Leica SLR or Leica M

[samoksner]

<p>While I understand the desire for such nice equipment myself, ( i bought my Leica m6 at 18 in cash ) they are not very versatile tools as an SLR can be. I use my m6 as a personal tool, not on assignments or for very specific personal projects. Macro is complicated, long lenses are complicated, motor drives... yea right. Lens' are expensive, even used lens or lens from zeiss or CV are comparatively expensive. <br>

So an SLR would make more sense. A leica SLR, while they are fine tools, they are largely overpriced considering the feature set they offer, and the lenses, while very high quality, are also very expensive. I would suggest a Nikon FM or FM2 or FE or FE2 if you want a manual focus camera that will last forever. A nikon F100 if you want a modern, do it all, autofocus camera. Lenses in the Nikon system are all interchangeable, manual focus lenses on autofocus bodies, autofocus lenses on manual bodies (as long as you stay away from DX, digital only, and G, no aperture ring, lenses). Nikon has produced over 50 millions lenses, the used market is gigantic, probably one of the biggest in the camera world. Things are cheap and just plain old work.<br>

Once you get more advanced, develop a style, a technique, a preference of subjects, ect, then i would suggest a luxury tool such as a Leica M. </p>

<p>For very little money, you could get a Nikon FM, a 24mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.8 or 105mm f2.8. The whole for half what a Leica M body would cost. And it's a kit that would not be inferior in anyway. Photography is not about the gear but about the images. No one ever got a pulizter prize because a photo was shot with a Canon, an Olympus or a Leica. Consider the economics of it, and even the ability to use existing Nikon lens' on digital cameras if you so choose.</p>

[michael_walker11]

<p>hi elliot</p>

<p>i'm studying photography at the moment and i can only agree with everybody else. An SLR is a must, even if you can rent all the gear. I'd recommend a DSLR though.</p>

<p>since you are to bring a 35mm camera for film i'd go with the m6. why? its just more fun than an SLR and since most of your assignments are going to be done digitally (and some 4x5 like at my university) you don't need an additional SLR. (you can still buy an SLR body the same brand than your DSLR)<br>

i use a D700 for most of my work and the M6 with the 50mm f2 and 90mm f2.8 for fun, however the M6 was less expensive for me as i got it from a good friend of mine.I don't know how its at your university but we also have leica M gear, so i've been shooting a lot with the m8 recently and i'm currently saving money for the M9 though and i'm probably have to sell my d700. yes the M cameras are fascinating ;)</p>

<p>in short: it really depends on your budget, use the money for a dslr and good lenses first, the rest of the money can be spent in a film body of the same brand or a leica M if there is enough money left.</p>

 

[john_biskupski]

<p>A lot has been said here about good alternatives to Leica cameras, but the fact remains that if you want Leica lens IQ in 35mm format, then you need the Leica SLR or M body. You have to judge if this choice is Ok at your course - ask your teachers. <br>

Some lenses now rivalise Leica in 35mm, with the range of Zeiss lenses in M mount, and for Nikon mount etc. Older Nikon/Canon/Olympus etc lenses were never as good. I switched from Nikon and Canon SLR's to a Leica R5 many years ago, and could not believe the improvement in IQ with the Leica R lenses. Also, it wasn't just the lenses, the R5 handled beautifully and had far superior metering systems (average, matrix, spot). It's a new ballpark now, and all the manufacturers have improved their offerings - just be aware that Leica has also improved dramatically, along with matching price increases! A new Nikon F100 with latest lens may be closer in quality today to my old R5 and matching older lenses; and prices would be similar too.<br>

The Leica M is a dream, do you really need/want it for school? I could never use one with anything longer than a 90 lens, even that was slow and difficult. I defy anyone to visualise telephoto shots effectively with a RF viewfinder; but it is ideal for 50 and below, when your viewfinder image seems instantaneous and larger than life - and why the M became a legend.</p>

<p> </p>

[jay_66]

