[Leica] Why Leica M?

[Tom Bryant <glxy@localhost.gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Hi Luggers,

   Why Leica?  Nice question.  Like waving a flag before a bull, and out comes
a stream of... Blather?

   Yep, and I've really enjoyed many of the rants thus posted.

   Status.  Quality.  Etc...

   Here's my spin.

   1) Historical

   I got my first Leica almost 30 years ago.  And sold it about 15 years ago. 
I had come to the conclusion that I've never be as fast as HCB with it, and
that my silly Minolta SRT101 could do anything the M3 could.  Well, on paper,
at least it could.  SLRs focus closer, handle longer lenses, and have no
parallax problems.  Why have 2 systems??

   The Minoltas were OK, but lacked interchangeable screens and superb
lenses, so I got into Canon F1s.  I was somewhat happy.

   I began to miss the Leicas.  It took using them, then not using them to
figure out what was special, for me, about the M cameras.

   2) Technical

   The Canon, and all the Japanese SLRs (except for the Olympus OM-1), have
LOUD jittery shutters.  This makes discrete shooting hard, if not impossible.

   SLRs need to get their mirrors out of the way and their diaphragms stopped
down before the shutter fires.  This takes time.  If you think it doesn't
matter, try shooting a soccer (football) game sometime.  I have plenty of
frames, about 1/20th of a second late.  Leicas are as fast as anything else
out there with respect to capturing the decisive moment.

   Leica shutters are quiet.

   Leica Ms fit you face better than an SLR.  You don't have the back of the
body stuffed into your nose, and (with the M3 at least) it's easier to keep
both eyes open, allowing you to quickly adjust framing than with an SLR.

   Leicas are compact.  I can drop an M3 body, a couple of lenses, a few rolls
of film and a meter into a suit coat.  No way can I fit the Canon equipment
there.

   3) Financial

   Leica Ms, bought used, are more of an investment than an expense.  They
hold their value.  This makes the sting of their inflated price easier to live
with.

   4) Some reasons that don't matter as much, IMHO:

   Leitz lenses are sharper and more contrasty than their competition.
Sometimes.  My 21 mm f/2.8 Asph Elmarit blows the doors off of an 17mm f/3.5
Tokina I had for the Canon.  My 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Macro is as good or better
than my 90mm f/2 Summicron.  My 50mm f/1.4 Summilux is only a whisper better
than my 50mm f/1.4 Canon SSC lens, and you can only see the difference wide
open.

   Leica equipment is quite rugged and reliable.  So is my Canon F1.

   5) Negative reasons:

   Status.  Fortunately most people who are into this one are not into
photography, and have no idea of what a Leica is.  I also worry about thieves,
and try to look as nondescript as possible.


   6) Summary

   To sum up.  You can't buy quality.  You have to grow into it.  What works
for me might not work for you.  You can spend too much of your limited fortune
on a system that is a useful to you as a bicycle is to a fish.

   For Mr Bennett, who was wondering 'Why Leica', If the above posts haven't
had enough information, I suggest that you have a look at Simon Tsang's web
site:
 
		 http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4472/

   Tom