Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-03-2013   #1
rohankent
Registered User
 
rohankent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 252
Given its 2013, given I've never experienced shooting a Leica or even held one, given I have limited financial means, given I really enjoy film photography, given many of the photographers I enjoy use Leica, given I'm 40 and feel like its now or never (in more than one area of life)... Should I remain a Leica virgin or have a mid-life affair with one?

Some background. In September of last year, on my 40th birthday, i picked up my Father's Nikon FE with 50/1.4 and out of nowhere became a bit obsessed with photography. I'm midway through a year long project, to shoot at least a roll of black and white film per week on that camera. I enjoy working within self imposed limitations like this. I've added a couple of lenses to his kit (105/2.5 and 35/2.8 ), but kept things pretty simple.

I've started to think about the parameters for next years project. I wouldn't mind experiencing a different kind of camera. I could go for a TLR or Hasselblad, but would have to put money into another scanner (my Plustek is only 35mm). So, in terms of 35mm, there is only really the rangefinder world, or maybe XPan.

If I were able to scrounge up $1,000-$1,500, I might be able to buy an M6 and a VC 35/1.4, or an M3 and 50mm of some description. Any rangefinder is going to provide a different experience of photography compare to my FE, but if I can only afford VC glass, is it going to be any better than the good Nikkor AIS glass?

Thoughts?
 

Old 06-03-2013   #2
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,564
Why do you need a new project that requires a new camera? You are just getting in tune with the camera you have. And you have half a year left, yes? Sure, a new camera, new format, new film, new lens is exciting, but there's a lot to be said for having to simply not think about the camera and lenses you have.

I'd say stick with the equipment you have and focus on what you are shooting. You need a to move your project to the next level, find more focus on subject matter or style, not fumble around with a new camera.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #3
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,014
It's a different shooting experience but there are some prime Nikkors that are absolutely world class and can't be beaten by any other lenses, especially for the price.

It's just my opinion but I say stick with the Nikon cameras. Maybe explore the F system a bit more. Try an F2A or an original F with a non metered prism. The finders in those cameras will even give you a bit of pause when you look back in the FE, which is a great camera.

Maybe try some of the cooler pro-class Nikkors out there like the 180 f/2.8 ED, the 28 f/2.8 AIS, the 50 f/1.2, or a crazy wide angle like the 2.1cm O Nikkor that requires a mirror lockup camera. It has a very unique and wonderful look all unto itself. These days, even exotic lenses like the 200mm f/2 are within "affordable" range when you compare them to used Leica lenses.

Over the last year I've made the switch back to Nikons (mostly digital) and use all manual focus lenses. I've got a small collection of some of the very best Nikkors made and, thanks to the generosity of members here as well as the used market for manual focus lenses, I can afford a bunch of lenses that would have cost over $7000 in glass alone back when they were new.

If you go for a Leica M camera, a non-metered body is the way to go to keep the cost down and help to afford a nice lens or two.

Phil Forrest
 

Old 06-03-2013   #4
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 60
Posts: 5,871
Maybe a barnack like a IIIc & a 50 elmar. Or perhaps a Summitar if you perfer a faster lens.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
 

Old 06-03-2013   #5
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,975
I wanted a Leica M for 40 years, finally got one. Found out I'm a SLR shooter. The only way you will know for sure is to own one for a couple of years but.... You already have a fine camera.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #6
rohankent
Registered User
 
rohankent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 252
Dan,

The impetus is me not really bonding with the 35mm. I started thinking about people saying rangefinders are better for wides. First thought was get a rangefinder for 35mm, and keep Nikon for normal and long lens. Secondary thought was maybe I could do really well with just a 50mm lens only, in which case, maybe I want a really good 50mm lens. but you're right, thinking about gear can be a distraction.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #7
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 5,317
Do it! If you don't, you're always going to wonder about it. If you can swing it get a Leica lens as well. Because if you get an M6 camera you'll wonder about the glass too, and will hanker for a Leica lens anyway. Buy carefully, and if Leica doesn't work for you, you can always sell for what you paid.

