I am a Canon SLR user, using L series lenses... but my friends told me that using a LEICA produce better colored pictures...so im just wondering if someone could help me determine which of the following should i buy and why?

1) a R8 SLR Body or a M7? 2) IF R8, what are the best lenses between 28mm to 105mm? 3) IF M7, what are the best lenses?

ALso, is there a website showing leica pictures other than the leica homepage...???? thanks

-- mattchan (kerwinchan828@yahoo.com), March 02, 2002

Answers

That question cannot be answered meaningfully without know what type of photography you do. For example, if you shoot a lot with telephotos over 90mm, or do a lot of macro work, then an M7 wouldn't make much sense.

As for Leica producing better color pictures, I tend to doubt it. All the major manufacturers have good lenses now, including, obviously, Canon. You'd bettter think whether you are dissatisfied with your Canon photographs.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 03, 2002.

First give me your definition of "better colored", then tell me if you shoot slides or prints, then tell me what type of slide or print film you use, what kind of enlarging lens your lab uses to make prints, as well as the type of paper your lab prints on. While you're at it, make sure your shop stores all its film in the fridge, and make sure their suppliers do the same. Hint: there are too many variables that can have an effect on color that's actually big enough for you to notice. Lens brand is kind of lost somewhere in there.

1) a R8 SLR Body or a M7? 2) IF R8, what are the best lenses between 28mm to 105mm? 3) IF M7, what are the best lenses?

First figure out if you need a rangefinder or an SLR. Then figure out what kind of photography you like to do. Then, read through the forum archives thoroughly. You're asking for a dissertation that very few of us will have time to write. Hint: by the time you're finished, you'll probably question if it's worth the trouble to change systems based on some theoretical color difference.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 03, 2002.

Here is a site where you can look at some color photography by one of several National Geographic photogs. who use the Leica M6. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/harvey/index.html

Here are some sites with more beautiful Leica M photography. http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant/ http://www.ralphballerstadt.net/ http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/

Enjoy.

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), March 03, 2002.

Matt, in my opinion through extended use with Canon L and Leica gear i would recommend you stick to Canon for SLR use. The only real benefit that can be had with Leica OVER Canon is that the Leica M6 without the mirrror, lens cams, etc can produce exceptionally better images in lower light. Leica M lenses also provide excellent -peak performance at f/2.8-f/4 where on some L lenses it takes to f/4-f/5.6.

I have never been tempted by leica R cameras except for the fact that Salgado uses the R6, but he uses the M6 too. If I had an SLR I'd have a Canon with L lenses. You'd waste too much money on a change.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

Mattchan

You may note a slight improvement with Leica M if you frequently use fast lenses wide open, but Canon L lenses are among the best glass you can buy. For example, I don't think even the Leica 75/1.4 M Summilux lens is better than Canon's 85/1.2 EF-L lens, which is legendary for its performance. My point is if you are looking for a quantum improvement in image quality, you may be disappointed. I prefer Leica because of its small size (inconspicuousness), quietude, and general handling. The Leica glass is great, but if anything it is at best incrementally better than Canons best, and it is not clear that would result in better image quality.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 03, 2002.

Hello Mattchan. Just a suggestion ..do a side by side comparison of projected slides,if you shoot slides,with a short time borrowed Leica ..maybe a little difficult practice,but only your eyes should confirm a change is justified.A comparison of camera handling is a different matter. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

as an experiened EOS shooter and somebody newer to lieca (only about half a year with an M6)... i can tell you that i don't see much of a difference between the two in terms of image quality... in terms of ergonomics there are huge differences, but the picture quality is there with both of them. Also, do not accept images you see on the internet as proof that a certain film camera is better then another... scanners and skilled operators of computers have much more to do with that then lens quality. The difference between Canon and Leica is that you don't really have to ask the question "what are the best lenses" - all the new leica lenses are outstanding... you need to ask yourself what speed you need and what focal length. The are all damn expensive and Leica doesn't make low quality glass. With Canon you do have to ask this question, but that is because Canon makes "cheap" lenses as well as good ones. With "L" glass you really don't have to ask the question either... I'm in the same boat as Kristian, I would never consider owning leica R gear unless given to me... the M is a different story, but it certainly isn't a general purpose camera.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), March 03, 2002.

i hate to be rude but i'm seeing a lot of things wrong here:

1. you're buying a leica because YOUR FRIENDS told you it produces "better-colored pictures" (whatever that means)? is this how you bought your first car?

