A wise photographer once said that fine photography comes from practice, not from purchase. Ignore those who want to sell you something. Use whatever camera you own to improve your photos.
This is my new favourite photography channel! Someone who has actually been there and done it! I appreciate you passing on your real world experiences.
I also share your concluding reflection about deliberately shooting with a rangefinder in general and with a Leica in particular. It's really an admiration for the history it entails and the experience of old-world charm.
I just got my M5 with a 35mm lens a few weeks ago and love it, the serial number is in the 129XXX block which some say had an issue with the shutter roller, that was fixed in the later models. So far no issues, there is a chance it may have been changed in the past. The light meter in the M5 is spot on!
There's a reason professionals left rangefinders and embraced the Nikon F in droves. The SLR is a more versatile tool for portraiture, sports and photojournalism. If you look at older press pack images from the 1960s, the photographers were using all kinds of cameras, including TLRs and large format. Picture editors took a long while to trust the photographer to get the shot, and it was assumed the guy at the desk would crop massively to get a photo to print.
What is interesting in the world of Nikon, it was derived by copying the Leica. Nikon did the world a favor and gave us their F and F2, and beyond. I have an F2 made in 1979 in near mint condition. Also have the FE2 with motor drive. I consider them some of the best ever made cameras in the world. The F2 basically an improved F, yet both were rugged enough to be used in wars, like the Vietnam conflict. In the digital camera world, I love most is my A7R3, my digital Nikon if you get my drift. I also like very much are the early Pentax screw mount cameras, also very rugged compact cameras with great lenses. Japan really killed it after WW2 ended. Leica is now just a name, a camera with parts made from even Sony. Ooops. Heard Leica uses Sony sensors.
I hope they use Sony sensors since they're the best. When I finished shooting sports full time I worked for 14 years at Sony as a national manager for the camera group. I'm still on the board of Sony Canada.
Yep. Lots of reviews that can confuse new people. Hands on reviews from people with REAL practise - that´s the people you should listen to. Like on this channel. Thanks for the video.
I am a bit older than you. My experiences with Leica are not that great. In the 70s and 80s I have spent a lot of money on repairs for cl and m cameras. That's why I have changed to Nikon and Canon which never let me down. The optics of leica are better for black and white because they show more contrast. Nikon and Canon are better for colours.I would not recommend taking a leica in a city in Europe. You can get robbed easily. Take care!
400 million guns in the USA. Very few in Europe. The chances of remaining a Leica owner for more than 24hrs in America seem a lot worse than they seem in Europe.
Wow, two opposing viewpoints in a row and you left me mesmerized with such solid arguments on both sides. Great presentation too; I could listen to you speak all night. I cannot add much to all the great comments already made but thanks for sharing your years of experience. It's so good to hear from someone who I truly feel has "been there, done that!"
If you want a lightweight SLR, the late plastic Canon or Nikon cameras are ideal. I have the Canon 3000n which I mostly use with the very sharp 40mm f2.8 pancake lens, and 85mm f1.8 lens. It’s become my go to camera for street photography.
I agree, with caveats. Autofocus SLRs were not optimised for manual focus, and this is especially so with consumer models like the 3000n, which had dim pentamirrors not pentaprisms. They also lacked back button focus and distance scales, which makes zone focusing harder.
Having used Lecias its often a luxury to pick up my Olympus OM1 after. The OM1 viewfinder is an absolute gem and the size/controls are second nature. Even then if it must be a rangefinder, ill default to my Olympus Rangefinders. The issue with Leica is the 700% cost increase is only for a 5% quality increase. Not to mention the very stupid film reload method, and chaotic lens controls depending on model. Your expertise is worthwhile and they are great cameras, but they won't push you any further than its contemporary competition. Or, for that cost go grab a newer X100V and call it a day!
I have a Leica M6, Rolleiflex 2.8F, Hasselblad 501 CM and a Mamiya 7. Which camera outshoots them all, speed, ease of use, focus accuracy, perfect exposure every shot, lightest and cheapest by far? My Nikon N80. Best of the bunch by a mile! In second place? My Minolta Mju II.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite bought everything 5-10 years ago and have enjoyed using them all but only two cameras I trust when I don’t know what lighting conditions I am going to face. When I nail the focus and exposure, the manual cameras give great pictures but it’s always hit or miss and with the cost of film nowadays, I prefer the automatics.
