Going to buy my 1st Leica, in need of advice please :)

[Guest imported_torben]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Working with a separate meter is of an advantage, as it will teach you to "read the light" Don't forget the built-in meter of a camera is just a dumb automaton. Trying to control that with exposure compensation etc. is actually slower than using a handheld meter and you brain. Fortunately even metered M cameras up to and including the M9 work as well or better in manual mode.

 

TOTALLY disagree! (in particular for a newbe)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ecaton]

Just to ad my 2cents.

Film or digital? You seem to be undecided.

The good thing with buying used film Leicas is that they keep their values. So the risk with used film Leica's is of potentially not embracing the film workflow. A financial loss can be minimized/avoided if you decide to resell the camera.

With digital M bodies, a value depreciation is most certain.

That's why I would suggest to buy and try a film M first, an excellent used M6 or a bargain M7 would be my choice.

[bill]

Having listened to the advice offered - good and not so good - and learned more about your preferences and by extension where you are on the "curve" I would suggest a good used M6, with a 50mm Elmar-M and a 35mm CV 2.5 (any model, but preferably the Pancake I).

 

This gives you a relatively recent camera that can be used with or without batteries. The built-in meter is instinctive to use and will help you to learn about the balance between aperture and shutter speed because you will be able to see the impact of changing one or the other. If you want to go down the Sunny-16 route you can, but you are not stuck with it.

 

The Elmar is a fine modern lens, recently discontinued, that will give you exceptional results and is easy to handle and to use. Above all it is collapsible. This is important because I believe that you will want to have your camera with you.

 

Similarly the logic behind the CV lens is that it is relatively cheap, whilst giving an exceptional performance. It is also relatively compact, so can slip in a pocket.

 

Film is not a problem in London - take your exposed rolls to a branch of Snappy Snaps. Do so avoiding peak times, and try to frequent the same shop and build up a rapport with the staff.

 

Finally, also buy yourself a cheap little Panasonic digital. This will give you flexibility, immediacy, flash, a halfway decent zoom range and a perfect "party camera" for when you want to leave the M6 at home.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[tobey bilek]

Borrow or rent one before you buy. Rangefinder cameras have advantages, but they also have some severe limitations when it comes to closeup & tele work. You need to add the visoflex for that and the last lenses for it were made 3 decades ago. There are also around 100 adapter rings which are hard to find. Google visoflex pages for shaws report on tripod.

 

You will appreciate the fast shutter response and the lack of noise and the very minimal distortion in the lenses.

 

I have no idea how long film will be viable. No new film cameras are being made. Leica or not, digital quality is far better than film, but I do use both. Other than my own darkroom, it is getting harder to find film processors, quality ones are much harder still. Without top quality processing, the nuance of Leica will not show.

 

As you know, digi files are much more manipulatable and you can take three photos and see them on the computer immediately. Imvest in some quality software to make them sing. I started on Nikon years back because Leica had no digital. I am most pleased and get better pic than Leica film cameras that I still use. I have used Leica digital and it is outstanding because of the lenses, lack of softening filter in front of the sensor stc. The high ISO performance is terrible compared to Nikon. The fast lenses help mitigate this.

I am happy with my Nikon full frame choices. I have adapted a few Leica R and visoflex lenses to the Nikon systen. They are visably better than consumer grade Nikon lenses, but the better pro Nikon lenses have come very close to catching up.

 

Try out a used one for a month before you commit. My experience has been it is not easy to fine a used one that does not need some kind of work. Don`t sell off what you have.

[bill]

Rangefinder cameras have advantages, but they also have some severe limitations when it comes to closeup & tele work. You need to add the visoflex for that and the last lenses for it were made 3 decades ago.

 

...or you could just do as I suggested and get a cheap digi for the macro and tele stuff.

 

You will appreciate the fast shutter response and the lack of noise and the very minimal distortion in the lenses.

 

True

 

I have no idea how long film will be viable.

 

...far longer than the OP need worry about, I'll wager.

