Ole Fasmer

Again, does this exorbitant price reflect any practical value? I always wonder if Leicas pricing is due to a luxury brand status or reflect a real value over similar products. Often when I use my leica m9, people react to the red dot and wants to talk about my camera. Sometimes its quite fun and ok., but sometimes it seems like people are very preoccupied with the camera being expensive. ( all my leica stuff is secondhand, so in fact its not that expensive!) My nikon 85 mm. makes better and sharper images than my summicron 90, due to my inability to nail focus with the rangefinder all the time. Nobody is reacting to my nikon gear in the way some is responding to the leica. I have the leica m, because I like the rangefinder and its ability to observe people etc. moving in to the frame. Its super with 35 and 50 mm. In practical use F. 2 and 1,5 is not that far apart. Yes the bokeh is perhaps wonderfull in a summilux, But I have the feeling, that it has to be expensive, so people can have an exclusive and luxury item, so they can feel very special and rich. Dont give me the Porche comparison. A vw up gives a totally different (and poorer) driving experience. ( i own an vw up!) So my claim is that you can get the same picture quality from a used old tele elmarit, at a minimum of the cost.

Another luxury product. Expensive, but that’s seems to be the general meaning. It’s expensive, collectible and not very useful. Why don’t Leica invite good designers in the development of cameras from the beginning. Design is not only form, but also function. A new SL, that’s not so bricklike could be an option. A new M with a better Evf solution, build into the camera or a better designed detached finder. The cl is so ugly, that it really needs a better design.

2 camerabodys are almost standard for press(like) work with non zoom lenses. Having a wide and a telephoto( or an other combination) lens ready without changing. I don’t even have the money for one m10, so two would seem over the top(for me). For others on a budget I vill recommend one rangefinder and one dslr or mirrorless camera. Use a 70 -200 or equivalent on the non rangefinder and a fast wide on the rangefinder. If you prefer fixed focal lengths, go with a fast 85, 135, 180 mm. on the dslr or the mirrorless. My standard kit in the film days was a Leica m4 with a 35 mm summicron. And a Nikon ( several models) with 85 , f.2

AF often misses focus. Or more precise; AF needs practice to use with perfection. So no focusing method or technique is foolproof. The basic of Leica M is the rangefinder. I will assume, that you use a Leica M because of the rangefinder and the optical viewfinder. I’m aware of people using rangefinder lenses on Evf cameras or using the Screen or the Evf finders for the Leica m. If your needs are for longer focal lengths or for closeup work, I will suggest using another camerasystem. The main advantage of the Rangefinder camera is the ability to watch elements outside the picture frame. The rangefinder focusing system is not very precise. And to be a little rude, rangefinder cameras are useful with wides and up to 50 mm. lenses. I use my 90 mm, but I miss the ability to focus closer than 1 m. And I find focusing difficult and slow, compared to manual focus Evf or slr, or last but not least AF on both. So no camera system is perfect . And no photographer is perfect. But with wide to 50 mm. lenses rangefinder focusing is quite easy. Use the rangefinder patch for close up ( from 70 cm. to 2 meters) on larger apertures. Use the distance scale set to say 3 m. Stop the aperture down to 8 and shoot away. Or use a combination of measuring the distance and using the dof scale. Focusing and reframing can be a problem close up and with 75 and 90 ( I’m leaving the 135 out, because i find it almost useless on a rangefinder). Focusing and reframing can be used with a little forgiving stopdown on all the shorter focal lengths. I almost only use the distance scale for wides up to 24 mm. No AF , no rangefinder, no split screen, no ground glass. Just using the finder for framing, it’s fast, it’s fun and efficient.

The basics as I see it: there’s only one current rangefinder system, the Leica M. You have to decide if you need or want a rangefinder camera. The quality of the pictures is determined by so many factors, many of them highly subjective, that the type of camera or lens plays a very small part. So the reason for having a Leica M is more related to the way you take pictures. Using the rangefinder makes it possible to watch elements (people) move into the frame, while you are composing the image. This is very useful for press and street photography. So if you need or want a Leica, you have to decide what you are willing to pay. A brand new camera and 3 new Leica lenses will cost more than most people are willing to pay, if we a talking about having a practical useful camera system. So many people go with second hand and non Leica lenses.

The more or less absurd focus on Bokeh has found it’s answer. So maybe the rest of us can concentrate on the lenses rendering of the in focus areas.

Tape or glue will do the trick. I recommend tape, then you’ll be able to restore it, when you get to your senses again. I’m sorry, I find the idea of having no aperture blades down right silly. What will be the next purist idea? A lens without focus ring? Only to be used at a fixed distance? Cameras with only one shutter speed? Lenses that always are artistic out of focus? Oh I forgot the Thambar! Photography is all about light. The way you controle it, using the camera and the different settings, gives you many possibilities. You could take a dream like picture without having a thambar, using soft light or shooting against the light etc.

