Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Why do people buy a leica?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
semso wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Well. there IS a difference between a Pancolar and a €10,- noname lens!





But in the year of production the price of MC Eyemik 2.8 100mm was probably the same like the price of MC Pancolar 1.8 80mm

Biotar 58mm clone Helios 44XX cost less than 2 euros


But WE ARE someone who made the price of Pancolar so unrealistic.

I had more then 300 MF lenses and best photo I made with MC Chinon 28mm 2.8, YES THE HEAD make a photo, not the camera or the lens!!!!



semso


Semso, it's the old discussion that has been through too often!
The "head makes a photo", ok, but without a decent camera the "head" could not take the photo "he" wants!!

I did not say that Pancolar prices are realistic, they are not!
I just said that there is a difference between lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
My brain says stick with DSLRs , but my heart........

That's the point, listen to your heart, the rest is only "interminable" discussion Very Happy .....


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Thanks all

this wasnt a trolling flamebait post actually, Ive been saving up for a while , and I have close to 2000 bucks sitting around doing nothing, which suspiciously is aboutthe price of a used M8

I have a Pentax KX and I love it, and the MF lenses on it are fantastic, i am just trying to figure out what my next step is , I dislike live view and video , I dont shoot for a living, Im on a disability pension from Air traffic control atthe moment, and I do most of my photography as a cathartic *chill out* experience, I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot

Imean between , quality, speed and the *zen* of photo , Im sorry if this post sturred up some emotions, i didnt mean it to be , I was just looking for some help about making a decision

My brain says stick with DSLRs , but my heart........



"I dont shoot for a living, Im on a disability pension from Air traffic control atthe moment, and I do most of my photography as a cathartic *chill out* experience, I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot "

- Robert, you've been debating this in your head for way too long. Just go buy the gawddarned M8 willya? I know you want it Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Biotar 75 or Pancolar 80 are good only for resell (buying cheap and selling expansive)


Have you hold any of them ? If yes something was wrong if you have this conclusion in fact all people who can afford expensive Leica and bought Pancolar or Biotar 75mm love them at least same.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
I dislike live view and video , I dont shoot for a living, Im on a disability pension from Air traffic control at the moment, and I do most of my photography as a cathartic *chill out* experience, I was just thinking that a Leica might be the sweet spot

I mean between quality, speed and the *zen* of photo


Go get the Leica. It is the perfect tool for what you describe. Slow food and slow photography, I envy you Smile


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well apart from the being sick and taking medication part, its not too bad Smile

taking a step back and relaxing a bit has done wonders so far!


Thanks for all the advice ,

Esox, Hari : Thanks for your patience


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
leica is without doubt a great piece of engineering. if you want solid rangefinder, your choice is quite limited - leica, bessa, konica hexar rf or zeiss ikon. except the bessa, all of them are quite pricey. BUT shooting with RF is really different experience than with SLR - that is something you must try before making any statements. there are people who love RF and will never change it and there are people who will never leave SLR (like me Laughing and I have tried shooting with leica and hexar Wink ). versatility of SLR is bigger, but if you need simple tool RF is enough - and often more available and quick. it´s also less distracting for photographed subject.

there are also people who say rangefinder lenses are better, have special 3D effect and other things - to be honest, I haven´t noticed any significant difference.

all at all, i stay with my olympus om collection:)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Berraneck, the trouble for me is I wanted a Digital RF, that narrows it down to the 3 Leicas ( M8, 8.2 and 9) or the 2 epsons r-1d and r-1dx I think.

so 2 10 MP , 1 full frame 18mp or 2 x 6mb

Robert


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
well you cannot put any other digital FF in your pocket, but than again, if you want slow food and slow photography, why would you shoot digital, there are plenty small film cameras that does great job.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
egidio wrote:
well you cannot put any other digital FF in your pocket, but than again, if you want slow food and slow photography, why would you shoot digital, there are plenty small film cameras that does great job.

+1 well spoken give a chance to them for second life and enjoy them as I do.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Film is too slow, unfortunately for me , and getting it developed locally is now a pain , its a good idea though!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Film is too slow, unfortunately for me , and getting it developed locally is now a pain , its a good idea though!


Develop by your self , both B&W and color print film is easy ~ 15 minutes /roll + next 15 minutes for scan.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
with respect, the M9 did not change anything?

really?

the leicaphiles are head over heels with the thing.

there are only 5 other digital cameras (excepting medium format) with that level of image quality and all are huge.

the first ever full frame rangefinder?

your average pro would kill to get one.

leica has never been so far ahead of the curve.


Far ahead of the curve???

Leicaphiles, you can't speak rationale to them. Leicaphiles were head over heels also when Minolta designed Leica lenses that sucked, but cost 4 times more than better lenses. Take R-system for instance, it is one big era of lenses that when now inspected on demanding DSLR sensors, proves to be only equal or even less capable than other SLR lenses (but still 3-4 times more expensive). M-glass (while excellent overall) also contains more crap than Leicaphiles care to admit. Erwin Putz seems to be the only person Leicaphiles dare not oppose, when he points these facts out to them.

Kill for a Leica??? The average pro wouldn't kill for a Leica, much less churn out the price they sell for. Most pros have two bodies and as the M9 is the only considerable digital body they have, that would mean buying two of them. Think it's frustrating to stand in line waiting for one M9? Try buying two, while you try to maintain a living. Canon and Nikon pro programmes cater to professionals so well that within 24 hours I will get a replacement body anywhere in the World (except maybe Antarktis).

The photojournalist doesn't want high ISO performance from the film era: the M9 is about 3 to 4 f-stops behind a Nikon D3 or D3s when it comes to dynamic range and color noise at higher ISO. Go to DxOmark.com and use the sensor comparison - if you think I'm exaggerating.

