Leica M7 .72 black or chrome?

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi Guys,

 

I am a Nikon user and I really like M7.

 

1) As far as I understand there are two versions either black or

chrome. For some lenses apart from those choices have the titanium

version as well. I would be keen to know the advanatages and

disadvantages of each colour with regards especially in terms of

second hand value, durability, etc?

 

2) If I buy the 0.72 viewfinder version could I use the 24mm, 28mm,

50mm, 90mm lenses?

 

3) This question is for Leica users that also have experience with

Nikon. I do not want a war between Nikon vs Leica users please!!!

What is the quality of the photos in comparison to top of the range

Nikkor lenses (eg 85/1.4, 28/2, 50/1.4, 105/2.5 etc) with regards to

resolution, contrast, colour saturation, bokeh etc?

 

Many thanks for the information,

Cheers,

[bob soltis]

Cham,

 

1) I personally prefer the black body; this stems back from the Canon F-1 I owned in high school. Black bodies may "brass" from heavy use. I have a black M6 that has not brassed.

 

In 1992 I bought a Titanium M6. The finish will scratch. As for the Titanium lenses, I believe that they cost more.

 

2) The 0.72 finder contains frame lines for 28mm (?), 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses. You will need an accessory finder for the 24mm lens.

 

3) I used to use Canon FL lenses. After I bought the first Leica in 1988, I went to the National Geographic WS in Steamboat Springs. It was the first time I saw slides made with Leica on the light table. The slides had more "snap" to them, and seemed to "jump" off the light table. Resolution is excellent. I regularly have 11 x 14 prints made from slides and they are as sharp as a tack and one can easily see fine details. Here's an example of contrast and resolution.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

best,<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

The silver chrome finish holds up better than any of the black finishes, paint or black chrome. It will also remain a bit cooler in the sun. Whatever dubious advantage once enjoyed by black "professional" cameras has been wiped out by the proliferation of black plastic SLR's. The .72 finder has a 28mm frameline, but it's tight up against the finder edges and if you wear glasses just about useless. From 35mm up it works fine. Second hand value? Wait 20 years. If you lucked out and bought a rare version, perhaps big bucks! If Leica fails to maintain suport for the electronics in the M7's shutter perhaps no more than the value of a paperweight.

 

There is only one way to find out how you like the rendition and bokeh of a lens and that is to use it. Nikon users argue about different Nikon lenses just like Leica photographers compare various Leica lenses here. Hell, some of us even still praise the 50/1.4 and 85/2 Nikkors in Leica mount, 1950's designs last made in the 1960's.

 

The real consideration here is whether you need a rangefinder camera for your style of shooting. Will you be able to adapt to the handling, the big bright everything-in-focus viewfinder image, and the funky bottom film load? If it's a big YES then you can start to worry about glass, because for all the moaning and groaning about lens quality, the rangefinder experience is really the defining characteristic of the Leica M.

[peter_mackay2]

Before you start thinking about resale values consider if you can get along with a camera with a viewfinder mask that gets smaller as the focal length of the attached lens gets longer. I think M cameras should be bought with a viewfinder magnification that provides max coverage with your favourite lens. In my case that is .58 with a 28mm. With that VF magnification the 35mm mask is OK but the 50mm mask is annoyingly small. The same relationships go with other combinations of magnification and lens length.

Secondly, the masks in Leica M viewfinders are not precise so you don�t know exactly what goes onto the negative, as has been pointed out there often.

I have just compared an ancient 50mm f2 Nikkor (that you can buy for about $50 second hand) with a last generation Summicron 50. They were mounted in a Nikkormat or in the above M Leica and the cameras mounted on a Manfrotto tripod using wire release. The light was measured with a Seconic hand held meter. The film was a 100ASA slide film.

I projected the images on a white wall with a Kodak machine and I�ll be damned if I could see the Leica lens was any better than the Nikkor.

[patricks]

1) Chrome has the nice retro feel/look to it, but black is said to be preferred by pros and street shooters as it draws less attention.

2) .72 is a nice allround VF size

3) I never used Nikon lenses since I mainly owned EOS systems. The best Leica lenses, e.g. 28/2.0 APSH, 35/1.4 and 35/2 ASPH, Summicron 50/2, 'Lux 75/1.4 are as good as it gets in the 35mm genre. Nikon, Canon and Contax do have some very nice lenses, but across the board the Leica ones are leading the pack in terms of sharpness, contrast (Zeiss to have some nice high contrast lenses), bokeh, tonality etc.

 

Standard advise is to start with one body and one lens, to see how you like it. Leica photography is different from SLR, needless to say. Even if you really enjoy the brand magic and results "pop out" to you, some people cannot live with the inprecise framing, the slow shutter speeds, complicated loading, not to say the amount of money one needs to shell out for a complete system. Proceed with caution...

[jay_.]

<<What is the quality of the photos in comparison to top of the range Nikkor lenses (eg 85/1.4, 28/2, 50/1.4, 105/2.5 etc) with regards to resolution, contrast, colour saturation, bokeh etc?>>

 

Even I won't stick my neck into that noose.

