You have my agreement on that one, Shawn. I would add, however, that trying out one of the M6 series might also give pause to reconsider. I have to admit that, in my case, it took a good six months of steady shooting to reach the point where my Leica M6 (rangefinders in general?) felt natural in my hands and in front of my eye. Now (with apologies to Mr Heston), you would have to pry the camera from my cold, dead hands.
Poor workmen blame their tools
Originally Posted by Shawn Rahman
The M3's, in fact all the M series, are superb cameras, you're right not everyone'shappy using a range finder camera but some of my best 35mm work has been shot with an M3 and mid 50's Summicron.
What a bunch of crap!!!
What a bunch of crap!!! That's what you've just written . . . .
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Lets be realistic if a Leica's bought through a Leitz dealer and has been serviced then there's no excuses.
You're right in a way because there can always be exceptions. I bought my M3 as a user from a highly reputable Leitz dealer, and he's not expensive. The camera body had minor dings but is mechanically perfect.
I've seen a lot of work shot with M2/3/4/5/6 Leica's and they've always been outstanding in terems of quality, I'm talking about well known photographers. So I take comments taht Leica's are disappointing cameras as a pinch of salt. I'd add that I have an 80 year old Leica that still works flawlessly.
Last edited by Ian Grant; 09-02-2011 at 06:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Noone is arguing that an M3 can produce excellent photos, just that some posters find them disappointing. It's not the same thing.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Myself, a Nikon F4 was my recent disappointment. I really wanted one for many years and finally bought one, but just couldn't warm to it.
Thread is camera, not lenses. Leica lenses good. Leica film loading is like trying to be a dentist with oven mitts.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
oh you met (name witheld)
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
The Canon ML can lay waste to a roll of film faster than any camera I've known.
But the Canonet QL17 GIII is the one that opened my eyes to rangefinders.
Exactly. A camera could be an excellent, even superb camera, and still disappoint someone and that wouldn't necessarily mean they're bad photographers either. Maybe it doesn't suit their style of working or doesn't fit their hands but fits other peoples or doesn't work the way they thought it did when they got it or any number of other reasons they could be disappointed.
Originally Posted by cluttered
I've never owned a rangerfinder camera. When I've played with them they've seemed, frankly, odd and awkward. I think I'd tend to shoot without focusing because the clear view would cause me to react as if it were in focus without pausing to align the rangefinder image. Of course I'd probably get used to that. I'm not saying I wouldn't like one, but I am saying "it would take getting used to" and I might or might not like it once I did.
In my case, I know that, but if I didn't know that and bought one on reputation alone I could easily be disappointed with it, even though it was a fine camera. Someone else would be disappointed with a view camera because they just wouldn't like working that slowly, where I enjoy it.
Leica is not the cup of tea for many. Growing up in a SLR world the rangefinder seems almost like a throw back. Only one more difficult is the tlr with its reversed image finder. The RF does not show DoF, actual image due to offset and viewfinder while on the other hand is blessed that there is no blackout but, with speeds of 1/500 and above the shutter opening and closing and with most cameras mirror movement is fast enough practically it is not an issue. Shutter lag, though can be. SLRs handle Zooms whereas RF at best have framing for a few lenses unless an acc'y viewfinder is used. Forget zoom lenses, yes I know that is a plus for some persons including me.
Yes, loading a film can be a challenging new experience, requiring cutting of the leader. OTOH, the design makes for a very rigid body, one of the best out there and has a long back plate that holds the film flatter better than most other designs, I think I remember in the Contax RTSIII its system was judged as the only competitor to the Leica.
Leica has almost had excellent press and for those who read it is easy for them to be convinced the Leica experience has got to be the way to go but, when they actually live with the camera become disillusioned as it is slower than an SLR and does not have the same shooting style or ergonomics and hence a let down. It does not make them wrong, does not make the camera bad, just a miss match in mating them up to each other.
Roger, one difference beetween a RF and SLR is with an SLR you tend to rely on the focusing to be precise while most RF users who learn to use them learn some practical uses for DoF and Zone focusing. Using them can make it faster than an SLR and even an autofocus camera. When I shoot, I use my SLR as such and use zone focusing with the RF many times but as I walk with it, continually do check focus on various spots around me to gauge the distance. This leads to another difference and that is a tendency to use slower lenses on RF for general purpose use. I have not wory about a Leica lense with a f/4 but with an SLR with a max of f/4 could actually be too dark to accuately focus and view.
It all depends on habit, shooting style and subject and training. Happily I am old enouh with enough hours under my belt that switching between them is not an issue. I still need more hours to feel as comfortable with the inverse image of a waist level finder of an SLR or TLR but, I'll get there.
Last edited by BrianL; 09-02-2011 at 09:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Wow, take it easy guys.. you are arguing about nothing.
Have a beer, get shagged, and forget about it.
Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.