Why Leica ahead of Canon/Nikon

robhughes111

I can't afford to buy one + probably never will be able to - but I was wandering what are the differences between Leica cameras and Canon/Nikon,etc professional SLR cameras. Can both groups of cameras be used for the same thing or is the leica morespecific?

If you had enless money what would be the advantage of the Leica or Canon/Nikon? Which areas would either group be better used?

I often see Irish professional photographers at events but they all seem to have the Canon/Nikon SLRS, why no Leicas. Any information on this would be appreciated

Fajitas!

Well, first and foremost, the brand - The same reason someone would buy a something with a long reputation of quality of prestige. They'll even make you a bespoke Leica if you wanted...

Then there's the whole 'rangefinder fellowship' - some people just prefer using rangefinders, and use them soley - choices within digital rangefinders... well.. you don't have much of a choice, so most will go for Leica.

Then the lenses are fantastic, very very sharp, great colours and contrast...

To be honest, I'd say rangefinders are more limiting than SLR's, but I still use a few and have done for a while, from Russian models, to an older Canon rangefinder, and a Leica. They're an enjoyable camera to go for a walk with, they're smaller than a SLR (Well... mostly), discreet and you can get good image quality.

For work, events and the like, SLR's are the choice, better FPS, autofocus, larger choice of metering modes, and so on.

Ghost Train

I think its the standard they're built to, the fact that they are hand made. Bit like a classic car... costs a lot, mightn't be practical for everyday use, while its quality it mightn't have the performance of something more conventional

ThOnda

They have very long history, well used in documentary and street photography for their small size and superb image quality.
Very very limiting in use and flexibility. If you want just try how they work, go for some Russian copy of Leica like FED or Zorki.
The advantage of the FED-2 I own is that I have already used it to beat my way out of the crowd of football fans and both me and the camera survived

One hint - never point the Leica(like) camera into the Sun - you would burn a hole into the fabric shutter curtain.

AnimalRights

Canon and Nikon are easier to pronounce.

Eirebear

AnimalRights wrote: »

Canon and Nikon are easier to pronounce.

But actually quite hard to say with "and" in between them!

DaireQuinlan

They're not used by pros simply because with the possible exception of size and weight rangefinders are inferior in almost every respect to SLRs, and have been ever since Nikon came up with the original F way back when. Leica also have the disadvantage of being ludicrously overpriced compared to similarly specced SLRs. In addition they shot themselves in the foot with their first digital rangefinder, which was unwieldy to use in the field and had wierd colour cast issues and (most damningly) a missing IR cutoff filter on the sensor which they missed somehow in test. The new M9 might change all this though, it remains to be seen. Leica look as though they've learnt from the M8 ...

ThOnda

AnimalRights wrote: »

Canon and Nikon are easier to pronounce.

What then about KODAK - the word that phonetically describes the sound of the shutter?

AnimalRights

Kodak just sounds too American.

Fajitas!

ThOnda wrote: »

What then about KODAK - the word that phonetically describes the sound of the shutter?

That urban legend was proved false, Eastman just liked the work Kodak because it was completely unrelated to anything else at the time - Bear in mind the cameras didn't use mirrors back then, so it was a simple *click* of a shutter :pac:

ThOnda

What? You've just ruined my childish happiness of knowing such fantastic trivia :eek:
I shall come up with new one Like why Fajitas! left Ireland? Because he was fed up with cutting the grass at home

I hope you are having a good time there.

And back to the topic. The thread title is Why Leica ahead of Canon/Nikon. The following question back aimed at the OP would be - In what sense?

Every camera (as any tool) is built for some purpose. Of you choose the correct tool, the other brand will be worse, if you don't compare to the equivalent product. However in Leica category, they are quite good in their field. Talking about film, I haven't heard about the performance of their latest digital camera.

i_am_dogboy

I'm one of those curious people who only shoots with rangefinders, not specifically leica, but I do have one leica body. It's kind of hard to explain the appeal of leica(or hasselblad or mamiya or linhof) cameras if you haven't gotten to play with them, people assume the only draw to the brand is the brand itself. I'll try not to be too evangelical here...

