Prime lens travel - what's your setup?

[Topsy]

THREE Leicas?? Are they that unreliable?

Not unreliable at all I just prefer to not keep changing lenses all the time.

hi
which one do you use..?

MeFOTO Globe Trotter Aluminium.

Why would you want the bodies
They are rather bad, more jewellery than camera

I don't find them bad, quite the opposite they are fine cameras that I get more keepers from than I ever did with my Fujis or Nikons because I don't just let the camera take over (they can't). As for jewelry, didn't you see the state of them in my shot they are used for taking photos and if I am not taking photos they are in my bag.

I don’t understand Leica, I mean I understand it from the point of heritage but I can’t shoot with heritage or the logo, I shoot with the camera and their cameras seems very basic.

Leicas are cameras first and foremost and if you know how to make a photograph without all your automation you can make very good ones, you just need to know how, perhaps that is why you don't get them?

 

[Stuart_65]

There is obviously something special with Leicas, even if you are paying partly for the name. A friend has one and is as happy as Larry. I personally don't like rangefinders but I sort of get it, mainly because it's a pure photographer's camera and nothing else. AFAIK, no vlogger ever shot a youtube view on a Leica.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Leicas are cameras first and foremost and if you know how to make a photograph without all your automation you can make very good ones, you just need to know how, perhaps that is why you don't get them?

I can shoot full manual fine, but it's like you can drive a car in manual with only 3 gears and without power steering, has 2 cylinders, only 20 horsepower. Sure that's fun for 20mins, but it's not something I have as my main camera. It would be like a collector's piece I bring out once a year to take 2 photos with and go "well that's fun".

 

[nandbytes]

I don't find them bad, quite the opposite they are fine cameras that I get more keepers from than I ever did with my Fujis or Nikons because I don't just let the camera take over (they can't). As for jewelry, didn't you see the state of them in my shot they are used for taking photos and if I am not taking photos they are in my bag.
Leicas are cameras first and foremost and if you know how to make a photograph without all your automation you can make very good ones, you just need to know how, perhaps that is why you don't get them?

Every camera is a camera no more or less than any leica inc. the one in phone i.e. "a device for recording visual images in the form of photographs, film, or video signals."

vast majority of folks on forums such as this can shoot full manual with any of their cameras. You can shoot the fuji and nikon in full manual too and in some cases with a better experience than Leicas.

 

[LeeRatters]

I can shoot full manual fine, but it's like you can drive a car in manual with only 3 gears and without power steering, has 2 cylinders, only 20 horsepower. Sure that's fun for 20mins, but it's not something I have as my main camera. It would be like a collector's piece I bring out once a year to take 2 photos with and go "well that's fun".

I have a pretty quick, fun Mk1 Escort. Absolutely love going out for a drive in it every single time! But I'd much rather drive the Focus to work & back everyday in the rain, cold/frost, excessive heat, at night, in fog, etc etc

 

[Topsy]

Every camera is a camera no more or less than any leica inc. the one in phone i.e. "a device for recording visual images in the form of photographs, film, or video signals."

vast majority of folks on forums such as this can shoot full manual with any of their cameras. You can shoot the fuji and nikon in full manual too and in some cases with a better experience than Leicas.

You may think that and you are entitled to your opinion but I don't and I am entitled to mine. It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are to jump on the Leica hate wagon, shoot what you want to I am not disrespecting your choice you should not disrespect mine.

I have a pretty quick, fun Mk1 Escort. Absolutely love going out for a drive in it every single time! But I'd much rather drive the Focus to work & back everyday in the rain, cold/frost, excessive heat, at night, in fog, etc etc

I have a rigid 1957 Harley and love it, you are right I'd rather commute on my 2000 Sportster but I no longer take photographs for a living so my 1957 will be my ride of choice. Your analogy doesn't make sense unless you are in photography for a living, I am not. Enjoy your Mk 1 it'd be nice to see some photos of it.

 

[nandbytes]

You may think that and you are entitled to your opinion but I don't and I am entitled to mine. It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are to jump on the Leica hate wagon, shoot what you want to I am not disrespecting your choice you should not disrespect mine.

I am not on a Leica hate bandwagon, I am pretty much critical of most things inc. the cameras I shoot. I don't really hate any cameras or brands. I just think some are good and some are not. Apologies if that came across as me disrespecting your choices, that wasn't the intention. In fact my initial response that started this off was never directed at you but was tongue in cheek response at another forum member.

 

[toohuge]

It depends on where I’m going and who I’m going to see....

