First time camera purchase, looking for good investment.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I've never purchased a camera before in my life. This past summer I traveled a bit and used my parents Nikon (I'm 20 and in college) to take all of my shots. Most of my shots consist of scenery and more nature style shots. In essence I am looking for a good camera in which I will be able to travel the world taking great shots of what I see, from mountains to flowers to people, and to be able to learn from the experience so that I can move into a more experienced style of photography. I have read up on the M3 and the M6 TTL and the likes. From what I understand the M6 is the newest (until the M7 comes out in March) and most technological of the M series. However, the M3 has the reputation, it seems, of being a no frills camera for getting to the roots of photography. As you can tell I am rather confused on where to go and how I can approach this decision. All help would be greatly appreciated as I am quite green in this field.

In advance, thank you.

Ryan

-- Ryan Raimo (rjraimo@uchicago.edu), February 04, 2002

Answers

Get a Nikon or Canon. M Leica is not a good place to start.

-- (bmitch@home.com), February 04, 2002.

Careful thinking of a camera as an "investment". I once talked myself in spending my savings on a Porsche 914 thinking it was just as good as money in the bank. Big mistake. All cameras are disposable and terrible things can happen to them. Don't carry a camera you can't afford to lose, have stolen, or distroyed in an accident.

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), February 04, 2002.

Wow Ryan - that's a tricky one! I think you will get a real difference in views here! IMO it may be that a SLR with a decent zoom may be a better first camera, this will provide some automation and a range of focal lengths to allow you to concentrate on composition and "seeing" - these being far more important than the equipment you use.

The Leica M is a marvellous camera but it does require some knowledge of basic photography techniques.

Can you give us some more info? Which model Nikon have you been using, how much experience do you have? Do you know about depth of field and the effect of differing the shutter speeds for example? I ask this with no suggestion of lack of ability on your behalf - merely so we can offer more constructive advice.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 04, 2002.


Here is what I would do.

Buy an older M4p or M4-2 with a 50mm F2 lens AND a Nikon F601 with zoom.Price £700 for the Leica and £400 for the Nikon.Use both,learn to use the Leica and if you like it sell both cameras and buy a new M6 with fast lens,if you don't like the Leica buy an F100 or F5 with fast zoom.Bingo,bango,bongo.job's a goodun'.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.


Ryan, my son is also 20 and in college. I will give you the same advice I gave him...and hopefully since I'm not your father, you'll take it ;>) Take a photography course next semester. If your school doesn't offer one, perhaps a local community college has the course and perhaps the credits will even transfer as an elective. Most likely you will be provided, or encouraged to buy a manual-everything SLR. The brand is unimportant. What is important is that you understand the basic technological points of photography: the reciprocal relationship of shutter speeds to lens aperture; depth-of field and how it relates to focal length and lens aperture; basic light metering (tonality) theory. It's not very complicated but much easier to get it right from the start rather than having to learn at the expense of wasted film and disappointing results from unrepeatable adventures. If you are autodedactic, you can learn as much from a number of very good books. You will probably also become exposed (no pun intended) to both analog (film) and digital photography and you can choose for yourself whichever suits you better. I would suggest at the very least that you get ahold of a Leica M6 (with any other Leica M such as an M3 you will need a separate light meter, which is just one more thing to take your attention away from composing the image)and shoot with it, or buy it from a store that will agree to take it back for an equal-money trade within say 30 days. I use the M6 for travel photography and I've been doing it more than 30 years and I can tell you it takes a lot of experience and constant thinking about what you're doing to get the best results.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 04, 2002.


Get a manual focus slr like a Nikon FM or Minolta SRT with a 50mm lens for $100-200. Use that camera for a year to learn about photography and whether you would like to pursue it further. Take a lot of pictures of everything. Remember that Lilo Raymond said photography gets harder after the first 5 years. The photographers and hookers explanation. 'First I did it for myself, then I did it for my friends and finally... I did it for money.' Good Luck!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), February 04, 2002.

In response to the question concerning the camera I have been using: it is a Nikon N6006 AF. As for knowledge about differences in shutter speed and the likes. I do know a bit about shutter speed and the difference it makes when concerning movememt, light and richness of the photograph. However, that is quite limited I would say and the extent of my knowledge. The rest of my knowledge comes from reading the Nikon manual and trying the different options they have with the camera.

Ryan

-- Ryan Raimo (rjraimo@uchicago.edu), February 04, 2002.


