Reading mode: Light Dark

I'm gonna be sent to photo h*ll for even asking...

Go to last post
Good explanation.

Thanks, Roland.
Roland Karlsson said:
prefect41 said:
But can someone please explain to me all the "wow!" over Leica,
especiially a digital rangefinder Leica? Ok, I can see Leica
having a following for one reason or another, so a digital version
would definitely be welcomed by fans. But a rangefinder ?
Click to expand...
A rangefinder is a very good solution for a high qulality wide
angle to short tele camera.You can have small very high quality
lenses. The focussing is fast and exact. The camera is quiet and
discrete. You have a bright and good view finder.

The Leica M8 rangefinder is (probably) of extremely high quality.
It has a (probably) value that lasts. You can easily use a 50 year
old Leica seriously today (except if you need digital).

The advantage of using old classical lenses is somewhat limited due
to the crop factor and that some lenses you cannot use. This is my
main question with regard to this camera.

There are some things it is not good for. It is no tele camera. It
is no macro camera.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
Click to expand...
 
There IS no photo h*ll - all photography is heavenly!

Here's why I love rangefinders:

Practical shooting:

1. I love looking 'through' the camera instead of 'into' it. I don't see what the PICTURE will look like (2D focusing screen with fuzzy bits), I see what the SUBJECT looks like.

2. I love seeing the moment of exposure, rather than every moment EXCEPT the moment of exposure (mirror blackout)

3. When I press the button, the FIRST (and only thing) thing that happens is that the shutter opens - no moving of mirrors or aperture blades to get to the instant of exposure.

4. "low-tech" image stabiization - with no mirror flop, the Leica will hand-hold 2 shutter speeds slower than most SLRs

Handling:

5. I love that there are no bumps and lumps on the body for the mirror box and prism (although the compact Olympus/Panasonic/Leica 4/3rds SLR bodies have gone a long way to equalize this).

6. I love that the corner viewfinder means the camera does not hide my face when shooting (I shoot right-eyed) - I get MUCH friendlier responses from strangers if they see a smile with the camera, rather than Borg-photographer with black plastic for a face. (Again, the Oly E-330-type SLRs fix this to some extent).

7. I love that my lenses are tiny compared to equivalent aperture/focal length SLR lenses (compare the 50 f/1.4 lenses on the Canon 400D and Leica M8 in Phil's M8 preview) A Leica 21 f/2.8 takes 55mm filters, compared to 72mm for a Canon and 62mm for a Nikon.

8. I love that my Leica M and 4 lenses covering 21-90 weigh less than a Canon 1D body without a lens.

As to the M8 in particular:

9. I love being able to use up-to-60-year-old lenses for digital with ZERO loss of functionality. Try fitting a nice 1980 Canon FD prime onto an EOS. Most of my lenses are actually no older than 1980, but it's the concept...

For me, the Leica M8 is a Canon 1DMkII - with 2 more Mpixels, and without the chiropractor's bills

As to Leica lenses:

10. I only have one of the most modern super APO ASPH Leica lenses - most of mine are 20 years old. So I won't insist they have more resolution/sharpness than a good modern Nikon or Canon prime. But they have at least the SAME resolution - in a package that is often less than half the size of the equivalent SLR lens. My 90mm f/2.8 would fit INSIDE a Nikon or Canon 100-105 f/2.8. Even the pre-AF versions.

What I DO see with Leica lenses (and also Contax/Zeiss) compared to other brands is a subtle increase in 3D definition - eyes look like the spheres they are, rather than painted-on dolls' eyes; fingers and toes have a rounder sensuality. Just something about how those optical designs handle tone and reflections and the other things that make us see in 3 dimensions.

Obviously there are things RFs don't do well or at all - macro; telephotos over 120-135mm; exact perfect to-the-corner-pixel framing.

When I need those things, I use a camera with ttl viewing (SLR or digicam) - for the other 95% of the time I use rangefinders.
 
Bill Force said:
If you don't comprehend the reason behind a modern rangefinder,
quality camera such as the Leica, it wouldn't do any good to try to
explain it's rational to you anyway. Either you know it, or you
never will.
Click to expand...
This is the sort of nonsense touted by people when there really isn't a good reason to justify their position.