As to whether CV glass is better than good Nikkor AIS glass, YMMV depending on your definition of "better", but I'd say yes. For example, all the CV 35mm lenses I've used blow the equivalent 35mm AIS Nikkors away. The Nokton 35/1.2 is so much better than the AIS 35/1.4 its ridiculous. And the Nokton 35/1.4 isn't bad either. I've never used an AIS 35/2.8 but I doubt it can touch the Skopar 35/2.5 (the best bang for your buck in RF 35mm lenses IMO).
__________________
flickr
Instagram
 

Old 06-03-2013   #8
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 644
I have been a leica M shooter since 1968. I am totally familiar with the camera and style of shooting leica M is best at. You have to realize it is not an "all round camera" ... very good on certain specific shooting situations. It is like a window to reality. You look thru it, no autofocus, tele lenses are hard to focus. If you are not commited to very precise workflow, it is very hard to have any real advantage of the optics. When I lend my leicas to people who are not used to leica ergonomics, they find using it very awkward. My advice: try to rent or borrow one for a week and see for yourself...
 

Old 06-03-2013   #9
rohankent
Registered User
 
rohankent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 252
Phil,

Good food for thought, thanks.

28/2.8 AIS $200
50/1.2 $350
180/2.8 ED $350

That's a lot of ground covered.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #10
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 3,289
If you like the 50 1.4, you should try thr Nikkor-H 50mm f2. Also, maybe a 20mm lens. There are many to choose from. Remember that all your lenses MUST be Ai or Ais to mount on the FE. I'd say try to stay with Nikon.
__________________
Vic
Sony a200

My Flickr
 

Old 06-03-2013   #11
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,513
I like what you've been doing with your Nikon lenses. For 35mm, I don't see any need to change - it's your eye and brain that take the pictures, not the camera. In my view the only photographic reason to go M-mount (or LTM) is to use quality Leica or Zeiss glass. I don't see the excellent CV lenses as any advantage over your equally excellent Nikkors, apart from size.

Emotional reasons are another matter entirely - there is much satisfaction in using quality precision tools. The other advantages of a RF is there's no VF blackout at the time of exposure, and you can see what's just outside the frame. If the absence of those things bothers you, then you might want to try a rangefinder.

In my opinion a MF camera might make more sense. I faced a similar dilemma and decided to get a TLR (Yashica Mat 124G); but with your budget you could get a very nice Rolleiflex or a 'blad - or something like the 124G/Autocord/Rolleicord + an Epson V700. The big negatives make a big difference. You take a lot of family portraits - look at Alex Krasotkin's gallery to see what a difference MF makes to family portraits.

Just my thoughts!
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
 

Old 06-03-2013   #12
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohankent View Post
Dan,

The impetus is me not really bonding with the 35mm. I started thinking about people saying rangefinders are better for wides. First thought was get a rangefinder for 35mm, and keep Nikon for normal and long lens. Secondary thought was maybe I could do really well with just a 50mm lens only, in which case, maybe I want a really good 50mm lens. but you're right, thinking about gear can be a distraction.

Get a Rolleiflex. A 3.5 E, Planar or Xenotar. For the 75mm lens compared to the 80mm of the 2.8. Throw it all up in the air. The TLR way of shooting is *very* different than the SLR way; the Leica still involves the camera at eye level, covering the face, and looking through a peephole at the world. The TLR involves looking down, at a ground glass. And no mirror blackout (Hasselblad has blackout, and no returning mirror). And square, not 2:3.

If you don't click with it, sell it for what you paid.

Then if you want 35mm again, get the Leica. An M2 with a 35mm Summicron and be done with it.

