Lens performance and the virtues of the rangefinder vs. the SLR are often discussed in this and other Leica forums.

It seems to be the rational justification of the hefty Leica price tag - the argument we use to convince ourselves and/or our spouses.

I must confess that the optical quality is a minor reason for my interest in Leica, I am in this only for the feeling the camera gives me.

-I do appreciate smooth OOF rendering and sharp images, but it is not my experience that this is something only a Leica lens can provide.

What really gives me a kick is the unique sound of the shutter of my M4, the weight in my hands, the compact solid feel, and the smoothness of operation.

I don't think I am the only one who feels this way. I suspect it is for people like me, that Leica decided to keep their antiquated shutter in the M7.

I also think this is why the Leica SLR range has been relatively unsuccessful in the market. They just haven't been able to translate the feel of the M series into those SLR bodies.

My M4 and the 50mm Summicron have not improved my photography, but the feel of the camera has renewed my joy of photography (which in time hopefully will translate into better photographs).

Most of my photography friends don't understand why I sold my 1/8000 top speed, 1/250 flash sync. 5 frames/sec, multi-program matrix metering SLR monster -in favour of a camera with specifications dating back half a century.

Now - if I could only prove an advantage in image quality, then maybe it would be another matter, but I can't (at the moment).

I tried to let them use the camera 'surely that would make them understand', but no! Holding and using the camera did not evoke any of the excitement that I felt when I first held it in my hands.

I do not need their approval of course. However, it makes me wonder why 'It feels good' doesn't appear to be a valid justification, but we accept arguments like 'It resolves xxx lp/mm' (when most photographers are unable to utilize this quality anyway)?

Any thoughts?

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 15, 2002

Answers

Niels. I agree that the feel of Leica M and the soft shutter are big reasons I use Leica, and reasons I switched back from SLRs to RFs. And I don't really like the feel and handling of modern AF SLRs, despite all of their conveniences.

I don't agree with your comment about the Leica being "a camera with specifications dating back half a century." I don't remeber exactly when aperture priority AE came into existence in SLRs but it must have been late '70s or early 80's, not half a century. I don't think there was even through the lens light metering 50 years ago. Certain features like DX coding and TTL flash metering are more recent than AE. This is hardly a stone age camera.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 15, 2002.

Hello Niels,

I do not know for how long you are using your LEICA M, but with more experience you will notice, that your photography will indeed improve IMO.

The simple fact that the M is so much smaller and less obvious when in use will lead to photos which differ from those taken with other photogear. When going out and being in the mood to shoot I put my LEICA M6 with SUMMICRON 35 (old style) or (lately) the tiny M-ROKKOR 40 mm and have it on me in a waist poach.

Itīs so small that you hardly notice this outfit when you carry it. But it is there when you want it!! Doing this with an SLR-camera reminds you (at least it does this to me) all the time you are dragging something heavy around. All the other pros, quiet shutter, terrific focus abilities esp. for w/a-lenses set aside: the LEICA M is THE camera for me. It only you and the camera which is at hand what makes the picture ... Think about all the photoopportunities which dinīt work out, because your equipment wasnīt there, there are quite a few for me.

Have a go and good LEICA shooting to all

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), May 15, 2002.

I can relate to the feeling the camera gives you. I have the same feeling like you.

I traded a Canon T90 plus 5 lenses for a Leica M4 plus 35 Summaron. Since then I replaced the M4 plus Summaron for an M6 classic (bought new in 1992) and 4 lenses (28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/2.0, 90/2.0).

I can say I shoot sharp pictures now, focussing on a ground glass just isn't my cup of tea. I also found out I didn't use nor need the feature overload of the all singing-all dancing T90.

-- Bert Keuken (bkkn@wanadoo.nl), May 15, 2002.