When I got my first Leica M (I already had a IIIf) I found in it a liberating simplicity that in just a few weeks replaced technology. I learned to estimate the depht of field, by heart, rather than by scale of trying to get some info from the SLR screen. I have a digital Leica, and love it (M10-R) but whenever I can get away with it I grab my film Leicas and get an extra thrill from using them.
I'm glad you're enjoying them. I had a M9 for a while, really enjoyed it. I'm sure the M10 is just that much better. They're fun to get out and shoot with!
Been working for 31 years as a TV photographer - same TV station. Have been using a Leica M6 for the same amount of years. BUT - I always say to people that you can take the “photograph of the year” with an old Nokia mobilephone. If you can’t SEE - nothing matters. Forget about pixels and fantastic cameras. You have to be able to see the good picture.
Yes, that's true. A camera takes the photo but a photographer is holding the camera. It's their skills that are needed to hold the camera in the right place.
So glad I found this channel! I love your work, and appreciate your insights. I _totally_ understand the concept of wanting to be part of the continuum of photography. Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were why I started down the path of large format many decades ago. I'd never been skilled enough to get a truly sharp image from 35mm film, so I abandoned it for larger formats. For quiet and ease of use, my favorite has long been the Mamiya C3/33/330 series of TLRs. A tad heavy, but unobtrusive in use with the waist-level finder and pin sharp, interchangeable glass. (My only rangefinder is my Dad's 4x5 Speed Graphic, though I never use that feature!) I'm surprised we don't see more of these wide-open lenses for mirrorless cameras, given that the constraints are basically the same as for rangefinders.
I disgree with you. Rangefindets and in particular Leicas suit very few photographers. Dont get me wrong, I love them all four Leica Ms that I have, but it really neecs to suit the photographer. If weight is an issue in an SLR the. Look at the beautiful Olympus range of the 70s and 80s.
I have a variety of 35 and medium format cameras. I got back into real film a few years ago after I picked up a Zorki, the Russian Leica knock off. Later I picked up some screw on Leitz lenses, a 50mm and a Leitz 90mm. I am happy with many of the pictures with this small easy to use (except for the bottom loading) affordable camera
It is really awkward and slow and easy to screw up. Having to extend the leader is a further complication. At least the old Leica’s had a leader guide printed on the bottom plate
I think its good to have both camera formats. there are places where a rangefinder camera really shines, and there are places where a SLR shines better. it all depends on what type of photography you are doing at the time. a rangefinder really falls short when trying to photograph nature, landscape, and wildlife for example. its just not the correct tool for that application. there are places where a SLR is not as good as rangefinders as well. like for street photography or photojournalism applications. when you need to be quick in composition and fast focusing then a rangefinder is the better choice. a good photographer will have both types of cameras and know when to use them.
Great video Rob. I loved the presentation of both sides (over the last two videos). I hope next week is "Dump your 35mm and get a 645" and we just keep going... In all seriousness though, for me, with an SLR or rangefinder I seem to gravitate towards different images. I'm much more journalistic with my MP or Fuji 690, and am viewing scenes much more with my Contax 139Q or Pentax 6x7. I also seem to enjoy shooting black and white much more on rangefinder because I don't see the contrast filter.
One thing about taking good pictures is. Knowing what looks good, then composing it. Having a good camera and lens. And knowing how to use that camera. Even then a good portion of those shots may be bad.
Two cameras I have and will not get rid of. One is the famous Nikon F2. No questions, best camera ever made. The other is the Sony A7R3, one of the best feeling camera bodies in the digital camera world. It fits my average size had very well. Also love the Sony a6700/a6600, two excellent cameras for body design/grip/comfort. I would trade none of them for a Leica.
When I had to trim down following my pro years, it was the Nikons I sold, not the M4. Not because I liked them less; in photojournalism and otherwise, I had used them more. DOF can affect the idea of an image significantly; seeing it through the lens with the preview button/lever is something I used a great deal. But, since I wanted to maintain some 35 capability, the M4 stayed. How could I part with such a gem? Got it near mint in college more than 50 years ago with the 50 f/2 in a trade for a Nikkormat body plus a couple of hundred $ cash. We've been friends a long time.
