Cult of leica

[skysh4rk]

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?

Yes, but in addition to the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7, I would also suggest the Plaubel Makina 67/670, Fuji GF670, or Bronica RF645. The Plaubel and Fuji would be the most compact of these options.

 

[old bloke]

If you want a Leica then nothing else will do, I had the Leica itch for about 50yrs tried various rangefinders including a couple of Bessas they were fine cameras but they were't Leicas
finally got an M7 with 35mm kept it for a year and loved it but having been there and done that I decided to move on with digital sold it at a very nice profit.

 

[Ben johns]

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.

I looked at the older leicas but I dlike a light meter built in ideally. Ive even considered the m8 but Id rather use a film leica whilst film is still around!

 

[Ben johns]

Is that West Bay?

yea it is. been there a couple of times, kind of taken the majority of the photos that you can take there so probably wont take all my camera gear if i go again

 

[Ben johns]

If you want a Leica then nothing else will do, I had the Leica itch for about 50yrs tried various rangefinders including a couple of Bessas they were fine cameras but they were't Leicas
finally got an M7 with 35mm kept it for a year and loved it but having been there and done that I decided to move on with digital sold it at a very nice profit.

I would actually really like a digital leica, i like the look of the MD 262 without the screen but id like to use a film leca before film dies, plus the m6's are between £1000-£1500 whilst the 262 is £3500 second hand! ill wait till it drops in price!

 

[Deleted member 21335]

but id like to use a film leca before film dies

I’m not following you?

 

[Retune]

I would actually really like a digital leica, i like the look of the MD 262 without the screen but id like to use a film leca before film dies, plus the m6's are between £1000-£1500 whilst the 262 is £3500 second hand! ill wait till it drops in price!

You could always pick up an M240 (which can be found for about £1000 less than that) and ignore the screen

I've had an M6 for years, and it might just be the last camera I'd part with. It's very nice to use and beautifully made, the meter is useful, my M lenses (a modern ASPH 35/2 and an older 50/1.4) are great, and it's easy to use my screwmount lenses with simple adapters. But perhaps the main reason to get one would be that it encourages you to work in a rather different way to an SLR:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9801/nutsandbolts9801.htm
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0702/pierce.html

The M6 isn't perfect, though. Film loading, while a big step up from the old screwmount cameras, is quirky (you still have to take the baseplate off), and the cleverly engineered canted rewind lever is a bit fiddly. The rangefinder patch can flare out when the light is coming from the wrong angle. The viewfinder is far from ideal for longer focal lengths (it puts me off using a 90mm), the 50mm framelines are rather undersized at normal shooting distances, and the 28mm framelines would be hard to see around if you wear glasses and have the standard 0.72 finder. It seems trickier to keep horizons straight than with an SLR, and polarisers are a pain, as with any rangefinder. It's very expensive but, on the other hand, keeps its value - an M6 that went for £800 just a few years ago could now fetch £1200, and the prices of some of the lenses have nearly doubled over the last decade or so.

 

[Ben johns]

I’m not following you?

What I mean is I’m not sure how long film will be around for. I’ve heard from one shop that they think Fuji has stopped making film already, don’t know how true that is, but whilst film is easily available I’d like a film Leica then move onto digital

 

[Ben johns]

You could always pick up an M240 (which can be found for about £1000 less than that) and ignore the screen

I've had an M6 for years, and it might just be the last camera I'd part with. It's very nice to use and beautifully made, the meter is useful, my M lenses (a modern ASPH 35/2 and an older 50/1.4) are great, and it's easy to use my screwmount lenses with simple adapters. But perhaps the main reason to get one would be that it encourages you to work in a rather different way to an SLR:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9801/nutsandbolts9801.htm
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0702/pierce.html

The M6 isn't perfect, though. Film loading, while a big step up from the old screwmount cameras, is quirky (you still have to take the baseplate off), and the cleverly engineered canted rewind lever is a bit fiddly. The rangefinder patch can flare out when the light is coming from the wrong angle. The viewfinder is far from ideal for longer focal lengths (it puts me off using a 90mm), the 50mm framelines are rather undersized at normal shooting distances, and the 28mm framelines would be hard to see around if you wear glasses and have the standard 0.72 finder. It seems trickier to keep horizons straight than with an SLR, and polarisers are a pain, as with any rangefinder. It's very expensive but, on the other hand, keeps its value - an M6 that went for £800 just a few years ago could now fetch £1200, and the prices of some of the lenses have nearly doubled over the last decade or so.