But still, focus on the rest of this year, not on future equipment needs. When I am fiddling around thinking about equipment, it's because I don't have a project that is exciting me. Find a project and the right camera will find you.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #13
literiter
Registered User
 
literiter's Avatar
 
literiter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 1,163
If I had the talent I could write the most beautiful poem with either a stubby chewed up pencil or the most expensive gold nibbed fountain pen.

If I had the talent..........
 

Old 06-03-2013   #14
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,307
It's just a camera.

Buy a Canon LTM and you can remain a virgin - but what's the difference?
 

Old 06-03-2013   #15
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
 
tbarker13's Avatar
 
tbarker13 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,669
Why not? If you think you'd enjoy it and can swing the purchase, then just do it. The nice thing about this type of equipment is that you can change your mind two weeks later and pretty much get your money back.
People will recommend any number of camera/lens combos, based on what works best for their own situation.

I've gone pretty simple in photography right now. An M3, 50 rigid summicron and 90/4 elmar. A simple kit and not terribly expensive - at least not in Leica terms.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #16
Chrisrw
photomonkey
 
Chrisrw's Avatar
 
Chrisrw is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 240
I just purchased my first Leica yesterday (waiting with bated breath for the post to arrive). I don't think any of my CV lenses will create better images on this over my Bessa R2, or over my OM1n with the Zuiko glass, or Rollei 35, etc...but will I enjoy the experience of using a well built tool at the apex of design? Maybe. Maybe not. The great thing about used cameras (esp.Leica, is that you can always sell or return it. I say go for it if you can afford to. If it heightens your experience of shooting film, I see no harm.
__________________
photomonkey

 

Old 06-03-2013   #17
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
 
jwicaksana is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 31
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
I wanted a Leica M for 40 years, finally got one. Found out I'm a SLR shooter. The only way you will know for sure is to own one for a couple of years but.... You already have a fine camera.
This is one of my biggest fear this far
I am saving up for a Leica body and a lens, but what if I found out later I'm an SLR guy. Is there any other way around it, I mean other than buying one and trying for a year?
__________________
Cheers,

Jonathan

MOXS Photography

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwicaksana
 

Go for It
Old 06-03-2013   #18
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 66
Posts: 1,190
Go for It

Started using a Nikon F in college back in 1970. It paid my way through college and have loved the F series ever since but what I really wanted was a Leica. I bought an CL in 1974 and a real Leica M3 in 1976. Have owned both since then buying and selling various models. Objectively, a Leica will not do anything the Nikon can not do just as well. The optics are actually pretty equivalent with both lines having some OUTSTANDING lenses.

Having said that rational thought has little to do with phography. If you have the Leica itch, you might as well scratch it or you will never be happy. Need a meter? Then M5 or M6. No meter then a lot more choices including M2, 4,4-2, 4P or M3 if you primarily use a 50mm.

Get a used body and take a long hard look at Zeiss or Cosina lenses in your favorite focal lengths. Use the M for awhile and if you decide rangefinders are not for you, then sell it for what you paid for it. If you like it, then you can upgrade both body and lenses as desired. Personally, I have used all the film Ms and they will all out last me. I do not feel that the prices Leica wants for their lenses are justified and will probably never buy a new Leitz lens again. Of course, I have some going back awhile and use them but they make great investments. My favorite M bodies are the M2 for the simplicity of the viewfinder and M6 for the meter. Good luck and I do not really think you can make a bad decision here.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #19
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,590
Am sure happy giving up my virginity. Though am not currently shooting with Leica, or it didn't make me any better photographer, was fun experience nevertheless. As Jon pointed, they don't depreciate much, even digitals keep value better than other brands.
 

Old 06-03-2013   #20
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
 
rhl-oregon's Avatar
 
rhl-oregon is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,166
It's possible to stay under budget with a certain Hexar RF (compare to M7) and CV 35 2.5 in the classifieds of a certain rangefinder-oriented site we all know. Ms may hold value better than Hexars or ZM Ikons, but I don't think a year's experimental rangefindering would affect resale values of these alternatives with some features superior to their Leica comparators.
__________________
Robert Hill Long
Southern Pines, North Carolina USA


http://rhl.photography
 

Old 06-03-2013   #21
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
I switched from a brace of Nikons and several Nikkors to an M6 and two lenses in 1998, and never really switched back. Now I have an M6, a CLE, and 3 lenses. For digital I shoot Fuji gear (mostly).

