I have sold most of the Leica stuff I purchased last Spring and wanted to give you all a follow up to my original "First Impressions" thread.

After carrying the Leica with me religiously and using it as much as possible I discovered that my Nikon F3HP is a better tool for me.

Make no mistake, the Leica is a wonderful tool with first rate optics. If I look at photos with a critical eye towards sharpness, clarity and light falloff the Leica is visibly superior. But all of the photos that I consider "good" or that I enjoy have very little (if anything) to do with sharpness, clarity and falloff. These things are important to many people and that's certainly one of the things that makes photography fun for many, myself included. But the Nikon has nothing to be ashamed of and is sharp enough for my needs.

I had a great Summer shooting with the Leica. I carried it everywhere and have lots of photos to show for it. I shot a lot of film and learned more about photography via all of the mistakes I made.

As fast as I got focusing and metering with the M6 it never became 'natural'. Maybe I worried too much but I would fiddle and fiddle with both focus and metering. It was fun at first because I loved the feel of the Leica, but too many times I missed photos because of it. It's great to be able to see the framelines and the bright, clear viewfinder, but I just never really got hooked on the rangefinder focusing system. The F3 with it's aperture priority (I admit it, I'm lazy) and split screen focusing just plain works better for me. It's natural and automatic for me to focus/meter and then frame with the 100% prism viewfinder of the Nikon.

I also have an F5 I use for sports or when I'm really feeling lazy (which is often), and the ability to swap lenses between the F5/F3 is a big plus. There is only so much camera equipment that I can afford/justify. Most of the times that I went out for photography I ended up taking two camera systems so I could cover wide/long/flash with the Nikon and normal with the Leica. Sometimes this worked great, most of the time it was a pain.

Maybe 7 months wasn't a long enough time to give the Leica, but I may not live long enough to use it for 20 years like I have the Nikon. If I used the Leica for a few years would I work as fast with it and would it become a natural extension of my photography? Perhaps.

I also worried about losing or damaging the camera. This is a very personal thing and I know that I should just get over it but I never did. The F3 has been dropped, kicked, dunked, you name it and it's never skipped a beat. I've heard plenty of stories that the Leica can take the same kind of abuse and I believe it, I just don't like worrying.

None of this is intended to suggest that Nikon/Leica is better or worse than the other. They're different and I think that that's a good thing. If I'd purchased a Leica 20 years ago I bet that nothing could pry it from my hands. When I realized that my first impulse was always to grab the F3 when I wanted to go out shooting I knew that I had what I needed. It's as simple as that.

In the end I'm glad that I experienced the Leica M system. The Leica is everything that the Leicaphiles claim it is; quiet, unobtrusive, beautifully made, etc. I really enjoyed the experience, had a lot of fun and have no regrets.

It also caused me to commit to a picture-a-week project which my extended and widespread family enjoys. I also got into the habit of carrying a camera with me wherever I went. And that has turned out to be the most important aspect for my photography.

-- Tim Kamke (tjkamke@excelimaging.com), December 20, 2001

Answers

Tim, I very much enjoyed perusing your PAW project. Some very nice photos there. There're several that I particularly like, including the one of "Dubya" and his serious-looking service agent, and also the one of your daughter in front of the birthday cake, illuminated by the candles.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 20, 2001.

Hi, I didn't get anything but a homepage, no links to pictures. Is the URL correct, or am I just an idiot? By the way, kudos for a well-written, thoughtful post.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001.

Tim:

Thank you for sharing your input and photos. I think you have some very nice photos in your portfolio -- congratulations.

I'll simply add that my own experience was very different than yours - - I have also used Nikons for over 20 years, and switched to the M a little over a year ago. The surprising thing is, I can "snap" focus my M, but for the life of me I can no longer manually focus my Nikon! I end up twisting back and forth, searching for that in-focus pop... Oh well, different strokes for different folks!

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 20, 2001.

Thanks for your observations. I too have had an M6 with 35 & 50 summicrons for a little over a year. I still have my Nikon FE & FM and 6 primes, which haven't been getting as much use lately. I also have an RZ67 which gets VERY little use, just waiting for that important project:) I too worry about the M6 getting damaged or stolen. I certainly don't find the M6 faster to use. I THINK I'm framing & composing better with the M6 (being able to see outside the framelines) The M6 is certainly quieter than the Nikons, but not as quiet as I thought it would be. Now that I have the M6 I too carry it with me more often, and this has resulted in shots I would otherwise have missed. The Leica lenses are fantastic, but when I look back at some of the Nikon photos, they're great too!.

-- Dave Carlisle (dave_carlisle@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

Tim,

Your tale basically backs up the advice that many have given on this forum... Rent or borrow a rangefinder camera and see if it matches your way of working before getting rid of what you are currently using.

