advertisement


The musings (ramblings) of a Leica owner

We all know the M system is fairly limited in its application, just the physical properties of it make that so - its performance is also to blame. Now that's a good or a bad thing, depending on one's choice of photographic target. For what I've been using mine for (days out, time alone in my favourite places, wandering around town) it's not only wonderful to use, but also inspiring. The 'inspiring' is tricky to explain, but I suppose could be attributed to the feeling of using a camera which such strong links to an illustrious past.

I wonder if it's also that the limitations of the system slow you down, with that having an improvement in your "hit rate" with images captured as you're putting more effort into each shot?

I've got several rangefinders and while I enjoy using them I always gravitate back to an SLR. I expect that's partly because I often shoot wider angles than the rangefinders can cope with without an external viewfinder (which I do have for my 25mm Voigtlander lens). I don't use a 50mm prime much but it is sometimes fun to take a single prime and see what results you can get. In my case that single prime is more often a 24mm though.
 
I would love to add an M2 one day. For now I need to slum it with an M6 if I want wide frame lines :)

Nowt wrong with an M6. I have one that’s had hundreds of rolls of film through it and I’d never sell it, too much sentimental value. If I’m being honest the M2 and M3 I had were better built cameras, but I appreciated the meter in the M6, and it was my favourite of the three.
 
Yes the M3 is in a different league to the M6 in terms of build quality. M6 is still a very nice camera, and the meter is nicely implemented.
 
I have an M2 and it’s a very solid camera - not that I use it much. I had an MP once which I regret selling given how much they’ve gone up in value! I’ve often considered a digital M but always get put off for various reasons e.g sensor issues, depreciation etc. I would love a Q2 monochrom though, but couldn’t really justify the price!
 
The silver Zeiss is a pretty good match. My son has a black Zeiss 50/f2 ZM and it's a fine lens. The crazy thing about the M3 is the 0.91 rangefinder, compared to the rangefinder in the Leica III that had been around for the previous 30 years, which is a peep-hole by comparison. People were only using the Leica III with a maximum aperture of f3.5, but with an f2 as standard and the f1.4 on the horizon, you would have the wider rangefinder and hence the larger body for accurate focusing.
51056284653_cd383eac96_c.jpg
[/url]20210320_233340

Plus the 50/f2 Rigid is such an astonishing lens. Ken Rockwell says:
The LEICA 50mm f/2 SUMMICRON with Near-Focusing Range is the greatest lens ever made by LEICA. This is LEICA's greatest 50mm lens ever, and 50mm is the most important, useful and critical lens in any 35mm or full-frame system.
This SUMMICRON with near-focusing range is LEICA's greatest 50mm lens because:
1.) Its optical performance is not significantly exceeded by any other lens,
2.) Its mechanics are significantly more solid and more precise than any other lens made by anyone — ever. It is a solid-brass scientific masterpiece.
3.) It is the closest-focusing 50mm lens ever made for LEICA M.


I don't know if he is going over the top, but he's not far off and you can still get one for £1,000 to £1,200. It must have seemed completely revolutionary when it came out in 1956, and it's my preferred 50mm today, even with a 50f1/4 ASPH.

The standard 50 Rigid was made of aluminium and weighs 251g.The NF model weighs 339g and is solid brass, which is why it is dream-like to use, even if you don't use the close focus. They do the same with the modern 50/f1.4 ASPH, the standard is 335g, but the brass/silver one is 460g. I tried the brass one for a few weeks and it was far too heavy. I would not recommend one.

Here's an image with the Leica III. It's a 1935 unit, pretty immaculate with a clear lens, very difficult to find one with a clear lens, but not expensive at all. Expect to pay about £400 to £500.
49411084007_47622e53ce_h.jpg
[/url]000016060024

That looks a lot like Essaouira.
 
>>I agree the price of the glass is quite horrific - of course there are plenty of retired dentists & lawyers around who can afford it but for humble semi-retired musos such as I, they're beyond even the most sensitive of radar.<<
/QUOTE]

I'm another semi-retired muso, but I got my first Leica seven or eight years ago when the money was still coming in fairly regularly and though it was a stretch, it wasn't a ruinous one. I've always bought second-hand, and as you can nearly alway sell for the price at which you bought (or close to it) I've always regarded the cameras and lenses as only temporarily mine - a sort of free-ish rental arrangement if you like.
I also tend to prefer the older lenses which are usually cheaper and have been lucky to find some at good prices - my favourite lens, the Rigid Summicron 50 was about £700 a couple of years ago (for Leica that's fairly inexpensive) and my old Summilux 35 (a lovely lens, and tiny) was around £1500 three years ago. If you're sensible, and patient, you can happily use Leica even if you're not a lawyer or dentist.

As someone else has said, on the more up-to-date M cameras you can also use Leica's R lenses (a bit larger, but no less good - some are superb) and they tend to be much less expensive though sadly not as much as they used to be.