A critical question is what subjects you shoot. M's are not as good for tripod work, for close-up, or for sports. If you you use flash they suck (slow sync speeds, loser flash system versus Nikon). If you like telephoto lenses don't even think about switching. If you want professional-grade bodies and want to shoot both film and digital using the same system, stay with Nikon (unless you like throwing away money).

On the other hand: if you shoot a lot of available light and like shooting wide primes, the M system might be worth considering.

And I can honestly say my photography improved significantly with an M. The rangefinder approach encourages a different mode of composition that for me and the subjects I like to shoot was more suitable.

One other point. If you want to shoot with 35mm (focal length) lenses, the available Nikon glass just doesn't touch what's available in M mount from several manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Konica, Cosina, etc.) That's my home focal length, it's a weakness in the Nikon line, and always has been. It's a huge strong point for the M mount.

For whatever reason the Nikon 28's are much, much better than the 35's…
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
 

Old 06-03-2013   #22
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak View Post
I have been a leica M shooter since 1968. I am totally familiar with the camera and style of shooting leica M is best at. You have to realize it is not an "all round camera" ... very good on certain specific shooting situations. It is like a window to reality. You look thru it, no autofocus, tele lenses are hard to focus. If you are not commited to very precise workflow, it is very hard to have any real advantage of the optics. When I lend my leicas to people who are not used to leica ergonomics, they find using it very awkward. My advice: try to rent or borrow one for a week and see for yourself...
What he said. My feeling of it is that with a Leica, you have to know what the picture is, then you thrown the box in the finder up around it, and push the button. With a RF camera, the view through the finder is never going to look like a "picture", so don't even try to think that way.

With an SLR, you see a "picture" through the finder, and I find myself spending more time with the camera up to my eye, moving it around looking for the picture to come together. So the SLR camera is more of a tool for composition.

Overall, an RF camera makes me do more of the work of visualizing the final product, and I have to be more secure in what I'm doing.

I don't know if everyone relates to it that way, but my theory is that the reason RF cameras are so popular for street photography is because the nature of street photography is to see things without the camera, find and compose the picture in your mind, then quickly grab it with the camera, rather than spending a lot of time with the camera up to your face, being obvious to your subject, which is more in the way of how to use SLRs.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
 

Old 06-03-2013   #23
--s
-
 
--s is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 318
reckon it´s not about projects or technical demands.
a leica is a leica. got my first when i was 40 and never regretted. there´s a certain magic on that l-thingies other cams don´t have. and that´s what it´s all about- the magic, the fun, the joy of owning and shooting a leica. but not everyone feels that way, one must try it on, like a pair of shoes.
an slr is way more versatile, especially in the macro and tele worlds. my nikons are more reliable over the years, a leica needs service from time to time. but.....
 

Old 06-03-2013   #24
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,309
"If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura. -- Nobuyoshi Araki"


Taking photos with a Leica M is a totally different experience than using a Nikon F(M,E or whatever). If you can afford it, go for it. If you don`t need a meter get yourself a M4-2 (with return/inspection period !) and a Leitz lens, 40mm Summicron-C would be the best bang for the buck. Buy carefully to keep re-sale value in realistic proportions (if you figure out that you don`t like it), the kit should cost you no more than US$1200 in good to very good conditions.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
 

Old 06-04-2013   #25
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
I gave up my last Leica a month or so ago, and I doubt I'll return. However, Leica cameras taught me a few things about cameras:

1) They really did used to make things better in the old days.
2) Simplicity is a very attractive feature, the more features a camera has, the less likely I am to like it.
3) For negative film, I don't need a meter.

