Leica

magicaxeman

magicaxeman

An Idiot
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,097
Edit My Images
No
What are the rangefinders capabilities like in low light and fairly close up (3 metres max range)?

I've always wanted one, and now seems a good time to hunt out a bargain.

I was thinking of something like and earlyish M series and 50mm
 
I am not sure of your question but I know the words Leica and bargains don't go well together...
 
Low light capabilities are great - easy to manual focus that SLRs
Closeup abilities are not so great, what with parallax error killing your ability to frame a shot.
 
Over priced trust fund jewellery for people without the sense to buy a Japanese SLR. Apart from that quite nice cameras. I'd have an M4 with a Summilux if they were a third of the price.
 
iancandler said:
I've always wanted one, and now seems a good time to hunt out a bargain.
Click to expand...

If you find one tell me. M bodies can be brought for a reasonable price, if you don't mind one that looks like its been to every war since Vietnam before being used as a hammer. Knackered lenses all seem to have 57 bidders and sell for stupid, stupid money. Nice M-series glass sells for a price that would need Securicor with every trip.

In the 80s secondhand Leicas could be bought, used, traded in and treated as cameras. Now they're Woody in Toy Story 2 with a shutter.
 
Musicman said:
I already have several Japanese SLRs.

Doesn't stop me wanting a Leica. :)
Click to expand...

Thing is they're nice cameras. I've used a few with various lenses owned by friends. They're subjectively about 15% better than a Nikkor given perfect exposure and development, which is beyond most people. I'd pay up to twice the price of an F-series body inc. lens for a neat rangefinder but I won't compete with pension futures or glass case buyers for a Bavarian box to take picures with.

I'm not a Leica hater as Leicaphiles dub doubters, they just aren't worth anywhere near the market ask. A print from a Mamiya 6 x 6 knocks any film Leica into a cocked hat and you can hold one in your hand like an M4. Leica is dying on its feet because they're just too expensive.
 
Last edited:
I ALMOST won a Konica Hexar RF on the bay last night. It's reputed to be almost as good as a Leica (some say as good), and it's often described as what the M7 could have been. I was in at £450 but it went for about £480 with a Hexanon 50mm F2 lens which is also reputed to be almost as good as a Leica. Just as well I didn't win in the end though as the missus would have killed me ;-)

Cheers

Aled
 
My Leica CL is one of the best cameras I have handled, the Nikons and Canons notwithstanding.

To the OP's querry, M3 has the brightest and most accurate RF. In fact its amazing that even the IIIc I once had , had a brighter RF patch than the C-V.

They are great for low light and fast focussing. Focussing not accurate for lenses more than 90mm ( 135 at a stretch), and close up has parallax errors ( but thats true for all Rangefinders).

The other thing is lack of meters on M2/M3/M4 ( and M5 if my memory serves me right)

The best value for money is Leica CL + 40mm+90mm lens ( it actually came with these 2 lens, though there is a 50mm frame finder built into the body.

By early-ish M, do you mean M3/M2. Well used copies of M3 are often available for reasonable price - 250/300 quids. M5 are possibly even cheaper.

I would say, get one, and you will enjoy it.

Ujjwal

P.S : Any less-than-average MF camera will produce better results than the best 35mm ; and a less-than-average LF will produce better results than a Hasselblad. The comparison is pretty unfair. Besides a Mamiya 6 is actually more expensive than a Leica - and with a crap meter to boots.
 
Last edited:
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Well used copies of M3 are often available for reasonable price - 250/300 quids.
Click to expand...
An M3 that looked like it had been run over by a herd of stampeding elephants and was fitted with an F3.5 50mm went for £450 last week. A Nikkormat in that condition would have sold for spares or repair.
Sorry to bang on but if I was buying a Leica I'd get a digital one.
 
colpepper said:
An M3 that looked like it had been run over by a herd of stampeding elephants and was fitted with an F3.5 50mm went for £450 last week. A Nikkormat in that condition would have sold for spares or repair.
Sorry to bang on but if I was buying a Leica I'd get a digital one.
Click to expand...

