Leica...Is It Worth It?
Jim Mueller
no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
Consider this: Let's say you want to but a normal 50mm lens. Now, a
Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF is considered a very sharp lens (rated 4.4 by
Photodo) and costs around $100. A Leica 50mm f2.0 is also considered a
sharp lens (rated 4.6) cost about $1000!
Is the Leica Manual Focus 50mm f2 ten times better then the Nikon Auto
Focus 50mm f1.8? Is it worth paying an extra $900 because the Leicas
were made by German labor vs Thai labor?
Would you trade a complete autofocus system, let's say a Canon Elan 7e
and a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro EF, for a leica 50mm f2.0 lens alone?
Is it me or am I insane for even considering buying a new Leica?
(Yea....but they're collectable....like Hummels?)
Kinon O'Cann
motivation. First, what can't your present gear do for you? Yes, Leicas are
excellent, but not everybody needs them. If your decision isn't needs
driven, then there are three other reasons I can think of for wanting a
Leica; for a collection, the pleasure of owning and using a fine piece of
equipment, or just plain lust. If you're a collector, and plan to put it on
a shelf, that's a shame. If you simple want to own and use a really piece of
equipment, do it. Why not? If it's lust, then you're blinded, and will spend
the money on it no matter what.
From what I've seen, the Leica stuff will not produce an image that is
proportionately better in quality to a Nikon with regards to the price. The
differences between a Leica slide and Nikon slide are slight, at the most.
FWIW, I'm comparing Nikon's better glass, and not the consumer junk. But I
compared some chromes from my 80-200 2.8 zoom and a Leica 90, and could not,
for the life of me, see a difference under a 40X loupe.
Proceed with caution. You are not insane. Nice stuff is nice to have,
whether you need it or not. And nice stuff that actually does something is
even nicer. And which camera would you want to own 25 years from now?
OK, let the flaming begin!
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
Photobob
you to consider buying a Leica.
The value isn't in its resale value, the sharpness of the lenses, the
compactness of the camera. The value is in what it allows you to do that an
SLR or another rangefinder will not. Only YOU know what that is. If you
don't know what it is, then you'll regret every getting a Leica if you buy
one.
The question to ask yourself is why you think "They're nice cameras". Why
are they "nice"? What appeals to you?
I know why I own Leica (two, in fact). No one can tell you why YOU
need/want one.
b~
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
kenny c
leica = apple
canon = orange
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
George C. Berger
conditions, and your propensity to want to blend into the background.
With SLR's you tend to compose by mass and large forms, as you
instinctively compose with a wide-open lens, thus with a very shallow
depth of field. With a rangefinder, you compose by lines - - as
everything appears in focus within the brightline viewfinder.
The Leica M is a very quiet and unobtrusive camera. Just a slight
whirrrr or click of the shutter, with no bang-slap-slap of the mirror.
Further, you have a continuous view of what you photographed at the
instant the shutter tripped - - not a second later. For low light
shooting, an f/2 or f/1.4 (28 mm, 35mm, 50mm)is significantly smaller
and lighter that the SLR counterpart, and focussing in low light is
more accurate with the split image (matching) rangefinder and bright
viewfinder of the M. For interiors of cathedrals, palaces, churches,
museums, etc., the 21mm to 35mm wide angle lenses - - - plus the 15mm
non-Leica lenses, are in a class by themselves when it comes to
shooting in cramped quarters with available light.
Limitations? You bet! No telephoto (>135mm) or "xxx - yyy" varifocal
length lenses need apply <g>. Same for architectual lenses. Also, there
is the WYSIWYG accuracy of an SLR at close and macro distances.
Finally, if you're slightly ancient (as I am), you can handhold an M4 or
M6 at speeds well below those that are possible with an SLR. Try 1/30 vs
1/125 to see. And, at the end of the day, you've carried around 1/4th
of the weight around your neck.
Just my three cents (Inflation, you know)
--
George Berger
gbe...@his.com
나?
afterwards, perhaps to show to your insurer and then to sell on eBay for $170. But, your Canon will need to be scrapped from the
floor using a spatula and you maybe hard-pressed to prove that it once was a camera.
The Hummel may depreciate about the same amount as the Leica if subjected to the abuse of a 4-alarm fire so this is perhaps an
excellent comparison.
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
Mxsmanic
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately.
> They're nice cameras, no doubt about it. But
> are they really worth the price?
That depends on what you consider valuable in a camera.
> Is the Leica Manual Focus 50mm f2 ten times
> better then the Nikon Auto Focus 50mm f1.8?
Optically? No. Mechanically? Not really. But it is slightly better
optically, and significantly better mechanically. The increment in
quality is much smaller than the increment in price. But that is always
the case everywhere.
> Is it worth paying an extra $900 because
> the Leicas were made by German labor vs
> Thai labor?
Why would the nationality of the workers making the lenses be a
consideration?
> Would you trade a complete autofocus system,
> let's say a Canon Elan 7e and a Canon 100mm
> f2.8 macro EF, for a leica 50mm f2.0 lens alone?
No, but I'd trade an entire Canon system for a Leica body and lens.
> Is it me or am I insane for even considering
> buying a new Leica?
Not at all. They are very nice cameras. And if you buy one and don't
like it, they retain their value well and you can sell it and be out
only a few hundred dollars at most.
Mxsmanic
news:Ua3o8.128543$702.25644@sccrnsc02...
> The value is in what it allows you to do that an
> SLR or another rangefinder will not. Only YOU
> know what that is. If you don't know what it is,
> then you'll regret every getting a Leica if you buy
> one.
The problem is that it's hard to ever know if you'll like the Leica way
of taking pictures unless you try a Leica, which usually means buying
one.
