my leica experience...

[chung_lee2]

hi gang,

 

i realized i needed a personal camera to shoot snapshot pictures. so i went camera

shopping.

 

i wanted a quality camera and quality lenses. i use slr's, dlsr's, medium format film/

digital and large format.

 

it really came down to two camera systems. the leica m's and the contax g2. so i

have spent the last month testing both systems out to determine for sure which was

the best for me.

 

i shot the m6 ttl .72 50 smmicron and a g2 with 45 f2 lens. used both handheld,

tripod on all apertures and used the flash on the g2. film used was xp2 super and

ilford panf.

 

out of a dozen 8x10's made no one could consistently pick which camera was used to

produce which image.

 

the g2 felt and shot like a really nice point and shoot. the leica m6 definitely needed

more getting used to.

 

what i liked about the m6 was it's superior build quality. what i didn't like about it

was everything else. as a picture taking tool it was not nearly as fast to shoot

multiple pictures and even if i got used to the quirks, i don't think it would change my

mind.

 

why do people pay such a premium on a leica system? i can understand people

collectting but i don't see why anyone would pay such a premium for the system to

take pictures with except for the no batteries aspect, but can buy alot of batteries

with the money you save.

 

you can view some of my work on my website: www.chunglee.com

 

just some thoughts.

 

chung lee<div></div>

[allen_herbert3]

This is why.

[allen_herbert3]

Again.<div></div>

[chung_lee2]

very nice image.

[jay t.]

A serious question but a somewhat flippant answer.

[george_shihanian]

The Contax G2 is a very well made system in its own right, and is a very capable system which will give great results. That 45mm f2 lens is second to none.

 

Both the Contax and the Leicas have their quirks. You did the right thing by using both before you decide. You seem surprised that you like the Contax so much. Don't fret it, just go with what makes you more comfortable while shooting. If its the Contax, then use it happily and don't look back.

 

You _are_ on the Leica forum, so don't be surprised if a few people try to discourage the use of the Contax, and call it a mere "point and shoot".

[________1]

Mike Dixon would probably be the first person to say that shot could just have well been made with a Contax G2!

[ralph_barker]

<p>Are you trolling, Chung? (lol)</p>

<p>It's really a "different strokes" thing. The Zeiss vs. Leica lens question may be a draw, depending on your personal preference for lens signatures. Similarly, features of the bodies are a matter of personal preference and technical requirements. Pluses and minuses on both sides, I think.</p>

<p>In the final analysis, one must bow to the feel of the camera in your own hands, I think. ;-)</p>

<center>

<img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/HopeHoffman/hh030602-0512-l550bw.jpg">

</center>

<p>M6 TTL, 35mm Summicron</p>

[majid]

For the cost of a used Leica M6 body alone, you can buy a used Hasselblad 500C/M and 80mm f/2.8 lens that will blow either the M or the G2 out of the water. But the Leica can take photos in "available darkness" that are simply impossible to acheive otherwise (well, a Konica Hexar RF or a Voigtlander Bessa could, I guess).<p>

Here is a sample, taken at 1/30 with a Summicron-M 50mm using Fuji Neopan 1600 film.

<center><img src="http://www.majid.info/galleries/neopan1600/Popup11785.jpg"></center>

[shel_belinkoff2]

> why do people pay such a premium on a leica system?

> i can understand people collectting

> but i don't see why anyone would pay such a premium

> for the system to take pictures with except for the

> no batteries aspect, but can buy alot of batteries

> with the money you save.

 

Well, as you mentioned there is the build quality of most Leicas. And of course, there's personal preference.

 

I use Leicas because there are innumerable lenses available for them, from many manufacturers, both screw mount and LTM. I like the idea that I can still get my old cameras repaired, and better yet, that they rarely need repair. My 50 +/- year old M's still work beautifully.

 

I like the quiet, unobtrusive way they work. No whirring motors, no flashing lights in the viewfinder to cause distractions ... and the view through the finder is wonderful. With many lenses on many models of the M series, you can see what is happening outside the frame of the shot, and can therefore anticipate pretty easily what will be happening when the exposure is made.

 

I like my Leicas, and will pay a premium for them, because they suit me. Buy y'know, one needn't spend a lot of $$ for a Leica. There are plenty of good used ones on the market that will last a long time with just a minimum of maintenance and care.

 

kind regards,

 

Shel Belinkoff

[chung_lee2]

thanks for the feedback. i'm just as big as a camera snob as anyone elese on this

board: )

 

i think what killed the m6 for me was the rangefinder focusing. there was flare in the

viewfinder and i could never predict when it would show up. it was consitently more

difficult for me to focus.

 

i used autofocus on the g2 since i had no idea how to operate the manual focus on

the g2. i knew you turned the little knobby on the front but i just used the autofocus

like an autofocus slr, press halfway to lock focus, compose and push the trigger all

the way.

 

i have used contax slr's in the past. the contax rts II with the 85 1.4 was one amazing

setup. my current contax rig is the 645 which is one amazing system.

 

i definitely payed more attention shooting the m6. not quite sure if that's a plus or a

minus.

 

chung

[j m shaw]

Allen , just wondering why you posted a photo by M Dixon and not one you took??? it

is a nice shot though.

[chung_lee2]

trolling? i guess that's a definitional question. i have been lurking for about 6

months to get some info on the leica m's but just recently had any experience to

share.

 

shel,

 

your answer was more in the spirit in which i asked the question. i really wanted to

be blown away with the leica rangefinders.

