whats my camera worth?

I agree with your view. The best camera that I have own is FE. All other newer stuff just don't seems to feel right. They are easier to use but some how not as inspiring to use.

However, I am not sure all Leicas appreciate. From my observation only a certain few cameras with famous association to special previous owners or certain limited edition series retain their value. Average used secondhand M series that comes up still drop in value just as any other Japanese stuff. Certain examples that the owner never really used daily retain more of their value because they are rare.

 

Many of Leica's attempts at making SLRs droped their value like a stone, IIRC these cameras cost about 3 times the price of a FM2 new and are now worth roughly the same second hand. A nice poke in the eye for the camera snobs!

Tony.

 

Gloat ye not

Tony

Anyone who bought a second hand Leica Range Finder say M6 and previous models is almost certain to make a profit if they sell on Ebay. The same applies to lens.

The SLR version was never made by Leica, it is purely badge engineering. The same applies to the Digital camera.

Regards

Mick

 

Re: Gloat ye not

It seems the present digital cameras are made by Panasonic. Leica supply the lens. Who made the SLR for them? How come they are don't develop there own SLR?

I have never own any Leica. Tried my friend M6. More convince then ever I rather get the FM2 or FM3.

 

Re: Gloat ye not

Mick - a dumb question, but what on earth IS a range finder? SLR and normal point and shoot, I understand, but as far as I can tell, range finder IS no more advanced than the viewfinders on point and shoot, or am I missing something?

As for the Nikons, yeah, the feel of my F301 (while no FM series) is very solid and tactile; much nicer than many of the Pentax and Minolta ones I checked out when I got mine. I really MUST use up that film though - christ alone knows what's on it!

 

Leica

Wolfgang

I attended a 2 day M6 photography course last year and I was told that the SLR series was made by Minolota but my memory is hazy so it could be someone else.

The average age of Leica range finders is 50 / 60 year olds who buy for the high standard of workmanship rather than the photography.

They are expected to increase in value as more people buy digital and those who want 35mm as well will buy Leica partly to use and partly as an investment.

I once used a Nikon Fm2n and found it excellent but the Leica is super smooth and much more rugged in comparison.

Regards

Mick

 

I will try to keep this simple

Dom

With an SLR, your picture is the same as what you see through the lens. This is because your vision is deflected through the lens. It is very convenient but has one main drawback. The flap inside the camera moves when you take the picture, which blots out your vision for a split second, this creates movement, which creates shudder and makes a noise.

A range finder has a very smooth operation and when you look through the view finder, you will see a series of white lines which form the frame of the picture. Some people find this irritating.

The main advantage of the rangefinder is a very accurate focusing mechansism which produces very sharp pictures. Also it is quiet and does not produce shudder.

The range finders were popular until the sixties when the SLR took over.

The main reason why Leica is sought after is that it is of Rolls Royce quality and hand finished. The lenses are unquestionably the best in the world. The average price for a new lens is around £900.00.

They have become collectible and I have a friend who owns 9 and he never uses them.

There are thousands of web sites on Leica cameras.

Regards

Mick

 

So is a range finder kind of like a "pro" version of the el-simple "window" viewfinder on cheap compacts then (not to make it sound cheap itself, but that's the general idea)?

I've got an old Fuji roll camera somewhere that would appear to fit that mold - my dad gave it to me when he was clearing out to move. It's also got a range meter add on thingy on top...

I'd have to admit, that SLR moving mirror can be a PITA - especially if you drop the camera and dislodge it (yes, Aunt Moira I'm talking about you!). Nice free servicing courtesy of her insurance though

 

Re: I will try to keep this simple

The ONLY real advantage of a rangefinder is that it's quiet and perhaps a bit smaller and lighter than an SLR. Focusing on a rangefinder is no more accurate than on an SLR. If anything, it's less accurate because you're not looking through the actual lens that takes the picture when you're focusing.

SLRs are far better in pretty much every meaningful way. For a start you're looking through the lens that takes the picture so "what you see is what you get". That becomes even more important when you have interchangeable lenses where SLRs are really the only practical solution. Leica had some neat tricks that got around the problem to some extent but really an interchangeable lens rangefinder is a concept that's dead in the water.

Leica rangefinders are well made and of good quality but no more so than any Nikon or Canon. Nikon and Canon lenses are at least the equal of any Leica lenses. Nikon and Canon gear is however not ridiculously overpriced like Leica stuff is.

Leicas hold their value mainly because of their collectable status - Joel summed it up rather well in his earlier post .

Dom - yes, your "el-simple" viewfinder camera (Kodak instamatic, disposable cameras etc) is a rangefinder camera. Leica took that concept about as far as it was viable, and a bit further.

Michael.

 

and if you can't afford a Leica,get a Contax G1 or G2 with the legendary Zeiss 45mm lense,for a fraction of the cost,in fact for £300 s/h,nothing,and I include any Nikon optics,will touch it for the price

as much as i would love a Leica (maybe one day an M6 ) the Contax rangefinders are a fabulous substitute

 

Michaelab

I think you are being a bit agressive to Rangefinders/leica.

The rangefinder is easier to focus because you focus on the subject and two images become melted into one. I find the Leica the easiest camera ever when it comes to focusing. I used a Nikon FM2n before the Leica and the Leica wins hands down in the ability to quickly focus.

As regards to lens quality, the Leicas are unsurpassed when it comes to bokeh. Their sharpness is also marginally ahead of the competition, whether the difference is worth the extra cost is debatable.