I’d only use a 50mm really though I do want to try a 35mm. A lot of the photos I take are inside and 50 is a hair too tight.
What’s the patch like if your focusing on something that’s back lit by the sun? I have a Ricoh 500g and today I found it tricky to focus on someone’s face when they had the sun behind them, the patch was hard to see.

 

[Ben johns]

You could always pick up an M240 (which can be found for about £1000 less than that) and ignore the screen

I've had an M6 for years, and it might just be the last camera I'd part with. It's very nice to use and beautifully made, the meter is useful, my M lenses (a modern ASPH 35/2 and an older 50/1.4) are great, and it's easy to use my screwmount lenses with simple adapters. But perhaps the main reason to get one would be that it encourages you to work in a rather different way to an SLR:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9801/nutsandbolts9801.htm
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0702/pierce.html

The M6 isn't perfect, though. Film loading, while a big step up from the old screwmount cameras, is quirky (you still have to take the baseplate off), and the cleverly engineered canted rewind lever is a bit fiddly. The rangefinder patch can flare out when the light is coming from the wrong angle. The viewfinder is far from ideal for longer focal lengths (it puts me off using a 90mm), the 50mm framelines are rather undersized at normal shooting distances, and the 28mm framelines would be hard to see around if you wear glasses and have the standard 0.72 finder. It seems trickier to keep horizons straight than with an SLR, and polarisers are a pain, as with any rangefinder. It's very expensive but, on the other hand, keeps its value - an M6 that went for £800 just a few years ago could now fetch £1200, and the prices of some of the lenses have nearly doubled over the last decade or so.

Interesting articles. The reasons I want a Leica (other than the name and build) is how quiet they are and that their stripped back. The only 35mm Cameras I’ve used a lot are the at-1 and the a1. Their both pretty loud and everyone knows you’ve taken a photo, I usually use 35mm around the house taking photos of my daughter or at birthdays and family gatherings. I like how simple they are too, I usually just stick to one shutter speed and adjust the exposure with the aperture, I don’t usualy need more depth of field than f2.8

 

[Deleted member 21335]

What I mean is I’m not sure how long film will be around for. I’ve heard from one shop that they think Fuji has stopped making film already, don’t know how true that is, but whilst film is easily available I’d like a film Leica then move onto digital

Sorry, I was being an idiot. I did know what you meant, but honestly can't see it happening in the foreseeable. I heard the same rumour about Fuji but in contrast, Kodak is re-relaeasing film stocks. As long as the big Hollywood directors keep insisting on shooting with film, I think we should be ok for the foreseeable.

 

[mdjchat]

Interesting articles. The reasons I want a Leica (other than the name and build) is how quiet they are and that their stripped back. The only 35mm Cameras I’ve used a lot are the at-1 and the a1. Their both pretty loud and everyone knows you’ve taken a photo, I usually use 35mm around the house taking photos of my daughter or at birthdays and family gatherings. I like how simple they are too, I usually just stick to one shutter speed and adjust the exposure with the aperture, I don’t usualy need more depth of field than f2.8

The quietness of the Leica shutter is often exaggerated. They are quieter than an SLR because there isn't any mirror slap but it's not necessarily as much of a difference as you might think. The Leica (especially the early screw mount cameras) reputation came about because they were compact and discreet in an age of large unwieldy cameras. Anything with a leaf shutter is much quieter.