I'm using an Olympus OM-1 which is the same size and weight of the usual Leica, it even has the same cloth shutter system which is also quiet (a little bit louder because of the mirror). I can also use both of my eyes while using the viewfinder and see outside the frame. Of course I want a Leica camera, but it worth between 12 to 30 minimum wage salaries for a whole year in my country, not to mention Leica glass. I'm ok with my SLR. But yeah a Leica camera is the pinnacle of 35mm photography
Another interesting and informative video, like your previous ones. Inspiring as I've recently gone and bought a used $100 Nikon F2 that I'm going to replace the foam light seals on and load a roll of film. Also procured a 52mm orange filter that"ll go on my Nikkors for this year's winter storm clouds (used a yellow before). Exciting! I did admire that nice looking leather strap on your Leica. Checking out your Cowboy photos, good work! Thank you
Bought a Leica. Previously had SLR cameras. Explain to me this: why would you choose a system where you look through a window that doesn’t show the lens view, try and focus on a patch that’s small and dim and try to figure out lines that are meant to show whatever lens you have on versus looking through a viewfinder that has a lens view, making it easy to frame and focus. Sold the Leica.
Sold my M3 Dual Stroke, the M4, a IIIC and a sellection of lenses years ago. No regrets and I have never looked back. I will keep my SLRs, but thanks for the suggestion.
Interesting conversation rangefinder v slr which I remember from the 60s was also a hot topic then. Of course it should always come down to the right tool for the job if possible, both have their pros and cons. But Leica made the visoflex attachment to “convert” M cameras to behave like an SLR but I don’t think any SLR manufacturer made a corresponding rangefinder accessory for their cameras. To my mind the SLR is a more capable camera in a wider range of conditions than rangefinders like the M series especially for film photography.
Nice video, highly enjoyable. There was a series on TV here in the U.K a few years ago. A certain well known photographer here each week tried to copy a classic photo from the past. None of the copies really looked like the original picture, but the most interesting for me was a copy of a David Bailey portrait. Bailey (as he prefers to be known) turned up in the program and lent the much younger photographer the exact same Rolleiflex that Bailey had used for the original. The original portrait was a tribute to female beauty and had an exciting vibrance to it 50 years later. The copy, taken with the same lighting, same camera, very similar model was dull, lacklustre, prosaic in comparison. That's the magic of photography. Regards Jake E.
I have never shot with one of the monochromes so can't say much about them. I enjoy film because I really enjoy working in the darkroom... and enjoy the computer less. When I downsize my house one day, and lose the darkroom I'm considering getting a monochrome and a printer that will allow me to print negatives that I can use to make platinum prints. To do that all you need is a burner and a couple trays and no darkroom. So one day I'll switch.
HCB did something similar. He'd find something that looked interesting, set up composition and just wait for someone to come into the screen. Good video. And yes, while I still have my slr's I use my m3 as a walk-around.
We're all confused. It all depends on what you take photos of. If you take photos of everything, get an SLR. If you take photos of the couple things that rangefinders are good at, get a Leica. If you want great quality, get a medium format. There is no answer.
Great video!!! The Leica doesn’t weigh much less than a slr but the center of gravity is towards the camera (smaller lenses) so I find rangefinders easier to hold (at least with pre asph lenses).
Please don’t take this the wrong way because you clearly have a lot of valuable experiences to share, but the audio quality of your videos is a bit distracting and has prevented me from watching all of your videos that have popped up. There’s a very audible echo that makes it difficult to listen to while wearing headphones. All the best to you
man you RU-vidrs are costing me money 😁 I have an F6/FM3a/Q2 and now a M10R - I guess it's an M6 next then? BTW I don't mind I love them all - they are my little babies 🙂
I'd take the allure and romance angle even farther by saying which camera would I be most comfortable taking out of my coat pocket and setting on the bar or on the dinner table? The Leica is small, pretty, and classic enough to be perched beside your dinner plate. But there's also a couple deeper pragmatic angles: 1) The current Leica ad campaign is touting "always ready." I've had many other battery-less cameras, FSUs, OMs etc., where I'd go to pick them up after a few months and the shutter would be locked up. With a battery-less Leica, you can be pretty confident that you can leave it for a long time and come back, and it will indeed be ready for you, worry free. And 2) CLA and repair options (at least for meter-less ones) are still fairly plentiful. EDIT: Oh, and of course, tiny, jewel-like lenses. You can throw a couple in your pocket!
Very good points. For me, the key is to get out shooting more, and run film through the cameras. Although I did have a pretty good fall... face plant.... on Friday with my Leica around my neck. Had to clean the snow out of it for a few minutes.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Love your collection. I'm into Pentax, Nikon and Olympus as well. What camera strap are you using on the Leica, in the video?