When I was in my senior year of high school, in 1960, I bought a then 25 year old Leica IIIa which I STILL use. I have little doubt that an equally old (now) M4-2 or an even older M-4, M-3, or M-2 could serve you as well. Any Leica has a steeper learning curve than a modern SLR, but itswell worth the effort.

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), February 04, 2002.

I would suggest get a good manual camera that you can grow with. A Nikon FM2n (all manual) first come to mind, since this was my first camera. All manual no frills get to the basic camera. There's a lot of good books on photography, your local or college library is the best source. Save your money from sit-in school photography study but buy lots of films preferably b/w. Experience is the best school. If you enjoy the hobby then thats the time to get serious. Hope this helps.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), February 04, 2002.

I'd agree with what others have said. Though my style of shooting favors the rangefinder perfectly, an SLR is far mor versatile. I'd suggest a mid range SLR with a couple of zooms to get an extended focal lenght range, figure out what you like to shoot and the benefits of the different types of camera and then make your major purchase decision. For example if you buy an M6 with a couple of lenses it'll set you back $4000.00+. If a year down the road you find out that what you like to photograph is wildlife with a supertelephoto you'll be more than a little frustrated with your Leica........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 04, 2002.


I have owned (and not shot a whole lot with) a Canon with a zoom. Big deal. It was my first real camera too. Did I glean something profound from using an "SLR with a zoom"? Hell no. Is the Leica pretty easy to use for certain photography? Of course! Buy what you want. Of course, if you ask for people's opinions, they'll give'em to you.

If you like the quality and high performance, and simplicity of the M6, you might want to check out the Nikon FM2N as well! That's a robust nicely-made inexpensive little camera as well.

I don't understand what one would gain from going SLR first and then rangefinder, other than discovering some hidden needs that the SLR would be more apt to handle. I can see gaining something by doing the other way around. Seems like you'd build your skills more with a rangefinder, and then you could apply them to an SLR if you want. Look at your needs and if the Leica meets them, get it.

But now that I read your post a bit more, seems like the flowers would be macro, where the Leica is weak in. But for people and scenery I think the Leica would be great. I have a 35mm lux and a 75mm lux to cover my needs.

Good luck with your choice...

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.


I would suggest a Pentax K1000 with a 50 mm lens. Its what most photographers learn on and the most common cameras at photoclubs. Its cheap, you get great results if you know what your doing, and someday you can teach your kids photography on it.

Now that's an investment worth considering,

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 04, 2002.


I bought a Nikon FM2n when my old Nikon Ftn was stolen. My son got a FM2n as a present when he went into the Peace Corp. Years later, he shows his travel pictures with pride. My daughter's first good camer as a FE2. My wife was ahead of all of us with a FM. All are still working. For a reliable, reasonably compact SLR, these cameras can't be beat. I'd think about the new FM3A. This seems like a great camera. My only reservation is the FM3A has a meter needle, like the FE2, instead of the very durable LEDs of the FM series.

-- tom (therbert@miami.edu), February 04, 2002.

Ryan: Leica M's do not do well on flower close-ups. I purchased a Nikon F while in high school, then an M3 a couple of years later. I still have the M3 and a couple of other M's along with an R4. The rangefinders are great cameras within their limitations. Their limitations do not include macro and long lenses over 135. As a camera, I love them. IF you decide to pursue this line, I would look at the M6 "classic" or TTL as they have a built in meter. The M3 does not have built in framing for anything wider than the 50, where the M2, M4 and M6 have wider capabilities. I have done some nice flower shots with my M3 with a Dual Range Summicron (Near Focus version). The field size with the DR Summicron is 6.75 x 10.625 inches when focused at it's closest. Try renting a Leica M for a weekend and see what you think, much like taking a car out for a test drive. Good luck. :>

-- Mark Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), February 04, 2002.

If you want an investment, buy mutual funds. If you want a camera, buy what is suited to you without regard for anything else. That said, I would not suggest a Leica M for a beginner. My recommendation would be a Nikon F100 or a Canon EOS-3 with a good, general-purpose zoom lens, such as a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. These are both fine cameras that you can grow into, and which offer great flexibility and power, but which will yield good results if used in their automatic modes.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 04, 2002.


Hi, Ryan. wellcome to the site !

In short: I began really learning about photography after I found the M3s.

In a long previous experience with Nikons, Olympus, Canon, etc I first shot pictures the best I spontaneously thought was the best I could. Then I got interested in pursuing some improvement and followed some advices I read. Those were good advices and my photos improved. I became an acceptable illustrator.

