In 35mm, I have experience with Nikon and Canon, but am less than knocked out by the resulting prints. I think a Leica might be the answer for the more portable format, as I have been inspired by the work of Leica users William Albert Allard and Roy DeCarava. Of course they are great artists, but the image has that rare photographic snappiness.

Anyway, there are so many Leica lenses and cameras available that I am confused. I would like a 50mm lens, and a reliable manual body with a light meter. I am after excellent image quality. I would appreciate your recommendations, and also advice if I am on the right track in expecting a crisper image with the Leica. Is the German or other glass to be preferred?

Do you printers prefer a condenser enlarger or cold light?

Thank you.

-- John McDonald (jmcd@napanet.net), May 05, 2002

Answers

John, Leica may be your answer. I have used Leicas for over 30 yrs now and it has become a habit so I cannot discuss this dispassionately. However, my wife and daughter are using Nikons and get very nice B&W results. We have a diffusion enlarger. You might want to read Mike Johnston's recent discussion of that glow seen in some B&W work.

-- Henry Chu (heninden@yahoo.com), May 05, 2002.

here is the url http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sm-02-04-28.htm

-- Henry Chu (heninden@yahoo.com), May 05, 2002.

Get an M6 or M6TTL and put any 50mm Summicron on it--Summilux if you just must have f:1.4.

-- Jack Matlock (jfmatlo@attglobal.net), May 05, 2002.

Depends on what lenses you used probably. I shoot Canon and Leica professionally and my best Canon lenses are the equal of Leica's.

However, both Canon and Nikon make lenses to occupy certain price points or market niches. They may not all be of the same uniform standard as their best primes or "pro" zooms (though they may be very good compared to others in their class).

In my experience technique is (usually) a bigger arbiter of print quality than lens quality, at least for most users. This may not apply to you of course, but I would try to rent a Leica for a few days to see if it really makes a difference in your work.

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), May 05, 2002.

If you're "less than knocked out" by the prints you get from Nikon and Canon, that's perhaps a clue that the flaw isn't in the equipment, and that you should work on your technique more before putting money into equipment.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

...or to take it back another level, since you're asking for enlarger recommendations, perhaps the problem is with the lab you're using, not the equipment. If you're not doing your own darkroom work, it's almost certain you're not getting full value out of the equipment you have; and after you set up a darkroom, you still won't be there for several years, probably.

Several times people have noted here that some aspect of Leica cameras hasn't come up to their expectations, and then eventually it comes out that they're getting prints made at the local one-hour lab, so let's get the full spectrum of what you're doing out, first, to figure out where the problem is.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Thanks all, for answering. I have been printing for years, and have worked printing with retired photographer Jack Welpott. I mainly shoot and print 4x5, and with hard work I get a print that is up to snuff. I find it much more difficult to print a stellar small neg, and as some here have suggested, more dilligence and practice is in order. I use a Beseler 45 enlarger with a Zone VI cold light head.

I have seen prints that glow at the museums in San Francisco, and I know many of them were done with 35mm, including the Roy DeCarava show I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. If I remember, most of his prints were at least 8x10 and up, and they were magical.

Assuming that I need to work harder, what do some of you Leica users see as the advantage of Leica? Perhaps it is the way the camera operates, perhaps it is lens quality. I have always been curious.

My favorite lens I have used on the Nikon is the 55mm micro. It is quite sharp, but it is slower to focus than regular lenses, needing more revolutions. Thanks all again.

-- John McDonald (jmcd@napanet.net), May 05, 2002.

There are a lot of reasons besides the lens quality to use a Leica rangefinder. The cameras are small, quiet and have a very short shutter lag. They can also be handheld at slower speeds due to less vibration.

I have to agree with the others that if you're not blown away by your results with the Nikon and Cannon gear, there may be other issues besides which camera you use.

Clearly you know your stuff when it comes to 4x5 work. You seem to be happy with your results with the larger format. Forgive me if I'm off base, but I've had several friends who shoot large format and don't get great results with their 35mm. Since the cameras are smaller and quicker to use, they don't take as much time when it comes to metering or composition, and more importantly, really looking at the light when photographing.

The other issue I might suggest looking at is your film/developer combination. Since you can't exactly tailor the exposure and dev time for each frame as you can with 4x5, you have to do careful tests to determine what film and developer give you the right contrast and tonal range for your lighting situation. An overly contrasty 35mm negative can be a real bear to print (or scan).

Having said all that, I have found a certain magical quality in leica glass, and I would recommend trying out an M to anyone. The M cameras (except for the new M7) are all manual and I think they force you to think more as you shoot, but at the same time they are quick and responsive.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 05, 2002.

If you don't want to spent too much money on a try-out and still have the leica top-quality, get a 2nd hand R5, R4 or R4s with a 50 summicron. The 50 summicron is the best lens in history and an R4 (s)/R5 has all the basic features and is very affordable. The whole set shouldn't cost you more that $7-800 and if you're lucky less on ebay. If after this you want a more modern body (R8), it is a excellent spare that allows you to use the same lenses.

I used to work with an minolta x-700 with minolta 50/1.4. A very good combination but I always had to push the corners of my prints when I used larger appertures. Since I went for the Leica I never had to do that again. Contrast a distortion differences are clear, even on contact sheets.

I have a durst605 (condensor), doing very well for me. Again low cost for good quality. But the many issue in enlargers is the lens.

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), May 06, 2002.

Given that you're used to 4x5, printing 35mm to any level of quality is MUCH more difficult, and you need to drag out more tricks to make it work well. It's pretty easy to make 5x7 prints (remember, that's the 4x5 equivalent of 20x24!) but beyond that the job gets harder faster. For intance, I found ferricyanide bleach to be very helpful, even if you didn't want to use it in a way that was obvious, and since I've stopped doing silver and gone digital, I've read about some interesting masking methods I think would be useful in 35mm. If you want to make really big prints, think about how the same magnification of 4x5 would look--that's the real direct comparison.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

I prefer a color head, which is a diffused light source. The dial-in filtration makes it a breeze to print on variable contrast papers.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), May 06, 2002.

John: Before jumping in try renting... My advice would be either an M6TTl with 50 'cron or the R8 with a 50 'cron. Work them hard for a week or two and then decide. This may save you alot of money in the long run. Good luck!!

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 06, 2002.

I would recommend either an R4s with 50mm summicron or an M6 with 50 mm Summicron.

If you always use a meter then a rangefinder M of any series with a 50mm Summicron would do you very well.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), May 07, 2002.