Absolutely new in Leica world

[zdenek]

Hi everyone:

 

I am contemplating about buying a new camera, Leica R9 or Leica M7. I

am not a professional photographer, but only occasional. My question

is: What and with accessory to buy? Perhaps you could recommend a

reasonable and qualitatively similiar alternative? I will invite any

suggestions.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Zdenek

[cameron_sawyer]

If you want an SLR, you would save yourself a lot of headaches and even more money by buying a Nikon or a Canon. For a high quality, manual focus, pro-quality SLR with a great 100% finder to boot, try a Nikon F3. Leica has never made an SLR in the same league. Mint F3's cost less than $500 in the U.S. Nikon lenses are not quite as good as Leica, but they cost $100 to $500 instead of $1000 to $3000 for Leica glass.

 

Buy a Leica M7 only if you know what you're getting into with rangefinder photography. You might want to start out with a more modest RF camera, like a Voigtlander Bessa R or R2, and make the investment into Leica gear only if you really fall in love with RF photography. It's not for everyone.

[._._z]

If you're an occasional photographer it would be silly to spend it on what Leica bodies cost,

especially for an R-series.

 

It looks like you're more interested in the Leica name than anything, since you don't

differentiate between an SLR and a rangefinder.

 

Do some research on the cameras, the competition, and the prices. Then ask yourself if you

really want to spend that kind of money for occasional photographs.

 

Also consider: asking people in a Leica Forum if you should buy a Leica is going to get you

a lot of 'yes' answers. Try asking this same question in the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus

or Minolta forums and see what they say.

[john_robinson7]

I agree with Z on this one! leica are really more about taking pictures almost every day! The R9 is a completely different camera to the M7 I have both and are looking for a second M7 and have to disagree with Cameron about the canon and nikon being superior to leica slr's The R9 is a fantastic camera. The viewfinder is big and bright, the lenses are the equal to the m's, all the controls fall to hand! I have heard about some of the problems with the R8's scratching film but as far as I know this problem has been sorted! I am now on my 17th roll or there abouts on my R9 and have had no such problems! As for the M7 I still think it's the best camera ever made ;) just my opinion. Good luck!

[lkv]

A leica fan answer :

Not for occasional pictures !

As for the R9, I agree with the previous recommendation for a Nikon F3, or a Minolta X

500, or any camera of this generation. The Leica lenses are probably better, but not worth

the mony for occasional use.

The M7 is in a different league since it is the best rangefinder camera. Still, you could learn

with a cheaper RF. I dislike the Bessa, but it is cheap. The Konica Hexar RF is a very good

camera and the lenses are probably as good as old leica lenses (Please note that I might

get killed for saying this...). Then, you can "upgrade" to an M7 and/or new leica lenses (I

dream on the tri-elmar ;-) when you are sure RF corresponds to your photographic tastes.

Conclusion : Buy cheap to learn and save $ for when you know what you want !

Lenny

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi,

 

I am a Nikon SLR user and I am quite happy with that. One of my friend's got a Leica M7, he also has Nikon SLRs. I have tried that and I really like it. If you are in to SLR photography it is economical to go with Canon or Nikon especially if you are thinking of buying long telephotos etc as Leica lenses are very very expensive.

 

You should also consider what type of photography that you are interested in as well before the decision. I presume that you are aware that Leica is manual focus only. From what I understand Leica is the leader for rangefinders in particular. If I were buying cameras from the scratch in fact I may just get a Nikon DSLR and a M7 for film. But presently I have Nikon F5, F3 and Nikon lenses. But will eventually buy a MP (most likely) or a M7 with 35/1.5 and 75/1.4.

 

Cheers,

Cham

[michael_kastner]

Zdenek, everybody above hit the nail right on the head. I summarize: If you want a good SLR, then get an old Nikon F3 or F2 or FM. Forget about any Leica R, because you don't know what to look for.

If you however know exactly that you need and want an RF, then get any Leica M (or III). Decide on that first (SLR vs RF) , then we can get down to business.

[andrew_lee2]

<i>I am not a professional photographer, but only occasional</i> <p>

Nikon FM3a + 50/1.8.

[brambor]

Zdenek, you said you are new to Leica. I am asuming you are not new to cameras. If you are new to cameras then do more reading and then rent a SLR and rent a Rangefinder for a weekend and find out which you like best.

 

If you are not new to cameras then go ahead and get M based Leica. It appears you have the money to buy it so what is stopping you? You will end up with wonderful tool/toy to use every day.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Zdenek, as someone has already said, R9 and M7 are two entirely different styles of

shooting. But I understand your attraction to Leica. There is a well deserved mystique

about the name, because of the legendary built quality, the great lenses and the names of

the great photographers that have been associated with it. If the mystique is what attracts

you first, no matter what, no one can convince you otherwise, so go for it. This is not

about being wise. You won't regret buying either system, anyway.