Currently down to just the d810 atm - if I’m not going to an event or know I’m going to be shooting wildlife / horses I travel with prime lenses only:
35 1.4
851.8
Then I may take one of these if it think it’s appropriate:
180 2.8
300 f4
200 f2

If I’m traveling for an event (like a graduation etc) I’ll take my zooms ....

hmmm I think I have too much stuff :/

edit - these are usually in a pelican 1510 - and I carry a small regular backpack with me for day trips etc. heavy but super gear

 

[woof woof]

I used to like RF's but these days I think there are just too many limitations, for me. The one big advantage I can see is being able to see beyond the frame you'll capture when you press the button. Other than that I think a mirrorless camera is a better thing to go manual with as you can focus anywhere in the frame with great accuracy with any focal length and any aperture including the close up and far away stuff that RF's can't easily do, if at all.

They are lovely things but for me the limitations are just too limiting. Good luck to those who want to use them and keep the breed alive though.

 

[Topsy]

I used to like RF's but these days I think there are just too many limitations, for me. The one big advantage I can see is being able to see beyond the frame you'll capture when you press the button. Other than that I think a mirrorless camera is a better thing to go manual with as you can focus anywhere in the frame with great accuracy with any focal length and any aperture including the close up and far away stuff that RF's can't easily do, if at all.

They are lovely things but for me the limitations are just too limiting. Good luck to those who want to use them and keep the breed alive though.

Its a bit ironic really, I once thought the rangefinder difficult and slow to focus but now I am the opposite. I need reading glasses so if I want to focus my old Canon F1 I find it difficult because I can't get comfortable with my glasses on and I can't really see the split screen well enough without them on but because the rangefinder is just matching up the ghost image and I am looking mostly at things outside of my reading glasses range I don't need to wear them and focus easily. I do also have mirrorless cameras, Fuji GFX 50S and X-T2s but mostly use them on AF because the focus peaking manual method doesn't work well with the native lenses (for me others manage fine) I think it's because of the focus by wire because if I use my Canon FD lenses adapted it seems to be better. I use each system for what I feel they are best suited for but TBH can press the Leicas into all but wildlife/sport which I seldom do anyway these days. Horses for courses I think is the phrase. It'd be a strange world if we all thought the same on everything.

 

[justpix]

... I use each system for what I feel they are best suited for but TBH can press the Leicas into all but wildlife/sport which I seldom do anyway these days. Horses for courses I think is the phrase.

It'd be a strange world if we all thought the same on everything.

Hi, this is also my approach. I use (mainly) Leica M9s, SONY A7R2 and NIKON D800, so it is Rangefinder, Mirrorless and DSLR.

I see the camera systems I use as complementary, and I am very happy (at present) with all my toys for my hobby.

Of course, one develops certain tastes, habits and haptic preferences over the years.

I always liked compactness and precision, maybe due to using ROLLEI 35s in my motorcycling days.

But when taste and preferences come into play, a rational discussion is almost impossible.

That is why the Ancients had the dictum de gustibus non est disputandum .

 

[woof woof]

Its a bit ironic really, I once thought the rangefinder difficult and slow to focus but now I am the opposite. I need reading glasses so if I want to focus my old Canon F1 I find it difficult because I can't get comfortable with my glasses on and I can't really see the split screen well enough without them on but because the rangefinder is just matching up the ghost image and I am looking mostly at things outside of my reading glasses range I don't need to wear them and focus easily. I do also have mirrorless cameras, Fuji GFX 50S and X-T2s but mostly use them on AF because the focus peaking manual method doesn't work well with the native lenses (for me others manage fine) I think it's because of the focus by wire because if I use my Canon FD lenses adapted it seems to be better. I use each system for what I feel they are best suited for but TBH can press the Leicas into all but wildlife/sport which I seldom do anyway these days. Horses for courses I think is the phrase. It'd be a strange world if we all thought the same on everything.

I find focus peaking to be quite accurate at wide apertures as very little peaks but at smaller apertures I find it next to useless as everything is peaking. For accuracy I use the magnified view and I think that manual focusing with a magnified view is possibly/arguably the most accurate way of focusing, if you have the time to do it that way. AF will focus faster but it may not focus on exactly what you want to.

 

[AZ6]

Regarding Leica; as much as I do admire the quality of workmanship that goes into making them, I do think the brand is still dining out on the likes of Henri Cartier Bresson and other greats, and has positioned itself firmly as a 'luxury product' rather than simply a camera manufacturer. The Lenny Kravitz 'Drifter' edition is a perfect example of this:

Tasteful...

Leica has become a cult of personality product. People want to own a Leica because it's a Leica. Because of that iconic brand. Yes, some may choose Leica because that tool suits their needs. Mostly though, I think they really are 'jewellery' to a lot of buyers. Imagine Leica launching now, without their 'heritage'. Without the kudos given by the likes of HC-B etc. Would people flock to spend thousands on, in many ways, technically inferior* products? I very much doubt it. Without that red dot, Leica are just another camera maker.

I still want one mind. Praps not that Lenny Kravitz one though.

*All right, keep yer knickers on; I mean in terms of AF, IBIS, ability to use extreme telephotos lenses, rapid shooting, etc. Stuff that many professionals need.

