Cult of leica

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I’m considering selling my medium format cameras as I only used them for landscape and have recently found digital far easier for this. I will keep using film but in 35mm. I’ve always wanted a Leica but are they really worth the money? I’d maybe go down the M6 route but Bessas seem basically the same for less money.
 
Get a Bessa (y) I bought a minty R3A with the 40mm f/1.4 Nokton about six months ago, and it's such a beautiful camera to use. Solidly built and has the brightest viewfinder I've ever seen. They don't have quite the same following that Leica has, but there are a few people on the forum that use and love them like I do.
 
Never used a Bessa so cannot comment or compare, but I made the mistake of selling my Leica M2 once. Never again. Managed to pick up a lovely condition M3 as a replacement and promised I would never sell it. I am considering adding an M6 though but with the prices they are, I probably won't be able to.

I will ignore your glaring mistake of selling the MF gear for digital. :p
 
If you really want a Leica then get a Leica, but if you want 95% of a Leica for 50% of the cost then get a Voigtlander. Ive had an R3a and an R4a and 4 Voigtlander lenses and I don't think that had I bought the Leica equivalent I would have made better photos and I have used a few Leicas as well.
 
I loved my Leica M2, should never have sold it. Would love an M6 with a meter, just less hassle to use and I really like the Leica camera bodies.

Do the Bessa’s have metering - would be interested to know.
 
Like a lot of people on here I've had the Leica itch and was lucky enough to scratch that itch and own an M3, it was beautifully made and a pleasure to use but I sold it and bought Voigtlanders instead. So I've had both, enjoyed both and sold all of them but as Mr Snap says if you want a Leica only a Leica will do but if you want a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses at a fraction of the cost then go down the Voigtlander route.
 
I had a leica itch. Scratched it and discovered the R series were just heavy and cumbersome. Nice results but frankly I couldn't tell whether I'd taken the same shot with my dynax, the Yashica, an OM10 or the Leica when I used the respective 50mm lenses. They were all too similar.

It's an itch worth scratching though as otherwise you'll always be curious.

M series may be far better. I may have just bought the wrong Leica but as Leicas are generally expensive I decided on an affordable mistake :)
 
Some things are greater than the sum of it's parts - one day I will own a Leica because it is a promise I have made to myself and it is a peice of photographic history that I know I will enjoy using.

Are they worth the money...........probably not.

If the Bessa is to common this is almost identical but has better lenses (???) This also really interests me (oh god!)

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/rollei_35_rf.htm
 
Last edited:
Ben johns said:
I’m considering selling my medium format cameras as I only used them for landscape and have recently found digital far easier for this. I will keep using film but in 35mm. I’ve always wanted a Leica but are they really worth the money? I’d maybe go down the M6 route but Bessas seem basically the same for less money.
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason you're buying it for. If you're buying it for image quality reasons, then no. You can obtain similar results from far far cheaper cameras.
If you're buying for the brand, then it's worth whatever you think it is.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Never used a Bessa so cannot comment or compare, but I made the mistake of selling my Leica M2 once. Never again. Managed to pick up a lovely condition M3 as a replacement and promised I would never sell it. I am considering adding an M6 though but with the prices they are, I probably won't be able to.

I will ignore your glaring mistake of selling the MF gear for digital. :p
Click to expand...
i have been quiestioning selling my MF camers! I just found that I was taking photos because I enjoying using the cameras rather than its a photo i wanted to take. I'll often develop the film, scan them and not be that bothered with the results. Plus the weight of my a6000 is so much less than my RB67, I cant see myself wanting to take that on long walks when I travel. 35mm on the other hand i both love using (like MF) and i use it took take photos of my family and my daughter at birthdays and things. I wish i could justify having the MF cameras but it feels like money sitting arounda the moment
 
RaglanSurf said:
Like a lot of people on here I've had the Leica itch and was lucky enough to scratch that itch and own an M3, it was beautifully made and a pleasure to use but I sold it and bought Voigtlanders instead. So I've had both, enjoyed both and sold all of them but as Mr Snap says if you want a Leica only a Leica will do but if you want a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses at a fraction of the cost then go down the Voigtlander route.
Click to expand...

i do want a leica but i think as you say its more likely the Leica itch, wish i knew someone that owned one.
I have a rangefinder that ive been using a bit, its only a ricoh 500g, nothing amazing, but ive found that i really like being able to see outside tha frame lines, ive used my canon a1 a lot and i often move the camera around making sure i didnt cut something important out I also like how much quiter they are than my slrs, taking some practice to get the focusing down though
 