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p>As a retired photojournalist, my advice in this stage of your career is to save your money and go with a more versatile SLR, film manual (e.g. Canon F-1N) or digital. You can always get into Leica later on.</p>

<p>Photojournalism has changed dramatically in just the last 10 years and lightyears since I was shooting with my M2s in Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s, and even then a trusty Nikon F was at hand for long shots.</p>

<p>Today it's all digital. There is absolutely no way you can survive as a working photojournalist unless you are shooting digital.</p>

<p>A Leica M will be great for street photography and candids where you can afford to use film as there are no deadlines to meet. (I routinely use my Ms for that and for family pictures now that I'm retired.)</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=64127">Bill Dewberry</a> , Nov 06, 2009; 12:52 p.m.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Well, like a lot of people, I have owned all of them; contax , nikon, canon, and Leica R. To me, there is something different about a Leica image, you either see it or you don't. I suggest a leica R 8 body and a 60 2.8 lens; go shoot for a while, and see if you see it also. If not, you gave it a go and can sell and get back 50 % of what you paid, and you will have it out of your system. Like the girl in high school you never asked out, but wish you had, what might have been ?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I was a long time owner of Leica R, and it does remind me very much of a girl in school I never asked out. Heavy, old-fashioned, and frequently ill. <br>

If I would be needing to buy a film camera for this class, I would buy only secondhand Leica M. After the class is finished you will 99.9% never use film again, and it will be easier to sell the M and return what you paid.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[jason]

<p>Please would everybody read the OP! The OP is "majoring" in photography.Therefor one assumes there is some experience there..The choice.. It really is easy. Sure! The reflex is (a) discontinued and many models were not the stuff of reliability. For a fraction of cost buy a used Nikon F,F2 some primes or a Canon slr or best yet a Pentax. The Canon probably(FD series) focuses ans works exactly like a Leica. It will cost the same as a polarizer for a Leica-M! The Leica-M RFDR is what is really wanted. Maybe it's not jack of all trades, but it is unique. It will last forever, renting a silly option. Better to buy. If not liked and sold, cost should be less than a month or two rental. Rangefinders esp Leica are really different. You need the mindset. Once in the"Zone" one will fly! Do you need a system? No! One or two lenses and work with that. Stop thinking everybody needs a degree or something to use a Leica M. A few hours with playing, read the tiny instruction pamphlet and go,Go, GO! Enjoy!Tell us your decision. Share your experiences..May they be good, the light great, the moments special. Good shooting and need i say it, "Welcome".</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>If I would be needing to buy a film camera for this class, I would buy only secondhand Leica M. After the class is finished you will 99.9% never use film again, and it will be easier to sell the M and return what you paid.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly, but the R will not require a great investment in the first place. "Camera as girlfriend" -hmmm let me think about that...</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p>Robin Smith is half right. You can buy an R5 for example for £200 and it will still be worth that. Much less outlay than an M - and the lens range is exceptional.</p>

[nicholas_herndon]

<p>Elliot, here's a demonstration of what almost everyone here has been saying:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus-om/pool/21184907@N00/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus-om/pool/21184907@N00/</a><br>

I don't know the photographer and have no connection to her, but I admire her work very much, and her style is probably close to what you're aiming for (street/candid/photojournalist type work).<br>

Every single one of those photos was shot with an Olympus OM-10 and 50mm f1.8. To put that in perspective, I just sold an OM-10 and 50/1.8 in pristine working condition for $30 on eBay. That's the cost of 7 rolls of Tri-X. Would her photos be better if shot on an M6 and 50/2 'Cron? Maybe. Is her work good now? Definitely.<br>

Before you spend hundreds or thousands on a rig, you need to learn the basics, and that means burning a lot of film. So go out and buy a basic, mechanical SLR, and use the rest of that money on film and developer (and beer as someone mentioned above). Take your camera everywhere, take photos even when people give you hell for it, and have fun!</p>

<p>"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera." - Edward Steichen</p><div></div>

[rasong]

<p>get M6 or MP with summicron, it will last with you very long time.</p><div></div>