 

[FruitFlakes]

Those kitschy special editions allow Leica to make cool, unique stuff like the Q2 and M Monochrom so more power to them. Their heritage is a huge plus, it means I can buy barely used kit off of bored dentists for a hefty discount.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Regarding Leica; as much as I do admire the quality of workmanship that goes into making them, I do think the brand is still dining out on the likes of Henri Cartier Bresson and other greats, and has positioned itself firmly as a 'luxury product' rather than simply a camera manufacturer. The Lenny Kravitz 'Drifter' edition is a perfect example of this:View attachment 280180

Tasteful...

Leica has become a cult of personality product. People want to own a Leica because it's a Leica. Because of that iconic brand. Yes, some may choose Leica because that tool suits their needs. Mostly though, I think they really are 'jewellery' to a lot of buyers. Imagine Leica launching now, without their 'heritage'. Without the kudos given by the likes of HC-B etc. Would people flock to spend thousands on, in many ways, technically inferior* products? I very much doubt it. Without that red dot, Leica are just another camera maker.

I still want one mind. Praps not that Lenny Kravitz one though.

*All right, keep yer knickers on; I mean in terms of AF, IBIS, ability to use extreme telephotos lenses, rapid shooting, etc. Stuff that many professionals need.

All "luxury" brand will now and again put out something that is just for show rather than function. Apple with their £700 wheels and their £17k Gold Apple Watch is a prime example. It brings both attention (we are doing it right now) and also an aura of "expensive" even though Apple makes £400 phones just like Sony or LG etc.

These luxury products aren't really there for you and I, I mean unless you are a collector, it's more for show.

Like....who buys a £15,000 PRS Dragon to play at your local wedding gig band?

https://www.andertons.co.uk/guitar-...frostbite-dragons-breath-p35anni-dragon-snt-1

These are for collectors really.

 

[AZ6]

Those kitschy special editions allow Leica to make cool, unique stuff like the Q2 and M Monochrom so more power to them. Their heritage is a huge plus, it means I can buy barely used kit off of bored dentists for a hefty discount.

Hmm, I'd question personally that a £4000+ compact camera (that's not actually particularly compact), and one which has been deliberately hobbled in order to somehow afford it some sort of mythical quality, are 'cool'. They just seem a bit daft to me; you can get better tools for less money. IMO.

As for their 'heritage'; it's based on a happy accident of design (the original Leica prototypes made by Oscar Barnack were to test out his newly adapted perforated 35mm film), and that several great photographers used them. But what if those same photographers had all chosen to use something different? The Leica seemed to be the best of it's type, that's for sure. But the RF design was superseded by SLRs as the tool of choice for more photographers, as technology developed. So Leica, as a company, have relied on their brand to continue to sell cameras, a lot more than other companies, it could be argued. They capitalised on the reflected glory of those talents who just happened to use Leicas; people like HC-B took great pics cos they were great photographers, not because they were using Leicas. They've successfully positioned themselves as the 'premium' 35mm camera brand. I don't have a problem with that, but they don't make professional tools in the way other manufacturers do. That's not their market. Their market is people who want a premium product, and are prepared to pay for it. If you or anyone else is, fine. I have no problem with that at all. If the Leica design suits your photography best, fine. It's all good. But personally, the products Leica makes and sells now are not the same products that hold 'value' for me, as a photographer. Far too expensive for a start, and limited in function in terms of what I require. I suspect a lot of others will feel the same.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Leica is like Gibson, people think past rock stars like Page, Clapton, Slash etc all use the 50’s to 60 Les Paul and their most expensive Les Paul is all about making them like how they used to. It’s all about the heritage and history. Guitar players talk about mojo, the mojo they talk about is the variance and flaws in the Gibson from the mistakes in the old school manufacturing...it’s a massive contradiction. The idea that even a broken clock is right twice a day, so Gibson do make great guitars, but they also make some really bad ones from QC perspective to errors in the handmade process (neck and headstock angle is a design flaw). So when you stumble on a good one you think "god, this is amazing!", whereas for £5k every guitar should be amazing.

On the contrary people like PRS and Taylor who uses more modern technology to make more accurate templates and joints and arguably a better made instruments, finer tolerances in both fit and finish...because they are relatively newer company (80’s), they can’t sell it from a heritage angle and there is all these Memes on PRS being a dentist and lawyers guitars.

There is a section in the human psyche that like to look back at old things, having something tangible in your hand that you can say “my hero used a camera/guitar) like this, even though I will never play in Wembley or be as famous. It’s all the charm of the brand but from a more realistic point of view, they are not best bang for buck.

 

[Topsy]

At the risk of perpetuating the Leica debate (sorry OP) for sure there are people who have them as trophies to show how wealthy they are and that's no different than many other expensive items (Harleys for one) but trying to stay on topic I use mine as tools that suit me. For instance today I was out for a ride on my old Harley Chop, no luggage, hardtail bare bones so I have no room for big kits, in this instance I take 1 M9 with 35mm f2 Summicron on my belt in a Domke pouch with a couple of spare batteries and cards.