 

No new film cameras are being made.

 

Rubbish.

 

Leica or not, digital quality is far better than film...

 

Rubbish.

 

My experience has been it is not easy to fine a used one that does not need some kind of work.

 

Then you have been looking in the wrong places.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Angeloz]

Having listened to the advice offered - good and not so good - and learned more about your preferences and by extension where you are on the "curve" I would suggest a good used M6, with a 50mm Elmar-M and a 35mm CV 2.5 (any model, but preferably the Pancake I).

 

This gives you a relatively recent camera that can be used with or without batteries. The built-in meter is instinctive to use and will help you to learn about the balance between aperture and shutter speed because you will be able to see the impact of changing one or the other. If you want to go down the Sunny-16 route you can, but you are not stuck with it.

 

The Elmar is a fine modern lens, recently discontinued, that will give you exceptional results and is easy to handle and to use. Above all it is collapsible. This is important because I believe that you will want to have your camera with you.

 

Similarly the logic behind the CV lens is that it is relatively cheap, whilst giving an exceptional performance. It is also relatively compact, so can slip in a pocket.

 

Film is not a problem in London - take your exposed rolls to a branch of Snappy Snaps. Do so avoiding peak times, and try to frequent the same shop and build up a rapport with the staff.

 

Finally, also buy yourself a cheap little Panasonic digital. This will give you flexibility, immediacy, flash, a halfway decent zoom range and a perfect "party camera" for when you want to leave the M6 at home.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Thank you so much for the detailed response, really really appreciate it!

[Angeloz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is one thing on my mind though, gentlemen (and ladies of course!), and that's whether or not a Leica is the right path for me?

 

I've asked the same question in another forum which does not belong to any particular brand or anything of the sort, everyone advised me not to get a Leica, everyone told me that the price tag is - and I quote - "hideously expensive" and that its a "boutique" piece of equipment.

I wonder, should I go for a Leica? God knows I want to, very much so... and although I have never seen one in real life, I drool at the thought of owning one.

 

Would you mind sharing your thoughts with me? Am I just doing this in the spur of the moment? Should I do this when everyone is telling me to go Nikon/Canon?

 

The community here has been awesome and I'm overwhelmed with well thought (and intended) comments, and I really appreciate it; so many thanks to everyone .

 

Anyway, lets see what happens.

 

Pace.

[jaapv]

One thing I can assure you - Leicas do cost a lot of money, however, they are not expensive - the return on the money in photographic experience, for those that are receptive to that feeling, is higher than any other brand.

 

It is certainly not a boutique brand, but it is a niche product. Products in this class will always attract comments like the ones you quote. In this forum you will find the photographers that disagree with thos sentiments.

[Guest Holy Moly]

Angeloz, reading your introduction I feel that you try to start from the wrong side.

 

I think you should ask yourself "What kind of photographs I want to make?" or "With what kind of equipment this or that photograph has been made which is thrilling me?"

 

Most advisors here had the only chance to start with silver-film because digital wasn't even under the horizon......

 

When your studies in London are at first in a broader scale, f.e. still photography and movie etc., a digital camera would be the best. Of course including the new features as video in HD.

 

When your goal is more targeted to still photography it's not so easy to decide....

 

But at first you should start with a digital equipment and then add an analog camera. Learn b/w home developing in your bathroom - do this from crap and as a young guy you'll learn fast.

 

The camera is not so important, ok it should be reliable and should have a good quality lens but be sure, a Leica M* with the best lens is an idiot in front of an untrained head... * as any camera, but others may help more.......

 

Here a link which explaines it better:

 

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info-how_not_to_improve.htm

 

Don't misunderstand me: Leicas are phantastic but you have to "earn" it.........;-)

[aymoon]

If ever any of my friends, even closest friends, asks me about learning photography, I will always, ALWAYS, recommend film over digital, and manual over automatic. In the same way, if someone asks me about movie-making, I will always recommend shotting film over digital.

