Leica V Others

Yes indirectly, for if you have a lot of first class A3 prints covering a wide range of locations and subjects then you may have spent a larger proportion of money on the film and visits to locations and a lesser proportion on the equipment needed to take the photograph.

Martin,

Have a look at these pix.

Some were shot with a Leica (either a CL or M6 rangefinder body) using either a 40mm f/2 or 90mm f/2.8 Leitz lens. Others were shot with a Contax SLR using either a 28mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/2 Zeiss lens. Others still were shot with an Olympus digicam. If you can reliably tell which pix were shot with which kit -- and whether the Leica shots are the clear winners -- then get a Leica. If you can't do that then I'd suggest that photographic technique (pre- and post-pic) matter far, far more.

Joe

The best photographer ever to enter the portals of this forum was without any shadow of a doubt..the great and lamented Vuk Vuksonovic.

I daresay Joe can point you in the direction of some of his photographs which were frankly works of art.

I believe he used a Leica.

Regards

Mick

Hi Martin

I use Leica cameras and lenses and love them.

I'd say the best Nikon and Canon lenses are equal to the best Leica lenses, the less good Leica lenses are generally better than the run of the mill Canon and Nikon lenses.

However, as Joe says, good techinque is far more important than the subtleties between each brand of lens.

Remember, buying into a Leica system is extremely expensive, even when buying secondhand in the current deflated market.

Julian

Martin,

If you are considering a Leica M rangefinder, make sure you like using a rangefinder. These Leica's are a considerable investment and it is only worth it if you actually use it. If you do, it may be the last camera you buy. One way to find out if you can get along with rangefinders is to purchase a used fixed lens model such as a canonet (tons on ebay). See cameraquest.com for info on all types of rangefinders.

Personally, since I am not a professional, I can't justify the additional cost for Leica glass, and am quite happy with the results from both my CV Nokton, and my Pentax manual primes. Used prices on these lenses range start at just $30 (50mm F1.7). Our own Joe Petrik and Matthew R seem to get some very nice photos using Nikon and CV glass.

cheers,

Dan

"I daresay Joe can point you in the direction of some of his photographs"

You didn't really read Joe's post did you Mick?

"I believe he used a Leica"

And a Contax 167MT and a Olympus E-10 digicam.

Matthew

PS the answer to the original question is "it depends" but the way it was phrased with reference ot print sizes makes me think the questioner will almost certainly be better off with a Canon or Nikon SLR system and should probably go digital (whcih is true for 98% of photgraphers IMHO).

quote:

---

should probably go digital (whcih is true for 98% of photgraphers IMHO).

---

98% of people with cameras - yes
98% of photographers - no!

Stop being cocky.

I think that you will find that nearly all of the pics in Vuks portfolio have been taken with a Leica.

Leica lenses are undoutably superior to nearly everything else and the camera is nothing short of a mechanical wonder. This however does not guarantee good photograpghs as I know to my cost.

I have the M6, with a 35/F2, 50/F2 and 90/F2.8 lens and even have a Leica tripod with everything packed in a Billingham bag. I have taken the official 2 day Leica course at Milton Keynes and I still take bloody awful photos.

Mind you the photographic quality of the pic is good but the photos themselves are artistically rubbish.

Regards

Mick

Ah WTF

I'm not sure what's sadder.

The closet homo-eroticism or the will to let everyone know what a complete and utter ignoramus he is?

P

Confused?

You may remember the time when you were drunk and tried to force dismall and dull conversation onto me at the Naim BBQ. I actually had the Leica in my hand in order to take some snaps and it is to my eternal regret that I did not take a snap of you in your inebriated condition.

Believe me you were not a pretty sight that day.

Regards

Mick

You've certainly had some mileage out of it though haven't you? You little blabbermouth. Make you feel bigger does it?
Frankly, and do take this personally, my biggest regret is not shoving that silly little camera that you were posing with right down your your nasty little windpipe.

Next time maybe?

You wont get away with it twice.

P

... and the date for the next Naim BBQ will be ......

An attempt to get this thread back on topic... see this article.