The appeal of a Leica is the build quality and smoothness of operation combined with pretty much the best rangefinder/ viewfinder available (Bessa's come surprisingly close). Those attributes and the alternative way of working with a rangefinder camera is the main reason IMHO to buy a Leica.

 

[Ben johns]

The quietness of the Leica shutter is often exaggerated. They are quieter than an SLR because there isn't any mirror slap but it's not necessarily as much of a difference as you might think. The Leica (especially the early screw mount cameras) reputation came about because they were compact and discreet in an age of large unwieldy cameras. Anything with a leaf shutter is much quieter.

The appeal of a Leica is the build quality and smoothness of operation combined with pretty much the best rangefinder/ viewfinder available (Bessa's come surprisingly close). Those attributes and the alternative way of working with a rangefinder camera is the main reason IMHO to buy a Leica.

I kind of lumped build quality in with owning one because it’s a Leica. I’m sure the shutter isn’t as quiet as it’s hyped but any improvement over my canon slr’s would be a bonus. I also like being able to see outside the frame lines, I’ve found myself moving an slr around to to make sure I haven’t cut anything off

 

[Ben johns]

Sorry, I was being an idiot. I did know what you meant, but honestly can't see it happening in the foreseeable. I heard the same rumour about Fuji but in contrast, Kodak is re-relaeasing film stocks. As long as the big Hollywood directors keep insisting on shooting with film, I think we should be ok for the foreseeable.

lol no worries. Yea hopefully. I’ve pretty much just been using black and white but just got 3 rolls of vision 3 50 and 2 of provia 100, it’s a shame provia is so expensive, I’ve only used it in 120

 

[ChrisR]

Sorry, I was being an idiot. I did know what you meant, but honestly can't see it happening in the foreseeable. I heard the same rumour about Fuji but in contrast, Kodak is re-relaeasing film stocks. As long as the big Hollywood directors keep insisting on shooting with film, I think we should be ok for the foreseeable.

There do seem to be a large number of black and white film stocks, though it's not clear to me how many actual manufacturers there are (as opposed to rebadged stock).

Just had a look at the "complete list" of all film stocks by Emulsive (part 6 here). He writes at the bottom of part 6:

"The final tally is 184 film stocks in a total of 311 different format combinations. Of those we have 130 unique film stocks and 56 rebrands/re-imaginings (Yodica being an example of that). There are still a few updates to come, which I’ll be making over the coming weeks, so expect those numbers to shift a little here and there."

Colour is clearly a lot more constrained than black and white, and the loss of the Fuji stock will (would) be a big blow. But it should drive a bit more demand towards Kodak, and make its production that bit more sustainable. Another 30 years or so would probably do me!

 

[Deleted member 21335]

There do seem to be a large number of black and white film stocks, though it's not clear to me how many actual manufacturers there are (as opposed to rebadged stock).

Just had a look at the "complete list" of all film stocks by Emulsive (part 6 here). He writes at the bottom of part 6:

"The final tally is 184 film stocks in a total of 311 different format combinations. Of those we have 130 unique film stocks and 56 rebrands/re-imaginings (Yodica being an example of that). There are still a few updates to come, which I’ll be making over the coming weeks, so expect those numbers to shift a little here and there."

Colour is clearly a lot more constrained than black and white, and the loss of the Fuji stock will (would) be a big blow. But it should drive a bit more demand towards Kodak, and make its production that bit more sustainable. Another 30 years or so would probably do me!

Yeah I agree. I don’t shoot Fuji much myself to be honest, choosing to but Kodak and Ilford and the addition of a slide film from Kodak is very good.

If film dies, I actually don’t know what I’d do. That would probably be the end of photography for me.

 

[Ben johns]

Yeah I agree. I don’t shoot Fuji much myself to be honest, choosing to but Kodak and Ilford and the addition of a slide film from Kodak is very good.

If film dies, I actually don’t know what I’d do. That would probably be the end of photography for me.

Is the Kodak slide film ektachrome? Wish I’d got a chance to use Kodachrome, looks amazing.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Is the Kodak slide film ektachrome? Wish I’d got a chance to use Kodachrome, looks amazing.