If you feel there's something special about this camera feel free to say so, or don't if you don't want to, but don't wite comments that show you to be an arrogant, ignorant, bonehead.
 
prefect41 said:
Whipping that manual advance lever used to be a macho thrill akin
to The Rifleman. The needle light meter has a new-VW-bug
built-in-flower-vase kind of apeal, I suppose.
Click to expand...
You're attacking a strawman, here. The Leica has neither a manual advance lever nor match needle metering. It actually looks as though it's been nicely designed for digital, though I think it would be better if it had an ISO dial instead of putting it on a menu. I also think that there are some interesting opportunities that Leica has missed*, but this looks like a serious camera that's intended to compete head to head with other professional models. It's not just an attempt to squeeze money out of nostaligic collectors.
prefect41 said:
Sure, I'd like a DSLR that has a great manual focus, but a
rangefinder?
Click to expand...
If you want great manual focus, a rangefinder will give you better results than the best SLR. Heck, if you want great focus period and you're shooting normal or wider lenses, a rangefinder will beat the pants off of the best SLR, manual or autofocus. Given the number of complaints about inaccurate DSLR focusing that I've seen on forums here, that seems like a major competitive advantage.
prefect41 said:
Will using a large format-type focusing cloth on my DSLR help me
attract camera groupies? Flash powder, maybe?
Please be nice. I'm not trying to trash anyone here... just asking.
Click to expand...
If you don't intend on trashing anything, you might want to refrain from making nasty cracks about retro things like flash powder and manual advance levers. Rangefinders are old technology, but they're still around because they work.
  • I think that live preview would be much more intriguing on a rangefinder than a DSLR, and it would be easier to implement given a sensor that supported it. DSLRs already have TTL viewing, so live preview gives only a quanitative improvement over what they already have. Rangefinders lack any TTL viewing, so live preview would give qualitatively different information from what's currently available, like accurate DOF preview and true paralax correction.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
 
Thanks, Piper.

You've communicated the romance and practical benefits of these cameras very well. Your eloquence almost has me wanting to buy one. :-) I'll definitely give them a look.
piperphoto said:
There IS no photo h*ll - all photography is heavenly!

Here's why I love rangefinders:

Practical shooting:
1. I love looking 'through' the camera instead of 'into' it. I
don't see what the PICTURE will look like (2D focusing screen with
fuzzy bits), I see what the SUBJECT looks like.
2. I love seeing the moment of exposure, rather than every moment
EXCEPT the moment of exposure (mirror blackout)
3. When I press the button, the FIRST (and only thing) thing that
happens is that the shutter opens - no moving of mirrors or
aperture blades to get to the instant of exposure.
4. "low-tech" image stabiization - with no mirror flop, the Leica
will hand-hold 2 shutter speeds slower than most SLRs

Handling:
5. I love that there are no bumps and lumps on the body for the
mirror box and prism (although the compact Olympus/Panasonic/Leica
4/3rds SLR bodies have gone a long way to equalize this).
6. I love that the corner viewfinder means the camera does not hide
my face when shooting (I shoot right-eyed) - I get MUCH friendlier
responses from strangers if they see a smile with the camera,
rather than Borg-photographer with black plastic for a face.
(Again, the Oly E-330-type SLRs fix this to some extent).
7. I love that my lenses are tiny compared to equivalent
aperture/focal length SLR lenses (compare the 50 f/1.4 lenses on
the Canon 400D and Leica M8 in Phil's M8 preview) A Leica 21 f/2.8
takes 55mm filters, compared to 72mm for a Canon and 62mm for a
Nikon.
8. I love that my Leica M and 4 lenses covering 21-90 weigh less
than a Canon 1D body without a lens.

As to the M8 in particular:
9. I love being able to use up-to-60-year-old lenses for digital
with ZERO loss of functionality. Try fitting a nice 1980 Canon FD
prime onto an EOS. Most of my lenses are actually no older than
1980, but it's the concept...

For me, the Leica M8 is a Canon 1DMkII - with 2 more Mpixels, and
without the chiropractor's bills

As to Leica lenses:

10. I only have one of the most modern super APO ASPH Leica lenses
  • most of mine are 20 years old. So I won't insist they have more
resolution/sharpness than a good modern Nikon or Canon prime. But
they have at least the SAME resolution - in a package that is often
less than half the size of the equivalent SLR lens. My 90mm f/2.8
would fit INSIDE a Nikon or Canon 100-105 f/2.8. Even the pre-AF
versions.

What I DO see with Leica lenses (and also Contax/Zeiss) compared to
other brands is a subtle increase in 3D definition - eyes look like
the spheres they are, rather than painted-on dolls' eyes; fingers
and toes have a rounder sensuality. Just something about how those
optical designs handle tone and reflections and the other things
that make us see in 3 dimensions.

Obviously there are things RFs don't do well or at all - macro;
telephotos over 120-135mm; exact perfect to-the-corner-pixel
framing.

When I need those things, I use a camera with ttl viewing (SLR or
digicam) - for the other 95% of the time I use rangefinders.
Click to expand...
 
I have been shooting for over 30 years, I have been using Leica for two weeks.

I just have one lens at the moment ( One more on order ) the 35mm F 2.0 Summicron Aspheric. The sharpness, the color saturation, the contrast, the look from this little gem is Out of this world good! Even wide open it is critically sharp.