They're incredibly well designed from a control standpoint, usually the bodies are very comfortable to hold too. I can't speak for the digital leicas, but the old film models are built like tanks, my own M2 is close to 50 years old and with the exception of the usual adjustments people get done to leicas-shutter speed, rangefinder calibration-it's needed no work to keep it alive and well, it's clearly taken quite a beating in its time too. There's a very healthy range of lenses available for the M mount as well, traditionally it was all leica and a few minolta(who incidentally produced my own favourite leica lens), but more recently a bunch of other manufacturers have gotten in on the party.

The rangefinder is definitely something of an anochrism though, as mentioned above, they're more limiting than SLRs. With the exception of the hexar AF and the Contax G2, I can't think of anything remotely rangefinder-like that comes close to SLRs in terms of quickly focusing on moving targets. There are nearly no zoom lenses, and the ones that are out there just don't feel right with a rangefinder. SLRs are also much more accurate and usable at telephoto length. Using a polarizer is an absolute pain.

Rangefinders are great for street shooting, they're discrete, you don't get any mirror blackout(that's actually a big deal for me), and you can see what's going on outside the frame without taking the camera away from your eye, if you want to. The quality of the lenses make for quite nice landscape kits too.

For most uses, an SLR is definitely more ideal than a rangefinder, but yeah, I wouldn't give away my leica or my zeiss or my baldax for any canon or nikon kit.

duffarama

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

They're not used by pros simply because with the possible exception of size and weight rangefinders are inferior in almost every respect to SLRs, and have been ever since Nikon came up with the original F way back when. Leica also have the disadvantage of being ludicrously overpriced compared to similarly specced SLRs. In addition they shot themselves in the foot with their first digital rangefinder, which was unwieldy to use in the field and had wierd colour cast issues and (most damningly) a missing IR cutoff filter on the sensor which they missed somehow in test. The new M9 might change all this though, it remains to be seen. Leica look as though they've learnt from the M8 ...

What about their superb range of lenses?

Quiet shutter?

Large viewfinder?

The fact that each one is assembled by hand and built like a tank?

leinsterman

Last time I visited New York I was in Adorama looking at Leica's and nearly bought simply out of the tactile feel of it alone ... its a bit like the feeling of a Mac Pro v a Dell lap top ... something solid v something flimsy

They feel very solid in the hand and have a reputation for robustness and longevity ...

Leica's and other rangefinders are favoured by many Documentary photographers because they combine quality and sharpness with compactness and discretion ... they also give the left eye greater freedom to explore for subjects/action according to one well known New York street shooter (whose name slips my mind ... but was interviewed in BBC's History of Photography) ...

Finally - if, heaven forbid, there is a Nuclear war ... Leica's will probably be the only functioning cameras after it ... some are nearly 100% mechanical, and as such impervious to EMP ... only problem is with all the x-Rays around you may not be able to find any film

DaireQuinlan

duffarama wrote: »

What about their superb range of lenses?

Quiet shutter?

Large viewfinder?

The fact that each one is assembled by hand and built like a tank?

Approximate Framelines, Parallax error, Haphazard framing

leinsterman wrote: »

They feel very solid in the hand and have a reputation for robustness and longevity ...

Finally - if, heaven forbid, there is a Nuclear war ... Leica's will probably be the only functioning cameras after it ... some are nearly 100% mechanical, and as such impervious to EMP ... only problem is with all the x-Rays around you may not be able to find any film

No more so than most mid to top end cameras built around the same time (as the film leicas). My FE-2 is probably built as well as any leica. Now admittedly it'll only work at 1/250 without batteries, but there's the similarly robust f/f2/f3 and the various FM models all of which have full mechanical functionality.

Okay, I'll admit that for something like discreet street photography with normal (say 35 -> 85 or so) lenses then a rangefinder probably trumps an SLR but thats about it I reckon.

dazftw

Fajitas! wrote: »

That urban legend was proved false, Eastman just liked the work Kodak because it was completely unrelated to anything else at the time - Bear in mind the cameras didn't use mirrors back then, so it was a simple *click* of a shutter :pac:

Yeah he got the word from one of his mothers anagrams.. The K sounded very strong so he stuck with it.

Man I love college makes me appear someway smarter :P

Fajitas!

Wait until you can find a use for telling someone you have a degree in it.

Be sure to sound as condescending as possible :pac:

DaireQuinlan

dazftw wrote: »

Yeah he got the word from one of his mothers anagrams.. The K sounded very strong so he stuck with it.

Man I love college makes me appear someway smarter :P

It's true, look at all that useful and topical information that you're chock full of now.