It means when the opportunity arises I can get shots of interesting things like this;



As for the kit in the quoted comment,

Regarding Leica; as much as I do admire the quality of workmanship that goes into making them, I do think the brand is still dining out on the likes of Henri Cartier Bresson and other greats, and has positioned itself firmly as a 'luxury product' rather than simply a camera manufacturer. The Lenny Kravitz 'Drifter' edition is a perfect example of this:View attachment 280180

Tasteful...

Leica has become a cult of personality product. People want to own a Leica because it's a Leica. Because of that iconic brand. Yes, some may choose Leica because that tool suits their needs. Mostly though, I think they really are 'jewellery' to a lot of buyers. Imagine Leica launching now, without their 'heritage'. Without the kudos given by the likes of HC-B etc. Would people flock to spend thousands on, in many ways, technically inferior* products? I very much doubt it. Without that red dot, Leica are just another camera maker.

I still want one mind. Praps not that Lenny Kravitz one though.

*All right, keep yer knickers on; I mean in terms of AF, IBIS, ability to use extreme telephotos lenses, rapid shooting, etc. Stuff that many professionals need.

An abomination that perpetuates all your beliefs that Leicas are jewellery for rich dentists etc,

For the record I am neither a dentist nor rich, a working man with close enough to retirement to realise I have probably bought my last Leica, once retired I will certainly not be able to upgrade.

 

[AZ6]

for sure there are people who have them as trophies to show how wealthy they are and that's no different than many other expensive items (Harleys for one)

For instance today I was out for a ride on my old Harley Chop

Why is the brand relevant? Why not just say 'I was out on my motorbike'? Why do you need to inform people as to its brand?

An abomination that perpetuates all your beliefs that Leicas are jewellery for rich dentists etc,

But who actually buys Leica gear though? Not a single working professional photographer I know, uses them, and very few pros I saw back in my film days, used them either. So, I'm sure there are many professionals who DO use Leica gear, but they are in a very small minority, I'm sure you'll agree. So, by deduction, they must be being bought mainly by wealthier hobbyists and collectors. Their prices exclude most photographers.

I'm not having a go at you or any other Leica owner; good luck to you. You don't need to justify anything to me or anyone else. As I've said, I'd love a Leica film cam (would have to be an M6.2 or similar though). I totally 'get' the whole Leica thing. Without wishing to brag, I could afford to buy one. But I am not a Leica customer. For ME, there are better cameras.

 

[Topsy]

Why is the brand relevant? Why not just say 'I was out on my motorbike'? Why do you need to inform people as to its brand?

The relevance is in the reference to Harleys being seen by many as the Leica of the motorcycle world (only for rich people) and the fact that it is a Chop so no room for more kit. The fact is Harleys and Leicas are used by loads of people who are just not high profile and as in the camera world, the motorcycle world shower us with disdain for riding them. I personally don't care what others ride or shoot and never call out against another's choice of ride or camera but I am frequently told how shallow I am because I choose to ride and shoot what I do.

Let's keep in mind that I only entered this thread to contribute my prime lens travel kit as the OP asked, since my first post I have only responded to those who chose to criticise my choice at no time have I said my way was the only way.

 

[FruitFlakes]

Hmm, I'd question personally that a £4000+ compact camera (that's not actually particularly compact), and one which has been deliberately hobbled in order to somehow afford it some sort of mythical quality, are 'cool'. They just seem a bit daft to me; you can get better tools for less money. IMO.

As for their 'heritage'; it's based on a happy accident of design (the original Leica prototypes made by Oscar Barnack were to test out his newly adapted perforated 35mm film), and that several great photographers used them. But what if those same photographers had all chosen to use something different? The Leica seemed to be the best of it's type, that's for sure. But the RF design was superseded by SLRs as the tool of choice for more photographers, as technology developed. So Leica, as a company, have relied on their brand to continue to sell cameras, a lot more than other companies, it could be argued. They capitalised on the reflected glory of those talents who just happened to use Leicas; people like HC-B took great pics cos they were great photographers, not because they were using Leicas. They've successfully positioned themselves as the 'premium' 35mm camera brand. I don't have a problem with that, but they don't make professional tools in the way other manufacturers do. That's not their market. Their market is people who want a premium product, and are prepared to pay for it. If you or anyone else is, fine. I have no problem with that at all. If the Leica design suits your photography best, fine. It's all good. But personally, the products Leica makes and sells now are into the same products that hold 'value' for me, as a photographer. Far too expensive for a start, and limited in function in terms of what I require. I suspect a lot of others will feel the same.

Re: The Q2 and Monochrom. They’re unique in a largely homogeneous camera market, and that's cool. The camera world would be a duller place without them, and really Fuji is the only other company that comes close today.