But the M3s are making a photographer out of me.

Maybe not easy. Nor inexpensive an excercise, either. But rewarding.

IMHO.

Best of luck !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 04, 2002.


I think an old, all-manual, rangefinder like the M3 is a fine starter camera--there are also plenty of non-Leica RFs that will do the job more cheaply (e.g., I started with, & still use, the Zeiss Ikon Contax line of RFs). Using an external meter is also not a big hardship & can teach you a lot about metering techniques & the characteristics of light. A modern SLR may be easier (it's more WYSIWYG) for a beginner, but not essential (after all, how did people learn photography before SLRs became popular?). As others have pointed out, the learning curve may be steeper & slower w/a manual RF, but if you have the patience, discipline, & desire (which a Univ. of Chicago student should have in abundance), I think you end up learning more.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), February 04, 2002.

There you go Ryan, a whole heap of differing views. Most of us seem to have learnt on an SLR and that seems to get the biggest vote here as an ideal starter camera. The main advantage is that the SLR gives you a more precise and clear view of how your final image will end up - you can 'see' the depth of field and which parts of the image are in or out of focus, the way perspective changes with different focal lengths will also be clear, framing is far more precise etc. If you wish to try out certain filters like polarisers or graduates this is easier as the effect is immediate in the viewfinder. Certainly as mentioned above the SLR is more versatile, close-up's, 300 mm telephoto's, multi-exposures, long time exposures - all these are difficult or impossible with the M.

Also the cost factor - a decent Canon Eos and mid-range zoom should only cost around US$500-600, far less if you go down the secondhand route. I would favour an AF as opposed to a manual focus model - you will have more automation to give you a helping hand at the beginning, as you gain in experience you can use the camera 'manually' giving you the best of both worlds.

I for one have found learning to shoot a rangefinder Leica far less intuitive than a SLR, but if you do go down that route once it comes together it is worth it!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 04, 2002.


Ryan, let's get back to your original question. You are showing an interest in the M6 (or M7, if it materializes) and in the M3. Your objectives are nature, travel, and learning photography.

You can learn photography with either a Leica, or a Nikon. You've already has some success with the Nikon. It's a good camera, the Nikon, very versatile, also cost-effective. The Leica is very high in reliability and optical quality. I've had both for many years. I've spent quite some years photographing in the mountains in Colorado, and have used my Nikons for most of it. But if I had to go someplace, I don't know where, to photograph something, I don't know what, and absolutely had to come back with a picture of it, and could take only one camera and one lens, I would take my M6 and 35mm Summicron. I would also regret not having a Nikon along.

Get it? There's no perfect answer. You could get a Nikkormat Ftn with an old 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, and do great things with it. Then again, I learned on a Leica model D and GE exposure meter, and learned well.

You said you take mostly nature. Well, an SLR is a good choice for that. You can do it with a Leica rangefinder, too--look at Brian Bower's books--but an SLR is a good choice for the purpose. After shooting with an M2 for 20 years, a Nikkormat gave me a new freedom. A fresh approach. A Leica M Camera will do this for someone who has been using an SLR for too long.

For your purpose, I'll join with those who recommend an SLR for your starter outfit.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 04, 2002.


I just wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time to help assist me in looking down the correct path. All of your answers definitely have added to my knowledge and added questions into which I will look. Thank you so much.

Ryan

-- Ryan Raimo (rjraimo@uchicago.edu), February 04, 2002.


Ryan, you are using a wonderful camera now. Take your parents' N6006, if they'll let you, and switch it to "M" mode and turn off the auto-focus. Now you have complete manual control over the camera. I suggest you learn the basics on that camera and then decide what you want.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 04, 2002.

there are many different opinions as we have all learned differently. rather than repeat others comments, you should probably realize that there are few among us who at one time or another have purchased equipment that we later found out did not meet our needs. while i can not speak for others i know that it took me at least five years of solid shooting to consider my self a quality photographer, and even now 20 years later i am still trying to improve my skills. my reccomendation is to get some thing simple and versatile and as your skill and knowledge level increases you will be better able to determine the direction photography will take you and the equipment needed to get there. i know for myself it took me 20 years to get to the point where i could appreciate a leica. it would have been wasted on me before then.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 04, 2002.