I didn't really rate my M6, but I found the M3 truly beautiful, a real work of art.

Many have said it here, that Leica is something you need to get out of your system, it might stick, it might not, but if you're thinking about a Leica, you will get one, may as well just get it over with.

If I shot more 35mm film, I'd certainly still have a Leica, but as Leica never made a medium format camera, we had to part company.
__________________
My Blog
 

Old 06-04-2013   #26
Rodchenko
Olympian
 
Rodchenko's Avatar
 
Rodchenko is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Exiled from Hyperborea
Posts: 2,990
If you want to try a rangefinder, then why a Leica? They are good, true, but there are plenty of photographers on this forum who show that you can produce excellent results with any decent RF, and especially with one of the better models which aren't sold at such a collector-driven premium.
__________________
Auspicious Light on Mount Takachiho
E-PL1
35SP





 

Old 06-04-2013   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
If you want to try a Leica, you want to try a Leica, not a Rollei TLR or a Canon or a Konica or anything else. It's as simple as that.

Yes, RFs are different. They don't suit everyone. But those they do suit, they suit very well. At 40, you can probably scrape up the money for a Leica, and as others have said, if you don't like it, you can sell it on at about what you paid for it, maybe even a little more.

Admittedly I'm biased. I've been using Leicas since 1969, when I was 19: screw-mount at first, then M since the mid-70s. Obviously they suit me. But quite honestly, I think that the importance of RF lenses is overrated. Almost every Leica lens I've had has been above the 'quality threshold' (the point where my skill matters more than the lens, so a 'better' lens wouldn't give me better pictures), and every modern Voigtländer and Zeiss lens I've had is above it. If there's enough light I'd rather shoot my M2 with a 50/3.5 than a Nikon with, well, just about anything. I just find the camera more congenial. Put my pre-aspheric Summilux or my 50/1.5 C-Sonnar on the front and there's even less contest compared with SLRs.

Yes, ZIs and Voigtländers are nice too. But they're not Leicas. And fixed-lens RFs, even the best like Konica, aren't Leicas either.

Cheers,

R.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #28
mathiasprinz
Registered User
 
mathiasprinz is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BDJt30FmzI

sorry for being not helpful, but this had to be done.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #29
flip
良かったね!
 
flip's Avatar
 
flip is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,214
I think you should rip the little red cherry off the first leica you can buy.
__________________
Back in the Bay and looking for work.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #30
hepcat
Former PH, USN
 
hepcat's Avatar
 
hepcat is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eastern Iowa
Age: 64
Posts: 1,268
My thoughts are very much like Roger's above.

I've shot Leicas off and on (more on) since 1974. The 'process of seeing' with a coincident rangefinder camera is different from that of using an SLR. There is, for many of us, more immediacy in the viewfinder and there's something about the simplicity of controls on a Leica that is appealing. But the bottom line is that the gear either fits your style of shooting or it doesn't. If it does, it's a match made in heaven. If it doesn't, its one of the few pieces of gear you can own for a while and not lose your shirt on. It's the only system I own now with three bodies and eight lenses.

Of my eight lenses only three are Leitz, and those are '60s vintage. The rest are VC. I don't feel any need to buy Leica glass. The VC glass is the equal of any glass on the market today.

While there are a couple of types of work that it's not ideal for, there's really nothing you can't do with it. One of its current great strengths is that it's one of the few systems that the digital and film bodies are fully interchangeable, so you can shoot either film or digital at your whim using all of the same glass and accessories.

So, if you're intrigued by the idea that using a coincident rangefinder camera might suit your shooting style more closely, then go for it. You might find out that its a better fit for you.
__________________
Leicas and lenses

Find me on the web...
 

Old 06-04-2013   #31
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
Do it! If you don't, you're always going to wonder about it. If you can swing it get a Leica lens as well. Because if you get an M6 camera you'll wonder about the glass too, and will hanker for a Leica lens anyway. Buy carefully, and if Leica doesn't work for you, you can always sell for what you paid.

