Is it all a myth

[Graham.b]

I have for as long as i have held a camera, wanted a leica, now me and my wife Anne were talking about pics taken with one and not. On the screen i have to say it is hard to get the real deal as to say.

Anne says they all look the same, neg scan and print, (which is what i do most of). Now is it all a myth of the leica or is there something in it.
This is nothing to do with build quality, so lets except there is a difference there and Leica will win there.
I use a bessa R and have a lot of fun with it this is all about like for like in picture quality.

I do except that the glass is the most important part of the whole taken, but i do notice that there CV users with M glass and then there is the others, M camera and CV glass. I am missing something here.

Is the Bessa (CV) with M glass the same as M Leica with M glass and CV glass.
It dose read de-fragmented but i guess some one will know what i am trying to get to.

Graham

[frank]

For some people, the "feel" of a Leica is important/significant, for others it is not. Neither is wrong. The difference in feel between a Leica and a Bessa R, is like the difference in feel between a Nikon F3 and the Cosina made Nikon FM-10. Both will take pictures commensurate with the photographer's ability, but one feels "better" than the other due to design, engineering, and quality of materials used.

[JBrunner]

The thing about the finest of lenses and camera systems is that there are a very few photographers that have developed the skills and methodology needed to exploit any advantage that they actually offer. For me, if it is a quality system, beyond the basic character of a specific camera type, I only tend to notice differences in coatings (contrast) and ergonomics.

[keeds]

I for one use an MP with CV glass. The ergonomics and feel of the M is the key to me. CV glass is stunning, and is plenty good enough for me.

[Peter Black]

I have an M3 that is over 40 years old and it feels wonderful in the hand, the somewhat unexpected weight and the silky smooth wind-on being a tactile treat. Does it take a better photo? I have some doubts about this, but it is (yet another) dumb machine that will outrun my photographic skills. I have a 50mm Summicron and a 25mm Voigtlander and I'd say the Summicron is the better lens, but then almost any 50mm should be able to beat a 25mm for quality unless we're into stratospheric prices.

[elekm]

Hmm ... very good question.

I would say that equipment is a very individual thing.

With digital for example, some people don't mind all of the button pressing that is required to set up a camera for the next shot. It's one of the things that I abhor in addition to the autoturnoff feature.

With a rangefinder, it's another case of how does the camera body feel to you? Too light? Too heavy? Are the controls where you expect them to be? Are compromises too aggravating ... some people don't like the Rollei 35 cameras for this reason.

So while a camera body is simply a light-tight box, there's more to it than that.

I have very strong opinions regarding camera design and features, and sometimes they're in agreement with others and sometimes they aren't. I suspect the same is true of most photographers.

It's nice that we can choose from a myriad of new and used cameras and lenses.

[Graham.b]

What i see here is a mix of feel and lens quality, with the final print in hand, all in all if it feels right for you, the finished product will all ways out way the cost. Would this go for any other type of camera would suppose. I for one do like to use R/F in its basic form. As said i have a Bessa R and a Bronnie 645. The final print i am all ways happy with so from above the Bronnie is no where near the cost, and some would say that the build quality is the same as a leica, or near to the Leica. Would this mean that cause you are happy and the feel is right for you the picture will all ways be right.

Graham

[takef586]

To me, one of the natural roles of a rangefinder camera, is to be taken out of home with you every time you poke your nose out. This creates some existential problems of ruggedness, weight and size. I am using several bodies, including Minolta CLE, a couple of Bessas, a Zeiss Ikon and an M7. The best overall camera without a doubt is the Zeiss Ikon, but it only comes in a 0.74x mag, and it is somewhat more prone to get disaligned over time than the M7. As to the lenses, this is a religious matter, and optically I prefer the Zeiss ZM line over most Leica lenses, but I willingly use a CV 35/1.2 and some excellent Leica glass too, so it comes to the right tool for the kind of image you want to get. However, some of the Leica lenses are incredibly compact, so again we are touching an important element of design for the everyday life with a rangefinder. At the end of the day, I think that a rangefinder shooter of today has such a wonderful choice between lenses and bodies, that he should just use what he likes and stop thinking about what he SHOULD like...

[Graham.b]

I think that a rangefinder shooter of today has such a wonderful choice between lenses and bodies, that he should just use what he likes and stop thinking about what he SHOULD like...

I think you have summed this up well, in how i read this a leica is a tool that should be liked because of its history, and not for what you may want from it.

[funkpilz]

I don't care, I want an M7.