Just wondering....all this talk about cameras between us, and not one person ever mentions Leica. Ive always come to believe that Leica made one of the best cameras you can buy.....how come no-one uses one? Just curious.

I saw a sample shot from their top end digital model....and IMHO, megapixel for megapixel, it was sharper than any equal canon/nikon, especially when you start zooming in.....

http://www.leica-camera.us/photograp...tem/digilux_3/

The only thing I DO know about them, is their quality is unsurpassed....Hold a Leica and a $4000 canon, and they are uncomparable.

 

Leicas are awesome cameras. They're just way out of my price range. If the Leicas were a car, it would be analogous to a Ferrari.

 

Ahhhh...gotcha....dang, you are right....they are expensive!!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...egoryNavigation

 

Leica cameras to the best of my knowledge are viewfinder and not SLR's meaning that you never see TTL (through the lens) or change it for that matter.

For a sports shooter, the Leica is an impossibility! As for studio shooters, they prefer something a little bit more versatile and there are a lot better systems out there for them too. With regards to their sharpness... It's more a matter of the lens than the camera or sensor... and again, I am drawing from memory, but I believe they used to use Carl Zeiss lenses which are the best! These days I think they are making their own. But to me, Leica's have always been a bit of a cult camera.... I have one (film) and use it for a paperweight!

 

Gotcha. The Leica M8 is $4000+, which is as much are a Mark series Canon.....and thats not a true SLR (although it can change lenses)....

I guess its the lenses.....Zeiss does make nice lenses.

 

Leica is a contraction of Leitz Camera. Until a short time ago, Zeiss did not make lenses for the Leica M mount. When people talk about Leica glass, they are talking about Leitz lenses.

Zeiss made lenses for all kinds of cameras, including their own legendary Contax rangefinders and Contax and Contarex SLR's.

Zeiss is commonly considered one of, if not THE, finest lens makers in the world. Leitz is put by most people either a hair above or below Zeiss.

Interestingly, many older Leica lenses are notoriously soft compared to modern designs, while even pre-WW2 Zeiss examples of Contax rf-mount lenses are, even uncoated, extremely capable compared to the best of the modern designs. I'm not sure why, but classic Leitz lenses, while having a pleasant signature, don't really seem all that sharp. The famed "Leica glow" is basically a result of lens aberrations and flare. To be sure, there are a ton of superb Leica screw-mount lenses out there from many makers, and some of the Leitz lenses are absolutely fantastic. But some are dogs. Zeiss never made near as many lenses for their rangefinder line, but each one is spectacular - both sharp and pleasing image characteristics.

Zeiss now makes an M-mount rangefinder and lenses to match. The lenses are usable on M cameras from Leica, as well. The Rollei 35rf uses M-mount lenses as well, originally equipped with Zeiss glass in M-mount.

You can also buy several new Voigtlander-Cosina rangefinder bodies and many lenses in M-mount, since the M-mount patent apparenlty expired in ~2000. Drawing on the large base of lenses out there that fit M-mount cameras (including screw-mount lenses that merely require an adapter), the Epson RD-1 was the first digital rangefinder designed to fit M-lenses.

The Leica M models have long been considered the pinnacle of user cameras. The shape, layout, and function are widely considered impeccable, and the construction is second to none. Many of the world's most widely respected photographers have, at one time or another if not for their entire career, used Leica models. The Leica M3 and its descendents have been the professional camera for photojournalists for decade upon decade, due to its ruggedness, reliability, and usability.

Rangefinders are typically more expensive than their SLR kin because the rangefinder mechanism is complex and difficult to manufacture, but the trade-off is typically a compact package with better lens designs and lower handheld shutter speeds. Because there is no mirror to interfere, the lens can be mounted extremely close to the film plane.

For macro work, sports photography, or extreme telephoto, an SLR is a better choice. There are macro lenses and viewfinder adapters for rangefinders, as well as sports finders, however. Considering that before the advent of autofocus, all sports action shots were pre-focused, the use of a rangefinder does not preclude action shots.

For walking around, the rangefinder is superior to most SLR designs. The smaller rangefinder package is conducive to fitting in a jacket pocket, the quiet shutter is unobtrusive, and the visual impact is far more benign than that of an SLR with a (comparitively) huge zoom sticking out the front. The lack of a moving mirror enables slower shutter speeds with less shake. Speeds of 1/15 with a wide are not impossible, handheld. In addition, since the viewfinder is separate from the taking lens, IR photography is easier - the shot can be framed, focused, and taken without needing to remove an opaque filter. The required focus adjustment is not normally marked, however, given the focus mechanic of rangefinder lens systems.

After WW2, when Germany was forced to make reparations for the war, the patents on Zeiss and Leitz lenses and cameras were released to the world, and the USSR claimed their manufacturing facilities and personnel. Factories were moved to the Ukraine, and models of the Zeiss Contax rangefinder and lenses were produced under the Kiev brand, while Leica cameras and Leitz lenses were produced under the Zorki and FED brands, among others. These cameras and lenses are near-identical copy of the originals, including improvements in design over the years. They represent a tremendous value if one can acquire clean working models. The lenses are every bit as good as the Zeiss and Leitz originals, and the bodies, while based on what many consider examples of industrial design at it's finest, incorporate improvements that neither Zeiss nor Leica ever acheived with those models.

***

Whew. Sorry for the term paper, I just started writing down what I knew lol. I have two Soviet Kiev's (Contax rf clones) equipped with Zeiss Sonnar clones, and both are amazing pieces of workmanship that wasn't suposed to exist, if you believe Western Cold War propaganda.

The Leica digital M8 has issues that disappoint many early buyers, but they may not be issues to the enthusiast. One issue that will either please or upset people is there is little/insufficient IR filtering, causing blacks in clothing, for example, to show up as different shades of color - a problem for a wedding photog shooting in color, but perhaps advantageous for someone interested in doing IR photography. To be sure, Leica has addressed these concerns, but for the price, one needs to be very sure they are getting what they want.

 

I am confused.. How is a range finder more complex than an SLR mechanism?

 

Not only could I never afford them but I've never been a rangefinder, or Henri Cartier-Bresson, kind of shooter. If it wasn't a 35 mm SLR or 4x5 view camera I was never tempted.

 

I have a Leica M6TTL (film) with 3 lenses. They are a niche camera system, they are great in certain situations and not so great in others. I guess its akin owning a vintage car, it get from point A to point B just like any other car but you'll do it with more bling

Honestly thought, if find that you use a lot of long lenses, shoot a lot of fast action then this is not the camera for you. It's incredibly quiet (being all manual), works great with normal to super wide lenses. Ideal qualities for theater and general people/streetphotography.

A cleaper more techy system is the now discontinued Contax G system. Carl Zeiss lenses, autofocus, auto film advance, auto loading. (loading a film Leica is an pain in the ass!)

To answer F1 question; a rangefinder focusing is based on a complex series of mirrors, lenses, and prisms to find focusing distance by trianglation.

 

That doesn't even include the helical mechanism on the lens itself that also moves a cam on the camera as focus is changed. Depending on focal length, there has to be two helical mechanisms on the lens - one for the lens elements, and one for the focusing cam on the camera body, since different lenses will need a different amount of movement over the lens rotation to be able to focus over its entire range while still moving the rangefinder cam over its range of movement, while keeping the focused distance of the lens in sync with the optical rangefinder.

On an SLR, all the focusing happens in the lens, so it only needs to be marked accurately. With a rangefinder, there is a whole lot more to it, for both lenses and bodies.