As to whether CV glass is better than good Nikkor AIS glass, YMMV depending on your definition of "better", but I'd say yes. For example, all the CV 35mm lenses I've used blow the equivalent 35mm AIS Nikkors away. The Nokton 35/1.2 is so much better than the AIS 35/1.4 its ridiculous. And the Nokton 35/1.4 isn't bad either. I've never used an AIS 35/2.8 but I doubt it can touch the Skopar 35/2.5 (the best bang for your buck in RF 35mm lenses IMO).
+1 what Jon said!

He's the one that got me addicted...uh, started with the M3! Do it!
__________________


Dave
 

Old 06-04-2013   #32
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Like Roger, I am only a Leica shooter now ...(though I occasionally shoot a roll with a Nikon or two for fun)...for the same reasons as Roger, but also, I tend to stick with one brand of car, one brand of jeans, one brand of coffee, one brand/style of most everything.

Monogamous-ness is just what I am.

Others are different and still others indifferent. JM...
__________________


Dave
 

Old 06-04-2013   #33
henri klein
Registered User
 
henri klein is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
Why do you need a new project that requires a new camera? You are just getting in tune with the camera you have. And you have half a year left, yes? Sure, a new camera, new format, new film, new lens is exciting, but there's a lot to be said for having to simply not think about the camera and lenses you have.

I'd say stick with the equipment you have and focus on what you are shooting. You need a to move your project to the next level, find more focus on subject matter or style, not fumble around with a new camera.
Exactly. Well said.
__________________
Lick a Shot
 

Old 06-04-2013   #34
thejameskendall
Registered User
 
thejameskendall's Avatar
 
thejameskendall is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 124
I sold my Nikon F3HP and bought a M6 (not in that order). The M6 isn't a better camera, and the pictures aren't better. But I like it more for the following reasons, which were my reasons for going Leica (in order):

1. Rangefinders suit me as I wear glasses - i find them easier to focus
2. It works without batteries (no meter, but it works)
3. It's marginally lighter and smaller - this isn't as big a difference as I'd hoped but I changed my mind about getting a CL at the last minute (lenses are much smaller though)
4. I figured it would last forever
5. I thought it would end GAS (yeah, right!)
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------
M6, Mamiya 7, D700, Yashica T5, X100
Website: cargocollective/kendall
 

Old 06-04-2013   #35
Steve Bellayr
Registered User
 
Steve Bellayr's Avatar
 
Steve Bellayr is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,943
You buy a Leica camera to experience the images taken with Leica lenses! Moving from a metered Nikon to a Leica IMHO is best with an M6 + a 50mm Summicron. There are some AiS lenses that are classic but they, too, are not inexpensive. If you stay with Nikon the F3HP is the best choice for a manual camera. The 105 f2.5 is a classic. As for 35mm the f2.0 is the preferred model but its production was spotty in quality and it is a pricey item. For that focal length the Zeiss is probably the best but again it is quite expensive. (I do not know the VC in that focal length.) You could probably pick up an M3 in the $800 range & with a little more a 50mm Summicron. But, will you want a hand held meter? If that is the case then go for the M6. All in all if you get the VC lens you will be able to sell it later if you want to move up to the Summicron. Another option is the Summitar with an adaptor (though there are M mount Summitars). But, again, with Summitars there is the hood/shade issue which you would need to explore.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #36
Lflex
Lflex
 
Lflex is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 369
If you always dreamed of a Leica, then you should do it. If it is just to see what the buzz is about; forget it.
Nikon has some wonderful lenses you could explore and the FE is the perfect platform. The only better cameras in the MF Nikon lineup are the FE2 and FM3a.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #37
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton View Post
What he said. My feeling of it is that with a Leica, you have to know what the picture is, then you thrown the box in the finder up around it, and push the button. With a RF camera, the view through the finder is never going to look like a "picture", so don't even try to think that way.

