Tell me about Leica cameras. (i know nothing)

Not sure, but I think Leica came out with lens coatings in the late 30's or maybe 1940's.

As others have said a Leica costs a bunch o bucks, way more than they are worth IMHO, but if you are a pro you just write the costs off. That said there are still uses for them that a SLR just doesn't fit. They are silent, no mirror, so many times they are the only camera allowed in court. They make great walk around cameras as they are generally smaller than SLR's. The viewfinder on a Leica is also on the left side, making it much better for street photography or any time one needs to focus with one eye and watch what the world with the other. Drawbacks, there is a limit to the focal length of lens that will mount and the parallax error (the image in the viewfinder is not exactly what the lens sees. Now with the older models as this most older model cameras, they are mechanical, meaning if the battery goes, so what, you can still take a photo, maybe no meter (oh heaven forbid), but the shutter still works.

Jack

daveftm wrote in post #5298419
ooh. you beat me to it. I was going to say...

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

This is such a funny statement, since everybody knows that CANON users NEVER buy cameras for the gear appeal or to join the elite "L club"

We even have the same letter for it! In the same red color!

That should tell you about something.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5300024
This is such a funny statement, since everybody knows that CANON users NEVER buy cameras for the gear appeal or to join the elite "L club"

We even have the same letter for it! In the same red color!

That should tell you about something.

i have a tamron 70-300 i aint no snob ... besides if you have even WALKED past this place...

http://www.richardcapl​an.co.uk

p.s. I'd still have an M8 though

daveftm wrote in post #5300118
i have a tamron 70-300 i aint no snob ... besides if you have even WALKED past this place...

http://www.richardcapl​an.co.uk

p.s. I'd still have an M8 though

I wish I did walk past that place. They have a leica III with a summar for 150 pounds.

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...

Indeed,..

rigshots wrote in post #5296115
That's not quite true. Many people, such as myself, regularly use Leica R (reflex) lenses on Canon digital bodies using adapters.

If it were a thread about Leica lenses on an EOS body than it would go in the lens forum.. so yes, its still true.

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...

You simply must have one in the glove box of the Range Rover. If you ever have to change a flat, you'll need proof for the crowd at the tennis club.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5295320
And you MUST use it only to take moody, grainy B&W photos of elderly and homeless people in urban settings...

And trees.

I like Leica. My mate John has one. He takes worse shots than me but he uses the M8 which isn't as good IMO as the Canon stuff. I like the look their lenses give on their film bodies. More natural. less saturated, especially on reds. Or maybe my eyes are shot. I have three Zorki Rangefinders which are Russian Leica copies. Beautiful hand made things and well built/solid. Not easy to shoot but not too bad. I never use them. Waste of time having them really. I am pretty lazy which is why I don't have a Leica collection. They look nice. Over-priced IMO these days due to snob value, same as the Canon pro stuff for most people.

Actually, I'm curious as to when Leica prices reached stratospheric heights. I can only assume that their rangefinders were never exactly cheap, but I'm wondering when the 'snob/collector tax' pushed them up from expensive photographic gear to an outright luxury item.

Wouldn't mind owning an M6 or MP, but I'm quite happy with the Bessa for about 1/8th the cost.

Anyway, some effete elitist photographers who used their Leicas for jewelry to take these pretentiously artsy shots:

Robert Capa: http://en.wikipedia.or​g …of_a_Loyalist_S​oldier.jpg

Larry Burrows: http://www.yale.edu …images/BurrowsV​ietnam.jpg

Didn't they know, real men use super telephotos to take snaps of tigers…at zoos…

sjones wrote in post #5301813
Anyway, some effete elitist photographers who used their Leicas for jewelry to take these pretentiously artsy shots:

Robert Capa: http://en.wikipedia.or​g …of_a_Loyalist_S​oldier.jpg

Larry Burrows: http://www.yale.edu …images/BurrowsV​ietnam.jpg

Didn't they know, real men use super telephotos to take snaps of tigers…at zoos…

You're failing to distinguish between great photographers...and everyone else. Those guys are great because of what they did, not what they used to do it.

cdifoto wrote in post #5301866
You're failing to distinguish between great photographers...and everyone else. Those guys are great because of what they did, not what they used to do it.

But if they used canon, it would've been touted all over the place.

There's more anti-leica snobbery and actual leica ownership snobbery. The ones who have shot and tried enough gear to actually shell out for a leica, usually are a far cry from a snob.

And they're not extremely expensive either. My 300d new cost more than a good user leica body with a lens. A 5D, going for two grand is a mint leica M.

A 1 series is a new leica... so that's that.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5301913
But if they used canon, it would've been touted all over the place.

They're touted all over the place already.

Apples to Orangutans, compare a 5D or 1 series prices to a Leica digital of similar capabilities.. not to a film range finder. (pricewise that is)