I am also in the camp that believes that Nikons are fine, (I never gave into that Leica snob thing), so enjoy your F3... I am enjoying mine when my M6 is not the right camera for the situation.

Your post here will be inserted as a linked answer into many posts to come from people wondering if they should take the plunge.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 20, 2001.

Nikons are great cameras, legendary in their own way, every bit as much as Leica.

Oh, and they are very functional too, much more so than M cameras ;-)

Everyone who contemplates buying an M6 and dumping their SLR should read this post of yours...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 20, 2001.

Every camera has pluses and minuses and fans and detractors.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 20, 2001.

Every camera has pluses and minuses and fans and detractors. You gave it a good shot and in the end you found that you preferred another tool. Sounds great to me. Good luck.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 20, 2001.

The toughest part with actually using the Leica is getting over how much you just paid for it. Most people I know never got over this phase and thus always reach for something else. And then they conclude it is awkward or clumsy or can't get used to it and that something else always get them better photos. Meanwhile a year or so later the M6 still mint in box. This is why I always recommend the Cosina/Voigtlander to potential new users. A cheap throw away camera with state of the art rangefinder that hopefully will be a stepping stone into Leica photography. Buying used it another idea but newbies spending $700 on an M3 and then $200 getting it fixed and then having to learn to use it with no meter, etc. etc. etc. just to end up with the same conclusion that something else is more convenient because everyday is a lazy day and I want a lazy camera. Goodluck Tim! Photos don't lie and you are a good photographer no matter what you use but Leica would have been better :^)

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 20, 2001.

Ray - I agree, the money thing is a real pain - I think it's important to be able to relax with a camera - maybe intentional scratching to get it over with (!) coupled to comprehensive insurance?

Tim - I think the catch-22 is that you haven't really given it long enough (especially since you seem to have carried on with the F3 in parallel) but that if you're wasting your time you'll waste even more if you keep going. Anyway, it sounds like a fait accompi. You can always come back to it. Good luck.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 21, 2001.

Tim, a very interesting post and some of the wisest words written on this forum for some time. The 'M' is certainly not for everyone, it is often a struggle to use and many is the time I have thought why don't I go back to an all singing and dancing auto SLR with a nice convienient zoom. I may buy another SLR but I would never be without an M.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 21, 2001.

Sounds fine to me. My own experiences differ ... after 30+ years of shooting with Nikon SLRs and Leica RF cameras, I sold off all my Nikon gear for exactly the same reason you sold off your Leica M: the Leica is what I tended to reach for most of the time. Dunno why, it just works for me. I do like playing with all kinds of equipment, I also shoot with many other cameras.

But whatever works to help you take the pictures you want, that's the best camera. :-)

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), December 21, 2001.

I notice you shot the Nikon for wide. The Leica really excels with wide angle lens. It is easier to focus than an SLR and the 24 0r 21 from Leica are awesome. In the normal range, the advantages of a rangefinder are not so apparent. Bob

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Cameras are tools. The world's finest screwdriver isn't any help if you need to drive a nail.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Tim

Well I think that is quite fair. That is what I thought too when I had my M3 with older lenses. I hated not being able to use a 35mm without a goggle lenses and or viewfinder. The endless reversing of lenshoods to put them on and off etc. This time round I have the M6 and I am liking so much better as I have modern lenses with built in hoods etc. The r/f flare is annoying though. Of course, you do still have an option to use the best 35mm optics and have a reflex you could go for Leica R. The R8 or R7 or R6.2 in particular are superb cameras and the optics are excellent. Leica is not just r/fs despite what the majority seem to think.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

Tim, I have enjoyed your site. I too have made the switch, but to Leica from Nikon. I had a F5 with lenses (all AF-S) out to 400mm and used this very little. So big and bulky not to mention heavy. I found that I would replace the camera and lens back into a backpack to avoid damaging the camera/lens. Price? the F5 is no cheaper that the M6TTL which gets much more use than the Nikon ever did. Whild walking around, I'm more able to shield the Leica and lens than the Nikon equipment. Thanks for sharing.

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), December 21, 2001.

"The camera you know is the camera you like ." -Gjon Mili. I think he meant the camera you can use with the least conscious thought, putting the minimum barrier between you and the image you see, is the one that will get you the shot...nice post Tim, thanks........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Al - you are right. If you are moving from SLR to Rangefinder try it first. I moved from SLR to a rangefinder in 1981 and would now never use an SLR for my black and white work. However it did take me a year to feel completely at home with it. I do use an R4s for colour but it represents only 5% of my pictures now. With a rangefinder you can be unobtrusive and quiet like a journalist whereas with a noisy bulky SLR I feel like a professional photographer. It's a very personal thing. I feel very obvious when I carry my R4s but with my M6 I'm just not noticed, which is how I like it.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), December 22, 2001.