Mxsmanic
news:tb3o8.5060$RQq....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> leica = apple
> canon = orange
Leica = plum
Canon = lemon
Mike Lipphardt
Leica thing, and how much money you have. I drive a Saturn, which reliably
gets me from point A to point B, just as well as the Saab 9000 Turbo I've
been lusting after all these years. The reason I haven't bought a Leica is
the same as why I haven't bought the Saab - money. But if you have the
money and want a superb interchangeable lens rangefinder system, Leica is
the only game in town. That M7 looks like a nice piece of work.
Mike
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
> no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
In my opinion, this is the wrong way to start thinking about it. Leica
prices are astronomical, but that's not how you justify whether the
equipment is worth something to you. In my opinion, there is too much on
this newsgroup in the vein of "oh that would be nice but it's too much
money." Why is that so much an issue? Not everything can be made
inexpensively, and not everyone can afford every top of the line thing.
And the notion of "leica collecting" is simply a false impression based
upon a very visible but small percentage of collectors ... There are
collectors of every camera marque out there, no different in the Leica
community. The reality is that the number of Leica photographers far
outweighs the number of Leica collectors.
The Leica camera bodies, particular the M, are conservative and very well
made, very reliable, with relatively simple features. They last a long
time, far longer than the average camera consumer hangs onto the more
leading-edge-feature-oriented vendors' products. Leica owners tend to buy
and work with a body or two for many years, not changing willy nilly as
another great new feature is added to the product mix. Many eschew even
the recent body features and prefer the older models which are even
simpler, seeking for the kind of hand-work feel that old Leicas exude. But
the bodies are not the real reason why people choose Leica.
It's the lenses. The differences between a Leica lens and a Nikon or Canon
lens is not easily quantified but it shows through in photos. Perhaps not
in 4x6" photofinisher prints or coarse screen, magazine or newspaper
reproduction. There is a finely expressed microcontrast separation,
in-to-out of focus, resolution and contrast lens signature which differs
greatly from most other lens families.
If these qualities are visible to you, excite you, then you should
consider buying a Leica. The price is steep, certainly ... $1300+ for a
35/2 lens compared to far less from other folks ... but for those who can
see and appreciate the differences, it's a price well worth it and also a
price that the majority of buyers will pay only once: they'll buy and use
that lens for 30-40 years.
This sort of 'unhurried value' is much different from buying the latest in
leading edge equipment only to upgrade again when the leading edge has
moved on. Leica's contribution to value for dollar is enduring quality
over long years of use and a uniquely satisfying imaging signature in
their lens line.
Godfrey
Tony Polson
>Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
>no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
Only you can make that decision. So why bother posting the question?
McEowen
Yes, you're insane. You SHOULD be considering buying good, USED Leica equipment
. . .
stki...@duke.edu
> Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
> no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
Only you can answer that....
> Is the Leica Manual Focus 50mm f2 ten times better then the Nikon Auto
> Focus 50mm f1.8? Is it worth paying an extra $900 because the Leicas
> were made by German labor vs Thai labor?
Probably not. When I was shooting a Contax G, I was *stunned* by
the lenses, and the slides I shot. Now that I've moved to a
an M6 and two used lenses, I don't find my slides any sharper.
No worse, but no better.
However, I think it's kinda crazy to buy M lenses *new*.
I can see purchasing the body new, but the glass??
Steve
Leicaddict
"Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
georgio
if you really do have lots of $$ and want to get real
good picts...get a large format cam.. hasselblad
would be nice..
or a digital SLR..
georgio
--
Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
ajacobs2
WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT!
With Leica pricing, didn't you mean SINK YOUR YACHT!
Lewis Lang
>From: "George C. Berger" gbe...@his.com
>Date: Tue, Mar 26, 2002 7:04 PM
>Message-id: <gberger-A81684...@vienna7.his.com>
>
>It all depends on *how* you see, *what* you photograph under what
>conditions, and your propensity to want to blend into the background.
>With SLR's you tend to compose by mass and large forms, as you
>instinctively compose with a wide-open lens, thus with a very shallow
>depth of field. With a rangefinder, you compose by lines - - as
>everything appears in focus within the brightline viewfinder.
Aside from the difference in depth of fields seen by a viewfinder camera such
as the Leica M ("infinite" depth of field) verses the SLR (usually a
shallow(er) depth of field no matter the lens at maximum/open aperture), why
should the type of camera/viewing system matter matter in composing by forms or
by lines or anything else - I compose according to the compositional structure
necessary for each individual shot whether that be forms, lines, tonality,
colors, etc. Why let the type of camera/viewing system dictate your
compositional unifying mode(s)/scematic plan?
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Mar 26, 2002 6:35 PM
>Message-id: <tb3o8.5060$RQq....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>
>
>leica = apple
>canon = orange
Minolta = cherry
Olympus = banana
Pentax = mango
Contax = grape
Nikon = watermelon
digital = wax fruit ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Mar 26, 2002 8:06 PM
>Message-id: <Bx4o8.15271$A%3.11...@ord-read.news.verio.net>
>
>Depends very strongly on how much you buy into the rangefinder thing and
>the
>Leica thing, and how much money you have. I drive a Saturn, which reliably
>gets me from point A to point B, just as well as the Saab 9000 Turbo I've
>been lusting after all these years. The reason I haven't bought a Leica
>is
>the same as why I haven't bought the Saab - money. But if you have the
>money and want a superb interchangeable lens rangefinder system, Leica is
>the only game in town. That M7 looks like a nice piece of work.