Niels,

I fully relate to your interrogation. I also think the pleasure element is a key. But I think the main key is the unique set of functionality of the M: size, simplicity, reliability, discretion, unchallenged ease of use with crucial wide angles (28 and 35) and low light capabilities, married with the knowledge that optical issues will never be the point of failure in any assignement.

People who do not need that unique set of functionality may or may not still relate to the pleasure element, but will be less liable to do so. If you do not really care about size, noise, ease of manual control, available light, etc, why spend the bucks ?

That is why, IMHO, the R does not induce same enthusiasm. The R's functionality is far from unique, and the optical superiority is too marginal to justify the expense, from a rational point of view.

But unlike you, I find very similar tactile and intellectual pleasure in handling R as in handling M, and that 'justifies' the investment for me. Construction, ergonomy, general feel, are very reminiscent of M. And so are many of the MTF charts, of course, if you need to rationalise.... ;-)

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

"I see Pictures," Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Niels, I totally agree with you about the hard to explain feel of the Leica in ones' hand. The heft of such a small instrument often suprizes friends who ask to hold it. For that reason I even sprung for a Black Paint M6 LHSA that is even more solid feeling (like a chrome only in a silky luster black). Love the retro look and feel of the 35/2 BP with the old style metal shade, as well as the scalloped focusing ring of the 50 Lux BP...both of which have a sustantial weighty-ness that belies their smallish stature. However I do not agree with the optical portion of your post. Right this minute I am taking a break from scanning a ton of Leica produced B&W negs along with those shot with one of those 35mm beasts you mention, and some MF negs. The Leica negs are a joy to scan. Every selected neg has an equally hard to explain emotional quality and tonal range that blows away everything else. These lenses never cease to amaze me. I just pulled a Super B sized print from one of Leica negs ( T-Max 400 CN ), and the creamy tones, snappy blacks and pure spectral whites absolutely look like medium format. How light is rendered by these little chunks of glass IS why I love this camera system more than any other I own or have ever owned. I consider the 35/1.4 Asph the best lens EVER made by anyone EVER! Not for reasons of bench tests or technical mumbo-jumbo, but because of the impossible to explain, easy to show, images it consistantly produces. And I can say that as an owner of Canons 35/1.4L and 50/1.0 ( which my Leica Noctilux is clearly superior to ). Expanding my Leica M system is rendering my 35mm do-all, be all, computerized beast to the dust-bin of obsolesce.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 15, 2002.

Niels wrote:"I must confess that the optical quality is a minor reason for my interest in Leica, I am in this only for the feeling the camera gives me."....

kidding right? a camera is a tool, a leica is a wonderful tool, but a tool nontheless. This statement alone seperates you from being a photographer to being a camera buff.

Niels wrote: "My M4 and the 50mm Summicron have not improved my photography, but the feel of the camera has renewed my joy of photography (which in time hopefully will translate into better photographs)."

This is the truest thing you said, your photography will start being improved when you learn how and when to use your tools right. Yout M4 is quiet and smooth, so its incomspicuous, and you can get slower shutter speed operation than your Nikon., IE better for that chore. Now go to a football game with your Leica and see what you get. Try the Nikon with say a 280mm 2.8 Nikkor, or even (god forbid) Sigma lens and see how its fit for that job. Me, I have many tools in my bag, and the moment one dosent work for me I replace it. I dont want to sit in front of my TV shooting blanks with my M2, I want to shoot film , and lots of it.. sorry for the honesty. mike

-- mike pobega (thearea19@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Niels, I like this type of thread and since I feel you're looking for a list of various feelings here, here's my opinion. The first thing I think of is something I've already said many times here. Yes it's something you can also read in catalogs and so forth. And no, I don't work for Leica! But what I like most about Leica (and "Leica" to me always means Leica M) is that here, I'm in control of my camera, the camera is not in control of me.

