Leica Itch

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>i'm wondering if a Canon eos III or IV with L lenses will give you the same quality as a Leica...there's a mystique to the Leica brand and a compactness that people seem to like but is there truly much difference...what is it about Leica that makes for such incredible appea1...how much of it is just brand name and how much is performance above that of Canon and Nikon?</p>

[fredonian]

<p>Some model Leica cameras are a bit more affordable nowdays. If you could afford to keep all formats in your collection it would be perhaps a bit of having the best of all worlds. While Leica has it's many high points and advantages, nothing quite matches the skin tone gradation of a large format portrait. It's almost like patina.</p>

 

[paddler_b]

<p>If you enjoy carrying a camel load of equipment keep doing what you already do, you don't need a Leica. If you want to be nearly an invisible photographer or prancing up the mountain then give Leica M a try, it is on par with hasselblad for most applications, it takes some relearning to get to that point. And the M8, can beat film-hasselblad any day unless you are using a 30+ mp back.<br>

So there, I said it...</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>I would get a Mamaya 67 and either the 43mm and 65mm or the 50mm and the 80mm. You can do pano by either cropping the frame top and bottom or get the 35mm pano adapter. Its will give you better negative than a Leica , you still have a rangefinder that is very compact for its film size and you get lenses ever bit as good as Leica. The system will probably cost the same as an MP and Leica glass. <br>

<br /> If you scan in your photos, you can crop the portraits to compensate for the longish minimum focus distance and of course you being an experienced medium and large format person don't need me to tell you that you can use faster emulsions than you normally would with 35mm and get less grainy look because the magnification factor needed for the same print size is in 6x7 favor.<br>

I never bought into the status of owning a Leica, as Al Kaplan always said its just a tool, so if you want one do like Al and get a beater have it CLA and have fun it will take just as good a picture as the MP.</p>

[jerryrock]

<p>Wait for the Leica S2 to be released.<br>

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>the Mamiya 6x7 is a wonderful camera but as Harvey states you cannot take good head and shoulders portraits without cropping and the longest it goes out is 210mm...i love mine, it's as sharp as a tack, but it has its limitations..</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Most certainly yes. If you want to buy new get the M7 if you have reservations: There are plenty of "minty" M6s about. As I was advised when I purchased a near mint M6 if you do not like the Leica experience you can resell the camera and loose almost nothing. I still have that M6.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Another factor is flash fill and the Mamiya has x sync at all shutter speeds to 1/500th sec. So for flash fill you have not the problem the slow Leica flash sync (only can overcome with special flash).<br>

Also the Mamiya has built in meter so its available to keep you aware of changing light conditions.<br>

Bye the way the 80mm lens close focuses enough to give you a higher reproduction magnification than the 150mm which is a great lens but harder to focus on the rangefinder. That why I didn't mention it but if you can play it from a distance with smaller apertures its a good addition to the kit as 50mm/ 80mm/ 150mm kit. Thats like having a 25mm / 40mm / 75mm on a 35mm format.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Oh, I forgot there is another choice for you that would be the Bronica 645 rangefinder. Here is a recent post from the rangefinderforum that compares the Mamiya 67 and the Bronica 645 FR<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60012</p>

[enw]

<p>Wow! Thanks for all the great insights! I'm a wet darkroom sort of guy, at least for B&W, which makes the Leica that much more attractive -- I'd be able to take full advantage of the negative. I think I'm going to take the plunge, probably via an M7 with a 35mm ASPH. As at least one of you said, if I don't fall in love with it, I can always resell it and lose very little. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts. - Eric</p>

[fredonian]

<p>Eric, One thing is for certain. If you actually have a "Leica" calling deep within, it will likely NEVER be satisfied until you try them. Buy every other camera on the market, and you will still be left...wanting and wondering. When people add up all they have spent on other systems piece by piece, they could have collectively spent the same ammount towards an older Leica set up. I've managed to obtain a full range of 1950s-60s Leitz lenses (35mm goggles Summaron 3.5,90mm f/4 Collapsible Elmar, and 135mm f/4 Elmar) for my M2 for under $400. I'm currently saving to make a plunge for a 35mm 2.8 (non-goggled) Summaron as suggested by Mr. Neuthaler. I wish I would have made that plunge several months ago when some went for under $500. The 2.8 Summaron has spiked up a bit in price recently. </p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>I'll have to agree with Paul on this one. I've had an M2 with 35mm Summaron for some 40 years. It's a great combination and I doubt if you will see a significant difference between the Summaron and the modern 35s in everyday work. The M2 is an extremely solid camera and mine is 50 years old and as good as new after a CLA by Gerry Smith at Kindermann Canada. The newer Leicas have a different "feel" to them - not bad, just different. We tend to prefer the cameras that we've grown up with and I would never let go of my M2 (or M4). Good luck with whatever one you pick. You won't regret it.</p>

[john_lovelace]

