My first leica?

[matt_l.1]

Hey there all - thanks for letting me drop by.

For years I've seen pictures made by Leicas and Leica Photographers - and i've been

in awe. Ever more so the RF style of shooting - up close, personal, nitty-gritty,

available light --- all that great stuff. I want to get into that style : that is the type of

work that i love and i want to make those shots myself. I want to get into

photojournalism as a career and it is this style, the more feature oriented, more

personal work is what i want to do (not to mention it is often B&W!). My personal ideal

for the moment is work along the lines of Sabastian Salgado : i love B&W and his style

is Exactly what i love and what i want to do with my life. <p>

I am having my first showing of photos starting this Tuesday (if you're in Seattle, WA,

USA, do email me :)) and i probably will sell a number of photos ... meaning i might

have some extra money laying around for photography. My question is, how is best to

get into RF photography and hopefully Leica? Where to start, how much to spend,

where to buy? I'm thinking i could definately live with just a fast(er) 35mm lens to

start with but would probably want to add something longer (75mm-ish). What are

your recommendations? Early M's, Konica Hexar, Voigtlander bodies? Which glass?

I hope you all can help me - i'm afraid the leica bug has got me and i hope dearly that

i'll be able to find a way to get my hands around some leica equipment sooner rather

than later. All comments appreciated!

[skeeter]

if you seriously want to go into photojournalism as a career, i would go digital.

[douglas k.]

What Tom wrote. Pros using Leicas are generally using the Leica as their personal camera while earning money with digital equipment (few), shooting weddings in the PJ style (fewer), or are so well-established that their editors will put up with the higher cost and slower throughput of film (even fewer). Salgado can get away with it for the third reason, and also because he rarely covers "breaking news" anymore. If you're young and starting out, you're probably better off investing your money and your learning into digital. Leica M cameras (and film cameras in general) are rapidly becoming purely amateur toys.

[colin_mcvey]

It doesn't sound like Matt is looking to be a news photographer

so I wouldn't worry about digital. I have shot with many RF's-

Mamiya 7's, Contax and now Leica, as well as fun viewfinders

like Holga's and Voigtlander's- all are great for my style as I

"see" better with a range finder (vs. SLR) for my personal work. I

believe that you should spend your money on good glass before

the body. After all, a body is just a box that holds out light, the

lens does all the work (slightly exaggerated but true to a point). I

just purchased a Leica CL a few days ago and I really enjoy it.

The price is good at around $600-800 for a clean one with a

Summicron 40mm f/2. The lens is pretty amazing for the price;

fast, beautiful color rendition, and great contrast. The CL is

small and discreet for street shooting, and the build quality is

very good and they are reliable if you maintain them.

[asher]

Ditto.. but if you want a real RF, there's no such thing in digital format, yet.<P>

As far as which camera- any Leica M, and start with a 35 or 50 'cron. Stick with one

lens for a few years to <u>really</U> get the RF way of shooting.<P>

Also, if you like Sebastiao Salgado (check out his book "Terra"), look at Mary Ellen

Mark's work on homeless kids in Seattle and Alex Webb's shots in Haiti and Florida.

[paulstenquist]

Matt is right. This is not the time to buy a Leica rangefinder if

you're serious about photography. The top of the line Canon

digital is an 11 megapixel camera. It can outperform most film

cameras and provides easily downloadable files for your

PhotoShop work. I can't think of one reason why a young person

who is serious about a photography career would invest in film

cameras. That being said, I don't own a digital camera. When the

price of a ten megapixel camera drops below $1000 I will buy. If I

didn't already have a big investment in medium format cameras

and a scanner, I would buy now. Unless Leica chages directions

soom, it, unfortunately, is doomed to become a camera for

hobbyists and museums.

[bart feliciano]

The basics are the same no matter if digital or traditional.

 

Now getting to the controls via those meshuggah button/wheel interfaces is another matter...

 

If it's a personal reward for a good show, go for the leica :) get a digital when you can deduct and depreciate it as a working expense.

[harry_akiyoshi]

Just so you know, I think Salgado uses an Leica-R 6.2, not a rangefinder. If I remember correctly, he takes most of his pictures with the Macro-Elmarit 60mm 2.8. Could be wrong.

[gary_brown2]

Salgado has used both the rangefinder and R 6.2,likes mechanical cameras.

[david j.lee]

the last i read about salgado,he was shooting with seven leicas. 3 R6.2, 3 M6

and one minilux. this acording to photo magazine ( france).

go with the leica,skip the digital, you sound like an artist to me.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Hi Matt:

 

One thing I've learned to accept about these discussion threads is that folks really know how to avoid giving a straight answer.