My old Nikonos and FMs were okay, but these too have already started to become too dominating. Almost any SLR today, at least from Nikon or Canon, is so automated that I don't know how to reset something. Or it takes too long. It's also like the brand new expensive Kyocera photocopy machine in our institute. It keeps resetting itself, tuning in new things I don't even want. Can't even use. Costs me too much time and effort. When I know how to work it, it's still too slow, and the copies aren't any better in quality either.

Next points: of course the Leica M image quality is good, but that's secondary (for me). A camera with specifications dating back half a century is good too (again, for me). The joke here is that today (since a half a century) everything (over and above cameras too) has become more and more electronically advanced, and the first thing forgotten or even consciously dispensed with is the mechanics of the thing.

My M6TTL does everything I want (except maybe a self-timer) and nothing I don't want. That's the best feeling the camera gives me.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 15, 2002.

Great shot Travis.

Great post Niels.

I am on the same level of thinking as you and others and i guess that's why many of us own Leica M gear. Unfortuantely for me, it is no longer possible, but I'll be back. The Leica M has allowed me to get shots i would've only dreamed of getting prior, and the camera really keeps you in touch with the photographic experience, as their are no distractions by shutter noise, busy viewfinders, mirror blackout and techno capabilities.

Simply the best camera i've ever used/owned, and I'll be back for one once I have taken care of my priorities.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Niels, I think there are many M users on this forum who share the same feelings as you which other people find strange! But as to what makes us 'click' is a very personal thing, build quality, looks, ergonomics, performance, gadgets are parameters to be weighed when designing consumer goods these days. The longevity of the classic M design is a statement in itself as well as others such as that made by Alessi that the Leica M would be the only object in the world that he would not redesign. The M is a mechanical masterpiece, an art that is dying with todays digitalised world which I beleive makes it even more special.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 15, 2002.

Giving a "cult-like" status to inanimate objects can lead to frustration if the results do not match expectations. I have spent many Dollars on Leica M camera and lenses (5 bodies and 12 lenses, pared down to two bodies and 4 lenses today), but I also use SLRs from one of those "lesser" companies. I honestly can't say I've ever been stunned enough to dump one system to go totally to the other. They work well as two parts of a whole... sometimes a rangefinder would excel, and sometime the limitations of that type of camera would be too stifling.

As to the pricing thing, I have been starting to question the logic here since I've retired and must justify spending "crazy" money to get what could be acquired for less. Paying 200% for something to get maybe 15% better performance doesn't pass the sniff test anymore these days.

Below are two photos of the same person shot a couple of weeks apart. One is made with a Leica M6 and a 50mm Summicron. The other is made with a Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 Manual Focus AIS lens. The ratio of pricing is about 10 to 1, with of course the 10 going to the Leica. So is one image 10 times better? Is one only a tenth as good? I always heard that Leica lenses beat every other brand until the middle apertures. Both of these photos are shot at full aperture, so according to the rhetoric, one photo should be blowing the other out of the water. I know that judgments can't be made from a computer screen, but I have the negatives and enlarged prints, so my points still hold up upon viewing these. Photo 1 , Photo 2

There is definitely something other than logic involved with buying Leica gear.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 15, 2002.

Well, I am basically a reflex sort of person - if given a choice I would always pick reflex viewing. But I do think that Leica glass is special and that is why I own them (M and R). In addition to this comes all the other rather nice ancillary things such as feel, weight and mechanical excellence. The M also has the nice idea of focal length preview and smaller size and an always bright viewfinder and quiet vibration free shutter. But, I do think that Leica M owners over-emphasize the advantages of their cameras and often overlook its disadvantages: this seems to me to be almost certainly partly a compensation for the expense and the sheer oddity of the cameras. In a world where there are very few professional r/f cameras the Leica is different and therefore special. As a matter of interest my R6.2 with 50mm Summicron has pretty well the same dimensions and weight as my M6TTL and 50mm Summicron. The Ms remain unique, no question, and they have a wonderful feel, but this is not why I own one. I own one because of the relative small size of the lenses and their excellence, particularly at wide apertures this improves my photography.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Leica represents the essence of photography to me. It makes me wanna take better pictures, and most times it does.