Yeah. It’s at beta test stage and looks really nice.

I agree. I’d love to have shot Kodachrome but not to be unfortunately.

Get a Leica bought!

 

[Deleted member 49428]

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

WHAT??? HIGH RES FILES????
Its an analog camera youre supposed to develop and print wet in a darkroom
I must say for my part neither the A6000 nor the X-T2 will replace my RZ67PROII kit anytime soon. Heck even the slides from my 645 has a pop to them I just not seem to be able to replicate with digital, Maybe its just my poor PP skills but anyway the MF's are just so much more fun.

 

[Ben johns]

WHAT??? HIGH RES FILES????
Its an analog camera youre supposed to develop and print wet in a darkroom
I must say for my part neither the A6000 nor the X-T2 will replace my RZ67PROII kit anytime soon. Heck even the slides from my 645 has a pop to them I just not seem to be able to replicate with digital, Maybe its just my poor PP skills but anyway the MF's are just so much more fun.

Lol the cost of an enlarger is a bit much for me, I have looked at them.
I do really like using the rb67 but the weight and bulk is too much. My Sony does what I need and gives me photos I like just as much as the rb but it’s easier to take out, makes me more likely to use it. I like using film so I’ll use 35mm and my zero 2000.

 

[Ben johns]

Yeah. It’s at beta test stage and looks really nice.

I agree. I’d love to have shot Kodachrome but not to be unfortunately.

Get a Leica bought!

Yea I saw a few photos, hopefully it won’t be too expensive.
When I get the money lol! If you really want me to get one that badly I have a mamiya 645j with a couple of lenses and the rb67, your welcome to buy them

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Lol the cost of an enlarger is a bit much for me, I have looked at them.
I do really like using the rb67 but the weight and bulk is too much. My Sony does what I need and gives me photos I like just as much as the rb but it’s easier to take out, makes me more likely to use it. I like using film so I’ll use 35mm and my zero 2000.

Currently I have 4 enlarger taking up all the space in my darkroom only one of which Ive payed for, an Omega D3 with colorhead. Actually its the onlyone out of the 11-12 units Ive owned Ive spend money on. Soon it and 2 of the others will be in new homes making room here for the Laborator 1200 that then will be the only enlarger in the shed/darkroom.

 

[cambsno]

Had an M6 and it was just lovely! Such a joy to use, and gave great results. There is something about shooting with a Leica you cant put your finger on, trouble for me was it was a lot of money tied up to had to sell.

Get one, worst case is you don't like it or need to sell, and will probably get back what you paid so cost of ownership is minimal!

 

[skysh4rk]

What I mean is I’m not sure how long film will be around for.

I think it's going to be awhile before film disappears... if it does disappear.

I kind of lumped build quality in with owning one because it’s a Leica. I’m sure the shutter isn’t as quiet as it’s hyped but any improvement over my canon slr’s would be a bonus. I also like being able to see outside the frame lines, I’ve found myself moving an slr around to to make sure I haven’t cut anything off

Yeah, Leicas still have focal-plane shutters, just like SLRs. For the quietest shooting experience, you will want to look for leaf shutters, which most medium format rangefinders and TLRs have.

As for the frame lines, they are both a blessing and a curse. Yes, they allow you to make sure that you haven't cut anything off (or you could just step back/pan around with an SLR), but there are also times when you want to ensure that something is not in the picture and I don't find the framing to be precise enough with RFs.

Lol the cost of an enlarger is a bit much for me, I have looked at them.

For a few years, I used a public darkroom in Glasgow, so this is something to consider.

Having used that for a while though, I eventually told my wife in 2016 that I wanted an enlarger to use at home and that I thought I could get one for very little money if I were patient. She didn't really believe me, but said okay.

I now have a colour enlarger for up to 6x7 format with all the necessary kit and I only had to pay for the trolley from Ikea to wheel it in and out of the bathroom. You would be surprised what is sitting in people's lofts and garages unused; I know my wife is anyway.