With an SLR, you see a "picture" through the finder, and I find myself spending more time with the camera up to my eye, moving it around looking for the picture to come together. So the SLR camera is more of a tool for composition.

Overall, an RF camera makes me do more of the work of visualizing the final product, and I have to be more secure in what I'm doing.

I don't know if everyone relates to it that way, but my theory is that the reason RF cameras are so popular for street photography is because the nature of street photography is to see things without the camera, find and compose the picture in your mind, then quickly grab it with the camera, rather than spending a lot of time with the camera up to your face, being obvious to your subject, which is more in the way of how to use SLRs.
heh, this is EXACTLY like it is... and also: You don`t need Autofocus, because with the focus tab in the leica and Voigtländer lenses you learn to focus the lens even before taking it to your eye. It is easy to say when the subject is more that 5 metres away= no need to even move the focus lever or 1,5 to 3 metres, that is usually the tab in the bottom position. You learn to know the angle of 21mm= 90 degree, 35mm= about 60 degree and 50mm= about 45 degree. You can position yourself in relation of your distance of your subject and lens angle and pre adjust the focus and simply rise the camera, and fire a couple frames before your subject even realizes what you are doing... This is "The higher degree on Leica M shooting style" no autofocus DSLR comes even close...
 

Old 06-04-2013   #38
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,125
I'm in the camp of those who advise you to do it. However, two things might happen: you might not like the feel of the camera right off the bat, but also you will likely be spoiled for life.

Took me a whole of a year to bond with my M4, constantly missing my lighter R2a and its larger viewfinder. After a year, I tried pairing a ZI to the M, and could not get along with the flimsy feel and RF patch, even though the ZI is arguably a better camera than the R2a which I originally liked more than the M4. Same goes with many Leica lenses even thought there a plenty of wonderful offerings from CV, Zeiss, Canon, Konica and Nikon.
 

Old 06-04-2013   #39
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,262
Addititionally, the down side of RF cameras is that lots of people who use them (this is a followup to my comment on the type of shooting they encourage) never learn to compose at all, accounting for the billions of badly composed street photos by people who call themselves street photographers. The trap on the other sided is that using an SLR can lead to precious compositions, with no point or subject matter. I think I'm pretty good with a RF camera, generally, but I find myself tending towards the latter problem when using an SLR, unless I watch out.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
 

Old 06-04-2013   #40
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bellayr View Post
You buy a Leica camera to experience the images taken with Leica lenses! Moving from a metered Nikon to a Leica IMHO is best with an M6 + a 50mm Summicron. There are some AiS lenses that are classic but they, too, are not inexpensive. If you stay with Nikon the F3HP is the best choice for a manual camera. The 105 f2.5 is a classic. As for 35mm the f2.0 is the preferred model but its production was spotty in quality and it is a pricey item. For that focal length the Zeiss is probably the best but again it is quite expensive. (I do not know the VC in that focal length.) You could probably pick up an M3 in the $800 range & with a little more a 50mm Summicron. But, will you want a hand held meter? If that is the case then go for the M6. All in all if you get the VC lens you will be able to sell it later if you want to move up to the Summicron. Another option is the Summitar with an adaptor (though there are M mount Summitars). But, again, with Summitars there is the hood/shade issue which you would need to explore.
Not so in my case. It began with the package: the small, light IIIa (and my girlfriend's II before that, both with 50/3,5 Elmars) and then went on to an M3. I REALLy don't go for the hype about Leica lenses being the reason to buy the camera -- though I do in fact have half a dozen -- and when my 21/2.8 was stolen in Moscow I didn't bother to replace it: I use a Kobalux 21/2.8. Both are so far above the quality threshold that I don't care. Likewise I sold my adapted 21/4.5 Biogon: I just didn't use it enough. Sometimes I use the 21/4 Voigtländer, just 'cos it's smaller. And my favourite 50 is the C-Sonnar.

Cheers,

R.
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:33.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.