Personally I wouldn't buy a new digital Leica unless I was rich, and there are other things that would would come first for me, such as travel. I'm also pretty set in a film workflow now - I have my own darkroom for fiber printing and a local one for colour work, and the community around that local darkroom is something I really treasure. I do see myself buying a new film M though.

Have you ever used a Leica long term? They’re one of those things that are greater than the sum of their parts. They’re extremely satisfying to use if your brain is wired in a way that finds rangefinders easy to use. They're very well built and well supported if something does go wrong. Buy an M4/M4P and a 50mm Summicron, or a Zeiss 50mm Planar, or a 35mm Ultron, shoot with it for a year and then sell it on for what you paid for it (maybe even a little more). A typical kit like that will come in at around 1K, but deals can be found. I bought a really nice M3 for about £400 last year so like @Topsy I don't even need to change lenses.

We're reminded every day now that life is far too short and far too precious. You might as well use stuff that gives you pleasure, if it isn't a Leica then I don't really care. Like you said it's all good, and more people need to realise that you are not the brand you shoot. Unless you're devoid of personality - there are FAR too many people these days labelling themselves as 'Leica Photographers' which is cringeworthy on so many levels. There are also posers running around with 1DXs and D5s. Whatever, it's not hindering my own work. That's my piece and all I'm going to say since we're wildly off topic.

 

[AZ6]

The relevance is in the reference to Harleys being seen by many as the Leica of the motorcycle world (only for rich people)

I don't get it; so you WANT people to know you are 'rich'?

I personally don't care what others ride or shoot and never call out against another's choice of ride or camera but I am frequently told how shallow I am because I choose to ride and shoot what I do.

I don't have a problem with you using Leicas at all. Crack on. But by mentioning what brand of motorcycle you ride, you seem to want others to know about your choices. I can't see how that is at all relevant (or even vaguely interesting). Still not having a go at you btw.

Re: The Q2 and Monochrom. They’re unique in a largely homogeneous camera market, and that's cool. The camera world would be a duller place without them, and really Fuji is the only other company that comes close today.

Sorry, but that really does just sound like marketing waffle.

We're reminded every day now that life is far too short and far too precious. You might as well use stuff that gives you pleasure, if it isn't a Leica then I don't really care. Like you said it's all good, and more people need to realise that you are not the brand you shoot. Unless you're devoid of personality - there are FAR too many people these days labelling themselves as 'Leica Photographers' which is cringeworthy on so many levels. There are also posers running around with 1DXs and D5s. Whatever, it's not hindering my own work. That's my piece and all I'm going to say since we're wildly off topic.

Whereas this, I totally agree with. I think that was the point others were trying to make. I'm a 'Nikonite'; I appreciate the brand and like the equipment, and find the history and heritage interesting. I can't get excited about say Canon. But I'm not a 'Nikon photographer'; the brand of equipment has no relevance to what I do with it. Similar to if I make something out of wood; nobody cares what brand of saw or chisel I used.

Have you ever used a Leica long term? They’re one of those things that are greater than the sum of their parts. They’re extremely satisfying to use if your brain is wired in a way that finds rangefinders easy to use. They're very well built and well supported if something does go wrong. Buy an M4/M4P and a 50mm Summicron, or a Zeiss 50mm Planar, or a 35mm Ultron, shoot with it for a year and then sell it on for what you paid for it (maybe even a little more). A typical kit like that will come in at around 1K, but deals can be found. I bought a really nice M3 for about £400 last year so like @Topsy I don't even need to change lenses.

Now, you're selling it to me. I do want a Leica, I do want to own and use a camera renowned for it's mechanical and optical quality. A friend had one way back in the 90s for a while, and it was definitely something a step up from other brands, in terms of 'feel'. My friend loved the results but couldn't justify keeping it as the system was just to expensive for him.

I'd like to know where a 'typical kit can come in at around £1k'; I haven't seen any! If you could point me in the right direction...

 

[FruitFlakes]

Sorry, but that really does just sound like marketing waffle.

I should have elaborated, but remember how in the 90s you had camera makers filling out all kinds of niches? Contax with their G/T/645 series, Konica with their Hexar AF/RF, Nikon with their 28/35ti, Minolta and their TC-1, Fuji with their Klasse S/Natura S (24/1.9 in a point and shoot!), Ricoh with their GR series? How you had portable 645 rangefinders from Fuji, and absolutely beastly 6x9s? The market was diverse and there was almost always a camera that suited a specific set of needs. Leica doing their own thing reminds me of that - look at their screenless M262, absolutely nuts for most people but it stirs up passion both for and against it. It's better than being indifferent. Fuji are doing this too now with their X100/XPro/GFX cameras, and Ricoh never stopped which is why I've been using a GR in one form for almost 12 years. 28mm is life.

