I'm looking to buy a Leica Camera, however, I don't know wich one I should buy! Please note, I am NOT a professional fotographer, BUT I'm pretty good with a camera!! I like taking: panorama pictures, macro close ups, portrait pictures, general group pictures, sports pictures, indoor pictures, sometimes black & white.

If anyone can tell me witch one to buy I really would apprecciate it.

Also I wanted to know if it's true that the Leica M6 TTL really keeps the value of the camera? One leica dealer told me that the M6 TTL never looses in value, the Leica R8 on the other side does loose in value. Is all that true? Thanks to all of you who answered to my questions, DORON doronrosianu@hotmail.com

-- Doron (doronrosianu@hotmail.com), October 28, 2001

Answers

Is this an investment, or for taking pictures? If an investment, I recommend stocks or something, not a camera. If you're looking for a camera which will do all of the things you've named, you need an SLR. If you prefer using a rangefinder camera, then it's the M6 for you, but it won't do some of the things you've named--macro for instance, unless you're into discontinued historical photo gear

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 28, 2001.

What kind of camera are you using now, and what aspect of your photography do you hope to improve by switching to a Leica? The M series cameras are a whole different type of camera from an SLR. I had a friend who is a cauusal SLR user pick up my M3 for the first time today. They loved the way the camera felt and how smooth the lens focused. Then they looked through the viewfinder and turned the lens and said "wierd, it all stays clear no matter where the lens is focused". I told them it took a little while to get used to that little double image for focusing (that they were totally blocking with their fingers ). What I'm trying to say is that if you want to buy a Leica just so that you own a Leica, go ahead, they are nice cameras with excellent lenses. If you have never shot with a rangefinder camera, make sure to rent/borrow one before plunking down $3000 for a camera with one lens, otherwise you may end up with first hand experience on the resale value issue as many people buy them and end up selling them within a short while because they can't get the hang of them. Can't give you much info on the R8. Had a R7 for a while, and although it was a superb instrument, I sold it and kept my more extensive Nikon system for those times I shoot with an SLR. It would have cost me nearly 10 times the amount of the cost of the Nikon system I have to set up a similar system with the Leica SLR, and I didn't notice much difference in the image quality to be frank about it. It also made no sense to double up with two SLR outfits, and the fact that Leica SLR lenses turn to focus the opposite way of my Nikkors drove me nuts.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 28, 2001.

Doron:

I second the previous post. I use an M6 and an R4 (prehistoric relative to the R8). The M's are rangefinders and are great at unobtrusive and low light shooting, but lousy for macro work. For sports the M's are great if you like short lenses up to 90mm, anything longer and you need a reflex, like the R8. If you are buying for an investment, Leica's depreciate like anything else, only not as fast. The color saturation on the Leica optics is terrific as is the definition, but it takes practice to achieve good results. A good camera does not make a good photographer. The Leica R series are VERY expensive and produce great photos. Nikon, Canon and others offer comparable equipment for less money, but they don't have the Leica name or their optics. Try renting a Leica before plopping down the change for the gear. An R8 is about $1600.00, a 60mm Macro is $1700.00 and others more or less depending on the lens.

Good luck and enjoy whatever you decide on.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), October 28, 2001.

Doron,

Previous posters gave main decision factor:

R8 is a high quality reflex camera, enabling precision framing, macro and long telephoto applications, with a good dose of useful automatisms. It is big and heavy. Lenses are wonderful.

M6 is a high quality rangefinder camera, enabling most of the other applications, with no automatisms whatsoever (except flash management on TTL version). It is compact and lighter. Lenses are wonderful.

On the M, framing has to be done through approximative separate viewfinders for anything wider than 28mm. Teles are framed through small framelines in the center of the integrated viewfinder. Those framelines are more visible (and focusing easier) the higher the magnification of the viewfinder (3 models available: 0.58x, 0.72x, 0.85x). Inversely the framelines for wider angles are more visible and more useable the less the viewfinder is magnified.