>
>Mike
Not the only game in town Mike, there's the Hexar RF and the Minolta CLE
(used), Leitz Minolta CL, the Voigtlander (various models including
specifically the new R2 that takes M lenses) and even the, gasp, the Nikon S3?
(or whatever the model number is) and the Contax G1 and G2! ;-)
Larry Miracle
If you are mostly interested in taking photos--buy a Nikon or Canon.
If you are mostly interested in collecting cameras, or making a
fashion statement about your great wealth and good taste--buy Leica.
I'm not saying Leica aren't great cameras, but lets face it, most of
the people that do this thing for a living use Nikon or Canon for a
reason.
They are practical and they get the job done, well.
However you are probably not a professional, and the fact that you are
even entertaining the idea in the first place means you probably can
afford it.
In that case, you should by all means buy a whole Leica setup,
otherwise you will never be happy with anything else.
Just keep in mind,
that no camera,
no matter how good,
will ever make you a better photographer,
and that if you really want sharper pictures,
you should seriously think about getting a medium format camera.
Look at you!
You aren't even reading this.
Your just looking off in to the distance and drool is running out of
your mouth.
Larr
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Mar 27, 2002 12:20 AM
>Message-id: <vf8o8.270700$uv5.23...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>
>WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT!
I think that phrase can be traced back to the Captain of the Titanic, along w/
"I'll have ice w/ that drink" and "why is Leonardo Dicaprio in this movie"? ;-)
TDuffy8486
shutter cycles before the camera had to be scrapped, that a Leica was a far
more economical purchase than a Nikon or Canon?
but seriously, you would buy a Leica for the quiet shutter, the rangefinder
accuracy in low light and the pleasure of using the high water mark of the
mechanical camera.
I like the suggestion that you rent, borrow before you commit that kind of
money, if you're unsure.
I do think that most people who have used an M leica and sell it, eventually
wonder what they were thinking and buy another. I did!
Take care,
Tom Duffy
McEowen
(used), Leitz Minolta CL, the Voigtlander (various models including
OK, perhaps it's arguable but I consider the Hexar, CL, CLE and Voigtsina R2
to be PART of the Leica game since they use the same lens mount. Any of these
cameras could be viewed as an entrance into the Leica system . . .
<<and even the, gasp, the Nikon S3? (or whatever the model number is) >>
You're kidding, right?
<<and the Contax G1 and G2! ;-) >>
Now THAT is an entirely DIFFERENT ballgame . . .
McEowen
fashion statement about your great wealth and good taste--buy Leica.
I'm not saying Leica aren't great cameras, but lets face it, most of
the people that do this thing for a living use Nikon or Canon for a
reason.
They are practical and they get the job done, well. >>
The comments of the uninformed . . .
Since we're all photo enthusiasts I assume we all subscribe to National
Geographic, right? (At $21 a year, you should!). So if we would all just make a
practice of looking at the "On Assignment" feature at the back of the book
every month we'll see what some of the world's top shooters have hanging off
their shoulders and necks when they pose for their snapshots. Invariably you'll
see three types of cameras: Nikon AF SLRs, Canon AF SLRs and -- yep, you
guessed it -- Leica rangefinders! Get a grip folks. Many of the world's top
shooters include Leica rangefinders as part of their kits. They don't do it
because it's a status symbol. THey do it because it's an important tool in
their photography. Just because you haven't made the same choice doesn't make
it any less true.
Jeff Novick
(snip)
> Probably not. When I was shooting a Contax G, I was *stunned* by
> the lenses, and the slides I shot. Now that I've moved to a
> an M6 and two used lenses, I don't find my slides any sharper.
> No worse, but no better.
> Steve
Steve,
I'm curious why you moved from a G to an M6? How often are we stunned by a
lens? Was it a matter of 'features' of the bodies?
Jeff
ArtKramr
>(used), Leitz Minolta CL, the Voigtlander (various models including
>specifically the new R2 that takes M lenses) and even the, gasp, the Nikon
>S3?
I think he meant the only game in town worth playing.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Godfrey DiGiorgi
my Leica M kit at the time and bought a Contax G2 plus four lenses. I
enjoyed all the features and the automation, lens quality was never an
issue ... the Zeiss lenses are superb. But I found that I just preferred
working with the Leica M, I liked the ergonomics and simplicity of it
more. So I sold the Contax G kit and bought a new M plus two new lenses.
Again, while there are differences in imaging quality, the Leica lenses
and Zeiss lenses are quite comparable, I just prefer the Leica M..
Godfrey
In article <wTbo8.58759$zG.145...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, "Jeff
DM
> Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
> no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
Depends on your style of shooting. Having used Leicas (quite a
lot, since the M3), I found myself using rangefinders less and
less. My SLR system does it for me, and I wouldn't spend money
on Leicas today, not at that price.
Mxsmanic
news:milgs*nospam*-2603022...@trj76.travel-net.com...
> if you really do have lots of $$ and want to get real
> good picts...get a large format cam.. hasselblad
> would be nice..
>
> or a digital SLR..
Digital SLR and large-format quality are mutually exclusive.
Mxsmanic
news:3ca43e0e...@news.uswest.net...
> I'm not saying Leica aren't great cameras, but
> lets face it, most of the people that do this
> thing for a living use Nikon or Canon for a
> reason.
> They are practical and they get the job done,
> well.
For most types of photography, this is true. However, some types of
photography benefit more from the use of other systems. The only
problem is that these other types (street photography, "art"
photography, and so on) tend not to be very lucrative.
It is true that when I am getting paid for something, I usually use the
Nikon.
Larry Miracle
Most photographers don't work for National Geographic.
They do portraits and weddings and commercial work.
I'm talking about the 9-5 professionals that do photography for a
living and see a camera as a tool, not something to impress their
friends with.