If any of you are wondering, here is a link to some of the types of photos that I enjoy taking.

http://homepage.mac.com/noellevalentine/PhotoAlbum4.html

-- Ryan Raimo (rjraimo@uchicago.edu), February 05, 2002.


Ryan:

I just read Jim's advise and I'd like to second him.

I owned a F601 (F6006 in canadian version; same as yours except for the model number) and it was a wonderful camera. I began understanding what exposure means thanks to my efforts to learn how the exposure meter of this camera worked.

My only point is that a M3 would make you to get far more involved in what you do so that your learning would be deeper from the very begining, but if you can use that Nikon on a permanent basis you have lots of things to learn from/with it if used in manual mode first. That way you will get to really know what the auto functions of the camera do and what they are best used for. At that point, you can use them at your advantage.

I'm afraid Jim said the same but far more short . . .

Happy shooting, Ryan. Use slides to get sure that what you get from the lab is what YOU did.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 05, 2002.


Hey Ryan, Get a view camera!

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), February 05, 2002.

i'd get a pentax mx with a 50mm lens as a starter kit. it is half the price of a nikon fm2, but does pretty much the same, but doesn't share the hype. it is more acurate and has a few more features than the k1000 without costing so much more. i already got a few people hooked onto photography with that kit

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 05, 2002.

Just one thought to add. If you get an SLR, resist the urge to use any automatic exposure features, and find a camera that has a spot metering mode. A good in camera spot meter will teach you a lot about how to evaluate light levels to enhance your photographic ability. The best thing I did when I was a young 17 year old photographer was to dump my averaging light meter camera for one that used a spot meter.

Just my $0.02 worth.

-- Bob (bobkramer@coopercarry.com), February 05, 2002.


Like many on this post, I'd also suggest a Nikon FM or FM-2, with three lenses: 28mm, 55macro, and the classic 105/2.5 as an excellent starter kit. With this you will learn the basics, the three fixed lenses (as opposed to zoom) will facilitate your ability to pre-visualize, and the specific lenses I've suggested will provide good opportunities to explore landscape, macro, and portraiture. If you're smart about buying these lenses (look for the early "AI" series) they won't really cost that much. You might also consider as a fourth lens a 200mm f/4 AI-Nikkor to explore longer telephoto work. The older Nikon FM's, with the 125th sync speed, can be considerably less expensive than the newer FM-2's with 250th sync. At any rate, buy yourself a bulk film loader, 100' of Tri-X, a set of red, green, and yellow filters, and start shooting! Then, an old Omega B-22 enlarger, some trays, a timer, film-tank, chemicals, 6-mil black plastic to cover a bathroom window, el-cheapo red light bulb, and start printing! Then look for a beat-up Leica M-2 with a 35mm summicron and MR-meter. (I'm awash with nostalgia!) Finally, if and when you end up with kids to chase around on vacation, buy an auto-everything (with manual override, of course!) SLR with a 28-200mm "vacation lens." But hang onto the older stuff! Someday you can give it to your kids and buy the latest Leica M-10!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), February 05, 2002.

There's so much choice with cameras, it's hard to tell, isn't it? I was trying the same thing looking for a camera for my wife. My feeling is that it would be a good idea to try several very different types of camera before buying to give you an idea of which you feel is right. This is a very intuitive thing. For example, try an AF SLR like the Nikon N65 or Canon Rebel, which does everything for you. Then try a manual SLR like an Olympus OM1, Pentax K1000, or Nikon FM2 (all available at a good price). Then try a Leica M. Rangefinder v SLR is your biggest choice. - Any manual camera without electronic over-rides will teach you the basics of photography. - Some people own both an SLR and a rangefinder. - Rangefinders really are better in low light because of the absence of a moving mirror (1/15 as opposed to 1/30) - Rangefinders are lighter and more compact. - Rangefinders are no good for close-ups of flowers or wildlife photography. - M is expensive, but won't devalue. The Leica M6 is easier with a built-in meter. Leica optics are superlative, and the camera is a fine piece of craftsmanship that you will value for years to come, instead of just another electronic gadget. - Summary: I think it's good to experiment early, before buying, then buy what you really are happy with - even if it is expensive - and stick with it.

Good

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), February 07, 2002.


Without going all technical, my advice to you would be to get a camera you find simple and intuitive to use and concentrate on developing your eye. The whole skills thing is vastly overrated and can be learnt at any time, but why saddle yourself with both when you're just starting out? Just get something that takes care of the technical side for you and have fun. Cameras don't make photographers.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 07, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