Regarding value: Leica Rs, and the R8 in particular, loose value very fast and are not liable to regain initial value in the long run. The M6 also looses its value the day you purchase it, but historical value tracking shows that, up to now, people reselling their M systems after 7-8 years will probably be able to get back the amounts initially invested (minus inflation).

However, the current digital revolution will *most probably* take its toll on the resale value of the M in the coming years. You, i and the rest of the picture taking world will *most probably* not be using 35mm film 10 years from now. That means the value of the M6 bodies will be pretty low (except maybe for limited series collector models). The value of the M lenses however might be more resilient if Leica comes out with a digital M (same bayonet).

Jacques

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), October 28, 2001.

Doron,

Please personally handle both an M6 and an R8 before making up your mind. Do NOT take someone else's opinion for what YOU would prefer. As the previous posts have indicated, there are substantial differences in handling and uses of the cameras. Only you can decide which camera style you prefer. I happen to be like Andrew's friend. I love the size and handling of the M camera but simply cannot adjust to using the rangefinder for focusing. (Have used SLR's for 30 plus years.) I own an R8 and love it but many others prefer the M cameras. If you like the M camera, you may be limited in close-up photography due to lack of equipment available, parallax errors, and exposure compensation. R cameras are better suited for close-up shots. M cameras are better for small size and quick handling. Both cameras are great but they have different "personalities". Since it's your money, pick the one you like most. Happy shooting with your choice. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), October 29, 2001.

Perfect answers. I had same hesitations before buying my M (R8 seemed me to be a great camera), but I prefered a dream, a piece of history and legend, a comptletely different point of view in shooting with ... Mister M, a great Mister indeed :-) Alain

-- alain.besancon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), October 29, 2001.

Hi there,

Actually I prefer the Leica R series for its flexibility. In an ideal world, I would love to have both the R6.2 and R8 without any complaints :)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), October 29, 2001.

M-Leicas do keep their value better as do their lenses, but so do Rs compared to other brands. The electronic R cameras depreciate the fastest, so if this is what concerns you you could buy an R6.2 which is less likely to depreciate. M cameras are much simpler and all M lenses fit all M cameras (pretty well) whereas with R cameras (like all reflexes) there are cam issues and body updating issues that effect their market price. I have to say that given your photographic preference and you want to buy a Leica, I suggest an R would be best suited for you -- but they are expensive and you have to want the optics - otherwise Nikon and Canon, for example, will give you much more for your money. Many Leica R optics (say 35mm f2) are 5 times the price of their Nikon and Canon equivalents. Is the difference in lens quality important to you? I enjoy this difference and appreciate it, but you may feel this difference is a waste of money. I think if you want to take pictures at full or close to full aperture then Leica are worth considering. Also in Leica's defence the top-class (e.g. Canon's L series glass) rival lenses are not exactly cheap either.

The difference between the M and the R cameras is that the Ms are collectors' items, which means that even secondhand, M lenses and cameras can be ridiculously expensive. The R's are not really collected (except for the Leicaflex SL2) so secondhand you can get a better deal and assemble a working system much cheaper. With an M you always spend the big bucks, but ultimately you run out of things you can buy as the system is smaller. With Rs you may pay less (if you buy secondhand), but there is always something new to buy. Which is worse?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.

If you are concerned with the resale value, buy second-hand. Either M or R, used, will hold their value quite well as Leica supports older products with service and parts.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 29, 2001.

I faced exactly the same question fours years back. It was what I had read about the M series that ignited my Leica interest. But then, as I visited the Leica website I felt the draw of the R system with it wider array of features- because we all live in a world where we usually take as many modern features as we can get. Thus the purchase of an M might might, as you cycle through your thoughts, seem counterintuitive at times. But I decided it was the M I wanted- it was unique and I already had an SLR. I took the plunge and don't regret it. The only thing I regret is that my summicron jammed at my first great picture taking opportunity when in Namibia-my only lens. It is a great lens, and I brought it to a technician in Namibia ( who charged me a ton) who didn't find anything wrong with it. It has worked since.

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), November 02, 2001.