And they don't use Leica.
I know a few professional photographers that come into our camera
repair shop that own them and even love them.
But they don't use them for their daily work.
Come on, why am I even arguing this with you.
Do you really think that more professionals are using Leica than Nikon
or Canon?
Larr
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Mar 27, 2002 1:24 AM
>Message-id: <milgs*nospam*-26030221...@trj76.travel-net.com>
>
>no..
>
>if you really do have lots of $$ and want to get real
>good picts...get a large format cam.. hasselblad
>would be nice..
>
>or a digital SLR..
>
>georgio
If you really do have _mega_ bucks you're better off either hiring a
photographer and/or buying the photographs of a photographer who uses or used
Leica equipment. It so happens that I have some images made from just such
Leica equipment ;-) ;-)
나?
"나?" <worldfo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:a7qhi3$6bv$1...@wanadoo.fr...
> As someone pointed out earlier, if your Leica gets in a 4-alarm house fire then you will still have something to hold in your
hands
> afterwards, perhaps to show to your insurer and then to sell on eBay for $170. But, your Canon will need to be scrapped from the
> floor using a spatula and you maybe hard-pressed to prove that it once was a camera.
>
> The Hummel may depreciate about the same amount as the Leica if subjected to the abuse of a 4-alarm fire so this is perhaps an
> excellent comparison.
>
>
> "Jim Mueller" <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
> > no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
> >
bachch...@my-deja.com
sky-high prices of new Leica gear, when plenty of used stuff are
available for much more reasonable costs. I bought both my 50 'Cron
and 90 thin Tele-Elmarit off eBay for less than US$500 each, including
shipping. (BTW, now you can buy a_new_M body without selling your
car: the Konica Hexar RF and Voigtlander Bessa R2 are great
alternatives, with much more useable maximum flash-sync speeds.)
And yes, Leica photos_do_ look different, most noticeably in their
bokeh and micro-contrast/tonal separation. Nikon primes are plenty
sharp but just can't compare with Leica in the area of tonal
rendition.
However, a rangefinder entails a long (if not steep)
learning/acclimatizaion curve and is not to everyone's liking. An SLR
(Leicaflex or R?) is perhaps more user-friendly.
Andrew
Mike Lipphardt
while it's not a Leica, it ain't bad. What I meant is if you want the cream
of the crop, Leica appears to be the way to go. Unfortunately, unless my
company takes off and makes me fairly well to do, I'll never know.
Maybe one of you guys would loan me one for a month or three, just so that I
can see what I'm missing? :)
Mike
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020326233947...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Abusaleh Jabir
>
> leica = apple
> canon = orange
No no, Leica = Apple, Canon = Apple; but grown in different countries.
Abusaleh
McEowen
Do you really think that more professionals are using Leica than Nikon
or Canon?
>>
I never implied that. Instead I stated that many top professional photographers
use Leicas -- usually in ADDITION to their Nikon or Canon. I further stated
that these folks do NOT use them as status symbols as someone implied (someone
always does) but rather because they are useful tools.
Roger
It's been said over and over on this news group. You have to do what's
right for you. It's not about cost, value, etc. It's what you need a
camera to do. Leica does some thing well and you can read all about
them here, a SLR does some things better and you can read about them
also. The camera is not justified on cost, it's justified on need or
ability to pay. They may not intersect.
I use a Leica and I also use a Nikon system. I have two lenses for the
Leica, a 35mm and a 50mm. The 50mm Summilux was my only lens for about
20 years. Gradually I began to see the world through wider lens and
now the 35mm is the lens I use 80% of the time (on any camera body). I
think I can see the difference, but that's not important. Many eyes
have to be trained to see the difference and whether that has value or
not is another matter altogether.
Recently I thought I wanted a 24mm lens for my Leica - I've had
experience with a 28mm on a SLR but wasn't really happy with that, but
no previous experience with a 24mm I just needed something wider than
35mm for a lot of situations. I bought an old/cheap 24mm Nikkor pre-AI
lens for my Nikon to try the focal length. I found it very useful. I
also added the 24mm AFD lens to my AF system - again very useful on
that camera.
In the process I re-discovered manual AIS Nikkor lenses and started
rebuilding that system for knock around travel. I discovered that I
could build a FM2n, F3, 24mm/35mm/50mm/85mm and now 28mm all for less
than the cost of the 24mm lens for the Leica.
I'd still like to add a 24mm lens to the M6. (or change everything to
a .58x body with other lenses). This desire is dictated by usage, not
value. What is dictated by value or cost is I can't do what I want to
do without sacrificing the manual Nikon system(s) and the M6 body. So
I'm not able to make that change right now - possibly never. But that
doesn't make the "cost" of a Leica wrong/insane/or anything else. Nor
is it about 10x better pictures. It is about taking pictures with a
24mm and 85mm lens that I can afford and building a camera system that
does what I need (at the present).
Regards,
Roger
jmue...@mmsd.com (Jim Mueller) wrote:
>Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
>no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
>
>Consider this: Let's say you want to but a normal 50mm lens. Now, a
>Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF is considered a very sharp lens (rated 4.4 by
>Photodo) and costs around $100. A Leica 50mm f2.0 is also considered a
>sharp lens (rated 4.6) cost about $1000!
>
>Is the Leica Manual Focus 50mm f2 ten times better then the Nikon Auto
>Focus 50mm f1.8? Is it worth paying an extra $900 because the Leicas
>were made by German labor vs Thai labor?
>
>Would you trade a complete autofocus system, let's say a Canon Elan 7e
>and a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro EF, for a leica 50mm f2.0 lens alone?
>
>Is it me or am I insane for even considering buying a new Leica?
