I am not a troll I love Leica's Culture but

Stovall said:

The ability to see outside the frame. You can watch dynamic events
unfold and move into the frame. Only a rangefinder provides you with
this powerful way of seeing.

With a dSLR you are seeing the world through a pipe while a Leica
rangefinder is like a window.

--
'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in
front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

Click to expand...

The above is BS.

You need to come up for air! When the "events are dynamic" I will always prefer a DSLR! No big advanrtage to looking thru a rangefinder here. Rangefinders are better suited for static subjects than dynamic. 90% of the images here prove this.

This DSLR "pipe" that you speak so poorly about is WAY more accurate than looking thru any rangefinder. This magic "window" is not as friendly as you try to make it sound.

You are setting this poor OP up for a HUGE let down. There is no "rarified Leica air" in the Leica body, just a decent lens projecting light on a cropped Kodak sensor! The sensor is larger than an average point and shoot and due to that fact has better quality but there is no Leica magic in there!

You need to get back to earth and stop scooping this smelly mess on everyone! Anyone who cares more how you HOLD your camera and what brand it is can not be taken seriously as a photographer. LOL!

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

--

I'm a Canon pro shooter, I have never owned a Leica, but yes I would love to own some Leica. The trouble is for professional shooting of the kind I do I just can't justify a Leica. It does a lot of things better than any other system, but those things are not of practical use for what I shoot. Long may they continue producing quality products. If Leica ever make an M with enough pixels to challenge moire, that works well in low light and has door to change the card etc I'l be back wanting again.
I can't see the appeal of a Red dot on a Panasonic.

Kevin.

Well I like your candid repsonse and I like the fact that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you. I agree static is fine for Manual focus, all else needs AF, not because you need it but the subjects or the clients demand delivery speeds which is increased by AF.

For me it was about trying to slow down, get away from work DSLRs and try and recoup the older style. Someone mentioned about people growing up with AF cannot get used to Manual focus, I am 40 now and started life with Bronica and Hassleblads, so I knew all about Maual Focus.

I dont want to return to film, but it seems that the M-series has a niche currently and is maximising the opportunity.

Realised th DLUX 4 is only 24 - 60 mm which clearly makes it better at what it does, as it does less. !!!

That said it has to be worth a try at least a weekend of shooting with it, the highdef video intrigues also and I want to experience the viewfinder but stuck at 24 mm Im not sure.

But the advice here has been role with the punches and try it which I think is what I want to do.

Leica clearly has something in it's optics. They are small runs of beautifully finished glass, but the cost is too high. The difference demand in quality cannot be justified in my mind as a working professional,

Leicas is photographic jewelry, if you can afford 3 carrots that is what you buy. Will 1 carrot do, of course it will it just a tool for looking and feeling good.

My final thoughts on the matter,

It is unlikely I will buy the DLUX4, it seems limiting again for the candid style of photography I want to achieve. Also a large camera slows you down more, compacts are point and shoot and I find myself in a hurry because of that.

But I will try it based upon what people have suggested and the passion people have put into the repsonses, I might be pleasantly surprised. ???

thanks to you all T

and do not let the Leica "fanatics" tell you different.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

Absolutely give it a try and see for yourself if that's possible. Hands-on experiment is worth more than a thousand good recommendations, after all nobody can decide for you what are the limits or compromises you can live with.

As for the growing up with AF part.. I was the one mentioning it. Perhaps I was a little unclear about what I really ment. I'm around 35 so I for sure have grown with AF.. But what I meant is that there's a learning curve to deal with manual focus and initially I would be miserably slow at it - but I do personally like it and would be willing to take the plunge when financial situation is better for me.

Anyway good luck which ever way you decide to go!

--

Juha

Greg Gebhardt said:

Stovall said:

The ability to see outside the frame. You can watch dynamic events
unfold and move into the frame. Only a rangefinder provides you with
this powerful way of seeing.

With a dSLR you are seeing the world through a pipe while a Leica
rangefinder is like a window.

--
'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in
front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

Click to expand...

The above is BS.

You need to come up for air! When the "events are dynamic" I will
always prefer a DSLR! No big advanrtage to looking thru a
rangefinder here. Rangefinders are better suited for static subjects
than dynamic. 90% of the images here prove this.

This DSLR "pipe" that you speak so poorly about is WAY more accurate
than looking thru any rangefinder. This magic "window" is not as
friendly as you try to make it sound.

You are setting this poor OP up for a HUGE let down. There is no
"rarified Leica air" in the Leica body, just a decent lens projecting
light on a cropped Kodak sensor! The sensor is larger than an
average point and shoot and due to that fact has better quality but
there is no Leica magic in there!

You need to get back to earth and stop scooping this smelly mess on
everyone! Anyone who cares more how you HOLD your camera and what
brand it is can not be taken seriously as a photographer. LOL!

