Leica Itch

[ralph_jensen]

<p>I agree with Daniel Bayer's post a couple above this one.</p>

<p>If one is interested in a Leica M, one should try--and maybe buy--a Leica M.</p>

<p>Yes, there are numerous rangefinders with larger negative sizes out there.<br /> Yes, there are numerous rangefinders that cost less out there.<br /> And yes, there are numerous rangefinders that are easier to load out there.</p>

<p>But nothing is exactly like a Leica M. Whether it's worth paying the price for that difference is a very fair question, and far, far more people than not--probably more than 99.9% of all photographers--have decided it isn't worth it.</p>

<p>But enough people--even if it's less than 0.1% of all photographers--feel that the difference <em>is </em> worth it that "the itch" isn't likely to go away on its own.</p>

<p>Thus the alternatives being suggested here aren't really likely to address the itch.</p>

[william_livingston]

<p>go ahead and get the leica and you will find that now you are taking suberb photos that actually glow.</p>

[colin_elliott]

<p>...or, for twenty bucks, one can get an adapter that allows use of the marvelous Leica R lenses on a Canon like the 21-megapixel 5D Mark II--<br>

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Canon is experiencing problems with this camera.<br>

Just like they did the the Id MkIII</p>

<p>Eric, get hold of a Leica M (6,7 or P) run a roll of Velvia 50 through it and just be prepared to write the cheque as you view those incredible images all ehibiting that Leica "glow".<br>

The itch will be gone!!!</p>

[jbm]

<p>Who says you need to have the brand Leica on it to enjoy the rangefinder experience?<br /> I use a CL and have enjoyed the M6; it's nice and simple, but not so simple that I would ignore the very pretty Zeiss Ikon body or the offerings from Voigtlander?<br /> Do you think a Leicaphile would be able to look at a group of great photos, some taken with Leica lenses, others taken with Zeiss, CV, or older Nikon RF lenses? I doubt it and if they could I'd shake their hand.<br /> If the itch is to own a Leica, the little red circle and the sex appeal of the brand, I wouldn't discourage you from it. Among all addictions, there are worse. I am sure I will end up down that road and it's okay.<br /> But if the itch is really to indulge in the 35mm RF experience, there are a bunch of options ranging from a modest financial layout to selling a kidney and half of your liver. I do not think that the optics themselves justify their cost. There are too many other great optics out there that cost a lot less. I was looking at prints from a contax G2 that blew me out of the water two weeks ago. The G2 lenses can be found for a couple of hundred bucks each. The Zeiss lenses are supposed to be great and some of the Cosina Voigtlander offerings really good, e.g. their 50/2 Heliar.<br /> There's room for all of it.</p><div></div>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Most of us who have used Leicas for a number of years ( I started with my father's IIIf in 1960 ) have been quite satisfied with the camera. The Ms do have their quirks, like bottom loading, but they are also extremely well made cameras with excellent lenses. I have an M2 and M4 and have never used the newer models so I cannot comment on them. If you can live without the built-in meter an M2 should do just fine. Look for one that has not been abused and at some time be prepared to spend the money on a CLA, unless you find one that was recently overhauled. My 1959 M2 has never required anything more than a CLA . As Alastair mentioned, the 50mm 2.8 Elmar is an excellent lens ( either version ) and at f5.6 I doubt if you could tell the difference between photos shot with the Elmar and those shot with the Summicron ( I have both and use them interchangeably ). <br>

You will need something to go with your 35 ASPH and any M, other than the M3 with no 35mm frames, will do fine. Again, if you're looking for an older camera take the time to find one in very good to excellent condition. Good luck with whichever one you get. </p>

<p> </p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p><em>"Let's not lose sight of the fact that Canon is experiencing problems with the 5D Mark II."</em></p>

<p>Which problems are those? It's probably the most successful camera rollout in history, with photographers paying a huge premium over list price just to get their hands on one. True, a few photographers could in a few situations (i.e., either shooting in SmallRAW format or shooting pinpoints of light above ISO 1600) get one of two minor problems to happen--but Canon fixed both with a firmware update less than 5 weeks after the camera started shipping and the response by most 5DII owners was "I never could even get the problem to happen on my camera!" (Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Leica M8 problem was noticed by a lot more users and the fix both took longer and wasn't nearly as tidy....)</p>

