Tell me about Leica cameras. (i know nothing)

NZDoug wrote in post #5295906
range finders are silent.

That comes in handy when you're a rich guy taking moody, grainy B&W photos of elderly and homeless people in urban settings...

ACF3Passion wrote in post #5294898
I'm a relatively new to photography. My friend says he spent grands on a vintage Leica camera.

I suppose Leica is supposed to be a cream of the crop brand? I never heard them making digital cameras so I assume it's for film only?

Someone wanna tell me more about Leica cameras- how expensive are they (and what models they range in + price), and how good is their actual image quality?

Do I never hear them because this is a Canon forum? If they're so good how come I never hear or see anyone using it Do they still make cameras today?

They are expensive because:

-they are well built, like a swiss watch
-you are paying for exclusivity (like belonging to a country club)
-they have become a niche item for collectors
-there are alot of very keen photographers out their who like them
-this is the vintage camera that the greats like Robert Capa, and Henri Cartier Bresson and many others used
-scarcity drives up the price
-Leica glass is very good glass..

They are different from your Canon EOS camera because:

-you are buying a range finder not a Single Lens Reflex camera
-using a range finder involves a whole different skill set
-in some respects it feels like you are moving backwards because there is no Automatic Focus and the automatic metering is not as sophisticated. But that is what these shooters want
-this camera is more suited for street photography and immediacy in your shooting (but many photojournalists use SLR's)
-it is a totally different experience

Leica's have cache. Many would argue that the Zeiss Contax from the early 50's is a better camera but because of the legacy the Leica has developed they command more on the used market than the Contax do. The Contax is also a range finder. However Contax stopped developing their rangefinders and Leica came out with the M series of camera which is admittedly a better product (for those hard core yes Contax did belately come out with the G series...)

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5295292
The first thing you should know, is they have nothing to do with the EOS system, and thus the question should not be posted in that forum

That's not quite true. Many people, such as myself, regularly use Leica R (reflex) lenses on Canon digital bodies using adapters. There are many good reasons NOT (inconvenient, manual focus, stop down metering) to go down this route but there are also some excellent advantages, especially when using fast lenses.

This was shot with a Leica 180/2.0 (at f2.0) on a 1dsmk2.

These were shot with a Leica R 80/1.4 on a 1dsmk2.

The best setup I've ever used for shooting drag racing at night is a Leica R 80/1.4 (about 20 years old) on a 1dsMk2 with a 20 year old Metz 60/CT4 flash. It kills AF and ettl in every way. Old skool rules!

JJ

My mother in law's point and shoot has a Leica lens and it takes some impressive pictures when handled correctly (though she uses it on full auto).

Ignoring the obvious advantages of Auto Focus, which is missing on Leica cameras, the reason Canon and Nikons are used by most pros is simply because these are 'system' cameras designed for pros. Canon and Nikon have an extensive collection of bits, lenses, adapters you name it. You can also go to any major city and easilly hire or fix Canon and Nikon equipment. This is NOT the case with Leica.

I used Leica R bodies professionally for about 5 years and the image quality is hands down better than Canon or Nikon (in a general sense, yes some Canon and Nikon lenses are better than some Leica lenses). But it was always awkward from a practical sense. As an example, Canon uses 77mm filters on almost all their pro gear. I've been using Canon gear for a bout 5 years now and I ONLY have 77mm filters these days. When I was using Leica I had to have a whole bunch of different filters and in some cases I even had to make my own adapters because I couldn't buy them off the shelf. Another example is the Leica R 35-70/2.8. Almost every pro has a 24-70/2.8 (or similar) Canon or NIkon, it's just a bread and butter lens. If you wanted to buy the Leica equivalent you would have to pay about US$10,000 and you would be bidding against collectors.

Leica is not a pro system. Sure the M's are used by many pro's but often in quite specialised ways, ie because they are so quiet or unobtrusive etc.

JJ

ACF3Passion wrote in post #5295187
So why don't more ppl use Leica? To me it seems ppl just use Canon or Nikon. Maybe because they lack a good entry-level models?

But then I don't see many Leica on high end levels... pros still use high-end Canon or Nikon.

Price, Price Price you think L glass costs $$$ ? and allot of pro do use Leica.

Leica Ms are great for street photograph and any type of photography were a very queit camera is needed.

http://www.cameraquest​.com/mguide.htm

http://www.cameraquest​.com/mlenses.htm

***Read this first***
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …ws/cameras/leic​a-m8.shtml

ITS ALL MANUAL....
Ain't that great...

And you can used all your old lenses. A big deal to allot of pros that have invetsed THOUSANDS in the great glass..

rigshots wrote in post #5296202
Ignoring the obvious advantages of Auto Focus, which is missing on Leica cameras, the reason Canon and Nikons are used by most pros is simply because these are 'system' cameras designed for pros. Canon and Nikon have an extensive collection of bits, lenses, adapters you name it. You can also go to any major city and easilly hire or fix Canon and Nikon equipment. This is NOT the case with Leica.