Kinon O'Cann
in the case of Leicas, aren't always the prime motivators for purchase. The
touchy-feely stuff will usually win out, and separate a fool from his money.
"George C. Berger" <gbe...@his.com> wrote in message
news:gberger-A81684...@vienna7.his.com...
> It all depends on *how* you see, *what* you photograph under what
> conditions, and your propensity to want to blend into the background.
> With SLR's you tend to compose by mass and large forms, as you
> instinctively compose with a wide-open lens, thus with a very shallow
> depth of field. With a rangefinder, you compose by lines - - as
> everything appears in focus within the brightline viewfinder.
>
> The Leica M is a very quiet and unobtrusive camera. Just a slight
> whirrrr or click of the shutter, with no bang-slap-slap of the mirror.
> Further, you have a continuous view of what you photographed at the
> instant the shutter tripped - - not a second later. For low light
> shooting, an f/2 or f/1.4 (28 mm, 35mm, 50mm)is significantly smaller
> and lighter that the SLR counterpart, and focussing in low light is
> more accurate with the split image (matching) rangefinder and bright
> viewfinder of the M. For interiors of cathedrals, palaces, churches,
> museums, etc., the 21mm to 35mm wide angle lenses - - - plus the 15mm
> non-Leica lenses, are in a class by themselves when it comes to
> shooting in cramped quarters with available light.
>
> Limitations? You bet! No telephoto (>135mm) or "xxx - yyy" varifocal
> length lenses need apply <g>. Same for architectual lenses. Also, there
> is the WYSIWYG accuracy of an SLR at close and macro distances.
>
> Finally, if you're slightly ancient (as I am), you can handhold an M4 or
> M6 at speeds well below those that are possible with an SLR. Try 1/30 vs
> 1/125 to see. And, at the end of the day, you've carried around 1/4th
> of the weight around your neck.
>
> Just my three cents (Inflation, you know)
>
> --
> George Berger
> gbe...@his.com
Gary Frost
Jim Mueller wrote:
>
> Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
> no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
>
sigh....
The old Leica threads were getting stale:
Time to start a new one.....
...with the same content as the old ones.
stki...@duke.edu
> Steve,
> I'm curious why you moved from a G to an M6? How often are we stunned by a
> lens? Was it a matter of 'features' of the bodies?
Mostly. Godfrey, in the next message probably sums my feelings, as
well.
I had originally purchased the G1 to see if I'd like shooting a
rangefinder, and damned if I didn't. Very much so, in fact. But
over time, I disliked the automation -- the AF, the motorized
film advance, LCD's....
Unfortunately, the Zeiss lenses for the G series, spoiled me,
and there wasn't the initial "Wow!" when I saw my first
slides from the 50mm and 35mm Summicron. <sigh>
And I'm also wrestling with exposure -- the M6-TTL uses
what's essentially a large spot-meter, and it's a bit tricky
at first, IMO.
But non, je ne regrette rien!
Steve
Paul Chefurka
>Aside from the difference in depth of fields seen by a viewfinder camera such
>as the Leica M ("infinite" depth of field) verses the SLR (usually a
>shallow(er) depth of field no matter the lens at maximum/open aperture), why
>should the type of camera/viewing system matter matter in composing by forms or
>by lines or anything else - I compose according to the compositional structure
>necessary for each individual shot whether that be forms, lines, tonality,
>colors, etc. Why let the type of camera/viewing system dictate your
>compositional unifying mode(s)/scematic plan?
I don't think the camera "dictates" this, so much as it "fosters" it. I'm
at a loss to verbalize the differences myself, but I've noticed that I
compose very differently now than when I used to use an SLR. It does seem
to be related to looking through a window as opposed to looking at a
projection on a ground glass. For me the experience is one of greater
intimacy with my subject, as opposed to the form/line difference that I've
heard described before.
That said, people are just so different in their perceptions that it's
impossible to describe a single visual experience that will apply to
everyone. Suffice to say that some have noticed a difference in how they
compose, and among these people, some will prefer the sensation of
composing through a rangefinder's window. My F5/Hasselblad using buddy
swings the other way. I loaned him an M6 and a 35 for a trip to NYC, and
he hated every aspect of the experience. It cured him of Leica envy
forever.
Paul
Dallas
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Jim Mueller <jmue...@mmsd.com> wrote in message
news:a038e684.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Yes..I've been infatuated with Leicas, lately. They're nice cameras,
> no doubt about it. But are they really worth the price?
>
Robert Monaghan
Don't you really think that the reason there are a lot of Nikon, Canon,
and Leica photo credits at National Geographic is because National
Geographic supplies its photographers with Nikons, Canons, or Leicas as
part of their camera and lens(es) pool as a corporate standard, rather
than allowing their photographers to pick whatever camera they really like
and want (like Contax, or Minolta or Pentax, or...) and then having to buy
all sorts of lenses for each kit, and multiple service outlets and all
that? At least for their staff photographers, if not every stringer?
Frankly, I get a chuckle over this "pro's camera of choice" argument; it
reminds me when Canon hired a tennis and golf pro to sell their cameras,
since they knew nobody had EVER heard of any pro photographers in TV land
;-)
quite a few pro gear choices have been motivated by free loaners and other
payments. It is interesting when folks on various lists e.g. Nikon bemoan
it when a famous nikon pro user switches to Canon or vice versa, or more
often, to medium format ;-)
grins bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html *
Simon ALIBERT
> I'm not saying Leica aren't great cameras, but lets face it, most of
> the people that do this thing for a living use Nikon or Canon for a
> reason.
> They are practical and they get the job done, well.