The Q2 is in a similar vein, highly specialised and not worth it on paper but if it fits your needs it's pretty much an endgame camera. That 28 is excellent, and the full frame sensor/haptics/build are top notch. I'm largely a 28mm shooter so a Q2 would be perfect for me if it weren't for the price. But an RX1 II is £3k and it really isn't as good all round. A 28/1.4 +D850 from Nikon gets close in IQ but now you're carrying a lump. I do hope Nikon's Z compact 28/40 combo is good though, they sound perfect on paper.

As for the Monochrom, I do some retouching for other photographers every now and then and pulling up well exposed raws from a Mono just reminds me of a nicely exposed sheet of TMax in terms of tonality and resolution. I've worked with the usual Nikon D810s/D850s/Phase One IQ160s and the 24MP Mono punches well above its weight, I can only imagine how good the 40MP one is. Again, this is based on the assumption that you're on board with the highly specialised nature of the camera.

Whereas this, I totally agree with. I think that was the point others were trying to make. I'm a 'Nikonite'; I appreciate the brand and like the equipment, and find the history and heritage interesting. I can't get excited about say Canon. But I'm not a 'Nikon photographer'; the brand of equipment has no relevance to what I do with it. Similar to if I make something out of wood; nobody cares what brand of saw or chisel I used.

I shoot Nikon too and understand that point of view.

I'd like to know where a 'typical kit can come in at around £1k'; I haven't seen any! If you could point me in the right direction...

I saw a nice M4 on eBay in November for £700, M2s are generally £500-600, your 50mm lenses can vary but Leica ones are in the £500-1000 range (I use a 50mm Rigid from the 60s and I love it, bought it here for about £450) and the Zeiss lenses (35 Biogons and 50 Planar/Sonnars) are in the £450-650 range. The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron is one hell of a lens as well, I actually think it's better optically than Leica's 35 ASPH (but Voigtlander are always a little weird with their ergonomics - just give me a bloody tab to focus with!). Leica prices have been creeping up in the last few years (and will probably trend downwards when the economy tanks) but set up a search on eBay for the kit you're interested in. Gumtree is worth a gander as well. I play the long game: I always wait for the right one to show up. I recently bought a camera on eBay which I found via a search I set up 7 years ago.

 

[Topsy]

I don't get it; so you WANT people to know you are 'rich'?

I'm certainly not rich, far from it, the Harley was a retirement present to myself 17 years ago when I retired from the military after 28 years. I bought a running wreck and fixed it up myself with mostly 2nd hand parts but your assumption makes my point for me. People think you have to be rich to have Harleys and Leicas but you don't, a good condition M9 with documented replaced sensor is about £2k-£2.5k no more than a new Canon/Nikon FF digital pro spec. What I paid in total for my Chop would have probably bought me a reasonable big engined Jap Cruiser or one of the new Triumphs.

I don't have a problem with you using Leicas at all. Crack on. But by mentioning what brand of motorcycle you ride, you seem to want others to know about your choices. I can't see how that is at all relevant (or even vaguely interesting).

I mentioned the brand of motorcycle because it illustrates my point that people stereotype Leica users and Harley riders in the same way, no one seems to mind if someone buys a £6k Nikon D5/6 or similar Canon but the moment Leica is mentioned it draws flack form all corners same with Harleys If you ride the latest BMW no one cares but a Harley you must be a poser or rich. Neither stereotype fits the majority of users/riders.

Still not having a go at you btw.

Really?

Now, a final apology to the OP for once again striding off topic in response you your erroneous assumptions of my wealth and intent.

 

[AZ6]

I'm certainly not rich, far from it...____________...but your assumption makes my point for me.

What assumption? I was asking a question, not passing judgment. Which was; why do you feel the need to tell people you ride a particular brand of motorcycle? That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. So you ride a Harley, so what? I've ridden a Honda Cub. Who cares?

I was never passing judgement on anyone on here, who uses a Leica because they believe it to be the best photographic tool for THEM. Somehow, the discussion moved on to why some/many other people buy Leicas, and I think there's a consensus that as it's a 'luxury' brand, many buy them because they are seen as status symbols. I'd quite like a Rolex Milgauss watch, cos I really like the design. But I'm not going to buy one cos they are far too expensive for me to justify spending money on. Speshly when I have a far better functioning Casio which tells the time in different countries, sets the correct time using magic, and harnesses the power of the sun. And cost £77.

Delivered.

Yes.

 

[Topsy]

What assumption? I was asking a question, not passing judgment. Which was; why do you feel the need to tell people you ride a particular brand of motorcycle? That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. So you ride a Harley, so what? I've ridden a Honda Cub. Who cares?