I used Leica R bodies professionally for about 5 years and the image quality is hands down better than Canon or Nikon (in a general sense, yes some Canon and Nikon lenses are better than some Leica lenses). But it was always awkward from a practical sense. As an example, Canon uses 77mm filters on almost all their pro gear. I've been using Canon gear for a bout 5 years now and I ONLY have 77mm filters these days. When I was using Leica I had to have a whole bunch of different filters and in some cases I even had to make my own adapters because I couldn't buy them off the shelf. Another example is the Leica R 35-70/2.8. Almost every pro has a 24-70/2.8 (or similar) Canon or NIkon, it's just a bread and butter lens. If you wanted to buy the Leica equivalent you would have to pay about US$10,000 and you would be bidding against collectors.

Leica is not a pro system. Sure the M's are used by many pro's but often in quite specialised ways, ie because they are so quiet or unobtrusive etc.

JJ

Not a pro system? Please...there are ton of wedding photographers and photojounalists that use M series cameras. They're sturdy, all manual so you need skills to use them and they would attract photographers that don't need all the stuff...just the stuff that can get them GREAT images. Some of the greatest photographers have used Leicas and taken some of the truly great photographs with them. They're great tools in the hands of a good photographer and the GLASS is SO SWEET.

Leica's (not the R series) and rangefinders in general require that you actually get close to your subject (unless shooting landscapes), as they are not a platform for telephotos. To be sure, there is an elitist premium attached to having a Leica red dot brand on the camera, but no more so than lugging around a much more ostentatiously sized, glaringly conspicuous white L telephoto lens.

As has been mentioned, many of the greatest photographers used a rangefinder, albeit perhaps in some cases due to the lack of cotemporaneous SLR option. Even Canon used to make a rangefinder, and some of their Leica screw mount lenses from the 1950s, early 60s continue to receive decent reviews. Nikon rangefinders are solid cameras, and they still command more than US$1,000 used.

As gabrioladude noted, a rangefinder and SLR are two different systems, and they each have their own advantages, and that's why I use both.

Next, medium and large formats, and why the pros don't use them….

sjones wrote in post #5297121
Leica's (not the R series) and rangefinders in general require that you actually get close to your subject (unless shooting landscapes), as they are not a platform for telephotos. To be sure, there is an elitist premium attached to having a Leica red dot brand on the camera, but no more so than lugging around a much more ostentatiously sized, glaringly conspicuous white L telephoto lens.

As has been mentioned, many of the greatest photographers used a rangefinder, albeit perhaps in some cases due to the lack of cotemporaneous SLR option. Even Canon used to make a rangefinder, and some of their Leica screw mount lenses from the 1950s, early 60s continue to receive decent reviews. Nikon rangefinders are solid cameras, and they still command more than US$1,000 used.

As gabrioladude noted, a rangefinder and SLR are two different systems, and they each have their own advantages, and that's why I use both.

Next, medium and large formats, and why the pros don't use them….

Yeah what would a pro being doing shooting with a blad or a deardorf.

Winogrand shot pretty much with a Leica M and a 35mm lens. The thing is when you get used to one focal length you start SEEING for that and thus start using that focal length to its fullest. Its a great visual exercise and will make you a much better photographer for it.

I think you should hop over to rangefinderforums and take a look at what those guys have to say about their cameras. If you are curious about the rangefinder thing you should check out either one of the cheaper fixed lens rf cameras or a Voigtlander.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5295598
They are very easy to focus in low light even with wide lenses.

IMO the older Leica (pre-M Series) cameras were a pain in the you know where to focus with any lens.

The M-Series Leica Rangefinder Cameras also had their share of focus-viewfinder problems with wide lenses:

M-3 Leica
50-90-135mm projected RF framelines, while gloriously bright, did not match the wide-angle needs of photojournalists. In order to use a wide angle lens such as the Summaron 35mm f/2.8 (shown), you had to attach unwieldy "goggles" that corrected the frame of view to that of a 35mm lens. This reduced the brilliant clarity of the Leica viewfinder to something a bit less than brilliant, and also made attaching and detaching lenses less convenient.

M-2 Leica
Leica released the M-2 model in 1957 had projected framelines for 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses. To get a wider view, you again had to attach the Leica "goggle" to the camera.

Now if you wanted a camera of that era which was the epitomy of easy rangefinder focusing, IMO the NIKON SP was the jewel of all rangefinders. The SP had a 1:1 viewfinder which had framelines for 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm lenses with an addditional (non-parallax corrected) viewing window for 28mm and 35mm lenses.

I used to shoot a lot with a pair of leica M-2 cameras with 35mm and 90mm lenses which were a standard Navy issued kit. I craved for a Nikon SP in my early shooting days but could never afford one.

I had a SP with motor drive in the 60s....Nice.

lungdoc wrote in post #5295993
That comes in handy when you're a rich guy taking moody, grainy B&W photos of elderly and homeless people in urban settings...

ooh. you beat me to it. I was going to say...

unlike their snobbish owners.... who simply MUST tell you about their 'elite' camera...

Please and Canon owners don't think they're all that and a bag a chips to. The real reason to get a Leica if your a photographer not a poser is there really isn't a better tool for street photography and photo journalism. I know photoggraphers that AREN'T rich that own them for the right reasons. They're tools nothing more nothing less...