Nor do Leica offer a smart and powerful portable wireless flash system that is anywhere near what Nikon and Canon have. With all due respect to available light shooters, you've clearly never needed more than 5-6 f-stops of dynamic range, or never needed to bounce flash. Why? Because you don't shoot in badly lit indoors spaces where there are 14 differently ugly white balance sources.

M9 with 2fps rules out sports, wedding, photojournalism or other situations which require speed. Most PJ jobs are anyway those, where you have 30 other photogs around you and a window of opportunity that lasts for about 1.5s to nail the shot.

Thanks to the capability of AF module on D3/D3s today I can lock focus in light so low details are invisible to the human eye. The M9 rangefinder in darkness would put me back to the 1980's when I focused by judging distance and setting it on the focusing scale.

The whole range of M-glass is still wonderful on black & white, and many of the designs are clearly optimized for BW use. Ask ANY M8 or M9 owner about color management and the pain of trying to get accurate color reproduction --> that rules the M9 out of product photography as well.

Don't even get me started on the prime-swapping excercise. I am a manual shooter with more than 20 manual focus lenses, but when I'm paid to do a photo job I will take the computer-designed motorized AF zooms anytime before packing 3 to 5 Zeiss ZF or Leica M primes (and a backup M9) in my bag - simply because those 1500+ EUR pro lenses of Canon and Nikon today are awfully good both optically and mechanically. Try comparing a bolt-locked sniper rifle with an assault rifle - which do you think will keep you alive longer? Precision or useability?

Unsuitable for: weddings, today's hectic photojournalism, sports, low light, product photography - I just listed 95% of my income and yes - I make a living out of photography.

I love Leica. On Sundays, when I'm not at work but shooting leisurely for myself. Slow food and slow photography.


haha I thought I might get you going! Great post, as always.

However, I am not saying the average pro would swap his DSLR for a Leica--all the points you make about the limitations of the camera are likely true.

I'm just a lowly videographer, in addition to computer consulting etc, but I work with pros all the time, for years. They have all the glass you could think of for their wedding cameras.

But they sure as heck aren't driving around with it all the time--who would? That junk is useless for photography on the fly.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

The leica is the best camera that could be considered easy to carry--that you really would have with you alot if you had one.

You ask your pro friends: hey if I gave you an M9 for 2K but you have to keep it--yes or no?

Tell me what they say.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Berraneck, the trouble for me is I wanted a Digital RF, that narrows it down to the 3 Leicas ( M8, 8.2 and 9) or the 2 epsons r-1d and r-1dx I think.

so 2 10 MP , 1 full frame 18mp or 2 x 6mb

Robert
that´s true - when speaking about digital RF. i was going straight with title. sadly there is only one FF camera to use with all these great lenses, and for evil price.. that is not something for typical journalist, rather affordable for rich amateur


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
a m9 is more easy to use than a dslr.....but there are some limitations.
to do focus with a 200-300mm and a rangefinder....uhm it is a hard job!
leica...two words: Light and Reliability.
but I prefer Zeiss glasses....

Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Try comparing a bolt-locked sniper rifle with an assault rifle - which do you think will keep you alive longer? Precision or useability?


depends on the range Smile


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Quote:
Try comparing a bolt-locked sniper rifle with an assault rifle - which do you think will keep you alive longer? Precision or useability?


depends on the range Smile


haha

it's more like an assult rifle compared to a glock--or something smaller.

march around with the AK and you ARE the target.

a little pistol and nobody knows you're armed.

this coming from a person who detests guns....


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:
a m9 is more easy to use than a dslr.....but there are some limitations.
to do focus with a 200-300mm and a rangefinder....uhm it is a hard job!
leica...two words: Light and Reliability.
but I prefer Zeiss glasses....

Laughing Laughing Laughing

That was why I considered them. I like RFs and rarely fo over 200mm, in fact, usually 24-90 range.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:
a m9 is more easy to use than a dslr.....but there are some limitations.
to do focus with a 200-300mm and a rangefinder....uhm it is a hard job!
leica...two words: Light and Reliability.
but I prefer Zeiss glasses....

Laughing Laughing Laughing
true!

but there is also limitation with short lenses, ussualy below 24 or 28mm - it isn´t possible to use in-camera viewfinder, as it has not wide enough field of view. that isn´t a big issue, as you may stop down, set focus to hyperfocal distance and just point camera on the subject - you have pretty big DOF so that isn´t problem. and you may use lenses like 12mm voigtlaender.. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My favourite focal lengths are 28-85mm ( on a crop sensor , so 42 -128) so the zoom or super wide angle problem with a Rf isnt an issue , plus I would still have my KX

saying that, I only use the 28 for landscapes/sky shots, 50mm for almost everything, and 85s for portraits , I do like fast lenses too , to me a f2.8 lens is slow as I have a lot of lenses in the 1.4-2.0 range

Thanks for keeping this thread civil bythe way, and i really appreciate all the different perspectives

cheers


PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately an M9 is also so far ahead of my budget Smile

Im working on acquiring something soon, cheers everyone!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So if you get a leica body, the best bet would be to grab a leica lens to take advantage of the leica *glow* ?

or are the zeiss planars and Voigtlander M series lenses a worthy alternative?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
...
or are the zeiss planars and Voigtlander M series lenses a worthy alternative?

Yes, definitively. A friend of mine owns an M9 with a Nokton 1.1/50 and two Leica lenses. He does not have any preferences towards the Leica glass.

This "glow" you describe actually is an aberration of older models. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
....This "glow" you describe actually is an aberration of older models. Wink


+1

Those who don't actually own a Leica seem to covet the 'Leica glow'.

Thos who do own a Leica often stop down a bit to avoid it. Odd really.

JJ


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hahaha

thanks John!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3