 

But you still have to differentiate between shooting SLR and rangefinder. The rangefinder

system has lasted through decades because it is light, unobstrusive, quick and quiet. The

perfect camera for candid snaps, reportage and street shooting, but in no way limited to

that. Among the rangefinders, Leica has always remained the absolute reference. And the

absolute more expensive system.

 

SLR is bigger, heavier, noisier. But it'll give you WYSIWYG viewing (even more important

when shooting tele), a much wider choice of focal lengths and zoom lenses, macro

capabilities and, above

all, lower prices.

 

Some people prefer the rangerfinder style for focusing, others swear by the TTL reflex.

 

Before deciding, try both systems, if you can. Nobody can tell you which you'll end up

preferring.

 

BUT, if you don't really know which you prefer, and if the name Leica is not that

important to you after all, then go for a good affordable SLR system. Since autofocuss

does not seem important either, a Nikon F2 AS or, if you want aperture priority auto

exposure, a F3 HP, plus Nikon 35 f/1.4 AIS and 85 f/

1.4 AIS could be a great starting choice. I swear you'lle have fun. And results. And you

won't spend even half the money needed to buy a Leica M and two similar lenses.

[kevin m.]

"Also consider: asking people in a Leica Forum if you should buy

a Leica is going to get you a lot of 'yes' answers. "

 

Only in your imagination, apparently. The usual suspects who

either can't tell the difference, or don't care have carried the day

so far. As usual, it seems the Leica forum is the one place

you're not allowed to show appreciation for the brand.

 

Zdenek, I have no experience with Leica SLR's, but if you can live

with the limitations of a rangefinder, the Leica M is the best out

there. The Konica M lenses are quite good, too, it's only a

shame they didn't offer more fast glass. VC bodies are cheap

compared to Leica, but overpriced for what you get. Their lenses

are occasionally excellent, but not built very well compared to

Leica and Konica.

 

The best lenses from Leica, Konica and VC are much better

wide-open than their SLR competition. If wide-open shooting is

important to you and you can afford the cost, then you should try it

for yourself.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>VC bodies are cheap compared to Leica, but overpriced for what you get.</em></p><p>The <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm">Bessa R</a> is $249 at <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/">Cameraquest</a>. Admittedly that's more than what I paid for my <a href="http://www.vermontel.net/~wsalati/CasualCollector/canonp.htm">Canon P</a>, but the latter was used; $249 still seems a pretty good deal to me.</p>

[michael_b._elmer]

Hi Zdenek,

 

As you can see from the answers, the LEICA Forum sometimes appears to be a Leica Hatesite, since you don't need to be a Leica owner or lover to utter your opinions on it.

 

In my opinion you are best advised by not following the most subjective advice given by individuals as a response to your sincere question. Instead, I suggest you study some books on Leica M and R, for instance Günther Osterlohs or Jonathan Eastlands excellent books.

 

This will give you a better idea of the difference between the systems and their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Whether a Leica is your proper instrument for occasional photography is a choice only you can make. Depending on your needs you might also consider Leica CM (with a fixed, but superb lens) or the Digilux 2 (absolutely excellent digital camera with a superb zoom lens).

 

If you want the best in durability and in pictures a Leica will never disappoint you, no matter which of the systems you choose.

 

Good luck with your study and your considerations.

[paul_neuthaler]

F3 you will be happy

[paul_neuthaler]

F3 you will be happy

[michael_matsil]

This question really cannot be satisfactorily answered here. Now that you have gotten a

litany of camera types and makers from this post, I have a suggestion. You are choosing

between an SLR and a rangefinder. Instead of dropping big money on either of these

Leicas, find one of the many, inexpensive small rangefinders made in the 60's and 70's.

Use it for a couple of years, then trade it in for an inexpensive Pentax K1000 SLR, and use

it for a couple of years. Then get back to us with which you prefer, SLR or rangefinder and

THEN consider the R9 or M7. This will save you loads of money and much post purchase

dissonance. Good luck!

[derek_stanton2]

If you do go the SLR route and don't buy Leica, get a Canon. You'll be positioned very

well with your lens investment to go into digital. You'll also be able to use Leica or

Zeiss/Contax lenses on the Canon with an adapter.

 

First thing's first, though. Examine what kinds of pictures you like and/or want to

take. That will lead you to which lens(es) you'll need. And, in the process of

examining those things you may notice you recognize the characteristics of certain

lenses/lens types, you may be further guided into a specific product line.

 

Deciding between an SLR and rangefinder is something that should be done hands-

on. They are two very different animals, and require different ways of seeing and

working. If you choose one based on its 'heritage,' you may be uncomfortable with

your camera and the results. The best advice, though, is that you can get amazing

results with any brand or type of camera, as each of the major manufacturers makes

exceedingly good lenses.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Michael, though I understand your point, you sound somehow paternalistic.