Ste_S said:
Depends on the reason you're buying it for. If you're buying it for image quality reasons, then no. You can obtain similar results from far far cheaper cameras.
If you're buying for the brand, then it's worth whatever you think it is.
Click to expand...

i wouldnt be buying it for the image quality, Im happy with the 50mm 1.8 fd i use most of the time. Its more that if im going to stick with 35mm id like to have a camera that I really love that i want to pick up all the time and take photos with. Whether thats a bessa or a leica at the moment i dont know...Im sure the Leica hype is pulling me towards leicas but id love an m6
 
Leicas are a little more precise for focusing compared to Bessas (longer effective base length for the rangefinder), but that shouldn’t be an issue for most lenses - I have an M4 and used a Bessa based Epson RD1 and they were both fine with the 35/1.2 I had at the time. Best bang for buck Leica would be an M2 or M4P, especially if you’re handy with a lightmeter or are experienced enough to guess. Add a Zeiss 50/2 (or 35/2) and you’ll be set.

Leica lenses are really nice though. My 50mm Summicron Rigid is probably my favourite 35mm lens.
 
srichards said:
I had a leica itch. Scratched it and discovered the R series were just heavy and cumbersome. Nice results but frankly I couldn't tell whether I'd taken the same shot with my dynax, the Yashica, an OM10 or the Leica when I used the respective 50mm lenses. They were all too similar.

It's an itch worth scratching though as otherwise you'll always be curious.

M series may be far better. I may have just bought the wrong Leica but as Leicas are generally expensive I decided on an affordable mistake :)
Click to expand...

The R series are 'Leica Diesel'. :)
 
I used to think I wanted a Hasselblad, but eventually I realized it was actually Zeiss I wanted.
And that's been my philosophy since, sure, some body's are nicer than others but when push comes to shove, its what you mount on it that matters.
I dunno how that fits in to the context of this thread...:)
 
joxby said:
I used to think I wanted a Hasselblad, but eventually I realized it was actually Zeiss I wanted.
And that's been my philosophy since, sure, some body's are nicer than others but when push comes to shove, its what you mount on it that matters.
I dunno how that fits in to the context of this thread...:)
Click to expand...
i guess your saying bessa body and leica lens lol
 
Ben johns said:
i have been quiestioning selling my MF camers! I just found that I was taking photos because I enjoying using the cameras rather than its a photo i wanted to take. I'll often develop the film, scan them and not be that bothered with the results. Plus the weight of my a6000 is so much less than my RB67, I cant see myself wanting to take that on long walks when I travel. 35mm on the other hand i both love using (like MF) and i use it took take photos of my family and my daughter at birthdays and things. I wish i could justify having the MF cameras but it feels like money sitting arounda the moment
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised with an RB! Ha. They are huge.

A6000 doesn't have anywhere to put the film though! ;)
 
Recently got an M6, and although it is a lovely camera, I prefer my 35RD, which I feel rivals it, and the SP that I think is superior.

That itch won’t go away until you get one, but once you do be prepared to not be blown away by hype. With all that said, it is a beautiful camera and I will keep it. The viewfinder is the brightest ai have used on a rangefinder.

Edit: I have just taken it around Finland as my main camera, so it travels well.
 
To each his own ultimately. It's not really for any of us to say what you should or should not own.

If you're concerned about justifying the cost of owning medium format equipment though, it would seem almost as hard, if not harder, to justify the expense of owning Leica bodies and Leica lenses given the cost and the small 135 format size.
 
Last edited:
Slyelessar said:
Recently got an M6, and although it is a lovely camera, I prefer my 35RD, which I feel rivals it, and the SP that I think is superior.

That itch won’t go away until you get one, but once you do be prepared to not be blown away by hype. With all that said, it is a beautiful camera and I will keep it. The viewfinder is the brightest ai have used on a rangefinder.

Edit: I have just taken it around Finland as my main camera, so it travels well.
Click to expand...
yea im not sold on the Leica 100% just yet im just looking for a 35mm camera that I want to use and keep above all the others. My main 35mm camera at the moment is a canon AT-1 which i really like. I like the fact that its stripped back, no auto modes just a light meter. But its loud and doesnt feel particually refined but because of that I dont worry about marking it
 
Ive got a Leica M6 and a 35mm and tbh its a wonderful combo, it completely changed the way I shot and approached my photography.

It took me a few months to get use to it but with the meter inbuilt its absolutely magic.

You won't regret it.
 
I have a deep seated aversion to hype and hero worship.