If you are a little handy, consider making a washer yourself. First determine the maximal print size, you will be processing. Then acquire a basin or a darkroom tray. The basin can wash many prints at the the time , the tray fever. If you have a darkroom sink with water outlet, it’s really easy, you can just let the basin or the tray empty in the sink. You need some plastic hosing, a connector , type garden hose. Epoxy glue and a wine cork. Cut the hose so it fits , make small holes with a drill, close it with the fitted cork , use knife and epoxy. Glue the hose with holes pointing upward in the buttom of the tray/ basin. Drill some 10 mm. Holes around the edge of the basin/ washer, for water outlet. Secure the inlet with the garden hose type connector to a faucet. Connect and control water pressure and temperature (could just be cold, but watch for sudden changes). If you don’t have a darkroom sink, you have to make an outlet with a bigger diameter hose and fit this into only one hole in the basin under the edge . I think the tray solution is solely for the darkroom sink use.

my comment about f stop (2,8) ,was only meant regarding being able to obtain a decent in focus shot handheld, without going to extreme ISO’s . I take a lot of pictures these days of nature with quite long telephotos, here f 2,8 is almost the largest aperture you can get. My 400 f. 2,8 is a monster to carry around, and you need some kind of support. Mono or tripod or a shoulder from a friend. So sometimes I go 4/3 and pack a smaller, lighter and nimble 300, that almost substitute a 600 Full frame. All this to say, that regarding telephotos large aperture is necessary or important to obtain a sharp image, you need shutter speeds exceeding 1000/sec. All about certain lenses and their rendering at different apertures, is another matter. I’m not a fan of shooting at full aperture with a nd filter, because you’re obsessed with bokeh or the rendering of the lens a full aperture. Sometimes the lighting and the situation merits shooting at full aperture also at moderate focal lengths . Go with it then, but I would personally choose a longer focal length, and move back a little. Because I like the more compressed perspective. And now I also have stated, that having a Leica q as the only camera is not an option for me.

Points taken Tailwagger. Nice pictures, but all low light situations. Photography is all about light, and sometimes you have lots of it. In low light photography 2,8 is sufficient, practical only one stop slower than 1,7. Your pictures show, that you can create an atmosphere and a “feeling” in the pictures by leaving the background semi blurred. I think, that I’m a little biased by mostly using wide lenses for nature and people , where I wanted focus front and back. My favorite outfit for many (film) years was a Leica with a 35 and a slr with a 85 . So the closeups often came from the 85 and the totals from the 35.

I’m not a Q shooter, but curious about most new cameras, especially Leicas. All this talk about focus really puzzles me, when you are addressing a wide angle lens/camera. Everything is in focus from one meter to infinity, if you stop it down a bit. I don’t want to sound patronizing, but from many years af taking pictures, I never had problems focusing wide angle lenses. If you use it close up on full aperture, you have to check your AF or your manual focus. But for shooting people or landscapes outdoors, you don’t even have to focus . Leave the focus at 3 meters and stop it down to say 8, and shoot away. AF is sometimes messing focusing wide angles up. Focusing to close, if you want both the foreground and background to be in focus. So switch it of and use the dof scale instead. If you’re interested in blurry backgrounds, use another lens, telephoto or a little shorter. You could use a 28 up close on full aperture, but for people it’s not flattering, distortion , big noses etc. For products it could be useful , when you’re in a small room.

You could always dream about new gear. Leica have product lines that in some ways collide. Making a new q with interchangeable lenses clash with the SL and the M. The smaller sensor models ( x and the Panasonic derivatives) clash with with a model q with a zoom lens. None the less, my dream would be a model qz , a q with a 40 to 120 mm. 2,8 zoom. Making both the q and the zoom q available to a price 30 % lower than the q today, would make both models more competitive. 24 megapixels is adequate, no need for joining the pixelcounting race for this type of camera.

Hiding the brand name or otherwise changing the appearance of the camera has been a fashion through time. When I attended photo school in 1979 half the students had their cameras camouflaged with tape or paint. My Nikon was named “ IKon” with the help of black paint. Some took it serious, as a critique of the capitalist society, others just made a joking statement. The red dot is a obvious sign of Leica, but today no current rangefinder cameras other than Leica are available, so you are carrying a Leica, dot or not!

I hope it’s a hoax. It looks awful. Why not just raise the top to incorporate the finder? Leica have done it with the q. The TL/ TL2 looks great, but feels a little slippery in my hands. So a nice sleek look, but at better grip, that would be the way to go imho.

Nice cooperation.