They are called Burke Mountain Leather Camera Straps. You can find them on facebook. Hand made and nice leather. Some shops carry them but you can order them directly as well.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I do just fine with the same two lenses and Nikon body for many years. Lieca people are very much cult-like. Strange to get so bent out of shape for saying anything about their god... lol.
Oh, it doesn't bug me at all. Having been in the industry for a while, I can't believe what I've seen over the years about guys and their cameras. If we were just trying to make great pictures, we'd likely be shooting digital mirrorless at this point because the focus is so good. But they're not as much fun.
If I am just traveling the world and had to pick one lens. I might pick a 35 or 50mm, because I am just traveling. But if I am working as a photographer I would bring a few lenses.
Great Companion, to the earlier piece, you know, the one about ditching the rangefinder! I'm commenting a bit about the viewfinder, because for me, after 40 years of SLR, and a few years of view camera practice, the viewfinder of the rangefinder was kind of a missing link between the two. Where in the SLR pentaprism, you dive in and sort of experience an immersion in the actual, literal image frame, getting reconnected to the world only negatively with the mirror slap when you for a short moment see nothing and the immersion is broken, in the view camera you don't have a connection at all. You have the excact image on the screen, yes, but in the moment of exposure, you don't see what the lens sees, because there's the film holder. So with a view camera, you have to memorize what the camera sees, the "framelines" are totally imaginary, right? The monitor on what you take when you press the release is fully in your mind. But of course, you see what's going on in the "picture" unimpeded, you see all the elements align themselves directly. The rangefinder viewfinder, is such a great experience because it combines the directness of watching the scene with its elements with a framing device that is very fast. It's more precise than the "sportsfinder" of the early days, it's optical, and as such links the absolute frame of the SLR to the imaginary framelines you learn when you do the view camera thing. So how do you do street photography with a 4x5 or 4x10 ? Someone gets framed, I guess? Set up a scene as a photographic trap (that's what I do)?
I shot for a year with a 4x10 wood camera on the street. They were street portraits though. I was always using a slow shutter speed so couldn't really do any traps.
Re: only photographers knowing about Leica, important to note they're experiencing a bit of a boom: "Leica celebrates most successful business year to date, sells 10 times as many analogue Leica M models as in 2015. German camera manufacturer Leica expects 2023 to be the strongest year in terms of sales in the company's 150-year history."
Apart from a lot of slr's Iv'e got a few rangefinders as well, mainly for my collestion but every once i a while i shoot with them. Still each time it bothers me the view finder isn't accurate and there's no way to see the dept of field at a given aperture. The focussing through the rangefinder patch isn't allways as easy on complex subjects and safe for a few (M5...) there's no ttl metering. Size and weight is sometimes an issue, there's definatly no comparison between say a barnac leica and a F4 but then again it depends on your style of shooting if you want to carry that weight. Something wich is worth mentionning : while taking a shot, the rangefinder has no "black out" so you see exactly in real time the shot you've just made, with a slr you may be in for a surpise to see what came on film while the mirror was up (if you're the kind of decisive moment photographer).After shooting with leica (and other) rangefinders, I found the myth that Cartier Bresson allways used the full negative hard to believe (seems like I was right)... Please keep posting your great content, i look forward to the next!
I recently purchased a Leica M-4. It is a beautiful camera, and I agree with almost everything you have said, however, I HATE this camera. I find myself fussing with the camera instead of looking at the scenes before me, I find it to be very slow, and somewhat cumbersome, and I just don't enjoy it. For reference, I love using large and medium format cameras. I did like and subscribe.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I have to ask. Is it really the camera's style or the photographer's style? Maybe it's because I have never used a rangefinder camera, but I find a SLR or even a TLR much easier. I think that is what gives all artist their "special thing" It's not so much the tools but how comfortable they are with and how they use the tools. I'm really enjoying your thoughts and the channel.
It's all about 'the user experience'. If you enjoy the camera, you will use it more, and get more good photos... either because you're just shooting more, or maybe getting better. No one counts the ones you throw away. It does take a while with a rangefinder, so why not just use one lens for a few months and try and force yourself to see this way. It also helps to compose without the camera to your eye first, then raise up the camera.
Olympus OM-1, OM2n, OM-3 or OM-4. All absolutely smaller amazing cameras and at an incredible mere fraction of what a Leica runs. Yes you do get to gloat to your frinds that you now own a leica after selling off one of your children. Lets see, a leica MP with a leica lens will put you at about 10K US. If no photographer has figured it out yet, It's the person behind the camera that takes the photo.. In the end no one really cares that your photo was shot on a Leica if your photo is a Banger.