<p>I love my M stuff (and, as I wrote above, I think trying an M in-depth is the only way to address "the itch"), but the R lenses on a Canon 5D II is an excellent combination for those who like both "Leica" and "digital SLRs."</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>So the OP has vast experience in LF and MF and wants rangefinder experience. If I thought he would be satisfied with 35mm comming from larger formats I would say fine, but I know that the Bronica is almost the size of the M cameras and the film size will give him better results. Even more so the Mamayia 7 which has larger film area. The Bronica though is easier to use as if it were an M camera, and in some ways its better. Film loading for instance is a standard back door.<br>

If I were advising the OP for an M system I would advise a Zeiss Ikon RF and some Zeiss lenses for the price and for the viewfinder and features its hard to beat. Many here are advising older cameras that need CLA and even then won't take better pictures than a Zeiss Ikon. I love my M4P but I bought it in the pre Zeiss Ikon days and were I looking to buy another M camera I would buy new and get a Zeiss Ikon, that would " SCRATCH MY ITCH". But either a Bronica 645 RF or an Mamiya 7 will take better photos and both are rangefinders like the OP wants. <br>

Comming from the OP background of large format film I want him to be satisfied to get into RF with a more compact yet optically similar results he is used too.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>And I would advise that the OP try a Leica since that is what he is interested in. Not a Bronica with slow F/4 lenses, but a Leica. Life is too short to piss around with trying to second guess gut instincts, get to the point or just forget about it all together. I have tried out the Ikon. Nice camera, but not a Leica. I have a Hasselblad XPan, great camera, but still not a Leica. What is with this obsession in trying to tell a guy who CLEARLY wants to try a Leica to try something else? He did not say R/F photography, he said Leica photography, yet some seem to have totally missed that. Truly odd...</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

<p>Yeah, Daniel, this is getting kind of repetitious, isn't it? As I wrote after one of your earlier posts, "If one is interested in a Leica M, one should try--and maybe buy--a Leica M." Not a Bronica, not a Mamiya, not a Hasselblad, not an Ikon...but a Leica M.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, and heretical though it may be, I don't shoot Leica M primarily for "optical results." The optical results are good enough, but I know I could get better Image Quality if I shot medium format or large format, or if I used a newer lens than the 1957 Summicron I prefer, or--in many respects--if I shot with even the cheapest digital SLR.</p>

<p>So the preference for Leica M is not about "optical results" for me, but more about the <em>act </em> of photographing and the way my relationship to the camera helps me to <em>see</em> . I know that factors that can't be charted on a graph aren't supposed to factor into camera-buying decisions anymore, but I make no apologies for my predilection.</p>

[fredonian]

<p>It really is commical, but perhaps someone can explain to me this mysterious motivation and drive that is generated by those who SPITE a camera? For examply...the LEICA haters. I've collected and toyed with cameras since I was eight years old. I've tried a many of brands and makes and enjoyed most of them. While there were a few perhaps I didn't favor in use personally, it never generated a NEED for me to stalk out forums and make attacks against those particular brands I didn't care for. I noticed the same degree of raids and attacks over the years in the Solms Leica forum as well. There is somehow a generated resentment and anger towards some perception of "elitism" in which some have associated against a camera and it's maker. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Why I used to think Leica was not worth it:<br /> For years, I was one of those guys who snubbed Leica, made every excuse in the book as to why I thought it was a stupid thing to spend all of that money on something as limited as a rangefinder. A lot of that had to do with the fact that I could never afford something like that for most of my life. Secretly, I knew there was a reason why HCB, Allard, Harvey and Webb used them, I could see the difference in the issues of National Geographic. The images popped, they had soulful texture and balance. These brilliant shooters were so in tune with these simplisitc rigs that it showed, brilliantly. <br /> Of course, the profound but sneaking suspicion I had for all those years was put to rest when I started using Leica on a regular basis with Kodachrome in 2006. I figured if there were ever a time I was going to see how well those lenses worked in color, how quiet and unobtrusive those little cameras were, I had better do it now. <br /> The only thing I wish now was that I did it sooner.<br /> But the Leica bashing...you know it will never end. Because even if a photographer does have the money to spend on Leica M equipment, he may never have the talent and tenacity to see just how good it is. That might be the real problem...</p>

<p> </p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>MP/35/50 ASPH Luxes work for me. Been shooting K14 since 1971 when I joined the Army out of high school. Shot it with other cameras (per Army buck-private salary) but with the Leica it is supreme. Sharp as all get-out, with great colors -- see Cuba (Harvey). But you already know this.</p>

[fredonian]

<p>Daniel, I thouroughly enjoyed viewing the images in the "Kodachrome Project". I'm really not as dumb as I'm fragmented when I say this, but for some reason I thought K-14 was long GONE and assumed the same for Kodachrome. Thank you for sharing. </p>

