[ty_mickan]

"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."

 

Who tries to hand hold a Hasselblad, honestly? Bruce you are comparing two different beasts here and to put a Lecia above a Hasselblad just because you cannot use it as it is not intentded is just silly. I tell you, I have never had any of my Hasselblads jam on me, ever. This is USUALLY operator error. Yes I have a tool to be safe, just not an issue. The lenses aren't as good, because they don't have to be. You do know about the circle of confusion and lens resolution don't you? Please explain to me how you can achieve better image quality with a top of the line 35mm camera compared to a top of the line medium format camera.

 

OK, so you spent a heap of $$ on your Leica gear, just enjoy it for what it is.

[firass_al_jundi1]

I'm quite appalled at the responses I read here.

 

Why do photographers get aggressive and crude when someone asks a question like this?

 

I really see no reason why most of you were berating his question. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

 

Someone is trying to figure out why everyone likes Leicas, why they have an appeal to the crowd even with the price that they hold.

 

James, as to answering your question: According to photography folklore, Oskar Barnack invented the 35mm film camera. One day he

was out walking, and he wondered if there was an easy camera to use that would take photos without having to carry huge equipment.

Even TLRs and SpeedGraphics are bulky to use, not to mention a SpeedGraphics only has two shots before you have to change the

film.

 

He found the answer in cine film. He figured out that if it can be used in movie cameras, then it can be adapted to still photography, so

he took the 135mm film from movie cameras and adapted it into a small hand-held light-proof box that we call the 35mm camera.

 

Oskar Barnack was working for Leitz, and he called his camera, Leitz Camera, or Leica...

 

A Leica is nothing short that mechanical perfection. Every working part sways to a synchronized waltz that top dancers can't achieve.

There is nothing in the real world that has more precision than a Leica. NOTHING. Not to mention Leica glass, which in on itself, makes

real life so much richer through its ability to capture tones that no other lens can. Leica glass absorbs as little light as possible, which

means you have a higher dynamic range per image than with any other lens. You should try this out, I know I did once. Get a Leica and

another full frame camera, be it an SLR or rangefinder. Doesn't matter which brand. Hell, get a top-end brand like a Zeiss or Rollie, or

even a Nikon or Canon. Get some generic length, say, 50mm, with a max aperture of 1.8 or 1.4, whatever is available. Take a picture of

the same scene when its fully open, one when its mid-way, say f/11, and one when its fully closed, which is usually f/16 on a Nikon.

Then compare the prints. You can read online about the 50mms, both Canon and Nikon make top-class high-end versions of them, and

they give incredible results. Then look at the Leica results. It's an entire new ball-game. Leica lenses capture every single miniscule

photon of light, and capture it in such a way that it will really blow you away. Precision ground glass is not cheap to make, and Leica

doesn't waste an expense. And the results are clear.

 

Try a Bokeh test as well, and you'll be blown away as well. Leica lenses, the M series, have their aperture blades set in a way, that

closing them down is such a beautiful sight to see. Try to find a 35 or a 50 mm, and just look at the aperture blades and how they close,

then compare them to any other lens you can find. You'll notice a difference, and that is also a characteristic of Leica.

 

All that being said is nice, but my personal reasons for loving Leica so much, is simple.

 

Reliability. And my reliability, I mean the ability to take pictures under any condition, be it rain, snow, heat, desert, low-light, harsh-light,

humid and wet. I'm primarily a street photographer, and I'm into journalism as well. While I have a mechanical SLR with a 50mm 1.7 that

only needs batteries for the light meter, I know for a fact that there is a huge possibility it could let me down. Be it a shutter jamming, or

the film advance mechanism firing the shutter instead of cocking it (a problem I am having right now in fact), or any one of 100 other

issues that arrive on the spot. I know for a fact that a Leica will remain faithful, will remain true. I know for a fact that a Leica will actually

want me to take MORE pictures. What's the point of a tool that doesn't make you feel like using it? A Leica can withstand abuse, so

traveling won't be an issue. I don't have to walk around with my arm around it covering it from every person who bumps into me in a

busy Calcutta street. It can handle the abuse. Leica is an example of mechanical perfection, a return to mechanics, to how things

SHOULD be instead of the digital contrived mess that we have today.

 

More importantly, to me a Leica is the ultimate test. Its a fully mechanical camera, that gives you the most beautiful results any lens

can offer. If your photography doesn't improve from using a Leica, and I'm not talking image quality wise, I'm talking about capture wise,

whether you take more precise PJ shots or you manage to get that "decisive moment", whether it improves the way you see the world

around you, things that are important to a street photographer, then the problem is with you not being a good photographer. Its sort of a

way to not give yourself excuses anymore. Its no longer a problem with the camera, but with you. And this is true. Yes, a photographer

can make pictures out of any camera, but each camera has its limits, and for what I do, the Leica has no limits. Its scary, yet at the

same time exciting to me, because it'll tell me if all those hours I spent behind a viewfinder trying to improve my craft are achieving

something or not.

 

A Leica is not just a camera, its an extension of your body. Once you can achieve that, then you are using cameras the proper way.

[james_evidon]

Firass Al Jundi,

 

You have summed up all that is important to a Leica user. Your clarity and eloquence is appreciated. As we often say in the States, "if you haven't tried it, don't knock it". It's not as elegant as your response, but it states the case.

[35mmdelux]

A Russian Yugo is a automotive chasis with an engine and some wheels. A Ferrari is an Italian version of the same automotive concept. I'll take the Ferrari 360.