 

This is not because film is inherently 'better' (let's not start that debate here, it's already going on elsewhere)... it's because it forces the student to train their brain, and develop a mindset for shooting, that imho leads to being a 'better' photographer.

 

This is because you are forced to think before you click the shutter. You are forced to visualise. You are forced to wait for your results. And you are forced to 'pay' for your mistakes. The stakes are higher, and whatever anyone says, that leads to a different approach.

 

Angeloz, I studied filmmaking/directing in London (at the NYFA), and you will find this debate at school. Believe me, you will not be able to do yourself a better favour than shooting on film as you learn. Knowing that you can't just keep the camera rolling and waste time trying to get things right, as most students do with video, but rather having to plan and be prepared so that when you 'roll camera and sound', you know exactly what you want to get in the can, and everyone is working to the same goal. You can't mess about when every second is costing you money, so it makes you very focused. A focused director is much better than a casual one, and I'd say that the same is true for a photographer.

 

Most people I recommend film to do not take my advice, but only because they admit that they are not serious about their photography. If you are serious and you can afford it, this is how I would start even if I knew that I would end up going digital. It is a beautiful learning process and the results can be special. Also, if you wish to be a film-maker, the experience you'll gain will be invaluable!

 

In a short summary, I agree with Bill (I use a Panasonic FT2 for parties so I'm never worried about it getting messy)

 

A used M6, and one or two lenses would be perfect. Personally, I would start with just one. Then you can devote your early days to coming to grips with the rangefinder system and the beauty of the leica way.

 

PS: Feel free to drop me a line if you wish to share a coffee or something when you get to London. I can show you around the leica stores if you like and we can chat movies.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Again Angeloz,

 

I'm sorry my previous Post was cut off in the middle of a sentence.

 

You see, my ability with computers actually is considerably less than you think your photographic ability and knowledge are. BTW from what I read I think you may be somewhat underestimating yourself.

 

My Post earlier on ended with " - is interchanga". It should have read "- is interchangable."

 

Interestingly, the second part of my Post which diappeared dealt with the questions you are dealing with now.

 

I will try to get back to you about this soon.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Angeloz]

If ever any of my friends, even closest friends, asks me about learning photography, I will always, ALWAYS, recommend film over digital, and manual over automatic. In the same way, if someone asks me about movie-making, I will always recommend shotting film over digital.

 

This is not because film is inherently 'better' (let's not start that debate here, it's already going on elsewhere)... it's because it forces the student to train their brain, and develop a mindset for shooting, that imho leads to being a 'better' photographer.

 

This is because you are forced to think before you click the shutter. You are forced to visualise. You are forced to wait for your results. And you are forced to 'pay' for your mistakes. The stakes are higher, and whatever anyone says, that leads to a different approach.

 

Angeloz, I studied filmmaking/directing in London (at the NYFA), and you will find this debate at school. Believe me, you will not be able to do yourself a better favour than shooting on film as you learn. Knowing that you can't just keep the camera rolling and waste time trying to get things right, as most students do with video, but rather having to plan and be prepared so that when you 'roll camera and sound', you know exactly what you want to get in the can, and everyone is working to the same goal. You can't mess about when every second is costing you money, so it makes you very focused. A focused director is much better than a casual one, and I'd say that the same is true for a photographer.

 

Most people I recommend film to do not take my advice, but only because they admit that they are not serious about their photography. If you are serious and you can afford it, this is how I would start even if I knew that I would end up going digital. It is a beautiful learning process and the results can be special. Also, if you wish to be a film-maker, the experience you'll gain will be invaluable!

 

In a short summary, I agree with Bill (I use a Panasonic FT2 for parties so I'm never worried about it getting messy)

 

A used M6, and one or two lenses would be perfect. Personally, I would start with just one. Then you can devote your early days to coming to grips with the rangefinder system and the beauty of the leica way.

 

PS: Feel free to drop me a line if you wish to share a coffee or something when you get to London. I can show you around the leica stores if you like and we can chat movies.