<p>I'm with Steve Ballayr, who posted earlier today. Get an M6, as clean as possible for possible resale that you'll probably never need. I've had three M3s over the years, never liked the body-top light meter, didn't hand-meter and finally got tired of burning film with guesswork. Got rid of all M3s and lived Leica-free for years. Last spring my itch returned, so I bought a local dealer's M6 with impeccably accurate spot meter, added a mint-in-box 50mm f2 Summicron on recommendation of two longtime M6 pro users, and couldn't be more pleased with either Ilford B&W or Fuji Velvia or Provia. It's in the shop now for an MP modification that is supposed to greatly enhance low-light focusing. I'll have about $2,500 in the final package, but I don't know of another package that's a better investment. Depression-proof, you might say, in both the monetary and psychological senses of the word.</p><div></div>

[enw]

<p>I'm starting to scratch the itch... just bought a 35mm f/2.0 ASPH a few moments ago on that auction site -- now I guess I have a good excuse to buy a body! I'm blaming all you guys for this, although I don't think my wife is buying it. - Eric</p>

[jeffrypittman]

<p>I've got the itch too and reading these threads tip me in the "gotta take the plunge" camp. Sold my Rollei 6008 AF system (kept the TRLs) to justify the Leica outlay. I try to talk myself out of starting a whole new system, but I really think I'm going to love the Leica. I've been shooting a Mamiya 7 for about a year now and I love it. However, it isn't as compact and elegant as the Leica and the Mamiya 7 doesn't allow for low light and close focusing like the Leica. In response to everyone who is "pro Mamiya 7/6" on this thread: I love the Mamiya system too. However, if you love the Mamiya you would probably have the ultimate package with a Mamiya 7/6 and a Leica MP/7/6, etc. Big negs when you want/need them, smaller, compact, unobtrusive rangefinder w/ outstanding glass ( and fast) when you don't. Win/win.<br>

Anyone else just, well, bored with digital SLRs? Great tools. Very economical. Wouldn't want to work without them. But, the process isn't what it is with a medium formal film camera or great rangefinder in your hands (or even an old manual focus film SLR)...just my opinion. I'm pushing 50 years old. Showing my years I suppose.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>I have had the same itch and after putting my toe in the water with a IIIa, I went and got myself a nice little black M4 and a 35mm 'Lux asph. I now intend to sell my Hasselblad kit and my Nikon D3 (I'll keep the D200 for times when I need an SLR) and intend to buy another M4 or M3 and a Nikon Coolscan 5000. I have already sold the F5.</p>

<p>With the Leica, I take more photos, more often. I take it with me everywhere, which is difficult with my other gear. Sure the 'blad is going to smash the Leica concerning image quality, but image quality is only one piece of the puzzle. Being there at the decisive moment with a camera at the ready is more important in my opinion.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>In 2004, I came up with the idea of what is now the Kodacrhome Project. I had always wondered about Leica but found the prices to be nearly criminal. But in 2006, I caved and bought a clean M6 and 35 Summicron. After a few rolls of chrome, I was sold. In the photo is my current setup...notice the lack of a M7, I prefer the mechanical rigs.<br>

Follow this link and you will see why I am hooked to Leica:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/</a></p><div></div>

[alan_macoustra]

<p>Eric, the Leica can inspire lust and passion or fear and loathing. I think every photographer should try one at least once, if it works for you great, if not sell it and move on, you will not loose much and be wiser for the experiance. I`ve had my M4-p for 25yrs and love it, I also would like to move into digital, but can not justify it on cost/usage grounds,and as for size/weight comparison, the Leica wins hands down. Compare an M body and 3 lenses with say a 5D or D700 and equivilant zoom lens. For contemporary photographers using Leica cameras look no further than Sebastiao Salgado and his excellent book Workers. Like I said they are not for everyone but if you click with it, be warned they are addictive, to paraphrase Neil Young, see the Leica and the damage done.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>Everyone mentions sebastiao Salgado as a Leica reference, but he used R bodies, which do not count, and then dropped leica and moved to other maker and format. Now, Jim Marshall, he is the real deal.</p>

[ray .]

<p><b><b>The Spelling Police have arrived:</b></b><br>

 <br>

<b>loose</b>- something free or not tight....  <b>"The horse is loose."</b><br>

 <br>

<b>lose</b>-  as in something lost.  <b>"I don't want to lose you."</b><br>

 <br>

<b><br /></b><br>

 <br>

<b><br /></b><br>

 <br>

 </p>

[rroberto]

<p>To Daniel Bayer:<br>

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH !!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

[dogbert]

<p>"but is there truly much difference"<br>

Nothing that I have ever seen in print or on the web suggests there is. Some of the best 35 mm work I have seen is by Brenda Tharp and John Shaw who use 35 mm Nikons and Canons, and most if not all professional landscapers aiming to print big use larger formats.<br>