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

Click to expand...

--

It depends on what dynamic subject you are shooting. If it's Ronaldo about to curl a freekick into the top corner over the wall, then a DSLR will be the tool. If you are a street shooter waiting for an event to unfold, seeing what's coming into frame will be important. As for magic, if you believe it then it exists, I believe a bit more in engineering and fine tolerances .

If you want to know if a RF is for you, go buy any cheap secondhand RF film camera, it will cost you pennies. Shoot a dozen rolls, if it makes you smile get a RF, if it gives you a headache, don't bother.

Kevin.

Stovall said:

If he want the "Leica Look", he's only going to get that with Leica
glass and an M body that was made by Leica at Solmes.

Click to expand...

John, sorry if you misunderstood my question, but what about a Leica M body gives the "Leica Look"? Not the same "feel", but the "Leica look"?

--

• markE

http://www.pbase.com/marke

'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

Antony,

I have used Nikon pro DSLR gear, the Digilux 2,3 and currently use the Dlux4 and the M8 with various Leica lenses. I think most of the important points on this has already been covered here by others. I will only offer one recommendation:

Try using a Digilux 3. The lens choices are limiting at the moment, if you want Leica branded. But please do try the Digilux 3 and the 25 D Summilux at least. You will have AF and the opportunity to see what a Leica AF image will look like. Its the only current Leica AF package one could use. I don't see the point in some who argue about whether the Digilux 2 or 3 are real Leicas. As an owner of the German-made M8 and Summicron and Summilux lenses, I can tell you that the Leica "look" is certainly there in the 25 D lens and the Digilux 3's algorithms are set to Leica's specs yielding very Leica-like Jpegs when combined with either the Leica 25 D or even the R lenses with adapter. The standard 14-50 Vario-elmarit zoom lens is also very good for a kit lens. But not as distinguished. It is just a solid overall lens.

In my opinion, the Dlux4 produces very sharp and contrasty photos of excellent quality, but it is not a camera that will give you the Leica look or experience. In the end, isn't that what all the lure about Leicas are? The ergonomics of finely engineered metal/brass/aluminum vs. plastic/rubber, and lenses that draw with some measure (though subjective) of distinction? If not, I don't see the point in spending all the money on Leica gear over Canon/Nikon. I don't think the Dlux4 will be able to provide a fair look at what a Leica is in this regard. A great camera nonetheless.
--
Mark Won
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22910881@N08/

I was looking at RF cameras, out of interest, but i just didnt see any that cost pennies.
Leicas and any other RFs seam to be very expensive, old or new.

Could you give an example of a really cheap one to try out?

KAllen said:

If you want to know if a RF is for you, go buy any cheap secondhand
RF film camera, it will cost you pennies. Shoot a dozen rolls, if it
makes you smile get a RF, if it gives you a headache, don't bother.

Kevin.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vcant/

They do almost cost pennies.

http://www.cameraquest.com/soviet.htm

--

'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

Look what really made Leica's reputation was good image quality using 35mm film in a small body/lens camera like the original Barnack 35mm film cameras and a 50mm prime. Go to KEH.com and look under Film Cameras, Leica LTM for both the Barnack body @ $350 and a good 50mm screw mount lens @ $250. I f you get a collapsable 50mm lens @ $250, believe me the entire camera/lens outfit will fit in your blue jeans front pocket. One time I actually could not find my camera at all for many hours then by accident and curiosity I remembered to check my frount right pocket-yes the Barnack camera was in their with a 50mm f/3.5 collapsable lens and lens cap.

For much less cash I shopped at Fedca.com and I got an very good condition Russian made Zorki Barnack camera with the 50mm f/3.5 collapsible lens included and a leather case with strap. I selected the export version and paid $119 and they are still that price.

Only thing is to use the camera you must learn to load film from the bottom (go to "Hold thay Zorki right" to learn how and also to shoot the film using the Sunny 16 Rule. Look up on line what this is. I learned right away and all of my images from my first roll of film came out with the correct exposure. Here is a link to one image from my first roll. It's a color landscape, note this is a scan from the actual print and not the film negative. Still the IQ is good.

" http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/2963494862/ "
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Thank you!

Any recommendations from that list? I am not familiar with RF line at all, especially with Russian ones.

I am looking for something fairly simple, RF with single 50+mm lens. But I am expecting good performance, especially from the lens.
Any suggestions are most appreciated.

Stovall said:

They do almost cost pennies.

http://www.cameraquest.com/soviet.htm

--
'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in
front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vcant/

Zorki and FED seem to be very popular. Jupiter lenses see to be good (given the variablity of many FSU products) and some use them on Leicas for a Sonnar look.

