Leica or Zeiss
So I have been shooting film with an slr for a bit and finally would like to make the move to a rangefinder.
I was going to get the Zeiss ikon, but now thinking of a Leica mp.
I know the price difference is huge which Im fine with, Im looking for quality and so forth.
First determine which lens i.e focal length and max aperture that you would like to use. Zeiss has some fine lenses as well as Leica.
I use the Leica ASPH lenses and therefore I use Leica M's. they will work with the Zeiss body and vice vesas for the Zeiss lenses, but on the whole, it's Leica for me because of the ASPH lenses, build quality of the M body and the M7, which i particularly like with the Motor M.-Dick
If resale value is an indicator follow the trends on the rangefinder forum classified section. Zeiss ZM turn over often with less than a year ownership at far below purchase price. Leica MPs don't change hands very fast unless the seller is going digital. The price is always high.
The other factor is that the Leica name has achieved cult status. The two factors together would drive any price up.
My father’s advice was to buy the best you can and keep it as long as you can. It seems to work well with most things except electronics. The Rolex chronograph he gave me on my 21st birthday in 1961 and the 1955 Porsche Speedster I bought 30 years ago have certainly confirmed that thinking.
I like the feel, the shutter and the look of my MP. The Zeiss is nice, but if you have the funds go MP. Or M7 - I like having AE on my cameras. But give them all a try if possible.
One of the things you will hear about the Zeiss is the nice finder, big and bright. The other thing you will hear about is that you have to place your eye directly center to the finder patch. It's my preference to use the Leica viewfinder as the slightly smaller size doesn't cause the eye placement issue.
Zeiss lenses are very nice. I have the 50mm f/2 planar and the 25mm Biogon. Both are very sharp and you can buy both for less than the cost of a used Leica lens. The Leica 50mm Summilux is a dream and I use it about 75% of the time. But they are pricey and near impossible to find.
My only warning is that rangefinders are quite addictive. I now have 4 of them!
Go to Art Galleries and see the Leica shots from original prints. You will be attracted.
Noone reached the optical engineering mathematics and glass research knowledge as Leica.
In my belief , older the Leica better the Leica. Dont waste your money to modern Leicas , buy a series III and a Summar , Summitar , Elmar , Summaron , Hektor , Telyt and you will reach the top of RF mountain.
You will invest 1/10 price and get 10x quality.
If you dont believe me , look at how people dressed like at 30s and 70s. After WW2 , all quality dropped.
Old Leicas are made by elegant people for elegant people.
Its sad , now old Leitz sold at corners like a Potato.
You cant see the details and quality of Leica at a LCD screen also.
Before investing thousand , invest 100 dollars and buy photography books and magazines .
If you are not a human photographer , you wont use its capacity , if you use non Kodak film , you will ruin the results , I am strongly believe this.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I wonder if in 60 years or so someone will wax so rhapsodic about my Canon G11.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
In 60 years, your G11 will have been obsolete and/or landfill for 57 years (as will all my digital SLRs) but a III series Leica will still have that special feel. My first 35mm camera was a 40 year old IIIc. I stopped using it in favor of a Canon A-1 and now EOS stuff. While the III is quite capable, I have to believe the Canon glass is better, particularly the Ls. But, for shear joy of use, it's hard to beat the III. The modern Canon cameras look and feel like the plastic they're made from. The Leica has surprising heft for its size, and a wonderful machine age look and feel.
Originally Posted by Paul Goutiere
There is a massive difference in handling between any camera with unified rangefinder/composition. Heck, the difference between the III and IIIc feels significant while shooting.
I'm not saying these cameras are bad or incapable of good shots, but definitely try to handle whatever you are thinking about getting before the purchase if at all possible.
With Leitz , machine whispers , photographs speak.
I think it depends on what characteristics you are looking for in a lens. The latest Zeiss ZM wide angles are better than the Leicas in my opinion. Every bit as sharp all the way across the frame, and with less distortion. They are incredible.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
Can you explain a little more why you recommend the older Leica lens designs though? I don't uderstand your reasoning on this. I know you love the summitar, but let's be realistic here, it is nowhere near as good as a summicron if you're talking about Leica's opitcal engineering and technology.