Leica 0, Is it a fondler's toy or actual shooter's weapon. User report please!

[ron_so]

As title, please advise.

[erik_den_hartigh]

On the website of Erwin Puts there is, in the report on the Leica M7, a part where he desribes his experiences with the null-series.

[vic_.]

When the Leica "O" came out it was priced the same as the Leica M6TTL. It then experienced the fastest price drop of any camera in Leica history. Most of the buffoons who bought this camera are trying to recoup their investment, but nobody's nibbling at their bait, even at $800. Occasionally some sad case posts a picture of an airplane that he took with the Leica O, in order to stabilize his deteriorating angst over the lost money.

 

If you want to experience the Leica O, get out your Leica M (any one will do), slap on a collapsible lens (rigid will not do), tape up the viewfinder, hold the camera upside down, and give it a go. There, I saved you $800 to $2,000.

[Rob F.]

I've read a couple of reports. Did you know that the "O" must be held at arm's length to use the viewfinder? That's what one report said. And you have to put the lens cap on before winding on to the next frame, because the shutter is not self-capping.

 

It wasn't a bad idea to reinstate an old design. But they ought to have made one of the ones that people want. How about a IIIg? Or even an earlier thread-mount, like a IIIc? Something useable. Even a model II or III would have been better. There are people who like the M2 best, and others who think the M4 was the best. Any of these would have sold better.

 

Making one of these old models might even knock the collector market down a notch or two, which would leave more discretionary money available for purchase of new (old) Leicas.

[jay_.]

The arms'length viewfinder and non-self-capping shutter are IMO no more of a silly retrogression than the reversion to the pull-up rewind knob on the MP. And at least the O was truthfully marketed as a collectible reproduction of a vintage camera, not hyped as the ultimate Leica.

[cameron_sawyer]

All Leicas are "fondler's toys", so what's the problem?

[gerald_widen]

It's supposed to have a good lens. Better version of the Elmar 50/3.5

[h._p.]

>> All Leicas are "fondler's toys" <<

 

Damn! the one who had it before me had butter fingers...

 

<grin><div></div>

[sal dimarco]

If you want to experience 35mm photography ala 1925, the 'O' Series camera is for you. It's 35mm quality with the ease of 4x5. In the LHSA VIEWFINDER magazine issue Vol. 36 No. 2 Second Quarter 2003 has a user report on the 'O' Series camera. Happy Snaps & Holidays, Sal

[stephen_w.]

0 = Zero is the IQ of the people who paid $2500 for one of these toys.

[gerald_widen]

Yes it is a toy, but if someone can afford it why not? People collect all sorts of things/toys many a lot more expensive than the "O".

[stephen_w.]

Because the last NEW ones were being off-loaded for $900. $1400 buys a lot of other stuff. +$100 bought me a NEW M7.

[hadji_singh]

Does anyone have photos taken with this camera? Just curious, I don't think I've ever

seen anyone post photos from the Leica O. Does it have a "vintage" look? For some

reason, I'm imaging something Holga-like...

[brett_davis1]

I appreciate the concern of those who fear I have mis-spent my money. Such concern on this board is heart-warming, especially from people who have never shot with the thing.

 

I like my 0-Series fine, although it had a shutter problem that had to be rectified at the factory. Do a search and you'll find several of my pics, which are much better in person due to my non-professional scanner. Yes, I am the "sad case" who posted the picture of the airplane. Vic, I'm sorry to offend your eyes with proof that it's actually capable of taking pictures.

 

Once you get used to using the thing, it's nearly as quick as any other manual camera. If you don't like it, don't buy one.

[brett_davis1]

You haven't seen a picture, but you assume it's no better than with a plastic-lens disposable? Nice logic. If you had bothered to READ anything about the camera before posting, you might have learned it has one of the best lenses around, probably better than anything you're squinting through. (You don't have to squint with this camera; one plus). I can assure you the pix are not in the same universe as a disposable camera. Based on experience.

[vic_.]

Brett, my apologies if I offended you. I didn't think the camera was designed to take pictures of jet aircraft, so I thought it amusing when I saw the picture. As for my psychological divinations, they're pure BS.

[brett_davis1]

No problem. It isn't my finest shot, that's for sure.

[chris_henry1]

I am sure that Leica built the camera so that it was capable of taking a good

photograph in the right hands. But I can't help but think that the exercise of

building the O series camera was a little like building a car these days that

you have to crank start. What were they trying to prove and what does the

camera offer--save for the semblance of antiqueness--that other, better Leicas

haven't surpassed?

[brett_davis1]

It is funky, no doubt, and would have been a lot quicker to use if they had built a new Leica II or something. The uncapped shutter and slit widths are indeed odd, but not that odd once you get the hang of it. I saw it as a good way to get a brand-new screwmount camera with a brand-new (and very good) lens, and it is--although I didn't buy it when it cost $2,500, and wouldn't have. It's also easy to lug around.

 

But anyway, all of these points have been hashed out ever since the 0-Series was introduced. Poor ron so was merely seeking user reports on the camera, which nobody in this posting was able to provide but me (and ron, please do a search in the archives and you'll see other user reports as well). Also, Pop Photography did a write-up on it in 2001 and you can buy a copy of that if you are so inclined.

 

It IS an anachronism. It CAN be used for virtually anything, including photojournalism-style pictures (helps to be a good judge of distance). It IS well made (my shutter problems notwithstanding, and it would take pictures even then). I AIN'T gonna sell mine. I do have other cameras for when speed is of the essence. Including -- gasp -- a couple of digitals (not Digiluxes, though)!

[gaijin]

I'm with Brett. I too own a Leica Null Series camera. It is an incredible piece of craftsmanship, and a joy to hold. No, I didn't pay $2500 for mine either, in fact it was about 1/4 of that, and that was brand new.

 

It is a wee bit quirky to use but you get used to it rather quickly, provided you don't try to use it in conjunction with another camera. Take it along, and it only, or you'll find yourself screwing up the sequence of operation and fogging some film.

 

The lens is as good or better than the current 50/2.8 Elmar, and that is a very highly rated lens. The Null Series (0) is tiny in hand, with a beautiful solid feel to it, a gorgeous black paint finish, and harks back to the early days of 35mm photography. What I like about it is to know the feel of a vintage camera that is absolutely brand new. It's like stepping back in time. And it does not have to be used at arm length. There is an accessory shoe on top to mount a 50mm brightline finder, which I did. Some collectors might chastise me for that because it mars the beautiful black paint finish a smidgen on the accessory shoe, to them I say tough sh*t! I got it to use, to actually take pictures with, and to experience the recreation of the earliest of what eventually lead to the Leica legacy.

 

Remember many years ago when Leica came out with a dummy UR? People said the same thing about them then as they said about the 0 Series reproduction. Try to find one now. They're worth a lot, if you can find one.

 

I do agree that it Leica should have made a reproduction of the I or II Series, they would likely have sold a lot more quickly due to ease of use. I'm hoping that they will someday.