Leica, what's all the fuss about?

[usayit]

Helen.. anyway to borrow a good M3?? I know it doesn't have a meter and doesn't have wide-angle frame lines but the viewfinder on my CLAd M3 is noticeably brighter than the M6. I have no idea how it compares to an M7 (never even held one).

I for one.. would be interested in hearing your thoughts after you complete your comparison. Just curious.

 

[itoncool]

Leica...
Expensive, yes, but it's a craftsmanship.
Better image quality, maybe yes maybe no, still depends on the user.
Compact and silent, yes to M's, never have experience with the R's. Maybe Helen could give a better perspective on R.

usayit, nice pair, nice Nocti

Helen, interesting project, did you set your D3 in manual focus too?

 

[bapp]

Heheh no worries I can see how it looked like I meant the M8 was an SLR...

A techno just retrieve as been served!!

 

[Mitica100]

I'll be the first to admit it, but my knowledge of photography equipment is not every high at all. When it comes to brands, I know brand names and thats it. I hear this Leica name thrown around a lot and my short research has told me everything from the Wikipedia article, they are ugly looking, and they are expensive.

So what is all the fuss about? Please do enlighten me!

It's so simple! Get one in your hands and shoot, feel how it's like to work with one. I guarantee you'll want it.

 

[usayit]

It is difficult to explain unless you actually make the leap of faith to shoot with a Leica (or any other rangefinder). Iron Flatline (our local Leica cult leader heheh lol) posted a link to an excellent article that might help explain the Leica cult. It is a good read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane?printable=true

Expensive?? very much so! As a Canon shooter (and a Pentax shooter prior), I could pretty much afford to buy the absolute best. ( If I wanted to.) Cost was not an issue. Once I switch my hat to the one with the red dot, I am awaken by the reality that the best is way far out of my reach (35mm f1.4 is about $4k USD!!!).

Strange thing though... it doesn't bother me at all. The "old" and "cheaper" Leica glass brings me more joy than any "consumer" Canon lens could ever. Even the much cheaper Cosina Voigtlander lenses (28 f1.9 Ultron and 35 f1.2 Nokton) are just as enjoyable. Holding the equipment in your hands is like holding a piece of fine jewelry with the possibilities of creating something special.

I kid you not.... shooting with a leica doesn't equate to better photos.. some actually believe this but it is all Magic Leica Fairy Dust... It is still the photographer. (and the car in my driveway is still a Dodge)

 

[sothoth]

I've never understood why particular cameras get a "cult" following. What makes one camera "fun" and another camera not fun??

Lets see... on this camera I load film and press this button to take a picture. That's fun!! on this other camera, I don't have to load film and I press this button to take a picture. That's fun!! On my other camera, I load film and take pictures (usually on a tripod) and that's also fun!! I'm confused about Leica. It seems like a decent camera but there are a lot of decent cameras out there.

It was also nice that someone posted that you can mount a zeiss lens on a canon camera, I didn't know that. Do you know which adapter that is? Maybe a nikon to canon and use a Zeiss lens with a nikon mount? Anyway, that sounds like fun.

 

[Mitica100]

Leicas are to the other cameras what Ferari is to the other cars. Both fun to drive but one has a legend behind it.

 

[usayit]

As Mitica said...

you fill gas in a Toyota and go from A to B
you fill gas in a Ferrari and go from A to B.

Ferrari is more fun to drive.


btw.. Zeiss lenses can mount to Leica without an adapter.

 

[shorty6049]

zeiss lenses also mount to sony dslrs if anyone wanted to know that! but of course i'm a little biased.... ;-)

 

[shorty6049]

also, i dont quite understand the comparison between toyotas and ferraris... I've always liked the look, feel, and features of almost ANY SLR (film or digital) over the leicas. I feel like whats happening is the same as if ford were to start producing model Ts again and charging an arm and a leg for them. People would still pay that much because its kind of a niche market they'd be developing. I have nothign against leicas, but i feel like they're only pricing their cameras and lenses as high as they are, because they CAN. And sure, its a good business strategy, if you have the opportunity to make lots of money off something that to most common photographers seems almost obsolete as far as features go, then more power to you. But i feel like the consumer is losing in the long run.

 

[bhop]

And sure, its a good business strategy, if you have the opportunity to make lots of money off something that to most common photographers seems almost obsolete as far as features go, then more power to you. But i feel like the consumer is losing in the long run.

I don't think that 'most common photographers' would be the target customer for Leica. (heck, even the digital ones are still manual focus only) Someone that uses a rangefinder is aware that it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of other dslr's.. that's not what makes a rangefinder desirable... (not that I know from experience, since I can't afford one, but i've done a lot of reading )

 

[shorty6049]

what DOES make a rangefinder desirable (other than nostalgia)?

 

[Alex_B]

You can set up a Leica gera for landscape and wildlife photography which yields very good image quality .. but your gear will be more compact than with say Nikon or Canon.

 

[sothoth]

As Mitica said...

you fill gas in a Toyota and go from A to B
you fill gas in a Ferrari and go from A to B.

Ferrari is more fun to drive.

I DO get your point, but your analogy isn't making such a good case.

The difference between a Toyota and a Ferarri is also about 500hp (depending on which models you're comparing) and probably at least $200,000, if not considerably more (depending on which models you're comparing). There's a lot of other differences, too.

I really don't mean to bash any Leica models or their followers, but frankly I'm still confused why the cult following.

 

[bhop]

what DOES make a rangefinder desirable (other than nostalgia)?

A couple things i've read is the quality of the lenses, which are said to be the best as far as sharpness from end to end. (hence the prices) Another is the lack of a mirror inside reduces camera shake and lets you hand hold it a slower shutter speeds, which is why it is (or was) such a popular camera with photojournalists. And since the viewfinder isn't looking through the lens, you can see more of what's around your subject for composition purposes.

As I mentioned before, I haven't used one, just read a lot about them, so you might take what i'm saying with a grain of salt, but this stuff makes sense when you look at how the camera works mechanically and it does make me want to try one out. But I am also a fan of "street" or photojournalist style photography so the advantages could be more noticeable than if you were to set it up on a tripod and shoot carefully controlled shots.