The thing is, even after a herd of elephants run over an M3 it still works fine.
A Nikkormat in that condition is good only for spares :D
The market pays the price each of them deserve.
Sorry to say this, but a Leica M is a thing of engineering marvel and craftsmanship ( as is a Contax IIa, with a more accurate RF)
 
Last edited:
ujjwaldey8165 said:
The thing is, even after a herd of elephants run over an M3 it still works fine.
A Nikkormat in that condition is good only for spares :D
The market pays the price each of them deserve.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think Leicas have become an agreed trading token like Rolex that has nothing to do with their timekeeping/ photographic capabilities and everything to do with history. I have a Nikkormat that doesn't have a flat surface on it - works perfectly, cost a tenner.
 
minolta CLE , voigtlander R3A, R4M etc , Contax G1, G2, Hexar RF (I assume it's cheaper than leica m7)- all much cheaper and the same quality. different characteristics but the same IQ.
 
They can produce excellent images in low light with lenses opened up wide and still producing sharp images handheld if necessary and with a whisper quite shutter with little vibration you often get slower speeds that an SLR will have a great deal of camera shake on. It does boil down to the film you put in it too

They may seem over priced to some but they are engineered with mechanical precision.
 
colpepper said:
I disagree, I think Leicas have become an agreed trading token like Rolex that has nothing to do with their timekeeping/ photographic capabilities and everything to do with history. I have a Nikkormat that doesn't have a flat surface on it - works perfectly, cost a tenner.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean Rolex or Leica aren't good. Sure, more than you or I would pay for and arguably very overpriced, but for those that can afford, why not?
I work in a niche industry producing arguably overpriced goods at low-volume and high markup. As long as there is a market for the goods and people willing to pay what it takes to get that particular feature we offer over the rest, people will pay. Niche stuff is expensive and people who buy it ought to know what they're getting into. If they do, few regret it who can afford it. For some people, the best quality money can buy and ultimate reliability is worth whatever price tag the product commands.
 
Starastin said:
minolta CLE , voigtlander R3A, R4M etc , Contax G1, G2, Hexar RF (I assume it's cheaper than leica m7)- all much cheaper and the same quality. different characteristics but the same IQ.
Click to expand...

Not really true Didzis, all of those are very different beasts.

Minolta CLE = Leica CL with more electronics( in other words it came with the same lens as the Leica CL, with the downside that if the electronics is dead, the camera is a paper weight. Plus its more expensive that Leica CL)

CV : The RF patches are far more dim, the eyes have to be perfectly aligned, else the RF patch vanishes. Plus the RF is not as accurate as M3.

Contax G : Entirely different beasts, AF does not work very well in low light and for 90mm lens. Fast action is very difficult to capture. The lens are outstanding though; but only 4 + a barely functional zoom available ( as opposed to the huge lens choice with Leica. I love the zeiss lens - any Zeiss lens more than any Leica, except Summicron, but the choice of lens for Zeiss are usually very limited except for the C/Y mounts)
 
Last edited:
Leica people consider the CL a Minolta and turn up a nose. They should be honoured to be in the same company.
I once had a IIIg on extended loan. I've looked through keyholes with a better view.
 
colpepper said:
I disagree, I think Leicas have become an agreed trading token like Rolex that has nothing to do with their timekeeping/ photographic capabilities and everything to do with history. I have a Nikkormat that doesn't have a flat surface on it - works perfectly, cost a tenner.
Click to expand...

As a watch collector, I really think Rolex is another very maligned brand. Wear a Rolex, and feel it on your wrist. You will know the difference.
 
mustanir said:
But that doesn't mean Rolex or Leica aren't good. Sure, more than you or I would pay for and arguably very overpriced, but for those that can afford, why not?
Click to expand...
The only issue I have with Leica fans is when they claim to be 'better' cameras than others and the price justifies the quality. Only on subjective tests are Leica better. Better in the sense that a 1970s Rolls Royce is better, not better in the way a Dynax 7 or a Contax G2 is better. Just better in a my camera was engraved with different letters by a dead German, way. Better in a glass case way, not a taking pictures way.
 
colpepper said:
Leica people consider the CL a Minolta and turn up a nose. They should be honoured to be in the same company.
I once had a IIIg on extended loan. I've looked through keyholes with a better view.
Click to expand...

