chung_lee2

david,

when dealing with leica m's, lens quality is the third reason out of the three main reasons

for choosing one.

i think one chooses leica m's number one for form factor, superior build quality then the

characteristics of the lenses.

technique, format size, films, subject matter, style of shooting etc... play such huge parts

to the look of your images. shooting scenerios can be set up to emphasize the best

qualities of leica glass but for everyday real world professional or non professional

shooting, i wouldn't get too caught up with "having to have leica glass because

theoretically it's the best" because you pay such a huge premium for it.

the leica m's are niche cameras that carry a huge premium. they are one of the best built

cameras i have ever owned but also one of the most expensive systems. they cannot

shoot macro or telephoto or fast action. way the pros and the cons and depending on

what is more important to you vis a vis cost there are other alternatives if you are looking

strickly for sharpness and contrast.

...never used old leica lenses....

...never used voightlander...

...for product provia 100f for skin tones asita 100 however, must keep in mind it shoots

warm (increased reds or magentas at 5200 kelvin)

chung lee

thanks gang for sharing your thoughts. as far as comparing the two cameras, i have

used zeiss lenses for years and can vouch for their quality.

i compared the two rigs because zeiss and leitz lenses are the best. i agree the

bodies are very different but i was comparing more picture quality then anything else.

the only leica i have ever used was a 80 1.4 on an r8 body which i loved but sold

because my rts II and 85 1.4 was just as good and sold the leica gear to move up to

medium format.

the above image was shot with the contax and 90 2.8.

i like both rigs equally.

yes i originally moved to contax for cost reasons and it's now ironic i also purchased

the leica gear. however, i don't think i would be happy with the leica gear if i didn't

have the contax to compliment it and visa versa. if i had to choose either or i would

go with the contax for it's autofocus and cost.

i went to adorama today to check out the mp thinking i would be impressed but was

disappointed in the feel of the shutter and advance action. it felt like a bessa r2. then

i played with the m3's and was very impressed with the action of the camera.

a photographer named mike dixon on another forum gave me a heads up about an

m3 that was cla'ed but i dismissed it thinking that newer was better. i am now a

convert. i love the action of the m3 and will probably end up getting one of those and

having it overhauled to like new condition.

what a solid camera.

i don't plan on adding alot of leica gear and i really only need one body to drive the

75 lux. so i don't know what i would do with the m7. i don't really have gear sitting

around since i'm not a collector so i will probably sell it as soon as i get an m3.

so far i have handled the m6 in ttl and non ttl, m7, mp and the m3 and i like the

action of the m3 then the m6 and then the m7 and the mp last.

just some observations from a leica newbie.

for those thinking of getting into leica rangefinders, i would recommend getting an

m3 with a portrait lens, (90 cron on a budget or a 75 lux with the money saved on a

new body).

as always,

chung lee<div></div>

i prefer number one.

i like the cropping and angle of the shot more then the second one.

very nice.

chung lee

oh drooooolllll...

i'm a minimalist and the mp appeals to my sensibilities. i wish i had gotten it instead

of an m7...

dang!!!

have fun and post your impressions of it.

regards,

chung lee

hi gang,

this all started because my wife wanted more snapshots of our 2 year old son.

so i embarked on my quest for the appropriate camera. i tried the consumer digitals

but the shutter lag and hyperfocusing was driving me insane, so i decided on a

rangefinder type of camera for portibility as the number one criteria.

after handling almost every brand rangefinder i was stuck between the contax g2 and

a modern leica rangefinder.

i tried both for a month and shot plenty of film. i decided on the contax g2 for the

autofocus and cost. after shooting the contax g2 for a couple of months i couldn't

shake the leica bug.

part of it has to do with being a camera snob and nevering having owned one. so i

purchased the m7 .72 with motor and lens.

i love both systems tremedously. after shooting both systems in all types of

situations, the number one advantage of the g2 over the m7 is my ability to shoot

more spontaneous images. the advantage of the m7 is the faster glass. i like to

shoot people wide open. if the g2 had a faster portrait lens then the m7 wouldn't

have been a consideration.

the other advantages the m7 offers (quiter, uses less batteries) aren't that big of an

issue for me.

for those considering either system, there are advantages and disadvantages to both

and i think it comes down to shooting style and preferences.

the other issues is cost but my suggestion is, if you really prefer the leica then get the

leica. don't settle on the contax. get a contax because you prefer it.

they both take great pictures.

thanks for letting my ramble.

chung lee

www.chunglee.com

ps, if i had to do it over again i would have gotten an mp. so i could have one

automated system and one completely manual system.

pss. just for fun can anyone guess what rig i used for this shot?<div></div>

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

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

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

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

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>