That's true, I haven't see any 'M' at the game of slat lake city :-)
since you cannot put a 500mm/f4 AFS on a leica M body :-)
--
Simon ALIBERT.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Owning a Leica has more to do with pride of ownership than photography.
Utter nonsense.
Godfrey
Mxsmanic
news:1q43auk3qlqf1fod7...@4ax.com...
> Nikon primes are plenty sharp but just can't
> compare with Leica in the area of tonal
> rendition.
Yeah, right. Another "Leica glow" urban legend, I'm afraid.
Tony Polson
>Owning a Leica has more to do with pride of ownership than photography.
You just cannot control your envy, can you!
Stick to your consumer grade equipment, because
even that is way, way beyond your knowledge.
McEowen
and Leica photo credits at National Geographic is because National
Geographic supplies its photographers with Nikons, Canons, or Leicas as
part of their camera and lens(es) pool as a corporate standard, rather
than allowing their photographers to pick whatever camera they really like
and want >>
Actually, no . . . NG has very few "staff" shooters any more. Almost everyone
is a contract or freelance photographer and the gear they use is generally
their own . . .
McEowen
>>
And contributing to newsgroups has more to do with seeing your words in print
than having anything useful to say . . .
나?
"Leica...Is It Worth It?"
Considering you can adapt Nikkors to them, then I'd say yes! :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1342380213
Even Leica users can have an eye for quality.
ERNReed
>Most photographers don't work for National Geographic.
>
True 'nuff.
>They do portraits
medium format
>and weddings
medium format
>and commercial work.
medium format, large format.
>And they don't use Leica.
>
No. In your examples, the big names would be Mamiya, Hasselblad, Sinar --
wouldn't they?
>I know a few professional photographers that come into our camera
>repair shop that own them and even love them.
>
>But they don't use them for their daily work.
>
>Come on, why am I even arguing this with you.
>Do you really think that more professionals are using Leica than Nikon
>or Canon?
I missed the post where someone alleged that *more* professionals are using
Leica than Nikon or Canon -- here's Mr Miracle's quote from Mr McEowen (re
National Geographic shooters):
>Invariably you'll
>>see three types of cameras: Nikon AF SLRs, Canon AF SLRs and -- yep, you
>>guessed it -- Leica rangefinders! Get a grip folks. Many of the world's top
>>shooters include Leica rangefinders as part of their kits.
(by the way, did you notice "part of" in there?)
I've even run across professionals who *don't* shoot for National Geographic
and *do* use Leica as PART OF their kits. (Not counting Mr McEowen, as I
haven't met him.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"They call me Mrs Reed"
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
Roger
main one for me) is being able to shoot the glass wide open. Any
Nikkors adapted to the Leica M bodies are not rangefinder coupled. How
do you critical focus a Nikkor without that capability?
Adapting another lens to a Leica M body is a capability for someone
who wants to shoot with a large depth of field (e.g. to get around the
scale focusing situation), which IMO is only a small part of Leica
shooting.
Regards,
Roger
나?
> Now wait a minute... One strong point of a Leica system (at least the
> main one for me) is being able to shoot the glass wide open. Any
> Nikkors adapted to the Leica M bodies are not rangefinder coupled. How
> do you critical focus a Nikkor without that capability?
By waking up your genie and asking that it be done. If you're genie-less then just wave your magic-wand. The magic-wand takes more
effort on your part so a genie is the best. Of course, if you had a time-machine then you could see a good shot, go back a minute
or two before the moment, measure and pre-focus.
I saw the new Time-Machine film tonight!! He couldn't change the past if it meant he would not exist later, thereby not begin able
to return to modify the present, err future. Anyway, happy ending, boy meets girl, girl gets murdered just as boy proposes, boy
steals a kiss before girl dies for the second time, boy meets new girl who's a real hotty and wears less clothes than dead girl did,
boy happy with new girl in the year 802,701 and decides to stick around. Oh, and boy destroys entire bad society in a matter of
minutes. Everyone happy. I still haven't figured out how the ugly bad men could sink into the sand, displacing it so easily. I
guess since we in the 21st century destroyed the moon then gravity works differently on Earth and sand can be displaced like water.
> Adapting another lens to a Leica M body is a capability for someone
> who wants to shoot with a large depth of field (e.g. to get around the
> scale focusing situation), which IMO is only a small part of Leica
> shooting.
Okay, okay. You know that I was joking, right?
Leicaddict
"Kinon O'Cann" <fu...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:eOlo8.607$c6....@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
Leicaddict
"Tony Polson" <t.p.@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cui4aug54jprdulue...@4ax.com...
John Emmons
as usual, written by someone who has undoubtedly never owned, used or tried
one.
Why anyone should care about what brand of camera someone else chooses to
use is mindnumbingly unimportant.
John Emmons
Larry Miracle
Yes I think you just hit it on the head!
Larr
Larry Miracle
Does Leica make a 500mm f/4 lens?
How many millions does it cost?
Larr
McEowen
Does Canon or Nikon make a system manual focus rangefinder? How much does it
cost?
Tony Polson
Yep, that's definitely Dallas: mindnumbingly unimportant.
Bruce Murphy
> Does Leica make a 500mm f/4 lens?
No, but they make a 560mm f/4.
> How many millions does it cost?
9k for the primary lens, 4.5k for the focussing module from B&H, You
buy the primary lens and a focussing module (Which bears some about
the same resemblance to a teleconverter as a declicate surgical
instrument does to a stick).
Compare this to the 500 f/4 lens from Nikon for 7.5k.
B>
Mxsmanic
news:s6n4auk5h7gnci2n4...@4ax.com...
> Any Nikkors adapted to the Leica M bodies
> are not rangefinder coupled.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to adapt Leica lenses to Nikon bodies?