Joe

Guys many thanks for your all your replies my brain needs a few hours to absorb all this.
Martin

Joe
I'm looking at those pix - stunning

Just a thought from round the other way, Joe could you point out say 2 pix one from the leica and one say olympus? I know its sounds cheating but I'd love to see 2 side by side

Martin

Treat yourself to a book called the Leica M6 by Brian Bower. It is an excellent publication and brings the subject to life.

P

You really need to learn how to hold your drink. Getting plastered to the point of slurred speech, appalling judgement and just plain dribbling from your mouth at mid afternoon, denotes you may have a problem.

Best to see a shrink methinks.

Regards

Mick

Well thanks for the helpful suggestion but as you're obviously suffering from some kind of strange delusion yourself might I suggest you do the same?

If your half witted invented fantasy was to be believed Parry anyone would think that you knew what you were talking about.

Fact is. You've never managed to convince otherwise

P

edited to delete the extra H in were - pedantic but bothered by it

[This message was edited by P on Sun 14 November 2004 at 22:39.]

Mick
Which one was it?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books-uk&field-author=Bower%2C%20Brian/202-2804970-8455807

Book number 2

The one with the white building on the cover.

It is a really good book, it covers everything you will ever need to know.

Regards

Mick

Mick
Done
Ordered
Thanks
Martin

Martin,

quote:

---

Just a thought from round the other way, Joe could you point out say 2 pix one from the leica and one say olympus? I know its sounds cheating but I'd love to see 2 side by side

---

As you know, the ideal comparison would be two pix of the same subject, using the same film, with the same exposure (f-stop and shutter speed), same chemical processing, same lighting, same scanning, same Photoshop post-processing, etc., with the only difference being that one be shot with a Leica and the other with something else. Unfortunately, such comparisons are rather hard to find on the Net. In fact, I've never seen such a comparison.

But, for the sake of satisfying your curiousity, here are the secret identities (from memory, admittedly) of a few of Vuk's shots...

Olym E-10 digicam with dedicated zoom lens

Olym E-10 digicam with dedicated zoom lens

Contax SLR + 28mm Zeiss lens

Contax SLR + 28mm Zeiss lens

Leica M6 + 90mm Leitz lens

Leica M6 + 40mm Leitz lens

Joe

quote:

---

though Leica seem to be the dogs whatsits could you, all things being equal as far as possible, tell from say a A3 print which was the Leica lens and which was the Nikon or Canon etc.

---

In comparison, probably. In isolation, very doubtful. Bear in mind that both Canon and Nikon (and others) offer some extremely fine lenses which Leica do not: Canon's 200/1.8 lens springs to mind.

If ultimate quality is what you aer after, why not a large format camera with movements? Or, a medium format rangefinder? I had (until recently) a Mamiya 7 rangefinder whose 6x7cm negative size and razor sharp lenses will always appear significantly sharper than any 35mm camera for a given film. However, it's bigger and slower to use.

Leica make cracking cameras, of that there is no doubt, but you mustn't fall into the Leica-worship trap like Mr Parry A camera is a tool and as such is only as good as the person operating it.

It largely depends on how deeply you want to get involved with the photographic process - an M series Leica is one option, but if you simply want the best quality with some automation, look to things like the Contax G2 (which I bought in preference to the Leica M6 and don't regret it - but it's not a camera for everyone, though once you get used to it it is stunningly good!) or the new Rollei rangefinder. The Contax G series is a heck of a lot cheaper to buy into too, but is more automated and has fewer, somewhat slower lenses. Of comparable quality to top notch Leica.

However, I realised a while back that a dSLR enables me to get more out of my photography and though I keep the Contax, the dSLR gets more use. The G2's lenses better the Canon's L-glass, but I reckon that's as much to do with its lack of mirror as it is with optical quality.

I'm going to Prague for a holiday in the next month or so and I will take the G2!

John

quote:

---

The best photographer ever to enter the portals of this forum was without any shadow of a doubt..the great and lamented Vuk Vuksonovic.

---

My money's on Joe anyday - Vuk's stuff was fine enough but Joe's speaks to me more

John

Call me thick, but where can we view Joe's pics?

I can't deny the technical competence of Vuk's photos, but he was a most obnoxious contributor to the forum.