The feel of a M4 and the shutter is unparallel. The 50 cron at F2 in untouchable. The durability is unsurpassed.

You dun need to have second thoughts when you are using Leicas. Unless of cause you have given up photography.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

I fully agree. I tried to remain objective while deciding between a Contax SLR with their Zeiss lenses and the M, but the compact solidity and workmanship got the better of me. That I think was the real clencher. I also appreciate the rangefinder design, no mirror shake. I even tried the R6.2, close but no cigar. The shutter speed dial just wasn't like the M's- the M is metal and doesn't shift around in its mounting. The R6.2 was plastic, shifted around, and was hard to smoothly turn. The M was smoothly positive. There we go. I was also tired of Canon's use of plastic housing on their lenses. I enjoy the feel of metal lenses with their smoothly positive aperture ring and focusing. I've always been a gearhead, and the M satisfies. Of course the optics for me are probably the main deal- fast lenses with high performance.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

A contrarian view:

Some say the Leica M is inspirational in its feel. Despite its heft and the myth of its ruggedness and dependability, it in fact is quite delicate and tempermental. Hasselblad is similarly solid and similarly tempermental. A Nikon F feels soild but it actually lives up to the feeling. Store a Leica for 2 years unused in its box and more than likely the shutter will require service. Pick up a Nikon F that's been in the attic for 25 years and more than likely it will work perfectly.

Whatever the mystical (mythical?)properties ascribed to the M lenses, the woefully imprecise framing and forced imagination of DOF, not to mention the bulls-eye focusing (a trait early AF's were roundly trashed for), makes composing and capturing precisely-visioned images a daunting challenge. What are largely held up as examples of the best of Leica M photography are basically happy accidents, even if couched in the euphemism of the "decisive moment". The M is often heralded for its simple user interface but operating the M to capture a pre-visioned image (precise composition and selective DOF)is anything but simple or swift and requires a lot of thinking and experience.

The M is a compact camera with high-quality interchangeable lenses and has made a good travel outfit for me. But if I had to rely on only one camera system, it would not be the M.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Leica, Si -- SLR, See! I've been using Leica cameras for over 50 years, and I too love the way they feel and sound. Even just handling them, particularly the early LST cameras, satisfies my mechanical needs for pleasurable tactile sensations. But for making good pictures, I do much better with an SLR where I can evaluate exactly what I'm shooting.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), May 15, 2002.

THIS MAY SOUND WEIRD TO SOME BUT......

I told me wife, about six months ago, that when I die I want to be burried with my Leica. My Hasselblad, my Sinar, my KB Canham she can sell. But my Leica goes with me.

-- LeicaLux (none@none.com), May 15, 2002.

A work of art,hand built,history,a joy to use,unmatched quality lenses,a craftmans tool....pure pleasure.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 15, 2002.

and holds its value and goes on and on.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 15, 2002.

From a practical standpoint, our M4, M6 (and our new M7) offer my wife and myself several more years of "good shooting." She's 76 and I'm 79. Our eyesight isn't getting any better, and the M series rangefinder focusing system and viewfinders are clearly preferred to squinting into a ground glass while using wide angle lenses. Further, as we get older, we lose the ability to produce decent pictures with a hand-held SLR, as the inherent vibrations and mirror slap become more difficult to control. I can still get acceptable hand-held results (not great, but acceptable) at shutter speeds with our Ms that I couldn't possibly obtain with my son-in- law's Nikon. What I can produce at 1/125 with an M series takes me 1/500 - - minimum - - with my s-i-l's SLR. No, and neither of us has incipient Parkinson's < grin > - - just too many days on the calendar. The M series are godsends for the Old Fud crowd!

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 15, 2002.