 

My opinion about what you�re looking for: If you want a Leica, buy a Leica. Not a Konica, or Voigtlander, or whatever. I would recommend an M6 (classic or TTL) only because they're metered and they are the best choice as to price (half the cost of a new MP or M7). If you want a "fast" 35mm lens to start off with, your only choices are a current Aspherical Summicron or Summilux. Choosing the Summicron will likely save you about $700 and you're only loosing one stop (they are tacky-sharp equals).

 

I would encourage you to stop by your local Leica camera dealer. They'll most likely be able to show you the equipment you're interested in.

 

You should be able to find a like-new M6 (classic or TTL) and a 35mm Aspherical Summicron for about $1,295 each without much shopping around.

[cd thacker]

. . ."<i>the more feature oriented, more personal work is what i want to do</i> (not to mention it is often B&W!). My personal ideal for the moment is work <i>along the lines of Sabastian Salgado</i> : i love B&W and his style is Exactly what i love and what i want to do with my life.<p>

 

From the sounds of it, what you are really interested in is documentary photojournalism. And what that means, in my understanding, is, first, developing a project idea and making a fairly long-term commitment to it.<p>

 

Certainly you could do this with digital; but, since such projects often mean being far away for long periods of time from the technnologies digital relies on, the preferred method is still film; and cameras that are, preferably, as battery-free as possible. <p>

 

Using this traditional method for such work gives the added advantage of being able to travel light: two camera bodies, two or three lenses, some film (no laptops, solar cells, sat phones, memory cards, battery packs, or voltage converters required). And films such as Tri-X and HP5+, of course, give that traditional, rich, doco look without your having to approximate it in photoshop.<p>

 

Since (clearly) you've already arrived at this conclusion, and ask about <i>Leica</i>, my own advice would be to start with one of two options: a Bessa R2/50mm ASPH Nokton combo; or, an M6/50mm Summicron combo. The first option will run you, new, about $900; and the second one at least twice that (so obviously it depends on just how many prints you sell and for how much). I agree that the glass is more important than the body; but the Nokton is said to be a very good lens indeed, and the R2, meanwhile, is far, far superior to nothing at all! (And will probably perform well for a good long time.)

[cd thacker]

I was writing my answer before I saw Bill's, above. I basically agree with him. I forgot to add that, in my comparison of prices, the figure I quoted for Leica gear is for <i>used</i> (though someone around here may know where you can get it all for less). You can get what I think you're after, in terms of working method and look, with the Bessa gear (though obviously it won't hold up as long, or hold its value as well as, the Leica stuff).

[steve_chan5]

If you're thinking of laying money for the M6, have you seen this thread? http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Y4K

 

If you want to get in cheap, then I'd suggest a Bessa R2 and a Summicron-C (use the 35mm framelines). If you shop around the Great Auction Site, you can probably pick up both for under $700. About the cheapest way to get into the RF game with Leica glass (unless you can luck onto a Hexar for cheap).

[travis1]

Matt, if you are getting a 35mm Leica lens, do consider a Summaron/3.5 over the asph summicron. The former's image quality is IMO a class above the latter at f3.5 upwards all the way. I own both.

 

If you are getting the 35/lux for the stop then go for that.

[john_boyle3]

Matt, if you want a Leica get a Leica. You will pay a bit more but will have a better camera that will hold its value "The quality remains long after the price is forgotten." If you can live without a built-in meter an M2 would be my choice. I bought mine used 30 years ago from Glazers in Seattle. They were good people to deal with then and I assume they still are. You may want to stop by and see what they have. This would also give you the opportunity to handle some cameras and find what suits you best. The 35mm Summaron f2.8 is an excellent lens (if you can find one)and should cost less than a Summicron or Summilux.

 

That's my suggestion based on my experience over the past 35 years. I haven't used the other cameras or their lenses so have no comments on them. I have used digital. There's a reason that Salgado doesn't!

[chad_hahn]

People always say film is dead, but I think for fine art photography, film is still the way to go. The camera may be almost or just as good as film but what about the paper? A printer to make large prints is very expensive as is the paper and there is still a lot of doubt as to how long an digital print will last.

 

A good old fashioned silver print can last for a hundred years or more, with proper archival.

 

Go with a M. I love my M4. No meter and about as expensive as a M6 but the last of the hand assembeled ones.

[kevin m.]

"Leica M cameras (and film cameras in general) are rapidly becoming purely amateur toys."

<p>

How about chanting 'Convert or die!' It's shorter and sounds catchy, too.