I used to have some good Canon equipment, but within six months of getting a Leica I had sold it all and I've never regretted doing that for a moment. It's not just the rangefinder - I always loathed changing aperture electronically on the camera and with Leica M & R lenses the aperture ring is on the lens - where it should be.:)
 
I'm another semi-retired muso, but I got my first Leica seven or eight years ago when the money was still coming in fairly regularly and though it was a stretch, it wasn't a ruinous one. I've always bought second-hand, and as you can nearly alway sell for the price at which you bought (or close to it) I've always regarded the cameras and lenses as only temporarily mine - a sort of free-ish rental arrangement if you like.
I also tend to prefer the older lenses which are usually cheaper and have been lucky to find some at good prices - my favourite lens, the Rigid Summicron 50 was about £700 a couple of years ago (for Leica that's fairly inexpensive) and my old Summilux 35 (a lovely lens, and tiny) was around £1500 three years ago. If you're sensible, and patient, you can happily use Leica even if you're not a lawyer or dentist.

As someone else has said, on the more up-to-date M cameras you can also use Leica's R lenses (a bit larger, but no less good - some are superb) and they tend to be much less expensive though sadly not as much as they used to be.

I used to have some good Canon equipment, but within six months of getting a Leica I had sold it all and I've never regretted doing that for a moment. It's not just the rangefinder - I always loathed changing aperture electronically on the camera and with Leica M & R lenses the aperture ring is on the lens - where it should be.:)

I used some R lenses on Leica M10. It started with the M240 as it was the first to have Live View. I used the 180mm APO lens with the 2x APO extender. Woke brilliantly. I sold it back to the person I bought it from for what I paid.

The 50 Rigid is one I have - an amazing lens, and now worth quite a bit more than £700!

But I agree, on lenses and used bodies you put your money down as a deposit and can get it back or make a profit, but it's more fun to keep and use.

The thing about Leica is that there is so much of it about, and prices are very solid.
 
Well, this chapter in my own little book of photography experiences has drawn to a close.

I've thoroughly enjoyed my 'Leica time', and it's certainly an itch I've wanted to scratch for many years. The really good bits by far outweigh the not-so-good, and some bits have been truly great (even in my hands). This may sound a little odd, but in so many ways it felt like using a digital version of my beloved old Nikon F3, even if its ergos are entirely different.

The decision was made the other day to move the M-P 240 and 50 Summicron on. Not one I've taken lightly, but genuinely feel - long term - the system wasn't really for me. I've found myself using the Df so much more now - reason being that when out with the Leica I was so aware of its value, it got wrapped up in (metaphorical) cotton wool which, whilst not spoiling the experience of using it, it was always in the back of my mind. I was scared of getting even the slightest scratch on it - mine was a nigh-on spotless example which kind of exacerbated the issue.

The good thing is that in 10 months I've lost less money on it than the cost to hire the body and lens for a day. :)
 
@Gromit - it's been a good read, and vicarious pleasure to follow-along; it neatly answered my musings along sim lines.

Can't argue with the value proposition of your c.1year of such experimentation - that's fine outcome, too.
 
Well I enjoyed your blog, know exactly what you mean about having to be over careful (My old man had some Zeiss binos that were about wartime...since Zeiss were expensive but not post then, he had flung them around for 40 years before I got hold of them and being me, treated them like eggshells. They broke (no doubt broken hearted ay my lack of use) 2 years later. I replaced them on retirement with new Zeiss and although they look and feel like I can throw them around with impunity, I just can't do it, using the Hawkes every day in the rain instead. Worse image, but?

So what's next? Whatever it is, I'd suggest to 'accidentally' drop it in a muddy puddle on day 1, dry it off and if it's ok...just relax and get out there.

I'm like this with women too

not the muddy puddle bit


although??
 
Thanks fellas - it's been a pleasant journey, absolutely no doubt there. :)

What's next? Perhaps I should take some time out, taking stock of what kind of subject(s) I like to photograph most, and choose the right equipment for the job..but how predictably, terribly sensible that would be. :D
 
I've had the Z6ii for around 24 hours now and have been getting it set up and taking a few photographs around the house and in the garden because of work and the weather.

I'll be honest, as much as I love the ergonomics and image quality of the Z6ii, there is something a little soulless about the camera compared to the M240.

I am sure I will get used to the Nikon but I will definitely be keeping the Leica.
 
I've had the Z6ii for around 24 hours now and have been getting it set up and taking a few photographs around the house and in the garden because of work and the weather.

I'll be honest, as much as I love the ergonomics and image quality of the Z6ii, there is something a little soulless about the camera compared to the M240.

I am sure I will get used to the Nikon but I will definitely be keeping the Leica.

I totally understand where you're coming from, Rob - and of course I'd have loved to keep my M240. The Df, despite my long-held cynicism, has turned out to be a really good half-way between the Leica and the new breed of mirrorless cameras.

The new stuff is staggeringly capable of course (Lefty's work is proof enough) though, I just think whether it floats one's boat is purely up to the individual. :)
 


advertisement


Back
Top