Who are these Leica people, really? CL has its limitations ( shorter base length etc, but a fine equipment to do what its designed to do. ) Besides the Lens on my CL is a Summicron; so its Leica all the way
There are many III series knocking about which hasn't been cleaned since the 40s; and while they have a dim RF patch, their prices are pretty low too. A CLA for 100 quids and its bright as anything. Lets wait and see how the Canikons fare after another 30 years
 
colpepper said:
The only issue I have with Leica fans is when they claim to be 'better' cameras than others and the price justifies the quality. Only on subjective tests are Leica better. Better in the sense that a 1970s Rolls Royce is better, not better in the way a Dynax 7 or a Contax G2 is better. Just better in a my camera was engraved with different letters by a dead German, way. Better in a glass case way, not a taking pictures way.
Click to expand...

Without a shadow of doubt you are entitled to your subjective opinion, as I am guessing the Leica owners are entitled to theirs.
But can you explain, on what basis, is a G2 better than a Leica ( and which Leica are you comapring it too, since I notice you are comparing one particular model with another whole brand, especially one which has been making cameras from long before Minolta was even a twinkle in someones eyes))
 
Last edited:
ujjwaldey8165 said:
on what basis, is a G2 better than a Leica
Click to expand...
The pictures look as good, costs a fraction of the price and you can stick it in your pocket. Better in a camera way. Not better in a Koh-I-Noor, unobtanium, Woody's Round Up way.
 
colpepper said:
The pictures look as good, costs a fraction of the price and you can stick it in your pocket. Better in a camera way. Not better in a Koh-I-Noor, unobtanium, Woody's Round Up way.
Click to expand...

Ah, as I said, you are perfectly entitled to your subjective opinion.
Now for a few facts :
I love Contax Glasses more than the Leica glass - but thats my subjective judgement, nothing more. However, a G2 body is 350 quids compared to M3s which regularly go for 250 ish, so thats one myth of cheap camera gone bust.
G2 is a difficult to focus in low light/fast moving conditions, where Leica scores.
G2 manual focus is crap
G2 is all electronics; once dead, there is no hope of revival.
G2 is bigger than a M3 with a collapsible lens.
G2 is AF with very accurate metering, great for beginners.

Both are fine machines with pros and cons - both expensive, and both fit the pocket equally.

Ujjwal

P.S : Since I own nearly 200 watches, I dont usually get swayed by the marketing hype on watches - notwithstanding your outstanding skills in that area:D. Rolex are fine watches , wear it and you will know the difference
 
Last edited:
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Rolex are fine watches , wear it and you will know the difference
Click to expand...
Do they tell the time better, i.e. the job they were designed to do? Or are they for impressing other city traders with? Footballers wear Rolex, don't they? I couldn't possibly wear a watch worn by a footballer, sorry, one has certain standards.
 
Regret not buying the M3 which had been just fully serviced about 5 yrs ago for £450 (body). After I developed the film I tried it with kicked myself & never found another since bah bah
 
colpepper said:
Do they tell the time better, i.e. the job they were designed to do? Or are they for impressing other city traders with? Footballers wear Rolex, don't they? I couldn't possibly wear a watch worn by a footballer, sorry, one has certain standards.
Click to expand...


I love your world view, I thought saying such things are a social crime these days :D
City traders ? I thought they need to impress the clients, not the other way round.
As to footballers, are you suggesting it would be better if the cricketers wore it.

Actually, watches are jewelleries, a cell phone can tell time better. And Rolexes are better jewelleries; end of :p
 
Peter_Hartland said:
Regret not buying the M3 which had been just fully serviced about 5 yrs ago for £450 (body). After I developed the film I tried it with kicked myself & never found another since bah bah
Click to expand...

MW has one which is adverted as

Exc- 89%. Generally clean looking body, fittings, back door, covering & finders. Light baseplate scratches, a few small finder black spots & small indent on back top corner above eyepiece. All working. Serviced with 3 months guarantee

Price 449 quids. :D
 
colpepper said:
Women wear jewellery and very nice they look in them. Sorry, the Leica, Rolex, Porsche thing just shows a lack of imagination.
Now an Alpa, Cartier and a Bristol...
Click to expand...

Alpa, I agree. But thats not in the Dynax price range, is it?
Cartier? Not really, a Louis Errard is more like it.
What's Bristol ( not into cars, really so never heard of it)

And who said men can't have their jewelleries?
 
