Why do you favour Leica M R Digital or P&S

[Guest]

Hi all,

I would be interested to know your reason for buying and using M, R, Digital or P&S. To have all systems at the same time would be of course the best solution. But if someone has to decide with which system he has to start first, what would you recommend him/her? Why did you buy your specific Leica system?

This thread should not be an in-depth discussion of specific camera models. For this we have the more detailed threads for each Leica system in this forum.

dirk

 

[Guest]

I'm a fan of the M series and P&S models myself. There is too much competition (better in my opinion) from Nikon, Canon and Contax in the SLR world even if the lenses are not quite the same. The Minilux and Zoom offer real Leica lenses in bodies that, though perhaps not feature packed, are robust and beautiful. The Summarit is superb. I would love to have a digital camera with a Leica lens, but I feel, and most reviews confirm, that the Digilux is not up to the best of the competition (namely the upper-end Nikons, Sonys and Canons). So, I own an M6 and Minilux, and several other cameras from other manufacturers (also like Contax). Despite its archaic design, the M6 still gives me goosebumps and I love Leica glass. The Minilux gradually gains more and more of my attention and the photos it produces need make no apologies to anybody's lenses. So, for me, I stick to the Leicas that excite me and go for other brands when I want more technical competence from the bodies. I'll always have one of the most current AF bodies, but I'll also always have a Leica rangefinder.

 

[Guest]

The R8 period. Best SLR design in the world.

The black paint Lumix LC-5. I don't have it yet but I consider it to be a digital M7... j/k. Best design idea and surprisingly better than that of the Digilux 1 which is cool but its retro and lack of handgrip doesn't help S/D photogs.

M6 is wonderful enough. And cheaper relative to the M7.

 

[Guest]

Although it has long been recognized that the "M" system is Leica's forte I actually prefer the "R" system due to the type of photography I practice. Rarely do I take a shot without a tripod/monopod. Careful framing/composition, focus, exposure,DOF control etc. My M6 is relegated to rather "offhand" P&S type shooting of which I do little. Probably a carry over from my early days in large format photography. Old habits are hard to break. I like my R7s with the shorter prime lenses and the R8 with the longer lenses and zooms.

 

[Guest]

The M is like the Porsche 911, and the R is like the 928. Both are excellent machines, but a diehard Porsche fan will always choose the 911 over the 928. For me the best R is the 6.2, but I'll always have an M first, a non-TTL M6.

 

[Guest]

The Porsche analogy is a good one. Then there are those who want a car that does all the driving. I guess the next innovation in photography will be cameras that come with a professional photographer, who, like a chauffer, will take the picture for you while you read a magazine.

 

[Guest]

Marc,
Your argument is like that of many other Leica users. I would hasten to add that cameras only do what you let them do. The excuse that modern AF bodies "do it all for you" is testimony to the bad relationship too many photographers have with their cameras. With an M6 (I am an M6 owner), you can only do so much - the camera is in fact a limitation in many areas. With my F4S or F100, the camera never limits me. I can turn everything off, or simply point and shoot. "Doing it all yourself" is a popular way of justifying technologically archaic cameras and spending thousands on the body and lenses. I own only 2 M lenses because they are too expensive for me to justify on a utility basis. Image quality? Sure it's generally technically better with the M lenses, but I have some 11x14 and even larger prints from my Nikon lenses that are superb in every way. I don't fault the user of a Leica in any way. They are beautiful, well-made works of art that take great photos. I guess one thing I object to is that this thread is called "Which Leica-System is the best for your needs?" when in fact few photographers could really justify that an M system meets their needs as well as any good SLR could. Should be "Which Leica-System is the best for your wants?". Bottom line: my cameras do what I tell them to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are going off-roading with your SUV, you don't want to take a Mercedes ML420 just because it's beautifully built and the engineering is great, you take your Jeep or Humvee because they are techically more proficient at getting you out of the mud. SLRs with good lenses are more efficient picture taking machines than an M could ever be. The prints in the majority of the world's magazines are taken with medium format or 35mm SLRs for a reason. The image quality is good enought that few could ever tell them apart, and the capabilities of a modern SLR greatly overshadow those of a 1950s-design rangefinder. I say enjoy Ms for what they are; beautiful machines with great optics. But don't try to say they are better in any way for taking pictures than any SLR. Else, why would Leica still build SLRs and why do none of the big makers build mechanical rangefinders?

 

[Guest]

Charles,

For what I need my camera to do, the M-system does the job far better than to old Canon EOS system that I had. The non-technologially obsolete Canon was a brick in my hands that weighed down my neck and made me not want to take photos. It also looks like a camera. What I mean is, there's no hiding the fact that the 1N or 1D or the equivilent Nikon cameras (or any modern SLR) is a huge professional picture taking monster. You have a very high profile with one. This is fine if you're covering the local politician coming out of a press conference and you're one of two dozen goons taking the exact same shot, but if you want to be a bit more subtle and (I hate to sound like the old M6 brochure) elegant about what you do, the modern SLR doesn't really let you do that. I realise this only my preference and for many people the SLR suits them fine, but I thoroughly disagree with the idea that the M6 is a less efficient picture taking machine than an SLR. It has its limitations, yes, but limitations are not neccesarily hinderances to creative.

M

 

[Guest]

Ah, my proofreading abilities are below par. Obviously that last line should read:

- but limitations are not neccesarily hinderances to creativity.

 

[Guest]

I agree, Matt, with most of what you say. And don't misunderstand me. I LOVE Leicas, but perhaps for different reasons than some others. I love the mechanical feel, the Germanic engineering, and the "look" of the images. But, I photograph a lot of different things. I shoot ships (retired Navy officer), people, my family, landscapes, etc, etc. There are times when I am standing in a nice setting and my location allows the use of my Leica's limited lens selection (I only own the 50mm Summicron and 35mm ASP at this time) that nothing else quite feels right. But there is only so much truth in the "let your feet do the zooming, or let your feet change the focal length". With my SLRs, I can, in most situations, meter better, be more creative with optical perspective (wide, wide lenses, or long teles) and get more good frames. You can't snap off 5 frames with the M at a road race quickly, you can't take a macro shot off a caterpillar easily, and a myriad of other shots. As far as size and being inconspicuous, I own an old Nikon FM that actually weighs less and is only very slightly larger than my M6. It's all metal, probably more reliable than the M6 (no rangefinder coupling and small springs to break - twice repaired in my M6) offers a much faster top speed, and takes all of my Nikon lenses. But, yes, at the end of the day, if I had to give up all but one camera, I would keep the M6 (but I sure would like to keep the Contax T3 as well

. Guess I'm just more of an engineer than an owner of fine cameras should be. I think alot with my analytical side and perhaps not enough with the creative side. Anyway.