OK guys this is what the newbie has learnt so far. Correct me if I'm wrong

1. Leica lenses: no one would dare complaint about them cos they are excellent.

2. But leica bodies, as aesthetically pleasing as they are, are primitive by most standards (including M7). The greatest advantage is that it uses the leica lenses, has the widest base distance (compared to other M-mounts) for most accurate focusing and that (at least 0.72 and 0.85) it can accurately focus telephoto lenses through the viewfinder (cos they are bright and are of higher magnification).

3. Cheaper bodies available may not be entirely compatible (R2 and Hexar RF) with the leica lenses.

4. which really should be No 1, all this stuff ain't worth anything if you don't compose good photos.

Nick

-- Nicholas (nickchewwm@yahoo.com.sg), May 08, 2002

Answers

So what's your point?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 08, 2002.

You got it.

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), May 08, 2002.

Nick,

The Leica lenses are nice, VERY nice. Some are just about the best there is. But there are alternatives for everything except the Noctilux. Most of us won't miss the Leica qualities and advantages, as we've never had direct comparisons. Some of the differences aren't just resolution or contrast, but the mysterious bokeh, which is a real phenomenon.

I'm not sure "primitive" is the right term, but the M7 is way behind in many features. OTOH, it is a very good picture-taking machine.

Leica's have an unequaled, mechanical feel that none of the other cameras can duplicate. It's not necessarily all-together better or worth the extra money, but it is there. An R2 or Hexar RF is not an M camera, but very viable alternatives.

Buy what cameras and lenses you can afford or feel comfortable with, and use them. Please don't put them on the shelf. They are not art or shelf pieces. They were designed to take pictures.

I also echo the other post though. What's your point? Do you want a recommendation? Seek out someone nearby who owns what you are considering and ask them for a loan or at least a try-out. Or rent a Leica M6 and 35/2 for a weekend and see for yourself.

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 08, 2002.

Do not know of any 35mm Rangefinder body that was ever made that is "better" than a Leica M-especially the older cameras. My M3 is 50 years old and still works like new. When I had it cleaned, it hadn't been service for over 45 years and the finder was still in perfect allignment.

I'd add that leica cameras are great for hand held, low light, images, and also where camera noise can be a nuisance. The combination of lenses that are sharp wide open, and a nearly vibration free shutter allows for relatively sharp images at speeds that most cameras would produce a blurred mess.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 08, 2002.

The M7 primitive??!! It may not have all the gee-whiz electonics of some of the newer cameras but this does not make it primitive. Really what would you rather take for a spin, a brand new Toyota Camry with electonic everything, or a nice mechanical 308 Ferrari ('primitive' by todays standards I guess).

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 08, 2002.

Skip:

But there are alternatives for everything except the Noctilux. I think you need to talk to Canon.

Bob: the Toyota Camry is a very nice and reliable car; still it handles like a 1956 Buick Roadmaster. That is why I avoid Toyota sedans. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 08, 2002.

Anyone who does not know the benefits offered by a M camera over other modern cameras will always call them primative. But as other manufacturers became obssessed with automation, gadgets and trying to outdo the competition, they started to loose what 35mm photography was really about, small compact cameras. The Leica M has maintained this tradition and therefore has a niche market.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 08, 2002.

The M bodies are known for having the best viewfinder in 35mm photography. The brightness of the viewfinder, lack of mirror slap, and lenses that perform well at wide apertures make the M system reknown for hand-held low light photography. The quietness of the shutter makes the M cameras about the best available choice for unobtrusive photography.

Being able to use M lenses is a factor, but not really so important really, especially if you shoot hand-held like most Leica M photographers.

As far as being "primitive", have someone show you or describe the viewfinder/rangefinder assembly sometime, it's one of the most complex mechanical achievements ever.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 08, 2002.

I like Leica M camera's because they're primitive by most standards. To me a camera is a tool, not a toy.

-- Bert Keuken (bkkn@casema.net), May 08, 2002.

The Leica M is an instrument....not a computer!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 08, 2002.

I know whatcha mean by simplicity. It does everything I want it to do. Compact, I think it's form following function, I mean this thing's just deep enough to accomodate a roll of film! Cool! The rangefinder design is so simple- no mirror shake at slow speeds. Awesome lenses, what a timeless product. One thing I think would be sweet would be 1/2000-1/4000 of a second shutter speed (but given that it's a cloth shutter, perhaps impossible for 1/4000).

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

Leica bodies primitive. The only purpose of the camera body is to provide a light tight container for the film and this the Leica does very well.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), May 08, 2002.

Hello Nick. The original little Leica's were designed to test 35mm film.All non metered Leica's will test the photographer.Any metered Leica will just let you in the back door to enjoy the benefits of Leica lenses and Leica photography.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

Sad!for me its the most modern camera!its not primitive but pure. i have Nikons,Canon,Pentax and Rollie TLR.Nothing feels or makes me happier than my '67 M3!It works for me.Funny in Tina Ruisingers book, "Faces of photography" most of the masters portrayed,used Leicas.... If i wanted BattleStar Gallactica,i'd have bought the EOS-1n or Nikon- F5.i make the film companies happy,i do not intend supporting the battery companies as well...

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

Nicholas; You should own a few Zorki's and a Leica M to see what they both are great for....More Zorki's were produced than Leicas! The beater 1955 M3 of mine is extremely quiet; and low light focusing is alot more consistant than my Nikon F....Most of the SLR autofocus lenses are way too slow for a Nocturnal person like me....Maybe I will get a autofocus F1.4 or F1.0 lens set if I win the lottery....Otherwise I will have to put up with my Zorki 3C and Canon F1.2 or my Leica M3 and Noctilux...I love the full control of these beasts with no damn flash or beeps to spook my latest subject...For the soccer moms shooting their kids in well lite areas the available at Walmart 24 hours a day Canon Rebel G or X with zoom is a great value..Leica equipment is expensive; In a high risk area I prefer to use my Zorki3c and Canon f1.2...Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

Just because it's an old design doesn't make outdated if it's still desireable. The way I look at it, the M7 is way AHEAD of the Canon, Nikon bodies in (at least) one major aspect, that it has eliminated the mirror from the body.

-- dave yoder (dave@daveyoder.com), May 09, 2002.