I had a piece in the video naming all the rangefinders I new of, but it was edited out. I think in this video, it's just about Leica, not so much about the others.
Buckle up, as much as i do like Rangefinders, you can't see shit with it, under certain situations. For instance - try to shoot a small island on a waterscape, which does countain 100's of branches, roots, leaves....it's impossible with the small rangefinder patch into the middle, to archive proper focus, especially into blazing sunlight, and with polarized perscription lenses - with *any* 35mm SLR and a split-screen focusing screen, this takes me max. 1sec. With the rangefinder, you're out. You can only focus to infinity via lens, done...nothing else. FYI, i do shoot since the 80s...so 35mm Film is no kiddy "hipster" thing for me, but ordinary way to shoot pictures, even i have here & there various DSLR & DSLM setups to shoot with, but only film does feel real, no matter what.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Just right. A perfect camera (for everyone) would never exist - anyone is being different, and does have different needs.
It is much easier for my SLR to replace my Leica than it is for my Leica to replace my SLR. I can use a sound deadening blimp to shoot my SLR as quietly with my rangefinder. When I want to shoot with a small camera, I can use a Pentax ME SLR which is a smaller and lighter than my M6. When I shoot with a dark filter, I focus my SLR without the filter then mount the filter. When I want to shoot with 14, 16, 18, and 21mm wide-angle lenses, my SLR does a much better job than my Leica. when I want to shoot with 180, 300, 400, 500, and 1000mm telephoto lenses, my SLR does a much better job than my Leica. When I need t shoot with macro, perspective control, or fisheye, or zoom lenses, my SLR does a much better job than my Leica. When I need medium format image quality, I can use my 6x7cm medium format SLR instead of my 35mm Leica rangefinder.
That's very true. You need a lot of money whereever you buy Leica's. I wish I had old money. So many of the great photographers did, that's why they could travel the world and sell photos for only $2. Cartier-Bresson always had family money to back him.
The motor on the F3 is actually useful, while the M motor is hardly more than a winder and not worth using. However in most shooting situations, I don't use a motor on either.
I have two, they still work like champs. Then again I'm very careful when I use them so as not to damage them. I don't know where I'd get them repaired. @@stillshootinginblackandwhite
;O) nice and funny (and well-described) counterpoint to the previous one. Now that I have dumped both my M6 and my F3/T+MD4... what do I do? Rely on my Iphone... or my Lubitel? ;o) PS: Cartier-Bresson cropped "Derrière la gare St Lazare" (1932) because there was no way around it because of the circumstances. I do not think there is a single uncropped version of this photograph in any collection. It is one of the extremely rare exception in his whole career. In fact he is well-known for having the exterior of the negative image printed (the famous black border). PS2: I have travelled the world and also worked as a photojournalist for years with an M6 and just a 35 mm (even sports but I knew what I was in for ;o). So it is possible, just a matter of choice and philosophy.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Yes I can imagine. After trying soccer and rugby, I stuck to indoor sports and athletics... (usually warmer too, as athletics competitions are outdoors in warmer months ;o).
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite You are very welcome. Thanks for sharing your valuable experience and detailed knowlsdge, and being a little tongue in cheek which makes the videos all the more interesting.
Why a rangefinder over an SLR? I’m so curious why all of RU-vid (my perspective) is hyped on rangefinders. Specifically the Leica Rangefinders, is the leica somehow different than others where you can actually see what you are framing up through the viewfinder? I genuinely want to know. Or is there some sort of psychological phenomenon that tries to justify paying 10x more for a camera?
Rnagefinders are cute, but no way I'd have one as my main shooter. Can't easily do closeups/macro, can't do zooms, inconvenient to use with polarizers and many other filters, can't conveniently use telephotos and wide angles. Just way too limited.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite to be honest my Kiev-4a that I bought for $15 is pretty darn good 😅 I only lack of parallax correction but I don't do close ups often with rangefinder
My Sony rx100 M3 is much smaller than your bulky slippery Leica, much lighter and 10 times cheaper. Moreover you can’t hear the shutter, so, much quieter aswell. The image quality is better since people using Leica camera don’t know anything about photography but the definitively know how to pretend😂😂
I'm glad you like the Sony, after shooting sports I worked for Sony for 14 years as a manager of the digital imaging group (cameras). I've used all the RX100 versions, and even shot with them underwater. When I left Sony they put me on the board, so I'm still involved with them.