I was never passing judgement on anyone on here, who uses a Leica because they believe it to be the best photographic tool for THEM. Somehow, the discussion moved on to why some/many other people buy Leicas, and I think there's a consensus that as it's a 'luxury' brand, many buy them because they are seen as status symbols. I'd quite like a Rolex Milgauss watch, cos I really like the design. But I'm not going to buy one cos they are far too expensive for me to justify spending money on. Speshly when I have a far better functioning Casio which tells the time in different countries, sets the correct time using magic, and harnesses the power of the sun. And cost £77.

Delivered.

Yes.

This; "I don't get it; so you WANT people to know you are 'rich'?" is your assumption that I am rich and I want to brag about it, neither are true as I have already told you, your question is not a question (do you want people to know would be a question) it is also an assumption that I want people to know that I am rich. I have already told you I am not rich but I fail to see what relevance that fact is to the OP's original question.

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question which I answered, that ought to have been the end of it but like many you have chosen to take issue with my answer and add context that was never there. I have wasted far too much of this thread answering your accusations already so with respect to the OP this will be my final post on the matter. I understand that you will still want the final word but I would ask please that you also respect the OP and end this now.

 

[AZ6]

This; "I don't get it; so you WANT people to know you are 'rich'?" is your assumption that I am rich and I want to brag about it, neither are true as I have already told you, your question is not a question (do you want people to know would be a question) it is also an assumption that I want people to know that I am rich. I have already told you I am not rich but I fail to see what relevance that fact is to the OP's original question.

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question which I answered, that ought to have been the end of it but like many you have chosen to take issue with my answer and add context that was never there. I have wasted far too much of this thread answering your accusations already so with respect to the OP this will be my final post on the matter. I understand that you will still want the final word but I would ask please that you also respect the OP and end this now.

Ok so; let's put this to bed. I posted up a quip about you needing three Leicas, suggesting they might be 'unreliable' (which is why you need three). It was a joke, which I'm not sure you got. Someone else posted about them being 'bad', comparatively, and there was a small discussion about them being seen as status symbols. Which they are, to some. You've then got all defensive and telling us you've got a Harley, and that you're not rich etc etc. Which is all rather confusing. You're telling us you own something that is considered by many to be a status symbol (the Harley), but then protesting that you're not rich. Eh? Nobody mentioned your wealth (or lack, thereof). We're really not interested. Nobody's 'accusing' you of anything! So you've got three Leicas and a Harley. Meh. I've got a sheep's skull I found in North Wales (might have been on the Great Orme, might have been on Conwy Mountain, I can't remember). Chill out. No-one's having a go at you for your purchasing choices.

Of course, had you bought the Lenny Kravitz edition....

 

[ukaskew]

I approach travel as I approach pretty much everything else (including weddings), keep it simple. A couple of a7RIIs and a 35/85 combo does the job fine. It used to be the Sigma Arts, but the two FE 1.8s do the job just as well now with a much, much smaller weight penalty.

I was off to Slovenia soon (not now, obviously) and would have taken the same. The most common query I get is 'is 35mm wide enough?', but for me it's what I'm used to, something like this is about as wide as I need to go with my style of shooting...

Hong Kong by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

 

[justpix]

... a 35/85 combo does the job fine. ...

Hi, in a late 80s Leitz(Leica) Brochure 35mm and 90mm together were called Die praxisgerechte Ausrüstung.

This was my "Starter Kit" for the Leica M6 in 1988. Meanwhile, I have 30 Leica M mount lenses (of around 90) ...

Of my 5 35 mm Leica M mount lenses, the ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35 is my best. But I like my Leitz (Leica) Summicron 35mm more, because it is more compact,
(and maybe because it is one of my first Leica lenses).

Using lenses longer than 50mm with a range-finder is not so much fun. My SONY A7R2s are easier to handle with live-view, a tilt-screen and IS ... ---

A walk in the Swiss mountains (Leica M9 - ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35 f 5,6) :














On the road (LEITZ (Leica) Summicron 2/35 v4 f8) :

 

[LeeRatters]

Hi, in a late 80s Leitz(Leica) Brochure 35mm and 90mm together were called Die praxisgerechte Ausrüstung.

This was my "Starter Kit" for the Leica M6 in 1988. Meanwhile, I have 30 Leica M mount lenses (of around 90) ...

Of my 5 35 mm Leica M mount lenses, the ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35 is my best. But I like my Leitz (Leica) Summicron 35mm more, because it is more compact,
(and maybe because it is one of my first Leica lenses).

Using lenses longer than 50mm with a range-finder is not so much fun. My SONY A7R2s are easier to handle with live-view, a tilt-screen and IS ... ---

A walk in the Swiss mountains (Leica M9 - ZEISS Distagon 1,4/35 f 5,6) :


View attachment 280596



View attachment 280597



View attachment 280598



On the road (LEITZ (Leica) Summicron 2/35 v4 f8) :


View attachment 280600

I pretty much started my A7 mirrorless days off back in 2014 with a Voigtlander CV40/1.4 Classic and a Leitz Tele-Elmarit M 90/2.8 thin (the latter of which I wish I didn't sell!)