 

chung

[al_kaplan1]

If you want to be blown away pick up a clean M2 body. With a bit of luck it'll still be purring away long after parts are no longer available for the Contax. My M2's are between 35 and 45 years old.

[ralph_barker]

The trolling question was a joke, Chung, hence the "(lol)". Sorry if you took it the wrong way. But, you should recall my strange sense of humor from other forums. ;-)

[chung_lee2]

ralph,

 

no worries, i did take it as a joke. i didn't mean my response to come off in a negative

way towards you.

 

right back at ya : )

 

i guess i need to find a contax g2 board : )

 

chung

[nom]

You use slr's, dslr's, medium format film/ digital and large format all together and you still do not have a humble personal camera to shoot snapshot pictures?<br>

Go for the G2 since you liked it more.<br>

Or even better check the Contax T3, <i>this</i> is a personal camera to shoot snapshot pictures, not a Leica-M !

[chung_lee2]

jordan,

 

the irony is not lost on my wife either who wants shots of the baby. we have a canon

elph in film and digital version. the quality of aps stinks and the shutter lag on the

digital drives me insane.

 

i got a good deal on a contax g2 black se kit.

 

chung

[james_vornov1]

For now, the Leica M system suits how I want to shoot, where I want to shoot.

Through Phil Greenspun's articles here at Photo.net, I started carrying a point and

shoot with me all the time (an Olympus Stylus). I was frustrated by the number of out

of focus shots and quality that was not up to my Nikon SLR system. The M is perfect

for me in being very high quality, but with nice compact lenses.

 

This forum has been an influence on me as I work to expand my photographic style. I

shoot semi-abstracts (in addition to the family and travel snaps). I've been working on

bringing more of a sense of place into the photos, while preserving the graphic

qualities.

 

The photo, by the way, is from the first with my M6ttl (thanks Scott). Just an Ofoto

scan at this point.<div></div>

[lee_shively]

It just plain comes down to what you like to use to take pictures.

 

There's not a single friend or relative of mine who knows jack about cameras or photography. I show them a picture I made with a Holga, printed well in my darkroom to 11x14, toned in selenium and tinted with hot tea and I show them a picture I made with a Leica printed the same and they can't tell the difference. They notice stuff like the black borders or ask who the person or place is that is in the picture. They comment on the ivory tones. Some of them might say of the Leica picture, "It's really clear." But absolutely no one knows anything or cares anything about the technique I used to get the picture.

 

And that's the way it should be. The picture is what is important and, if a Contax G gets you the picture and you like to use it--great. That's what it's made for, after all. Some of us prefer Leicas and have learned to use them and respect them. If everyone was the same, there would only be one camera made, one film or digital capture made and life would be so damn boring.

[bill_bowden]

Chung,

 

I switched from a Contax G2 to Leica M6 last summer. The black

M6 isn't noticed as much by your subject as the shiny G2 (of

course, you can get a G2 in black though). The M6 is also

quieter, and you KNOW what you've focused on. The rangefinder

focusing takes a little while to get used to, but after a few

months, it feels very natural and easy. It's not a point and shoot,

though. It takes a few seconds to properly take a photograph

with an M6 (unless you're setting everything ahead of time for

street shooing in the "f8 and be there" style). Also, the 50mm

Summicron has a very different quality to me from the 45mm

Zeiss lens. The Summicron is sharper wide open at f2 and

creates the infamous 3D effect that Leica people talk about. (I

swear I can see it, at least in the 5x7 prints.) The Zeiss is so

contrasty that I have to tell photo shops to be sure and not

enhance the color of the prints, which most of them do

automatically. Otherwise, the prints come out looking so

unnaturally vivid that the photos seem amateurish to me. On top

of all that, I considered the build and resale value. Leica M

cameras and lenses seem to be holding their value better than

any other film cameras as digital continues to take over the

market.

[albert knapp md]

What resale value for a G2? Not anywhere near aLeica M.

[icuneko]

Great exchange here. Pics and thoughts. That's what makes this forum first-class!

[derek_stanton2]

Resale value? You can get a new G2 body for $700. That's less than a third of an M7.

The 45mm/2 lens costs $160 (Delta). At those prices, why worry about resale value?

Besides, looking at 'used' prices for the same pieces, the 'devaluation' may actually be

less than with Leica. But, that's probably not really the point. I don't think anyone

intends to keep a G2 for 40 years. These really are two different camera systems. The

only reason they're compared at all is because they carry a pretty similar form-factor.

[larry_kincaid1]

If the G2 system did not have that incredible 45mm lens, I don't think we would be making comparisons, even price comparisons which always upset any Leica user. I would love to get one just to try that lens for a while. But I also wanted to try the Leica lenses first, so I bought a used Leica M6 TTL to get Leica lenses, manual focusing, quiteness, and simplicity. I still would like to try a G2/45mm combination someday, but I just bought a Leia 75mm summilux for about $1500! The last thing I need after that purchase is another camera. That lens, by the way, is spectacular, so I'm happy with it. But here's a very important point. I am on the verge of having expendable income for the first time in my life (last child almost out of college). If I were just starting a family and career, would not be able to justify buying a G2 no matter what the price of its lens. But as has been stated already, I can sell all my Leica equipment tomorrow and get most of my investment back minus a small fee for less than it would have cost to rent it all for one month. But the stock market would still be a better investment, but withouit any photographs.