Regards

Mick

 

I agree,from what little experience I have of Leitz optics,but for a taste of what they can do,you can't beat the Planar lenses,particularly for the G range (which of course aren't real rangefinders)

I would dearly love a Leica,but I cant justify the increased cost versus the (perceived) improvements over a Planar

and i dont entirley agree with that,the biggest advantage is the lack of mirror,hence the size etc,and the size advantage is a big advantage,although i think handlin is such a personal thing as to discount generalisations.Personally,i think the leica rangefinders are simply one of the nicest things you can hold,with the possibly exception of kylies posteria

and you forget,another advantage is the quality oif the lenses,they are nearer the shutter so can be manufactured differently (I wont attempt to explain that further in case i embarass myself,fewer elements of something i think),its generally accepted that rangefinders lenses are better quality due to the design of the camera

 

Lens design between the two is very different too as a SLR has to have the lens far further forward from the film plane to account for the mirror travel. The results generated by each type is actually quite different, especially in the area of bokeh (an aspect of depth of field; the way a lens throws backgrounds out of focus etc). Whilst it is a well known fact that 99.8% of Leica rangefinders are owned by pretentious snobs who wouldn't know a good photo if they tripped over one, let alone have the talent to take one, the Leica bokeh really is something else. I was totally sceptical until a friend showed me two photos taken in exactly the same light, speed, aperture with the same focal length lens and film type, one with a high spec Nikon, the other with a Leica rangefinder – the difference was really quite radical in favour of the Leica, the out of focus aspects of the Nikon were really jagged and crude by comparison, plus the Leica colour was far more natural.

I hate using a rangefinder, the ability to get what you want in the frame and in focus is miles behind a SLR, plus they are only of practical use with medium focal length lenses (macro or long telephoto is totally beyond their scope) but they have the potential of giving exceptional results in the right hands.

Tony.

 

I'm coming late to this thread...
I have owned two Leicas (an M4P and an M6 non TTL) I sold both for what I paid for them. They are great for what they were designed for, Reportage.
I also had a Contax G2 briefly before realising autofocus rangefinfers are a bit of a waste of time particulaly since the lenses have no depth of field scale. I sold that at a loss, they don't hold their value like the Leicas.
Recently traded my Nikon F100 body in for a D70 which is fab but being digital won't hold it's value at all.

Andrew

 

I just keep a dof chart in my G2 bag,it isnt a lot of hassle pulling it out,and I agree,autofocus rangefinders are a waste of time,but then again,the G2 isnt a rangefinder,its a compact camera with a world class lense

 

I have to say I'd never heard of "bokeh" before seeing it mentioned here. It sounds like some kind of Japanese sexual fetish

Anyway, I've now read up a bit about it but it's not clear to me in what way a rangefinder's bokeh is "better" than that of an SLR. From one of the links I found it would seem that Nikon's DC (defocus control) series of lenses allowed you very precise control of bokeh. From what I could gather from the various links I found bokeh depends on lens design and the level of "spherical abberation" and is not really dependent on how far from the lens the film is. That is, Nikon or Canon could make SLR lenses with "Leica" bokeh if they wanted to, but they choose not to, presumably for good reasons.

Here's a photo of mine showing the bokeh of my Olympus E-10 digital SLR (which has an excellent dedicated lens btw). I'm pretty happy with that allthough now that I'm aware of it, some of the out of focus background features have sharper edges than I would have imagined.



Michael.

 

that is doubtful,due to the design of an SLR,as described above.As good as any SLR lense is,they will never have the resolving power or contrast of a Leica or Contax prime lense,these are quite simply,the best lenses you can buy,for many reasons as well as bokeh.Every product group,be it HIFI or photography,have mythical products,and there are many myths written about Leica lenses and some owners bestow magical properties on them,in spite of the fact that not all variants are superb,some are beaten by Planar,but then again,some deserve their legendary status,regardless of snob value.



also,you cant possible compare using a computer screen (use a prime with a fast transparency and you will have as a guess about 40 million pixels,stick that on a screen against a 4 million digital pic and you won see any difference,look at them side by side though.................)

also,most prime lenses will "beat" an SLR zoom,not just Leica,particularly in low light.But..................an SLR is about convenience,and suits 95% of photgraphers,but having a prime lense in the bag gives an extra element to your bag.

ask me if i would pay thousands for a 50mm 1.0 Leica lense and i would say absobloobylutely,if I could afford it,in the same way an Audiophile would spend thousands on one cartridge

as for 99.8% of users not being able to use them,i think thats an exaggeration tbh.You only need to know the basics of light and dof,and thats no different with any camera

 

Regarding the SLR lenses vs rangefinder lenses, it's true to say that the latter have the advantage as they can place the rear lens element very close to the film.

This is why, for example, a Leica M (rangefinder) lens will always outperform it's R (SLR) lens equivalent on the test bench. Whether those differences can be noticed in practice is another matter.

Matt.

 

I simply won't believe that unless someone can show me good scientific reasons why that should be the case.

Every product group does indeed have it's mythical products and that's just what Leica's superiority is: a myth

I am 100% sure that Canon or Nikon could make a prime SLR lens the equal of any Leica.

Having said all that, I have a pair of Leica Trinovid 10x25 binoculars which are brighter, sharper and clearer than any other pair I've ever used (but then again I've never use a pair of Nikon or Canon binocs). Throw in the fact that they fit easily into a pocket and I happily paid nearly £400 for them.

Michael.

 

well,if they made a rangefinder,they might,as it happpens,I have the nearest things Nikon make,a 35ti,and its fabulous,but it aint nothing to a Leitz or Planar




scientifically btw,its easy to prove,unlike HIFI,this hobby can rely on science

and..............Nikon have been trying for a LONG time,and failed,to match Leitz primes