Mxsmanic
news:3ca57c8c...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Does Leica make a 500mm f/4 lens?
>
> How many millions does it cost?
Leica makes a 560-mm f/4 Apo-Telyt lens for its R-series 35mm SLRs, and
it lists for $13,790. There is a 400-mm f/4 Apo-Telyt for $8790, and a
400-mm f/2.8 Apo-Telyt for $12,590.
I don't remember if lenses this long have been made for the M-series
cameras, since they are poorly adapted to the use of extremely long
lenses.
Abusaleh Jabir
>
> "Photobob" <bob_remove_to_...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:Ua3o8.128543$702.25644@sccrnsc02...
>
> > The value is in what it allows you to do that an
> > SLR or another rangefinder will not. Only YOU
> > know what that is. If you don't know what it is,
> > then you'll regret every getting a Leica if you buy
> > one.
>
> The problem is that it's hard to ever know if you'll like the Leica way
> of taking pictures unless you try a Leica, which usually means buying
> one.
Forgive me for asking, but what *is* the "Leica way" of taking pictures,
and how is it different from, say, "Canon way" or "Nikon way" of taking
pictures?
Abusaleh
Tony Polson
Only in your tiny, warped mind. Look at the flange-to-film plane
distance of Leica M and Nikon F cameras and lenses and you will see
why. Ask your father to let you look at his.
bachch...@my-deja.com
wrote:
First, great micro-contrast and tonal separation (the lack of which is
called posterization) are not "Leica glow", much less a legend.
Second, tell us why you bought your own Leica gear. Or have you got
rid of them now, after discovering that their optical qualities are no
different than any other well-made stuff? How long did that take you?
If you're still keeping your Leica gear, why? Why not sell them off
and get something else equally well-made, with change left in your
pocket?
Andrew
John Stafford
> Forgive me for asking, but what *is* the "Leica way" of taking pictures,
> and how is it different from, say, "Canon way" or "Nikon way" of taking
> pictures?
The Leica Way is the sound of one shutter curtain clapping.
...as opposed to two. It's broken!
Mike Lipphardt
anyway - have superior micro-contrast to both Nikon and Canon. I wonder how
it would compare to Leica, and if anyone has done the comparison? There
muct be a reason Leica has used Minolta glass.
Mike
<bachch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ol26au8k2nlkk5sqt...@4ax.com...
Dallas
I'd really like to buy myself a Tag Heuer 2000 Limited Edition Chronograph,
but my longing has far less to do with telling the time than it does with
seeing that watch fixed around my wrist. Those among us who long for a Leica
suffer from the same type of lust.
On the subject of consumer grade equipment, which pieces would you be
referring to? Are you still buggering about with that E10 of yours?
Consumer indeed...
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Tony Polson <t.p.@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cui4aug54jprdulue...@4ax.com...
Dallas
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:ramarren-270...@il0302b-dhcp07.apple.com...
Kinon O'Cann
For some reason, I've never suffered from Leica Lust.
"Leicaddict" <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i2uo8.285560$uv5.25...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Tony_Polson
>According to the editor of Minolta Image, Minolta lenses - the good ones,
>anyway - have superior micro-contrast to both Nikon and Canon. I wonder how
>it would compare to Leica, and if anyone has done the comparison? There
>muct be a reason Leica has used Minolta glass.
Mike,
Leica (Leitz) owed Minolta a *huge* debt after the Minolta-made Leica
CL was a commercial flop. Maybe buying so many Minolta components for
the R Series SLRs was a way of paying back that debt.
However, I didn't know that Leitz had used Minolta glass. Which
lenses were included? I know that Leitz had at least one R lens
made by Sigma and the depth of Leitz's embarrassment when the news got
out. People knew the lens was made in Japan ...
... but by SIGMA ????!!!!!!! Shock!!! Horror!!!???!!!
It was also my understanding that the 40mm and 90mm Rokkor lenses used
by Minolta on the CLE and Minolta CL models used Leitz glass but were
nominally assembled in Japan. Maybe that involved little more than
Minolta adding the JCII oval stickers!
Of course the excellent (but fault-prone) 28mm Rokkor for the CLE was
a 100% Minolta product. So which Minolta glass did Leitz (Leica) use?
EDGY01
routinely. It was the better camera for the subject at hand,--and trust me, I
have a heck of a lot of cameras and lenses.
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
Godfrey DiGiorgi
As an anecdote:
To me, it's just a camera. An expensive camera, yes, with excellent
lenses. They take a nice photograph, that's why I own it. No one gives a
damn that I have one, all they are interested in is whether the pictures I
show them are any good. I don't consider myself proud to own one, it does
not raise my status or improve my picture taking ability. I enjoy using a
Leica to take pictures. I have a lot of other cameras I enjoy too, so the
Leica sits in the closet like all of them and does nothing for me while
it's sitting there.
Proof that what you've said is utter nonsense comes when you engage with
other photographers who own this equipment and discover that they really
don't give a damn about the camera so much as use it to take photographs.
Some do care specifically about the cameras, the collectors in particular,
but they are far outnumbered by the shooters who use them to produce
photographs.
Godfrey
In article <3ca3f...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za>, "Dallas"
SWB
http://www.cameraquest.com/NikF2R.htm
Steve
"Tony Polson" <t.p.@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:t646auc8tssul1tht...@4ax.com...
Joe B.
(in message <s6n4auk5h7gnci2n4...@4ax.com>):
> Now wait a minute... One strong point of a Leica system (at least the main
> one for me) is being able to shoot the glass wide open. Any Nikkors adapted
> to the Leica M bodies are not rangefinder coupled. How do you critical focus
> a Nikkor without that capability?