Here's my two cents:

I think if a camera takes a year or a month of practice to make it work, then it is plain too much effort. If you already knows the basic of photography, a Leica M is intuitive to use, take no time at all to understand all the controls. So what's the problem? Why people hasitate to pick it up to shoot? Because for every shot, you need to fiddle with focus, aperture, shutter speed, and with a modern SLR, these are taken care of by the camera.

After two years of trying very hard to make a Leica M works for me (it is a big investment after all), I finally realize my problem: I tried too hard and I should never have to. I now use wide angle lens with focus tab to move it to approximate focus, guess on the exposure or preset exposure. And I just shoot in a relax manner, not worrying too much about focus, or exposure.

Many of you would disagree, but I think the only way I could enjoy a M is to ignore my desire to be sharp and perfectly composed.

Of course this leads to another question: why use a Leica if utmost picture quality is not pursued? Oh well...

Happy shooting. Chi

-- Chi H (chihuang@yahoo.com), December 23, 2001.

Tim, First off, nice images. Good job! I am a Leica newbie - should get my first ever M6 ttl tomorrow. My first camera was a Russian Fed 3 - probably the worst Leica clone ever however, it still works after thirty some years. I have been using SLRs for most of my conscious life. Anyway I was hopelessly bitten by a Leica bug some time ago. I blame it on the Leica M6 catalog that I innocently picked up at some photo store some five years ago. I have an extensive Canon EOS system with 2,8 zooms and a 50mm 1.4. But I think my fascination with images from Leica M series carried over from my involvement with Hasselblad lenses. After using those lenses for a couple of years and creating a system of my own I do not like my Canon images any more. Canon lenses are very good, (so are Nikon's) but I want my 35mm negatives to be even better. I hope Lieca will do that. So after comparing Leica, Contax G, Konica, and Cosina I decided on Leica for a variety of reasons that I do not want to bore anybody with. So I am anxsioulsy waiting to try M6 hoping that it would work for me. Of course Leica lenses are only as good as the photographer holding them - I learned this on 'blad. We'll see how it will go. Just thought I'd share my thoughts before I forget them due to possible frustration of the learning curve. Take care, Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), December 24, 2001.

"I do not like my Canon images any more".

In a parallel thread, I venture my humble opinion that while equipment (MF SLR vs. 35mm) might determine the scope of one's pictures, optical differences between different lens systems are totally swamped/obscured by the visual or graphic qualities of the image itself.

So what exactly do you mean by the above? I myself use a Leica much of the time now, but oddly the pictures I remember best happen to have been taken with a Nikon.

My own experience with insights such as yours has been that I have been engaging in fits of wishful equipmentitis, rather than any objective assessment of quality of image. I can understand not liking the way a camera body handles, and preferring or liking something else, but does it really show very much in the pictures you take? If they leave you cold, how possibly could it be because of the brand of camera?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 24, 2001.

"optical differences between different lens systems are totally swamped/obscured by the visual or graphic qualities of the image itself" Fine, but on the flip side - if I may continue this argument - "the visual or graphic qualities of the image itself" may be enhanced or diminished by "optical differences between different systems". While Leica will never replace my SLR system for most jobs, whenever I will be able to squeeze in a shot by Lieca I will. I have been using Mamiya 645 and when I switched to Hasselblad the improvement in image quality was impressive. I expect to see a similar trend with Leica vs Canon/Nikon especially in low light at full aperture. And even if there would be no difference at all (hypothetically), I am keeping this Leica anyway.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), December 24, 2001.

Igor, it is also known as 'missing the forest for the trees'.

-- Erik X (xx@xx.com), December 25, 2001.

Judging by its character, this image could have easily been taken with my R8/90mm Summicron-R. But it happens to have been taken with a Canon 28-80 f/2.8-4L EF on a modest Elan 7. The autofocus helped me follow her movements, and Canon "L" lenses are superb in their own right.

I too abandoned the Leica M. If it really works for you, great, but don't fool yourself into living in a world of romance and illusion--unless, of course, that's more important to you than photography.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 26, 2001.

Peter, What made you abandon the M system? Thanks, Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), December 26, 2001.

Mani said

I venture my humble opinion that while equipment (MF SLR vs. 35mm) might determine the scope of one's pictures, optical differences between different lens systems are totally swamped/obscured by the visual or graphic qualities of the image itself.

I don't have anything to add, I just thought it needed to be said again.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 27, 2001.

After paying lots of bucks for a Leica M, it's easy to think that it should be all things, all the time...i.e., that you should never need those Nikons again. But in truth, you may still need to use those Nikons when they are suitable, and just use the Leica when apprropriate. Yeah, even several thousand bucks can't buy you a camera that is always better than others. So, I'm sometimes frustrated by the M6, but rather than forcing it to work, I just reach for a different machine.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), December 27, 2001.