I have a FED that was War production brought back from the first group of U.S. intelligence that went into Berlin. I shoot it off and on until a retired it due to shutter problems.

Here is the place to learn all about FSU cameras (FSU Former Soviet Union).

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=34

--

'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
--

'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

Anton G said:

Could you give an example of a really cheap one to try out?

Anton G said:

If you want to know if a RF is for you, go buy any cheap secondhand
RF film camera, it will cost you pennies. Shoot a dozen rolls, if it
makes you smile get a RF, if it gives you a headache, don't bother.

Kevin.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vcant/

Click to expand...

--

Look for something from the 60's or 70's, it will most likely have a fixed lens. Off the top of my head Petri, Kodak, Agfa, I think Rollei made one, my first camera was a Mamiya, there were hundreds, I bet £10. would get a very nice one. Forget lenses you just want to see if you can get on with focusing framing etc.

A walk into a secondhand camera shop should give you a draw full of machines to choose from.
Zorki from Russia a Leica like camera.

Kevin.

A little late in my reply but here some review links

The LX3 and GX200 are nice with a Voigtlander viewfinder mounted atop
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml

well worth the subscription rate
http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/

Best handling P&S I've used is Ricoh gx200, but at higher ISO the noise is not so great for color. It's noise is nice for B&W though

If you want autofocus and Leica glass then the Panasonic G1 with the right adapter may be your ticket (but I've never tried one).

Anton G said:

I was looking at RF cameras, out of interest, but i just didnt see
any that cost pennies.
Leicas and any other RFs seam to be very expensive, old or new.

Could you give an example of a really cheap one to try out?

Click to expand...

I got this 1955 Zorki 1e about a year and a half ago. It's a copy of a Leica II. It cost me $40 with the Industar-22 50/f3.5, which is a copy of a Leitz Elmar. And for an extra $30 the guy threw in a 135/f4.0.





Now, granted it's not a Leica, and you can tell the quality difference when you have them side by side. But the Zorkis are not junk either. In fact, many people say the IQ from the lenses is equal to the earlier Leitz lenses. OTOH, it did get me hooked on LTM cameras, and soon afterwards I picked up a Leica IIIf RD with a 50/f2.0 Summitar lens.

Here are a few pictures taken with the Zorki and the Industar-22 50/f3.5 lens.











--

• markE

http://www.pbase.com/marke

'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

Thank you for all the suggestions, I am currently looking at eBay to pick up something cheap and try it out.

I am hoping that having a manual film camera will make me pay more attention, frame pictures better, and choose what to photograph and what not.

I have noticed that I enjoy my manual 135mm on Nikon the most, closely followed by AF 50mm, so having a full manual body might actually make me a better photog.

Anton
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vcant/

Member said:

the body has
nothing to do with it... nothing, nada, zippo.. it's just the glass,
John.. just the glass is responsible for the alleged "Leica Look".
Show me proof in any form that an M body has anything to do with
generating the "Leica Look".... it's the glass not the body.

Click to expand...

I am not a Leica user, and hopefully this question will not be too off topic

I wonder if anyone tried using Leica M lenses attached through appropriate adapter to micro four thirds camera (like Panasonic G1)? It has been said earlier in this thread that "Leica look" is basically produced by Leica lens, not depending so much on camera body,... so I wonder if Leica look can be produced in such way as well? Looking forward to receiving your opinions.

MatjazVrecko said:

MatVre said:

the body has
nothing to do with it... nothing, nada, zippo.. it's just the glass,
John.. just the glass is responsible for the alleged "Leica Look".
Show me proof in any form that an M body has anything to do with
generating the "Leica Look".... it's the glass not the body.

Click to expand...

I am not a Leica user, and hopefully this question will not be too
off topic

I wonder if anyone tried using Leica M lenses attached through
appropriate adapter to micro four thirds camera (like Panasonic G1)?
It has been said earlier in this thread that "Leica look" is
basically produced by Leica lens, not depending so much on camera
body,... so I wonder if Leica look can be produced in such way as
well? Looking forward to receiving your opinions.

Click to expand...

I disagree that you can get the Leica signature with any digital body. perhaps with film the principle holds true, but with digital several factors make it difficult.

I have never seem digital images look more "film-like" than with my M8. There are several reasons for this and it is not just the lens. The M8 does not have an AA filter installed allowing the sensor to capture more detail and more vivid color. The Kodak sensor on the M8 is much better at handling color and tones than some of the Sony chips. Of course these differences are subtle. But they are real.

If you shoot Leica R glass on a Canon body (this is a popular combo) with an adapter, you will get Canon looking images because of the chip, sensor, according to Canon's algorithms. The image will NOT look like what you will get using the R9+DMR back. So in digital, the body does make a difference.

--
Mark Won
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22910881@N08/