That said, if you have an itch, scratch it. Buy wisely and you won't lose too much when you realise a camera at 10% of the price does at least as good a job.
 
skysh4rk said:
To each his own ultimately. It's not really for any of us to say what you should or should not own.

If you're concerned about justifying the cost of owning medium format equipment though, it would seem almost as hard, if not harder, to justify the expense of owning Leica bodies and Leica lenses given the cost and the small 135 format size.
Click to expand...

Its not so much just the cost of owning them its more that I dont feel like I gain much from owning them. As i said above as much as I like using my RB67 but I get the results I want from my sony with a lot less weight, the weight makes me hesistant to take it out sometimes. Ive discovered that im more in the run and gun camp too
 
Ben johns said:
yea im not sold on the Leica 100% just yet im just looking for a 35mm camera that I want to use and keep above all the others. My main 35mm camera at the moment is a canon AT-1 which i really like. I like the fact that its stripped back, no auto modes just a light meter. But its loud and doesnt feel particually refined but because of that I dont worry about marking it
Click to expand...

It certainly fits that bill. I have a 35mm lens for it, and it’s a beauty.

It won’t be a huge disappointment, it’s by far from a bad camera. Just thought I would put my two pence in since I recently did this ( and YouTube videos to document it).
 
Ben johns said:
Ive discovered that im more in the run and gun camp too
Click to expand...

Me too. I totally get that. Most of my best film pictures are taken with an Olympus XA2. £2.50 from a charity shop.

I'm all for scratching itches BTW. Go for it.

But, as I said, buy carefully.
 
simon ess said:
I have a deep seated aversion to hype and hero worship.

That said, if you have an itch, scratch it. Buy wisely and you won't lose too much when you realise a camera at 10% of the price does at least as good a job.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you, Im not a brand person. I wouldnt really say I have a Leica itch, at face value Leica is usually peoples 'ultimate 35mm camera' so its an avenue i want to explore. Anyone want to loan me one ;)
 
kind of off topic of the leica but one of these was taken on my sony and the other on my RB with delta 400. I wouldnt say either is strictly speaking better but considering the RB photo required me to carry round a massive camera, take quite a while setting up using a polariser and a red filter and doesnt give me as high a res file im not sure its worth the cost of owning it
img008-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr

_DSC9944-Edit-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr
 
Ben johns said:
kind of off topic of the leica but one of these was taken on my sony and the other on my RB with delta 400. I wouldnt say either is strictly speaking better but considering the RB photo required me to carry round a massive camera, take quite a while setting up using a polariser and a red filter and doesnt give me as high a res file im not sure its worth the cost of owning it
img008-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr

_DSC9944-Edit-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Are you self scanning on a flat bed?
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Are you self scanning on a flat bed?
Click to expand...

yea, just an epson v550. If your referring to the resolution comment i know it would be higher if i got it scanned elsewhere i just use my scanner so I can edit it, Ive yet to drum scan anything
 
Ben johns said:
yea, just an epson v550. If your referring to the resolution comment i know it would be higher if i got it scanned elsewhere i just use my scanner so I can edit it, Ive yet to drum scan anything
Click to expand...

Well, others may disagree with me, but RB67s and Leicas are a lot of camera to be using with Epson flatbeds. If it were me, I'd either be upgrading my scanning/printing game (e.g., professional scanning, darkroom printing, etc.), or downgrading my film camera kit.

Cameras are only one piece of the puzzle in film photography, along with light, film, tripods, the scanning/printing process, and, most importantly, what you bring (e.g., creativity, composition, etc.). If people enjoy one piece of the puzzle (e.g., camera gear, darkroom process, etc.), there's nothing wrong with that, but film photography ordinarily requires tightly coupled consideration across many of these areas to maximise output (this isn't referring necessarily to resolution). For instance, I like using my Lomo LC-A 120 and Holga, but I will make different film, scanning, and printing choices to accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of those cameras than I might with my Plaubel Makina 67 or Rolleiflex. Likewise, if I know I'm only printing a picture to 5x5 or I'm scanning it at home instead of using a pro lab, then this impacts my choice of camera.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Well, others will disagree with me, but RB67s and Leicas are a lot of camera to be using with Epson flatbeds. If it were me, I'd either be upgrading my scanning/printing game (e.g., professional scanning, darkroom printing, etc.), or downgrading my film camera kit.