2. you are asking the regular posters which is better between a rangefinder and an SLR. *sigh*

3. you are looking for scans to compare the pictures? it would be VERY difficult to make a sane judgment comparing scans.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

If "better color" is your intent, a medium format camera and a good custom lab will bring a noticeable improvement over your Canon. Otherwise, any change from what you have is going to be very subtle at best.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 03, 2002.

As a user of Leica M and R, and recently switched from Nikon to Canon, IMO there are differences in contrast and corner sharpness at the widest couple f-stops between even the best fast N/C glass and the Leicas (moreso the latest M lenses, not so much the R lenses which are mostly older designs). Leica does not make a "consumer" series of lenses, but you were wanting a comparison to Canon "L" glass anyway. You may see a slight cooling of the color balance on reversal film with the Leica lenses and that may or may not be to your liking. Many people tout that as Leica having more "natural" color, but for my use means using 81A or B filtration a good deal of the time on Leica glass to put the warmth back. IMO the purchase and use of a Leica M should be made on the basis of the size of the lenses relative to the Canon EOS (as far as bodies are concerned the Elan7 weighs less than an M6 and the Rebel2000 is both smaller and lighter.) If you truly want to be knocked off your feet by a difference in image quality, look to medium format.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 03, 2002.

As pointed out above, Canon has a different sales philosophy than Leica. The Canon EOS line offers different levels of workmanship and optical quality in their lenses: some are very cheaply made mass market lenses that will literally fall apart even if dropped on a carpeted rug, and others are relatively well-built metal affairs. The optical quality is equally, with the L-line being the best. But Canon often mixes and matches. For esxample, the 85/1.2 EF-L lens that I mentioned above is optically superb but set in one of the cheapest imaginable plastic mounts. I wouldn't think this lens could stand any kind of hard use.

Leica M only has one standard of quality and construction, and one price range (expensive). Interestingly, the lens you mentioned (35/1.4 EF-L) is almost as expensive as the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. The best prices I have seen are around $ 1475 with USA warranty, only slightly less than a nice mint example of the Summilux. For that kind of money, I'd take the Leica.

BTW, autofocus is clearly easier for following around and photographing fast moving infants, but this can be done with Leica M. The problem is it requires practice. As a user of Leica M for many years, I can tell you that with some effort, you can get better and better at rapid action candids with practice.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 03, 2002.

Or by that time your babies will be in high school and much more sedentary ;-)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 03, 2002.

Mattchan,

From the tone of many of the responses, you could be forgiven for concluding that this is not a very friendly or helpful forum and also for wondering why the responders are in a Leica forum at all!

However, fear not. This is actually a helpful forum but I think the people are just hesitant to encourage you to take the expensive step of changing from Canon SLR to Leica SLR or RF without some clear idea as to why you want to do it or what you're hoping will be the benefits.

Regarding the best/most popular lenses for R and M cameras in the opinions of the members this forum, I suggest you look in the Leica M archives of this site.

In answer to your last question, you can find many links to Leica photographers' web sites at URL: http://w1.320.telia.com/~u32008343/lecalink.htm

IMHO, I doubt you'll be able to see any technical difference between pictures displayed in Canon, Contax, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus or Pentax web sites. The fidelity and resolution of stuff displayed on the 'net just isn't good enough to be able to draw conclusions about optical superiority. You may see differences in the abilities of the various photographers but that isn't equipment related.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 04, 2002.