There are plenty of reasons why one might want own a Lieca but IQ is one of them, or at least I have never seen it demonstrated.</p>

[philip_maus]

<p>Eric - Scratch the itch! (Actually, I see that you've made up your mind already). I did the exact same thing not too long ago. I asked a similar question in a similar vein on this post and then went on the search for the perfect Leica. Truth is, before I even asked my question, I had already made up my mind. I really only had to contend with my wife and believe it or not, she rolled over on this one! She must have sensed what the Leica really meant. It is truly a special thing, and even my critical, non-photographic wife could figure that out. I did a diligent search and then picked up my classic M6 with 50 'cron (from the PN classifieds) and have not looked back since. For now, I have shelved my Hassy and all my Nikon gear in favor of the Leica, at least for the foreseeable future. </p>

<p>The Leica M experience is truly a singular thing, the fact that it's "just a tool" notwithstanding. I really do bring it everywhere with me (because I can - no one notices it!) and I am really, truly satisfied. For now. I do lust for other lenses, but I can see myself being happy with this one body, one lens setup for some time to come. My 'Gear Aquisition Syndrome' has been quelled with this camera. For now.</p>

<p>There is something indescribable and intangible about being able to make pictures of people in wide open public and to have equipment that helps enable one to become truly invisible. Maybe it's my own frame of mind, but....people really do NOT NOTICE this quiet little black non-descript camera. (There are people - those very few - who are in the know, who do notice the camera, but that's okay too! I actually get a big rush out of that. A guy stopped his car to comment the other day!) I can often walk right up to someone - with everything preset of course - and make a close up picture of their face, before it really registers with them that they've just had their picture made. Really. Now that's candid photography! This is something I've practiced and practiced with other cameras and the Leica is really different. It is no myth. Maybe that's not important to you, but it's the holy grail for me. Naysay Leicas and RF photography all you want. It is different than an SLR.</p>

<p>I'll quit waxing ecstatic now, because it's true, this camera and this "style" of photography isn't for everyone. And it is "just another camera" according to some who've used Leicas and posted here. It is all manual and it is film. My M6 does have a meter, but you still have to set everything yourself. (I like doing that anyway and miss very few exposures if I am paying attention. I'm not shooting sports or rodeos after all - that stuff's AE/AF SLR fodder) I haven't even considered the M8, not only becuase it's out of my price range, but also because it's digital and I think that digital isn't what the Leica experience is really about. There is still plenty of film out there. I shoot only B&W and I process myself. It's the real thing, it's cheap and it's easier than post-processing digital. Try Freestyle. $25 or so every two weeks buys more film and developer than I can use. I have and maintain a wet darkroom (having a wet darkroom means, like, your bathroom occasionally and $150 complete on C'slist these days). I sometimes make scans with a cheapish Epson flatbed, but usually just to develop contact sheets to decide what I'll print in the darkroom. </p>

<p>Get yourself an M Leica. Forget everything you know about automated and digital photography and get back to the basics. You are now free to reinvent yourself artistically. You can love making pictures with your camera and also get it out of your way at the same time. I don't want anything more than that.</p>

<p>Best of luck to you!</p>

<p> </p>

[kristine_mccourt]

<p>I have had the itch for quite sometime now as well. But I have been going back and forth on whether I should spend the money on a new digital SLR or just drop the bucks on the Leica. It's easy to get discouraged by hearing that film will be gone forever one day and so that's why I sometimes lean towards digital. But it honestly doesn't feel quite the same. It actually sometimes feels like I am cheating. Can anyone recommend where I could start with a Leica? Something good, but also won't totally break the bank. Thanks a lot!</p>

[philip_maus]

<p>Kristine - Digital never will feel the same and I don't think film will be gone in our - or our kid's - lifetime. It does depend on what kind of photography you like to do, but I'll tell anyone who will listen...You can potentially spend a thousand bucks on an M3 with a lens and get a working start into a Leica system. That's less than any serious digital that I've ever heard of. After a very little bit of practice, judging exposure becomes second nature and an 8 out of 10 prospect. I have an M6 with a meter ($2K with 50 Summicron, but that's in great shape with the MP mod - still less than digital), and I only use the meter to confirm what I already know. After a couple weeks of practice, believe me, the meter becomes almost superfluous. </p>

<p>Processing B&W film is simple and takes less practice than estimating your exposures. Darkroom setups cost less than flatbed scanners and inkjets for printing your work if you want to go that way. I don't want to sound like a used car salesman to anyone, and I don't make my living with my pictures. If I did, I would probably be on the digital side of the argument. Since I am free to do what I want, when I want, I will choose B&W film every day of the week and if I could pick any camera, it would be a Leica RF - as per my above remarks.</p>

<p>Think long and hard as the decision is an important one. If you like to make the kind of pictures a Leica is best suited for, I don't think you would ever regret the Leica way of photography.</p>

<p> </p>