I'm a functionalist Ujjwal, less is more and all that. The camera whose photographer takes the best pictures is the best camera, everything else is ornament and ornaments belong on a mantelpiece. A camera that isn't clicking is a dead camera. A live Instamatic is better than a Leica behind glass.
 
colpepper said:
I'm a functionalist Ujjwal, less is more and all that. The camera whose photographer takes the best pictures is the best camera, everything else is ornament and ornaments belong on a mantelpiece. A camera that isn't clicking is a dead camera. A live Instamatic is better than a Leica behind glass.
Click to expand...

So am i actually. But 2 things I wonder in what you say

1. Why do you automatically assume that every leica sits behind glass cases? I take my Leica out everywhere, since I am not worried about a dent or a scratch. and I am sure there are many like me, if the number of knocked about and dented M's are anything to go by.

2. Since ' best' in context of a photograph is subjective, for any given photographer, a better camera will do a better job. Why run a particular Brand down, when its actually a prety good equipment? I understand your disparaging comments about those folks who carry a Leica around like a neck-jewellery, but surely the blame doesn't devolve on Leica, which makes exceptionally good cameras?
 
Last edited:
Just teasing. I'm an admirer of Gary Winogrand's work. He used a Leica, here it is: http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
As well as a hugely prolific output, when he died Winogrand left behind nearly 300,000 unedited images, and more than 2,500 undeveloped rolls of film. Whichever camera-photographer combination can do that wins. It's the prissy Leica-erotik thing I find a turn off, not proper photographer's cameras whatever the make. This kind of comment on Winogrand's M4: "OK collectors, sit down and take a deep breath before reading this. Before Winogrand's M4 was loaned to me to photograph, the present owner was actually walking around taking pics, mounting a 50/1 Noctilux. True story, believe it or not. Some people wouldn't know a collectible if it bit them on their Dektol."

Anyway, recent Leicas are made in Portugal and are probably better for it.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff.

My dad regularly uses his vintage and veteran motorbikes and cars, doing week-long time trials on a 1915 James not too long ago. They should be used, not just kept in a museum.

I'm a bit suspicious of collectors and what they do to some markets, especially when they becomes collector-investors. A friend of his had a 1930s Rolls that he'd bought for very little in the early 60s, restored over the course of fifteen years and loved driving. In the end he had to sell it with much regret as he could no longer afford the insurance as vintage car market prices sky-rocketed in the 90s.
 
Last edited:
Wow.. I opened a can of worms here.

I had a zorki 4 many years ago, loved it to the extent my shiney canon EOS 650 sat in the bag and fancied trying the real thing.

Much as I love digital (and I do love it) I sometimes miss shooting a roll of ilford FP4.
At the moment I may just try and pick up a Nikon FM and 50mm (another of my past loves)
 
Why do Leicas seem to generate so much controversy? If you like them, and want one, buy it. They are available for about the same price as a mid-level DSLR, which doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch for most people on these forums. Use it, or put it in a cabinet. It's your camera and you can do what you like with it. It doesn't really matter what other people think. If you don't like Leicas, or think they are seriously overpriced, don't buy one. Simple enough.
 
It's the fanaticism about them I think - immortalised by colpepper's quote above. That sort of person has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with elitism and snobbery - but it is these people that get remembered I guess.

Yes, I collect cameras - but every one of them has been or will be used (and will be used again also). I have them because they are tools though, not because they are worth anything (which most of them aren't!)

Arthur
 
Annoying thing about Leica is that almost ever tom, dicky and harry knows its value and you can never pick up a camera at a bargain price. :razz:
 
Ujjwal - thanks.

scratching the CLE of the wishlist.
moving G1 + 45mm f2 further behind as I it seems that my dynaxes will do a better job at focusing. the MF in contax looks out of this planet.
won an auction yesterday of a Rollei compact, will start with that + will try to sell some of my minoltas :nuts:

still truly wanting a good film camera + 50mm f1.1(voigtlander) or f1.2 to shoot portraits on film. I only wonder why my f1.7 and f2 are not good enough :D , so I still need to cure some GAS .
 
about porsches - boxter s is the best value for money so it's not a leica, it's more of a AK47 . But having had 3 bmw's at a time I know what you mean by originality.

G.Winogrand would be over the moon with the latest technologies I think and wouldn't buy a Leica today, but there are loads of legends still using M7 etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top