LLux:

You clearly should have chosen a fully mec. Nikon. When an archeologist digs you up in a few thousand years, it will still work [particularly an F2; shutter on the F will probably rot]. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Cameras are assemblages of metal, glass, plastic, and, the case of some, wood. I could care less about them, especially after I am gone. I would like to think that my photographs have lasting value, touch people somewhere, or at least are remembrances of me. I told my wife to give my cameras to a school system when I die, why should they go to waste.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 15, 2002.

Jeff:

I told my wife to give my cameras to a school system when I die,

You told your wife! Wow! She must not be as good with a 3 wood as mine. More seriously, my wife spent years as a photojournalist. She uses this stuff as much as me. I couldn't care less what happens to it. It is just "stuff".

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

You guys want to go through eternity without a Leica?

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), May 15, 2002.

I find the heft and feel of the M6 a pleasure. It is a camera that a blind man could love simply for the tactile experience. However, the framing is so imprecise, at least with the 50mm Elmar, that I find myself with the Nikon FM3A in hand most of the time. BTW, the 45mm, 2.8P Nikon seems to produce photographs that are at least as good as those made with the Elmar. They are both fine lenses.

-- John (mymacv@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Hey Niels great topic like this are needed to share what here suposed to be share, thankīs Niels.

i am of those that think the M is a great pice of design in many levels, I could and do look and hold a M body and enjoy and apreciate itīs design, i donīt need to take pictures to do it.

About itīs great optical qualities, Iīm sure they exsist, but I belive my kind of photography canīt show all of them.

a thing I donīt agree with you Niels is when you say:

"My M4 and the 50mm Summicron have not improved my photography, but the feel of the camera has renewed my joy of photography (which in time hopefully will translate into better photographs)."

I am for sure aware of the improve in my photography that the M leica has made, and is been through itīs finder; and reliablenes; and comfort of use; and confidence in the system that it has help me in achieve a better image of a percived place.

For sure the M finder gives me more to evaluate of the final picture in itīs clear, contrasty and direct M finder than a SLR in their exact, dim, tigth and soft focusing screen, and that is important to me, far more than auto exposure or auto any thing, there are pictures i canīt make with another camera, but by chance.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Afer many etherities and many many lives, weīll remind the 20th century on earth for many things for sure and some for the use of the leicas, or maybe leicas can be seen in other worlds through ethernity as a gift from god.

Dear Bill nice to read from you, well in case you are really you ;), (I donīt forget;) and you havenīt made that description neather.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

George Berger is absolutely right. I have keratoconus (curvature of the cornea), which is not correctible by simple diopters. Yet I can probably focus an M camera as well if not better than someone with 20/20 vision. The focussing is positive and from my years of experience, I can do it quickly and accurately. The alternative for me would be autofocus (I can't focus a MF SLR, unless it has a focus confirmation light!), and I would bet the M is more accurate within its focal length range.

The M system takes more patience to learn well than an AF SLR, but it is a wonderfully capable tool when used properly. There is no question the M is not for everyone (understandably). You have to spend more money and learn its idiosynchrasies and its strengths and how to exploit them. But it is all I really need, since I'm not into long telephotography or extreme closeups of bugs. About the only thing I miss with the M system is a PC (tilt-shift) lens, which is a far more useful lens than most people imagine. For this I bought a Canon EOS 24/3.5 TS lens and a cheap EOS body.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 15, 2002.

"What are largely held up as examples of the best of Leica M photography are basically happy accidents, even if couched in the euphemism of the "decisive moment".

The strength of M largely lies in its merits from the viewfinder (likewise all the rest of rangefinders). You see the subjects (without blackout) as you click. Besides the subject matters in the frame, you see those outside of the frame as well (which makes elements addition/substraction to/from the frame relatively fast and "decisive"). It is a different way of *seeing*, thus requiring a different way of approaching the photography. M as its limits and we all know what they are. Though if anyone still thinks M produces nothing but happy accidents, it proves the M way of seeing (or rangefinder way of seeing) is not for everyone. Optical & build quality aside, the M way of seeing is the primary reason why I love shooting with my M.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), May 16, 2002.