The guy does not need FOUR years to make up his mind between SLR and rangefinder. I'm

sure he's not that stupid. Some very hard to get college diplomas take four years. Let's say

6 months each. What do you say?

[steve_swinehart]

If you have the money, and you want a Leica - then buy it. However, in the rangefinder, my choice would be the MP and not the M7.

 

The cameras you are interested in are, as pointed out, two very different cameras. The SLR has a large array of interchangeable lenses from very wide angle to long telephoto. The M7 or MP has a limited range of lenses from wide angle to short telephoto.

 

The rangefinder is smaller, faster to use, and unobtrusive. If you're only doing snapshots of the family - then either will work.

 

If you have the budget for the cameras, go ahead and buy either the SLR or the rangefinder. You might want to go to a Leica dealer and look at them first, before purchasing.

[Uhooru]

I would agree with Andrew, FM3a and the 45 lens to start. Its like anything, when you first start getting into it, you can't know what you are really going to want until you've done it a bit and start developing your taste. On the other hand, I've always felt that even when learning, its great to get the best you can afford, this holds particulalry true, let say for musical instruments, where you don't want to be fighting the instrument. But in Camera's there are zillions of good cameras. I don't think you want to plunk down 3000 minimum to start a M7 kit if you haven't ever used a rangefinder. A great way to learn photography is by using a manual focus, manual apeture camera, hence the FM3a, which offers Apeture priorty exposure as well as pure manual. Like wise the Nikon F, F2 or F3 or the FM/FM2,FE/FE2, Cannon AE1 or even a Pentax K1000. Those listed above will all be used so you have the problem of making sure its in good condition. FM3a or other Nikons are nice because you have a wide range of lenses available and they will work on all of them, you can get older lenses in good condition and off brand lenses that work and you will have a nice kit going. If you want to begin in rangefinder, then the Cosina Voigtlander camera's are very good for that and much less expensive. Their lenses are very reasonable and quite good, a lot of Leica users here use the Voigtlander lenses. You can even then move into Leica lenses etc. as stated by others here. But I would recommend first learning how to get proper exposure by all manual usage, even to the point of guessing the light via the "Sunny 16 rule" and then how to use your meter and know what its telling you and then AE etc. Then you can start to get an idea of what your needs are for a camera.

[Uhooru]

Again Zdenek, when I read your post and when you say "I am not a professional photographer, but only occasionally" you may be saying you are occasionally a professional photographer? If so, then never mind, just get an M7.

[._._z]

He didn't say occasionally, he said occasional.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Zdenek,

 

If I'm guessing correctly from your post that you may have more money than time and might simply enjoy buying some of the finer things in life, here are some other suggestions. All of these items are available brand new from reputable dealers and represent excellent quality, good value or maybe even both.

 

-1- Nikon F100 or FM3a. The former is a wonderful, professional quality Nikon body that costs somewhere around $900. The Nikon lens system is wonderful. The F100 can be used like a point-and-shoot with full automation, but it still has all the manual and "pro" features you'll probably need in your lifetime. The FM3a is a very sturdy, metal construction manual Nikon camera.

 

-2- If you are simply interestes in having access to "magic glass" lenses, you might also consider Contax/Zeiss systems and lenses. Their excellent G2 system is an automatic, auto-focus rangefinder with much admired Zeiss lenses. A complete camera/2 or 3-lens kit brand new might run something around $2,000, depending on what lenses/ accessories you select. Contax also makes fine SLR cameras, and they have autofocus/automatic models offering a very high quality, convenient access to Zeiss lenses.

 

-3- If you are interested in exploring the "rangefinder mystique", you can complement any of the above systems with a lovely, brand new Voightlander Bessa R2 and 2 lens kit for somewhere around $1,000, again depending on the lenses you select. This is a not a Leica, but it is an attractive, very nice camera with wonderful (and some *really* wonderful) lenses. By the time you stop having fun and taking great pictures with the Voigtlander kit, you'll know whether or not an M7 is right for you or not - and you can use the R2 as a second backup body, as both take the same lenses.

 

OTOH, if I'm guessing incorrectly and you have lots more time than money, there are many more economical suggested courses of action in the responses above. Have fun!!!!

 

Scott

[gary_pinkerton1]

You might try a Leicaflex SL and a couple of R lenses [less than 1000 bucks total for the 3 pieces if you shop right]. This camera is a great learning tool as well as an intro to Leica photography, as well as the best, IMO, SLR ever made.

[doug herr]

Gary Pinkerton wrote: <I>You might try a Leicaflex SL and a couple of R lenses ... the best, IMO, SLR ever made.</I>

<P>

I agree with Gary. The SL has a viewfinder that makes others look like second- or third-class, you can use inexpensive 2-cam lenses or with a bit of modification most of the current (and spectacular) R lenses, and it's sensory feedback says "Leica".