 

I have bad news for you Aymoon, odds are I am going to hold you for it, the coffee that is! You just told me everything I wanted to hear, everything!! You and bill have won me over, I'm 95% away from getting a used M6, I have already multiple tabs opened with explanations and walls of texts that talk about it.

 

I'm so happy right now .

 

Thanks a lot mate, hopefully we can meet up in London someday if you're still willing to go through with it.

 

(I don't bite!)

 

Peace .

[aymoon]

Thanks a lot mate, hopefully we can meet up in London someday if you're still willing to go through with it.

 

(I don't bite!)

 

Ha! Yeah, that would be fine with me. There's a small café near the British Museum which also sells classic cameras... very cool! I'll show you it.

 

Of course, everything I said above is just my opinion, though I believe in it passionately.

 

Let us know how you get on and drop me a PM when you're coming to London.

 

Any thoughts on what lens you'll get?

[chrism]

There's a style that goes with Leica photographs - they tend to be quickly and spontaneously taken, more often of people than other subjects, and always composed in a way that is dictated by the restricted range of focal lengths available, yet enabled by the advantages of a rangefinder over an SLR. You can't do better than look at the kind of photographs taken by the great Leica users (HCB, Capa, Doisneau, Eisenstaedt, Winogrand, Kertész etc) and see if they appeal to you. If they do, spend the time and effort necessary to master the M6 you seem to be likely to buy (I'd recommend a Summarit 35 to go with it if the budget allows) and enjoy your results. If you're talented and lucky, other people might enjoy them too (or so I am told!)

 

Chris

[JWW]

Regarding the cost of Leica. Sure it's expensive to get started but 9 times out of 10, I made money selling Leica gear. So in net terms, my Leica experience didn't really cost. In fact, a few years ago if I could forecast the future, I would of bought more Leica gear and take advantage of the price appreciation. So if you feel that it's best for you, buy the M6 (or M?) and an used Leica lens and enjoy using it.

[lars_bergquist]

About aymon's advice: I recommended a film M simply for financial reasons (so you would be able to spend money on a good lens). But after using film for half a century, I must say that it is like the ancient mortification of walking to Rome with stones in your shoes: It is not a peregrinage I would choose to do. By all means go to Rome, but use comfortable shoes; there will be some atrocious cobblestones underfoot in any case!

 

The fact is that because of the immediate feedback, I have learnt more about photography since 2007 than I learned in the previous half century. I can experiment, and see what happens. As a learning tool, digital is unsurpassed.

 

The old man from the Age of the Roll Film Folder

[Angeloz]

Ha! Yeah, that would be fine with me. There's a small café near the British Museum which also sells classic cameras... very cool! I'll show you it.

 

Of course, everything I said above is just my opinion, though I believe in it passionately.

 

Let us know how you get on and drop me a PM when you're coming to London.

 

Any thoughts on what lens you'll get?

 

Not really sure but I'm leaning towards a wide angle of some sort... What do you think?

[Angeloz]

About aymon's advice: I recommended a film M simply for financial reasons (so you would be able to spend money on a good lens). But after using film for half a century, I must say that it is like the ancient mortification of walking to Rome with stones in your shoes: It is not a peregrinage I would choose to do. By all means go to Rome, but use comfortable shoes; there will be some atrocious cobblestones underfoot in any case!

 

The fact is that because of the immediate feedback, I have learnt more about photography since 2007 than I learned in the previous half century. I can experiment, and see what happens. As a learning tool, digital is unsurpassed.

 

The old man from the Age of the Roll Film Folder

 

Hold on a second, are you telling me to go digital?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

If he does - I second him. Quite apart from the look-image quality debate, digital has instant feedback which greatly steepens the learning curve. I have been photographing for over50 years, yet I made the most progress by a fair margin in the last ten years when I went digital.

[andybarton]

If you are looking to buy new or second hand in London, please also contact Red Dot Cameras, one of our sponsoring dealers.