Cameras are only one piece of the puzzle in film photography, along with light, film, tripods, the scanning/printing process, and, most importantly, what you bring (e.g., creativity, composition, etc.). If people enjoy one piece of the puzzle (e.g., camera gear, darkroom process, etc.), there's nothing wrong with that, but film photography ordinarily requires tightly coupled consideration across many of these areas to maximise output (this isn't referring necessarily to resolution). For instance, I like using my Lomo LC-A 120 and Holga, but I will make different film, scanning, and printing choices to accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of those cameras than I might with my Plaubel Makina 67 or Rolleiflex. Likewise, if I know I'm only printing a picture to 5x5 or I'm scanning it at home instead of using a pro lab, then this impacts my choice of camera.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree. My thought is that I can scan with the epson and if I like it at a later date get it scanned by a proffesional if I feel the need, thats one of the things i like about film, the negative will always be the same quality. Ive actually been waiting for a photo ive taken on film to pop up that I like enough to get drummed scanned, I might well get the one I posted on here drum scanned but Im not sure yet.

What you suggest for home scanning out of interest? I bought the epson as it was fairly cheap and does the job, I cant afford to have a lot of film scanned proffesionaly so as I said my intention was always that id scan with the epson then if i wanted to print large get it done proffesionaly but its never come up.
 
Ben johns said:
What you suggest for home scanning out of interest?
Click to expand...

I would choose the home scanning option that best suits you, your equipment, and what you hope to achieve.

For me, I've invested in some nice cameras (e.g., Plaubel Makina 67, Rolleiflex 2.8E, etc.), so it seems a waste to use home scanners, unless I purchase some really nice scanning kit like Noritsus, Frontiers, or similar (which cost cash, space, and time though, so I'm not really interested in owning those).

Ninety-eight percent of the time I let Canadian Film Lab work their scan magic. For special photographs, I might go old school in the darkroom. The Epson is usually gathering dust on the top shelf, but could see occasionally use if I decide to get a bit more experimental.
 
Last edited:
Ben johns said:
kind of off topic of the leica but one of these was taken on my sony and the other on my RB with delta 400. I wouldnt say either is strictly speaking better but considering the RB photo required me to carry round a massive camera, take quite a while setting up using a polariser and a red filter and doesnt give me as high a res file im not sure its worth the cost of owning it
img008-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr

_DSC9944-Edit-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr
Click to expand...

You could probably get those even closer by turning down the sharpening on digital image and adding some grain.

I'm coming to the same conclusion for B&W. My editing process is such that there isn't a huge difference between my digital and film B&W photos, and with the increasing cost associated with film I'm not sure it's worth it anymore.
 
Ste_S said:
You could probably get those even closer by turning down the sharpening on digital image and adding some grain.

I'm coming to the same conclusion for B&W. My editing process is such that there isn't a huge difference between my digital and film B&W photos, and with the increasing cost associated with film I'm not sure it's worth it anymore.
Click to expand...
same. I'll still use 120 in my pinhole because it gives me something different and ill still use 35mm as i like the results and i like using the old cameras. I like 120 photography kind of in spite of the cameras, I only started using 120 for landscape and its too much effort i find plus as you mentioned the cost. I think 35mm is what im gunna stick with. ive got a messanger camera bag that can fit my sony, a 35mm film camera and my pinhole camera in, thats a camera for everything id need one for. For my RB i have to use my backpack camera bag and it nearly doesnt fit in that!
 
I bought a Leica M2 and I'm very happy with it. It's easy to travel with, compact but solid. I did consider the Bessa's but they seem to have become quite expensive lately and (for me at least) I found that the M2 was available at a similar price to the later Bessa's (R2 onwards which are M mount and better built). They aren't cheap though (either brand), but are worth it if you enjoy using them. I had the opportunity to try Leicaflex SL (sadly arrived with faults from eBay) and it is a remarkable SLR. Again this is very subjective but I found the size, weight and ergonomics to be perfect for me. Possibly better than my M2. I'm now on the lookout for one in good shape. Like you I have a couple of medium format options but my main 'grab and go' cameras are 35mm format. For that reason I'm happy to spend a little more and have a smaller kit.
 
Ben johns said:
kind of off topic of the leica but one of these was taken on my sony and the other on my RB with delta 400. I wouldnt say either is strictly speaking better but considering the RB photo required me to carry round a massive camera, take quite a while setting up using a polariser and a red filter and doesnt give me as high a res file im not sure its worth the cost of owning it
img008-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr

_DSC9944-Edit-Edit.jpg by benjohns4 johns, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Is that West Bay?
 
Not read this thread in detail ... and I'm probably talking out my *** anyway ... but what about a Mamyia 6 or 7?

Best of both worlds? Or maybe worst compromise ever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top