[nzdavid]

<p>Try one and see. Any M model. But you may be enamoured of the Leica glass, in which case try an R. Or, as someone suggested, wait for the S2. It may do everything you want.</p>

[john_chee]

<p>There is itch and there is passion. M users are definitely passionate about their "tool." For a simple "to be or not to be question," 90 responses and counting. </p>

<p>Unlike Eric, I started off with Leica M and went the other way around. I have learned a lot from its simple controls. While keeping my M's, I went on to Hasselblad and then LF's in searching for higher resolution and quality result. Then, there came D3 with some fine glasses. Many friends even told me my pictures from the mighty DSLR are better without knowing which camera I used to take them or much about photography. But, I find myself missing my M's while shooting with anything else.</p>

<p>It is not about digital versus film and I don't mind spending time with LR2 and CS4 but prefer darkroom. It is not the brand as I have been taping up the "red dot" since the first day I get my M7. It is not about just rangefinder neither ... I have that craving for Leica M feeling while using a Zeiss Ikon with 50mm f/1.5, recently. It's the sound of the shutter. It's the solid feel of great engineering. It's the simplicity and accuracy. It's the great balance of image quality and potability. Eric articulated nicely of some of the feeling but there are more to it. It's a sentimental feeling like an old and reliable friend to me. My other "friends" are there for special purposes, but my old friend is always there with me. It has been a full circle but I feel like home with a Leica M between my subject and me.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p>I caught the Leica bug after using Zeiss and Rollei. I then moved to a Hassy which I still have having sold the Rollei. I then bought an M6. The quality of a Hassy is not easy to match with an M6 but it's close. BUT the ease with which one can take pictures and unobtrusively means the Leica wins handsdown. I take better pictures with the Leica but don't ask me why. My theory is that with the Hassy I check too many things before I shoot. Others will have other reasons. Whether the M8 will be as satisfying I don't know but I have started using a Leiac Digilux 2 and the images are nearly as good a Hassy at A4 but they definitely have a different 'feel'.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>m3 is my favourite. Anyone recognise the lens?</p><div></div>

[steve_mareno]

<p>It's not just that the lenses are sharp. It's also the way they render objects. I shoot MF now and the cameras I have take excellent photos, but the Leica 35mm shots looks better to my eye up to 12x18. After that there is no substitute for a bigger neg, but I am sorely tempted to sell all of the MF gear and just print the Leica negs as big as I can and be done w/ it.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>I forgot to say that your shot of the Misty morning is just magical John. Beautiful image that has that special Leica signature all over it. I was also one of the people who thought the Leica mystique was just a bunch of bull started by a bunch of Leica snobs. But good old digital has made the cost of film cameras drop to where even I can afford them now. The first roll of film I shot was w/ the classic M3 and a 50 Summicron Dual Range. It was cheap Fuji 200 color that was processed at Walmart, and even so the images just leaped off the paper. I shoot the Leica R's now and don't see any real difference in the quality compared to the M lenses. Best optics money can buy.</p>

[rgerraty]

<p>A Zeiss Ikon would not do at all. It is not a solution to the OP's itch. It seems to be a great camera and I have a 25mm Biogon and that's a great lens, but the rugged simplicity of a Leica M is not quite there with the ZI. I really thought I might want one but was disappointed with the feel of it. I also did not like the viewfinder that many found superior. Most importantly, the Leica M itch would remain if Eric got a ZI and he would still have to get an M some time so now is the right time. A ZI is for someone brave enough to consider an RF 35mm but who has already assured himself that a Leica is too expensive/over-rated/manual/slow/old etc. Such a person would be very happy. Having had a Leica or wanting one, the other person would be disappointed.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>"m3 is my favourite. Anyone recognise the lens?"</p>

<p>Is this the old Hekor 2.5?</p>

[ray .]

<p>Maybe Barry and I can have a print shootout with his Mamiya vs my M8 w/ Leica lens. His might win, but I'm not sure- Leica makes great optics.</p>

[ray .]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know why anyone would buy into a 35mm film system at this point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? Especially if photography is for pleasure, you should do whatever you enjoy.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

</blockquote>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>vahe,<br />No, not the Hektor. But it is a Leitz lens.<br />Anyone?<br>

Sorry, I realise this a little off topic. I'm just demonstrating an aspect of OP's interest in the Leica system: nice engineering.<br>

I'll start a new "recognise the lens" thread when I've got a few more pictures.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Alastair, would your lens be the 85mm Summarex?</p>