Why Leica?

[mtnbkr]

I've been a photography buff and camera measurebator since my early teens (now 31).  Most of my experience has been with SLRs (ranging from those made in the 60s to a modern Nikon N80), but I've played around with some funky early 20th century folders, some old rangefinders, etc.  

Anyway, back to the subject... What I can't figure out is why do people go gaga over Leica.  Image-wise, I can't see what makes them special.  The hardware seems to be durable, well made, and compact, but I don't see the difference where it counts, in the image.  I've spent time over at photo.net, but all I find is a lot of opinion and scanned pics that aren't particularly good at showing "that Leica thang".

Does anybody have a good reason why Leica is desirable other than "snob appeal" or because a Pro used it (Henri Cartier-Bresson for example).

Chris

[Harold Tuttle]

There is just a certain cadre of shooters that are always seen with a range finder Leica on their shoulder.

[45r]

Did someone say Lecia!!! DRoooolllll!!!

[mtnbkr]

Did someone say Lecia!!! DRoooolllll!!!

Yeah, but why?  What makes them unique?  Can they capture a better quality image (assuming Leica lenses as well) than a good example from other platforms?  I can't tell based on the pictures I've seen.  The other characteristics of a Leica (size, durability, simplicity, low noise) can be had in other cameras.  If it's not the image, what is it?

Chris

[45r]

check out these photos!

http://www.usualsuspect.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23363&highlight=leica

[jamz]

Well, the shutter action is really really really really really quiet, for one thing.



That's all I got  




Love, James

[mtnbkr]

Well, the shutter action is really really really really really quiet, for one thing

I got to compare a Leica M3 side by side with a Voigtlander Bessa R today and I was surprised just how quiet a Leica is.  The Bessa R isn't exactly loud by any means yet sounded much louder compared to the Leica.  The Leica is also built like the proverbial brick outhouse.  That said, the Bessa is much less expensive and probably more practical since it has a TTL meter.  Neither is exactly practical for me, but I'm still strangely drawn to rangefinders (yet I own none).

Chris

[Oleg Volk]

Leica and other rangefinders have better wide angle lenses than SLRs. That's about it, IMO.

[...has left the building.]

As with any type of gear, certain models or brands will carry a pedigree. I think that their benefit is mostly intangible. For example, see the difference in a Casio G-Shock and a Breitling. Both tell time very accurately, but the Breitling has that pedigree.

[Monkeyleg]

I think jamz nailed it. When it comes to glass, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Schneider, and other glass-makers are pretty much on par.

But the Leica cameras are so quiet that you can photograph someone without him/her even knowing it. Not a big deal if you do studio portraits, but a definite plus if you're aspiring to be the next Cartier-Bresson and you're trying to get those moments-frozen-in-time shots.

Nonetheless, I think that gadget hounds--whether it's cameras, stereo equipment, guns, cars, motorcycles or computer buffs--tend to be braggarts more often than necessary.

I spent the last few days shooting a job in a rental studio with their equipment. In this case, the camera was a Sinar-P 4x5. All of the micrometer hashmarks and two gazillion adjustment knobs look really impressive...until you need to get to work.

There's something to be said for simplicity, whether you're a Marine ready to fire on an Iraqi insurgent, or just a plain photographer wanting to get the beer shot when the head of foam is perfect.

[mtnbkr]

Yeah, I don't expect a Leica or any other 35mm platform to greatly improve my photography, but I was floored by the lack of noise and the build quality.  I wouldn't want one as a primary camera, but I'd enjoy using it as a 2nd or 3rd platform for special needs or those days when I want to be "different".

That said, the only time I've seen equipment improve my "art" was when I switched from an all manual 70s era SLR to my fully automatic Nikon.  It moves quicker than I could, so I get shots I couldn't get before.  It's also less error prone to expsure calculation than I am.  I'm sticking with it for my main needs, but I think a rangefinder would be a neat diversion.

Chris

[K Frame]

What's not to Leica about it?

Weren't they the original 35mm SLRs in the 1930s?

[mtnbkr]

Yup, they were the first.  They made photography truly portable.

Kodak made photography affordable.

Chris

[TarpleyG]

They're like a fine custom 1911.  If you have to ask you wouldn't understand.  My best guess anyway.

Greg

[K Frame]

"They made photography truly portable."

I always thought that the original Kodak Brownie box cameras were about the same size as the early 35mm SLRs and were also fully portable.

In fact, you and I both have the same model Kodak bellows camera that's portable as all get out. Maybe not 100% convenient, but definitely portable.

[mtnbkr]

The camera that would become Leica was first developed in 1913, about the same time as the Kodak folders.  My No2 Folding Autographic Brownie dates back to sometime between 1917 and 1926.  The Leica used 35mm film, which is much smaller than the film used in the Brownies you mention.  The cameras themselves are much smaller, about the size of a medium sized point and shoot (but much heavier).

Chris