<snip>
> Regards, Roger
There are Nikkors made in LTM mount (I believe these were how Nikon
originally became well known) which only need an LTM->M adapter to use on a
Leica M body. They are rangefinder coupled.
--
Joe B. remove composer for email
Tony_Polson
>
>On the subject of consumer grade equipment, which pieces would you be
>referring to? Are you still buggering about with that E10 of yours?
>
>Consumer indeed...
In your hands, anything is consumer grade, and it always will be.
Leicaddict
really isn't any higher than a decent Japanese watch. In the US, well under
$500, and quite affordable if you work. They wear like iron under all sorts
of conditions. For me, it has nothing to do with seeing it fixed around my
wrist. Only a fool thinks like that. The same with my Leitz M6/Elmar-M 50mm
combo. You sound very young, and if not young, then immature.
"Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3ca3f...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za...
Leicaddict
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slwo8.23$VJ1....@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Tony_Polson
>It can be done with 'R' lenses though
True, but I did try to answer the question that had been asked.
McEowen
but my longing has far less to do with telling the time than it does with
seeing that watch fixed around my wrist. Those among us who long for a Leica
suffer from the same type of lust.
>>
Maybe you've hit on something. Leicas may be status symbols for people who
DON'T own one. For those of us who do, they are merely cameras . . .
Mike
them.
I will never understand why so many have such a tough time understanding
that.
"McEowen" <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020328221322...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Leicaddict
know nothing about wine, and if your wife, girlfriend, or life partner were
honest, they'd also admit you're a lousy f**k.
"Kinon O'Cann" <fu...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:3TLo8.16151$oE5.4...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
Dallas
Are you saying that you have no lust for certain big brand items? I suppose
you would buy a Ferrari for the performance only. Do you also buy Playboy
for the articles?
Maturity has zip to do with it.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Leicaddict <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5jOo8.123496$Gf.11...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Dallas
about to sell the farm to get one as I don't believe it would make any
difference to the type of photography I enjoy.
The argument here has obviously sailed right over your head. Please point
out where I "slammed" Leica.
I think your emotional response says a lot about how you feel on the
subject. Don't you?
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
John Emmons <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ouuo8.9479$se.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> One of the more asinine replies to the eternal Leica slamming threads. And
> as usual, written by someone who has undoubtedly never owned, used or
tried
> one.
>
> Why anyone should care about what brand of camera someone else chooses to
> use is mindnumbingly unimportant.
>
>
> John Emmons
>
>
Dallas
constantly reply to my posts? Eh?
I think you are jealous of me. Mind you, looking at your situation and
comparing it to mine, it's hardly surprising.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Tony Polson <t.p.@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bsv4au8jb7fhb264v...@4ax.com...
> "John Emmons" <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >One of the more asinine replies to the eternal Leica slamming threads.
And
> >as usual, written by someone who has undoubtedly never owned, used or
tried
> >one.
> >
> >Why anyone should care about what brand of camera someone else chooses to
> >use is mindnumbingly unimportant.
>
>
> Yep, that's definitely Dallas: mindnumbingly unimportant.
>
>
Dallas
My photography is improving with each day that I spend in the field, whereas
yours will always be shite regardless of the number of trains you spot.
Perhaps we should have a challenge, no? I have some web space where we can
upload our respective images (of the same/similar subject) and let our peers
decide who's hands are deserving of consumer grade equipment.
Are you up for the challenge? Or are you chicken?
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Tony_Polson <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hk87au42mufoib3f4...@4ax.com...
Dilbertdroid2
If you have to ask, you can't afford to know.
Dilbertdroid2
anyway - have superior micro-contrast to both Nikon and Canon. >>>
Did he/she have any other bullshit lines that you swalled hook, line and
sinker?
Dilbertdroid2
lenses. They take a nice photograph, that's why I own it. >>>
Jeez, Godfrey, look at Leica newsgroups and it looks like you spend 8 hours a
day on them. Just a camera to you? Go fish.
Dilbertdroid2
yours will always be shite regardless of the number of trains you spot.
Perhaps we should have a challenge, no? I have some web space where we can
upload our respective images (of the same/similar subject) and let our peers
decide who's hands are deserving of consumer grade equipment.
Are you up for the challenge? Or are you chicken?>>>
Hilarious!! Two newsgroup hacks pissing testosterone at each other from a
distance.
McEowen
THe older Minolta stuff was VERY good . . .
McEowen
and how is it different from, say, "Canon way" or "Nikon way" of taking
pictures?
>>
Back in the 60s and 70s they wrote books by those very titles -- even "The
Pentax Way" -- maybe someone could go to the library and find out.
McEowen
about to sell the farm to get one as I don't believe it would make any
difference to the type of photography I enjoy. >>
Must not be much of a farm. I mean, geez, most folks could just sell the
four-wheeler and afford a Leica . . .
Mxsmanic
ol26au8k2nlkk5sqt...@4ax.com...
> First, great micro-contrast and tonal separation
> (the lack of which is called posterization) are
> not "Leica glow", much less a legend.
True, but they aren't unique to Leica, either. Any lens of similar quality
will show similar characteristics.
> Second, tell us why you bought your own Leica gear.
For the rangefinder experience, and for the glass, and for the simplicity,
build quality, and reliability.
나?
"Dilbertdroid2" <dilber...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020329072307...@mb-mk.aol.com...
Tony_Polson
>People own Leica's for the same reason people own a Lexus......they like
>them.
>I will never understand why so many have such a tough time understanding
>that.
There are three reasons:
1. Jealousy,
2. Jealousy, and
3. Jealousy.