G
Guest
What was your reason to enter into the Leica system?
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
It was 1961, I was in high school, and the guy who got me interested in photography used Leicas and Rolleiflexes. He told me that I should "buy the best". He was right. I regularly shoot with some M3 and M2 bodies that were made in the 1950's!
G
Guest
I had been using a Nikon F for 10 years and spent many of those years trying to find the "right" lens for my wildlife photographs. When the FTn meter resistor ring died (again) I felt that I could look beyond that system for my "perfect" lens.
In college the security guard at the engineering building loaned me his IIIg for a few months and I was soon impressed with the quality of the camera and the exceptional versatility of that seemingly simple camera. A few years later when I bought binoculars (Trinovid 10x40) I was struck with the tactile similarity to the IIIg.
Merging these two thoughts, I recalled some field reports of the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt, and took the plunge with this lens and a Leicaflex SL. Photography has never been the same for me, a big change for the better.
In college the security guard at the engineering building loaned me his IIIg for a few months and I was soon impressed with the quality of the camera and the exceptional versatility of that seemingly simple camera. A few years later when I bought binoculars (Trinovid 10x40) I was struck with the tactile similarity to the IIIg.
Merging these two thoughts, I recalled some field reports of the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt, and took the plunge with this lens and a Leicaflex SL. Photography has never been the same for me, a big change for the better.
G
Guest
I'll try to keep it as short as I can.
In the latter half of the 50's, during the summer and weekends, I ran the B&W Pako film machine and made enlargements at the business that had been started 30+ years previously by my Grandfather and continued by my Father and two Uncles.
135s were always run last in each batch, mainly because it was necessary to make certain they were chamoised before the ran past the electric drying elements so as to insure they didn't spot. That required use of a droplight to backlight each roll to check for spots.
Noticed there, and also in my enlarging duties, that some negatives were really contrasty and possessed of much more "snap" than others. Mentioned it to Dad and he indicated "they were probably shot with a Leica".
As we had been Leitz dealers since the mid 30's on the retail end of the business, I tried some of the equipment and found he was right.
After that I "shopwore" a lot bodies and lenses till I could afford my first second hand body and lenses. Haven't stopped since then.
Apologies again for the length.
Jerry
In the latter half of the 50's, during the summer and weekends, I ran the B&W Pako film machine and made enlargements at the business that had been started 30+ years previously by my Grandfather and continued by my Father and two Uncles.
135s were always run last in each batch, mainly because it was necessary to make certain they were chamoised before the ran past the electric drying elements so as to insure they didn't spot. That required use of a droplight to backlight each roll to check for spots.
Noticed there, and also in my enlarging duties, that some negatives were really contrasty and possessed of much more "snap" than others. Mentioned it to Dad and he indicated "they were probably shot with a Leica".
As we had been Leitz dealers since the mid 30's on the retail end of the business, I tried some of the equipment and found he was right.
After that I "shopwore" a lot bodies and lenses till I could afford my first second hand body and lenses. Haven't stopped since then.
Apologies again for the length.
Jerry
G
Guest
I'll try to keep it short, too. And no, I don't work for Leica! I started M photography two years ago. I like it because I'm the boss of the camera, not the other way around. That other way around seems to be the growing case with practically everything at least from Canon and Nikon these days. I hate that! Ms also have a mechanical and timeless perfection. I love that!
G
Guest
With the age of 20 in the Year 1979, i bought my first Camera, a Minolta XG-2. With the time i get used with all the lenses available, macro, wideangle ,telephoto, fast lenses, later zoom lenses, other Minolta Models like XG-9 or XD-5. At that time it was nice Equipment and in the backview the lenses was very good. But i was always bothered about Automatic. Instead of thinking about the basics (shutterspeed,aperture) you think about what a automatic will do and how to push it to do what you want. In addition i got slowly the opinion, that heavy equipment will not automatically result in good pictures.
In 1981 i sold it all. Minolta is starting with autofocus, big black plastic batterypacks with lenses, i don`t like for shure. I noticed the Leica M4 at the local Dealers, but it was expensive, had the limitations of a rangefinder and no internal Meter.
I bought an Olympus OM-1 instead. I used this camera with 3 lenses for a long time, only interrupted by an OM-2SP for 2 Years. At that time i also bought a Trinovid 10x40, and until now i love to use it, very good optic and no signs of wear. Then the age of Internet started: I bought several Oly-lenses-cameras at Ebay.
Again i do make the mistake of heavy equipment.
When taking the Trinovid i remember the M4, now substituted by the M6 with Meter and more expensive.
I start to search for a M6 in Ebay and realise the possibility to fulfill my old dream. I sold most parts of my Olympus Stuff and bought a M6 with a 2/35. It was a big challenge after all the Years with a SLR, but now i get used and will never give it away.
Peter
In 1981 i sold it all. Minolta is starting with autofocus, big black plastic batterypacks with lenses, i don`t like for shure. I noticed the Leica M4 at the local Dealers, but it was expensive, had the limitations of a rangefinder and no internal Meter.
I bought an Olympus OM-1 instead. I used this camera with 3 lenses for a long time, only interrupted by an OM-2SP for 2 Years. At that time i also bought a Trinovid 10x40, and until now i love to use it, very good optic and no signs of wear. Then the age of Internet started: I bought several Oly-lenses-cameras at Ebay.
Again i do make the mistake of heavy equipment.
When taking the Trinovid i remember the M4, now substituted by the M6 with Meter and more expensive.
I start to search for a M6 in Ebay and realise the possibility to fulfill my old dream. I sold most parts of my Olympus Stuff and bought a M6 with a 2/35. It was a big challenge after all the Years with a SLR, but now i get used and will never give it away.
Peter
G
Guest
Why Leica?
1) Optical quality particularly in low light/contrasty situations
2) Impeccable build quality
3) Simple controls which allow the photog to have full control
4) Lenses and the style of shooting
Unfortunately I wish that Leica got more into digital. I like the Digilux 1 a lot but the Panasonic Lumix has better design? Hmm, Leica please improve the digital stuff...
1) Optical quality particularly in low light/contrasty situations
2) Impeccable build quality
3) Simple controls which allow the photog to have full control
4) Lenses and the style of shooting
Unfortunately I wish that Leica got more into digital. I like the Digilux 1 a lot but the Panasonic Lumix has better design? Hmm, Leica please improve the digital stuff...
G
Guest
Why Leica?
The feel. Period.
Beautifully made body and lenses.
Taking a picture in a church in Heidelberg, Germany and hearing a muted click instead of my Nikon F4S quasi-turbine getting spooled up.
They take no better pictures than my pro-grade Nikon bodies and lenses, but they sure feel better doing it and don't wear out my neck.
The feel. Period.
Beautifully made body and lenses.
Taking a picture in a church in Heidelberg, Germany and hearing a muted click instead of my Nikon F4S quasi-turbine getting spooled up.
They take no better pictures than my pro-grade Nikon bodies and lenses, but they sure feel better doing it and don't wear out my neck.
G
Guest
The lenses, the lenses, the lenses.
G
Guest
superior below 1/30th to anything else (when handholding off course) superior below f2.8 to anything else less noise then anything of that quality (build and optical) smaller then anything of that quality