Al hit the nail on the head: "There is definitely something other than logic involved with buying Leica gear."

It's emotion. Few man-made products engender such an emotional response except perhaps fine classic sportscars.

Because it performs brilliantly as well, it has extra appeal.

Also, it's an anachronism but a delightful anachronism: a tribute to craftsmanship and purity of form and function in a throwaway world.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), May 16, 2002.

Thanks for all the response!
And thanks to those reassuring me that I will see improvement eventually.
I am actually quite pleased that the operation of the camera felt natural from the start, and that I didn't feel I had to take a step back on the learning curve.

Eliot wrote: "This is hardly a stone age camera".
-You are right of course. I was thinking specifically of my M4, which isn't very different from the original M3. Sorry it wasn't clear.

K G wolf wrote: "I do not know for how long you are using your LEICA M…"
-For almost a year now, -I think you have a good point; It is easier to bring my camera along wherever I go = more photographs = more experience = better photographs.

Jaques wrote: "…I find very similar tactile and intellectual pleasure in handling R…"
- I think that is great, and if I felt the same way, that would be sufficient justification for me.

Marc wrote: "…Every selected neg has an equally hard to explain emotional quality and tonal range that blows away everything else…"
-It is very likely that my experiences w. optical quality relates to my choice of processing. I am actually setting up a darkroom to improve control of the process. (I already spend most of my day in front of a computer screen, and the prospect of spending even more time in the digital 'darkroom' doesn't really sound attractive)

Mike wrote: "…This statement alone seperates you from being a photographer to being a camera buff"
-Maybe I am, but I don't quite see how valuing a tool for its less tangible qualities makes me more of a buff, than if I value a camera for its optical qualities. (See Al's post).

LeicaLux wrote: "…when I die I want to be burried with my Leica"
-Now this is a camera buff :-)

Michael wrote: "Almost any SLR today…is so automated that I don't know how to reset something"
-You captured most of my feelings in your post. I too felt that the complexity of a modern Nikon slowed me down (always double checking if all the settings were as I wanted them to be).

George wrote: "The M series are godsends for the Old Fud crowd!"
-Wonderful reassuring post! -I am looking forward to many years of service from my M4 -I'm glad they are well supported.

Kristian wrote: "Unfortuantely for me, it is no longer possible"
-Kristian, I read your other post and I am sorry you feel such drastic measures are nessessary. I will not try to talk you out of it; I have been in situations myself where priorities dictated selling of beloved equipment (but I found out that even a Stylus Epic is a quite capable camera and can be satisfiying in its own right).

Karl wrote: "The longevity of the classic M design is a statement in itself…"
- It sure is. In principle I think all designs can be improved, but to improve the M design would surely be a challenge. How often haven't we seen 'improvements' which in fact was quite the opposite?

Al wrote: "There is definitely something other than logic involved with buying Leica gear."
-Agree!

Jay wrote: "Some say the Leica M is inspirational in its feel"
-I love that way of putting it! "tempermental" is also a great word. Although I have no experience to support it, I think you may be right about "shelf life".

Jeff wrote: "…why should they go to waste."
-Well said, don't let them go to waste!

John wrote: "…I find myself with the Nikon FM3A in hand most of the time. BTW, the 45mm, 2.8P Nikon seems to produce photographs that are at least as good as those made with the Elmar."
-That is the combo I would likely be using -if Leica didn't exist.

R Watson wrote: "…confidence in the system that it has help me in achieve a better image of a percived place."
-I'll be there -soon -I hope :-)

Gerald wrote: "You see the subjects (without blackout) as you click."
- I didn't realise how annoying I find the blackout until I got my Leica.

Thanks to everyone for posting.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 16, 2002.