<p>

Enough of the 'film is dead' b/s, already. Digital hasn't even eliminated film yet (as I hear it will every day on this forum) and I'm already sensing an anti-digital backlash from a surprising source: 20-somethings. Two weddings the last two weekends with <i>young</i> brides and they <i>requested</i> film. One said she was glad to look at proofs rather than computer images. Her friends, too, loved the tangibility of prints. Not a definitive study, but the source surprised me.

<p>

To answer your question, Matt, may as well get the bug out of your system if you can afford it. Buy a used M6 or M6TTL. Easy loading, meters, and no collector interest make them the best buys in M bodies. $1,000-$1,200 will get a minty one. See the camera quest web site to sort out all the differences in the M line. If that's too steep, then a Hexar RF of Voigtlander Bessa R2 can be had for about half that. Lens choice is quite subjective, but you can search the archives and get more information than you will want to read on this subject. Good luck with your choices.

[andrew_hull]

Don't neglect looking into options that might not be so pricey (Contax G2, Voigtlander, Konica). I have lenses that are every bit as good as Leica, but I have four of them and two bodies for less than an MP!

[dan_brown4]

If your sights are set on any deadline press publications,

definitely include a digital SLR in your kit.

 

For rangefinder, I would strongly recommend a genuine Leica,

probably an M6, M6TTL, M7 or MP. I would suggest a 28/50 mm

combo, as fast as you can afford Summicron/Summilux

preferrably. Shoot only one film (I suggest 400 speed B&W). Do

develop it yourself. Maybe even a little darkroom experience to

round your your metering skills, although film scanning will likely

be more productive for work product.

 

Good luck, and post a few of your shots for use to enjoy.

[jim_a]

If you want a Leica get a used M6 and a 35 cron. Stick with that for now. Then you can add other lenses once you are sure you like the M. I agree with Bill. It's the best bang for the buck right now. If you buy used you can probably turn around and sell it down the road for pretty much what you paid for it. If you go to work for a newspaper they are going to give you a Nikon or Canon DSLR and lenses. Then you will have your M to suppliment you digital system. <br>

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/">jimarnold.org</a>

[del_gray]

The impression I get from reading your post is that you have not yet tried a rangefinder camera at all. If this is true then I would suggest that your first step would be to get a cheap fixed lens rangefinder from the 1970s (Canonet QL17, Yashica GSN...) and see if this type of photography works for you. A test run like this will cost you less than $100, allow you to resell the camera for the same price when you are done with it, and give you really fine images with an outstanding lens in the meantime. Using a rangefinder is often a very different experience for many people coming from SLRs, and it frequently takes some time, patience, and effort to get into the flow of it. For some people they never really get there. There's nothing wrong with jumping in all the way and starting with a nice Leica, but it sounds like money is an issue and this could give you some time to save for what you really want and start your learning curve right away as well. Just some thoughts.

[Spearhead]

<i> i love B&W and his style</i><p>

 

Style comes from how a photographer sees things and uses the equipment to realize the vision. It does not come from the camera. Salgado would take similar photos with a Pentax K1000. Don't get fooled - learn to take the kind of photographs you want to take and then think about new equipment, rather than doing it backwards.<p>

 

Photodocumentary work takes a lot of skill, not just with the camera, but with people, with survival, with focus, with a vision and scope. It doesn't take having the same camera as a famous photographer.

[melvin_bressler]

Matt: Start slow. Get a Leica body, probably an M6 (either version) and, at most, two lenses: a 35 mm (try a Voightlander Ultron 35 mm 1.7), and add either a 50 mm f 2 Summicron, or a Hexanon, also 50/2. Some people will say that 35 and 50mm is too close. Ignore them. Find out for yourself. Then take pictures, and then take more. If, after a few months you still have the bug, you can go after heavy duty and expensive glass, and, by that time, you'll have a better idea of what you want/need. If on the other hand, you find a cure for the bug, those items will sell quickly, for about what you paid for them. Good shooting.

[SolaresLarrave]

Matt,

 

I believe Del and Jeff have given you very wise advice: first off, try if rangefinder photography is for you... and if you can develop a style with it. Don't jump into buying a Leica believing it will improve your photos. As Jeff said, Salgado would take the same impressive shots with any piece of equipment.

 

About a year ago, I was like you, enamoured of the idea of having a Leica. However, I followed advice and bought a used Canonet. Did I love it? Sure! It became the measure of photography to me... but not the ONLY measure. However, I discovered I liked rangefinders that way and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg. When I finally got myself the Leica, I knew what I wanted it for, the things I could do with it, and when to use it, but my teacher was a relatively humble Japanese camera. Do as I did, find out first, experiment and grow, because the camera won't improve your photos; you grow by using it.

 

Good luck!