It's hard to believe a 35mm F 2.0 lens can cost $2,000 but then I look at the images and know why..:-).
 
piperphoto wrote (in part):
piperphoto said:
3. When I press the button, the FIRST (and only thing) thing that
happens is that the shutter opens - no moving of mirrors or
aperture blades to get to the instant of exposure.
4. "low-tech" image stabiization - with no mirror flop, the Leica
will hand-hold 2 shutter speeds slower than most SLRs
Click to expand...
I've always understood the potentially greater resolving power that comes from the point 4, above, to be among the greatest - if not the greatest - advantage of a rangefinder camera over an (D)SLR..followed by no "black out", as evidenced by point 3. Of course, some (D)SLR cameras have mirror lock-up capability, but that hardly helps in keeping tabs on your subject...

As to Leica glass, well, nuff said for some people. Plus, what price, mystique (not to mention longevity)?
 
Listen "bonehead", I'm referring to the dentists, doctors and people like myself who can afford such luxuries without analyzing their cost vs. the excellence in workmanship we appreciate.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
 
Film_Ruled said:
I have been shooting for over 30 years, I have been using Leica for
two weeks.

I just have one lens at the moment ( One more on order ) the 35mm F
2.0 Summicron Aspheric. The sharpness, the color saturation, the
contrast, the look from this little gem is Out of this world
good! Even wide open it is critically sharp.

It's hard to believe a 35mm F 2.0 lens can cost $2,000 but then I
look at the images and know why..:-).
Click to expand...
the question to ask is whether the lens quality is to do with it being Lecia, or more to do with the fact that it is non retro focus design.

Remember the Cosina lens brand? they used to make some pretty average zooms back in the 80's. At one point they took over the rights for the famous Voigtlander name and released a new rangefinder, along with some wide angle primes. People RAVE about those lenses.

--
'Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter'

http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

 
..........abound here.

101 reasons from everyone as to why it's so good but very few will ever purchase one anyway regardless of how good the old ones were or the new one might prove to be.

It's simply a modern remake of an old manual focus model that appeals mainly to old folks.
John
 
Bill Force said:
Listen "bonehead", I'm referring to the dentists, doctors and
people like myself who can afford such luxuries without analyzing
their cost vs. the excellence in workmanship we appreciate.
Click to expand...
A fool and his money...?

Perhaps you are one of those people who buy things just because they are expensive, because of the badge, to wear them as a status symbol, a way of showing off how much money they have.

More eloquent and reasoned posters have answered this question and put forward good reasons why they like rangefinder cameras and why they might eb prepared to pay for a camera like the M8. All you've done is tried to demonstrate that you have some sort of superior "appreciation" and more money. As loadsamoney would say: "Shut your mouth and look at my wad".

By the way, I'm not sure what "people like you" are, but I'd prefer not to be lumped in with them, thanks all the same.
 
I spent all my disposable $$ to carry a Leica 35mm SLR with big bucks glass. Now that I am retired, I limit myself to stuff that I need, like a Canon 5D---
 
As a retired mech. eng. I can appreciate the mechanics and construction of a quality item. Also I can afford whatever I deem worthy. Not cavalier, simply truthful.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
 
Incidently, I bought my first "rangefinder", a Nikon "S" in 1954. That was also a quality piece. I objected to the condescending attitude of the OP in regards to something he didn't appreciate or understand.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
 
I believe that any qualified lens grinder could produce quality lenses if they are designed and policed by someone like Leica. My Leica "R" lenses were actually made in Canada.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
 
Tim O'Connor said:
Film_Ruled said:
I have been shooting for over 30 years, I have been using Leica for
two weeks.

I just have one lens at the moment ( One more on order ) the 35mm F
2.0 Summicron Aspheric. The sharpness, the color saturation, the
contrast, the look from this little gem is Out of this world
good! Even wide open it is critically sharp.

It's hard to believe a 35mm F 2.0 lens can cost $2,000 but then I
look at the images and know why..:-).
Click to expand...
the question to ask is whether the lens quality is to do with it
being Lecia, or more to do with the fact that it is non retro focus
design.

Remember the Cosina lens brand? they used to make some pretty
average zooms back in the 80's. At one point they took over the
rights for the famous Voigtlander name and released a new
rangefinder, along with some wide angle primes. People RAVE about
those lenses.

--
'Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter'

http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

Click to expand...
--

The Leica M lenses are all state of the art and thoroughly modern and now. they are about the best money can buy for 35mm photography. The only other lens system that comes close are the newly offered Zeiss Ikon rangefinder lenses.

But all this being said its only the begining of sharpness of leica images. Rangefinder espceially the Long base Leica rangefinder is far more accurate and da-n nearly as fast as auto focus in the short lenses say from about 50mm down. The lens flange to film/sensor plane is also and often overlooked but vital step in achieving all the performance of your lenses. Leica bodies are super riged and maintain the lensflang to film/sensor plave to a ten thousanth ( I think thats what I read) with any lens on the camera. As was mentioned in other posts no mirror flopping around and no aperature blades slaming shut you can hand hold about two more stops worth and it also contributes mightly to the ultimate shapness of the camrera. So it not just the lens but the whole system lens rigid body without mirrors and the rangefinder focus ing which make the Leica sharp

bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top