Re: Why A Leica M

[Oddmund Garvik <garvik@i-t.fr>]

I think the Leica M is overestimated. Paying about $5000 for a simple
camera, with a simple 50mm f/2 is not very reasonable. Of course there
is the Leica "feeling", of course it is beautiful and "different", of
course the lenses are good! But it is not that reliable and it is quite
limited also. I know saying this, is like swearing in the church. But I
have been using Leica M's regularly since 25 years, so I know what I am
talking about. 

I had a Leica M4-P some years ago, and when I was shooting a
demonstration one day, it fell down at the street. The rangefinder
system had to be partly changed and adjusted ++, and the price was
something like $900. Another time I lost the bottom (cover) when I was
changing film. Somebody walked upon it, and it costed me $360 to change
it. I lost my first M4 in Lebanon. We were ambushed, and a member of the
christian SLA Army (Major Haddad Army) turned a gun towards me. Well,
that was it. I had worked the whole summer in 1971 to afford it. Once I
was shooting in a "hot" area in Paris, and a guy put a knife on my
throat, asking for the film. Fortunately he was no expert in cameras, so
I kept my Leica. I had put scotch tape everywhere, and it looked rather
old and poor. I was lucky that time!  

If you are rich, or earn enough money with your Leica, not to care about
such trivial problems, it is fine. The Leica is for you! But it is
getting rather irritating when you are not very rich.

Photography is not a question about professional, or non-professional
cameras. It is a question about eye, idea and point of view, and then,
of course, for the camera, a personal preferences. You can make a good
picture even with a shoe box. 

I will never bring a Leica M into a demonstration any more. I will shoot
with my Nikon FM, if I have to. There are good lenses everywhere. The
FM, like most SLR, is more simple and therefore more reliable. It is a
"shoulder camera", like the M, and I am more or less fed up with that
kind of equipment. In hot areas I now use Ilford B&W film-in cameras. It
works, and the pictures are good. People do not care about you, when you
are carrying around with a plastic box. For general street photography I
think the Rollei 35 is OK. as good as the M for me, and much, much
smaller and lighter. If I want to be *real* discrete in the street, I
use my old Rolleiflex, and the pictures are even better than the others.
For family and children photography I bought a Contax TVS the other day.
Leica feel and look, and very convenient.

The Leica M system is useful if you need two lenses or more. For me it
worked best with a 35mm and a 50mm. I do not like the 28mm and wider,
and the 28mm frame is useless. Even on an M6 you have to use an external
viewfinder for the 28, if accurate framing is important. The 75/90/135mm
frames are not very easy to use (=accurate) either.

What is left then? The first Leica camera was revolutionary in 1924,
outstanding even i the 30s, 40s, 50s. It was Leica/Leica M or Rolleiflex
(in Europe). A little later came the Contax, Nikon and Canon
rangefinders, and then the Nikon F. Leica lost its impact. 

It is forever a part of the photographic history, and it is still a good
camera for certain purposes. But it is not the *only* one any more. I am
tired of all this religion around the Leica myth. You might be a bloody
serious and a good photographer, even if you do not have at least one
Leica M in the bottom of your bag.

Best regards

Oddmund Garvik  

    

Afterswift@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I believe the operative difference between truly porfessional cameras -- such
> as the M -- and others is the degree of technical quality they produce. When
> traveling light I use a Minox GT, Olympus XA or a Leica CL. None of them
> equals the image potential of my M3. So choice of one type of camera over the
> other is a tradeoff.
> 
> Very few P&S, even the Minilux, have shutter speeds in excess of 1/300. Most
> are locked into battery operation. No power, no performance. Those are
> tradeoffs.
> Imagine a concert pianist who, because he prefers to travel light, plays a
> small, portable amplified keyboard instrument with only two octaves instead
> of the 8 on a full scale grand. Sure he can perform a Beethoven concerto, but
> what will it really sound like to his audience, particularly against a full
> symphony orchestra!?
> 
> Where the score called for the two octaves his instrument is capable of, he
> gets away with it; but when he must sound octaves on either end of the scale,
> he can interpolate with those same two octaves on his limited instrument, but
> his audience will be disappointed because they were deprived of the full
> Beethoven power and message.
> 
> I think this analogy is sound. However, the more we know about technique and
> the limitations of P&S's, the better we can compensate for their limitations.
> When I'm doing fulltime work, I use my standard Leica M and Nikons. I admit,
> when working in NYC, I'll sometimes employ the Leica CL. Most P&S perform
> best with ISO 200 films or slower. Even the oldest M's operate well with much
> faster stocks.
> 
> The Minox GT and Olympus XA are with me when I'm not doing photography
> exclusively. Both these models turn in excellent negatives when used with
> imagination and skill. The Minox has a 35mm lens equal to that of Leica
> lenses for all practical purposes. The XA and Minox shutters go up to 1/500.
> Both these cameras use separate aperture and shutter assemblies. Most P&S AF
> cameras use a combined aperture/shutter assembly. That compromise sometimes
> shows. There are other tradeoffs, such as viewfinder area and clarity and the
> accuracy of the Leica M rangefinder optics.
> 
> I hope these observations are of some use to you. When it comes right down to
> true image quality, the focal plane shutter is supreme in 35mm work. No P&S
> sports such a shutter.
> 
> Bob Rosen