[skip_williams]

1. Black vs. chrome, it's a very old and completely subjective decision. I like black bodies, but it doesn't wear well long-term. The durable titanium finish is plated and scratches, as does a black finish. I find black more stealthy, YMMV. Black lenses are ~30% lighter than chrome or titanium lenses, no difference otherwise. Ti lenses cost more due to "collector value" (IMO, not worth it and too heavy).

 

2. You can use any lens with any finder (.58, .72, .85). On a .72x, you have 28mm framelines, but they're way at the outside of the VF and an accessory finder works a bit better. No 24mm framelines on any body, but the VF extents are approx the 24mm FOV. 90mm frames are very small on a .58 body. Many who wear glasses prefer the .58, as it lets you see the 35mm frames easily.

 

The Leica lenses are top notch and the results you get vs. top-end Nikkors will likely be due to technique, not lens performance. The Leica lenses will mostly outperform the Nikkors at wide apertures, but again, much of the difference can be nullified by camera shake, poor focusing, or film grain.

 

My advice? Go rent a 0.72x M7 or M6 with one or two lenses for a weekend and see if you like it.

[harry_soletsky1]

So you see you already have many different opinions. I would also add that Nikon lenses focussing ring turns in the opposite direction from Leica lenses. I do have lots of Nikon experience, F3 & FM2, and found that a pain. Lately with my style of shooting I'm almostly exclusively Leica M. I may go back to Nikon only if I get seriously into digital as I have several AI lenses to use and they all do work with their better Nikon digital SLR cameras. The R series digital is a nonstarter as I'm not about to invest in a whole line of new lenses. Of course, if the digital M become availible, I'm likely to jump right in. I already have a basic Fuji digital that I'm using to get my feet wet in digital.

[jay_.]

Harry, unless your Nikkor lenses have the CPU's you're going to have to use a handheld meter with any of the Nikon digital bodies. Over the years even though Nikon's kept the F mount they've introduced many incompatibilities. I sold off all my Nikon AF gear and went EOS and don't regret it. Image Stabilization (a whole range of them not just 2 lenses). They seem to be emerging as the clear leader in DSLR's also. I've still got 3 Photomic FTn's and a dozen AI-converted lenses I've had since the late 60's and I love them, but for the future I'm sticking with Canon. I'm also hoping for a digital M-something but I'm not holding my breath.

[greg_mason]

you asked a nice loaded question and have received some varied responses. a lot comes down to what lenses are most heavily used. while most people will argue about leica vs. nikon for focal lengths of 50mm and above, very few people argue that leica M lenses are are without peer in the 21mm to 35mm focal lengths. this is partly due to the fact that as a rangefinder the lens does not have to account for mirror swing and can be located closer to the film plane. additionaly leica lenses are optimized for shooting wide open and gain very little when stopped down to f8.

 

in addition to the M7 you might want to look for a good clean used M6ttl from a reputable dealer. you give up auto exposure, but will save 40% or so from the m7.

[peter_n1664876959]

To add to what Harry says, not only do the Leica lenses turn in the opposite direction to the Nikon but the speed dial does too. Took me a while to get used to as I've been using Nikon for the last 20 years.

 

I bought my first Leica about 5 months ago, an M6TTL with a 50mm Summicron. My sense of the Leica lenses that I've used (five of them at varying focal lengths up to 90mm) is that they are very different from my Nikons, and also very different from each other. They are definately sharper than the Nikons open wide, very contrasty, and with out of focus areas there is no comparison. The better ones have a peculiar almost 3D-like rendering of subject/background that is very distinctive. You could randomly mix up Nikon & Leica pics and be able to tell which is which pretty easily.

 

My 50mm Summicron is painfully sharp, too sharp really for pictures of people and I think I'm going to have to smear grease on the front element! It depends on what you want to do with the lens, for architecture - fantastic, for people - too much!

 

Good advice above - rent a camera and a standard or 35mm lens for a weekend and try it. The rangefinder is a very different experience as someone sagely pointed out and you may or may not like it.

[cameron_sawyer]

"What is the quality of the photos in comparison to top of the range Nikkor lenses (eg 85/1.4, 28/2, 50/1.4, 105/2.5 etc) with regards to resolution, contrast, colour saturation, bokeh etc?"

 

I use both Nikon and Leica so I'll "put my head in that noose".

 

For 99% of people in 99% of real life situations, optical quality of the lens is not a significant determining factor for quality of photos.

 

But for those who care -- it seems to me that as a general rule, the wider the lens, the bigger the optical advantage of any quality rangefinder lens compared to SLR. I use both a 90/2 Summicron and an 85/1.4 Nikkor, for example, and I'll be damned if I can see any advantage of the Leica glass. But every Nikkor wide angle I've ever owned or used is noticeably worse than than the corresponding Leica lens, or even Voigtlander. The difference between my 35 'cron aspherical and my 35/2 Nikkor AIS is visible even in 5x7 enlargements, at least at wide apertures.

 

I think it's because of the optical design contortions required to get the back element of a wide angle lens far enough off the film plane to clear the mirror of an SLR. The same consideration makes wide angles for SLR's much bulkier than those for RF cameras. So RF cameras have significant advantages in bulk and optical quality at 28 and 35 focal lengths; beyond that the advantages start to disappear.

[cham_saranasuriya]

Thanks everyone for all the good advice. Have a great weekend.