 

[justpix]

I pretty much started my A7 mirrorless days off back in 2014 with a Voigtlander CV40/1.4 Classic and a Leitz Tele-Elmarit M 90/2.8 thin (the latter of which I wish I didn't sell!)

Hi, you selected the praxisgerechte Ausrüstung, too. - Over the years, I used wider lenses because I took a greater interest in architecture, and the higher resolution of cameras,
such as my SONY A7R2, allowed more cropping, if necessary.

 

[ABTog]

I recently got the Canon 40mm pancake. I actually really like it as a do-it-all chuck in the bag lens. With lockdown only allowing local exercise, the 40mm with my 6D has been a great lighter carry around option.
I can shoot all day with my 24-105L, but it's big and heavy and I'm mighty tempted to just have a 40/85mm combo in my bag. My only problem with that is that when doing landscapes, I can't add filters to the 40mm because it's filter thread is so small. I've tried a 35mm lens a few times, but not liked it so much.
If Canon bring out a RF 40mm pancake and an RF 85 1.8 (which they probably will), then those paired with an EOS RP would be a nice small setup. They already have the RF 35 f1.8, so that would be another option.

 

[woof woof]

This; "I don't get it; so you WANT people to know you are 'rich'?" is your assumption that I am rich and I want to brag about it, neither are true as I have already told you, your question is not a question (do you want people to know would be a question) it is also an assumption that I want people to know that I am rich. I have already told you I am not rich but I fail to see what relevance that fact is to the OP's original question.

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question which I answered, that ought to have been the end of it but like many you have chosen to take issue with my answer and add context that was never there. I have wasted far too much of this thread answering your accusations already so with respect to the OP this will be my final post on the matter. I understand that you will still want the final word but I would ask please that you also respect the OP and end this now.

I used to be really into sports cars, I still am but I haven't bought one for a long time. Thankfully I've never been into Ferraris as I much prefer something small that's fun at 30-50mph, something like an MG, Lotus or MX5. I used to take a lot of abuse when driving about and I never really understood why as many people would spend more than my open car cost on a hot hatch or 4x4. Anyway, one day a guy told me some one line put down and one day a car full of 4 idiots drew along side me in my Lotus Elan SE, not an overly expensive car really, at the lights making all sorts of negative and insulting comments, my reply was "Take a good look mate. You'll never be able to afford one." They were so stunned they couldn't reply

 

[justpix]

My (current) city travel favourites SONY A7R2 +

ZEISS Loxia 2,8/21 (Bilbao/Esp.):





VOIGTLÄNDER Super-Wide Heliar 4,5/15 E39 (Malaga, Esp.):





My backup pocket camera SONY NEX5N + VOIGTLÄNDER Super-Wide Heliar 4,5/15 E39 (on my way to Manchester/UK) :

 

[LeeRatters]

Hi, you selected the praxisgerechte Ausrüstung, too. - Over the years, I used wider lenses because I took a greater interest in architecture, and the higher resolution of cameras,
such as my SONY A7R2, allowed more cropping, if necessary.

I didn't do it on purpose

My go-to now is the Voigtlander 40/1.2E & the FE85 although I have just bought a CZ 80-200/4 which I'm growing quite fond of.......

 

[justpix]

I recently got the Canon 40mm pancake. I actually really like it as a do-it-all chuck in the bag lens. With lockdown only allowing local exercise, the 40mm with my 6D has been a great lighter carry around option. ...

Hi, 40mm was seen as a standard focal length in the 1970s, and offered by many companies for rangefinders , eg. ROLLEI35, Minolta High Matic E, KONICA ...

I used ROLLEI 35s over many years, and liked this focal length.

 

[justpix]

Hi, above I mentioned 50mm lenses for Leica. I have only 4. - Leica M9 - Summicron 2/50 f 8, in Andeer/CH:


















There are many excellent 50mm lenses. - Extremely good is my 1,8/55 SONY/ZEISS ... ---

 

[andy1868]

I approach travel as I approach pretty much everything else (including weddings), keep it simple. A couple of a7RIIs and a 35/85 combo does the job fine. It used to be the Sigma Arts, but the two FE 1.8s do the job just as well now with a much, much smaller weight penalty.

I was off to Slovenia soon (not now, obviously) and would have taken the same. The most common query I get is 'is 35mm wide enough?', but for me it's what I'm used to, something like this is about as wide as I need to go with my style of shooting...

Hong Kong by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

Love the shot and processing Chris! I like the sentiment about 35 too, its just a great focal length for me. In the few times I've needed anything wider I've stitched shots together using the pano feature in PS to nice effect too. Perhaps not ideal for all shots but has served me well in the few times I've needed it

 

[Mozziephotography]

35mm on a D700

 

[andy1868]

35mm on a D700

I used to use this exact set up, not the lightest setup but nice and tough