Ok guys, you all have used the M lens and M bodies pretty much.

Let me ask you. IYO, which do you feel is the deciding factor in choosing the M?

the LENSES or the BODIES?

I know they have to be together to make sense, but please choose one.

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), June 04, 2002

Answers

God this is LAME!

the LENSES.

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), June 04, 2002.

Both, but mostly either one. Or the other.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 04, 2002.

The other. No, the first. Perhaps not. The latter. Damn. Does this have to make sense?

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), June 04, 2002.

I like both, but the lenses I feel are the clencher. If this system didn't have awesome lenses, what's the point to a photog. Well, I guess the shake-freeness of the rangefinder. And the lasting quality, and and...

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

The glass swayed me to Leica, but the body is essential to the mix. I would not be shooting Leica glass if I had to do it with a Konica or Cosina body. Nor would I shoot with an M body if all I could get was Voigtlander lenses. Kinda strange, I know...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 04, 2002.

The size, in relation to the optical quality and lens assortment. Neither the lenses nor the bodies present any other particularly compelling advantages for me over other high-end systems.

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

My first Leica was not an M; it was a IIIf. This would be just before Kennedy was elected. I got it because I was in high school and didn't know any better.

Learning to load film taught me a lot about life. It taught me that life is very difficult and unfair. Learning to load the film did give me a feeling of superiority. Continued use may just be habit; or because the cameras and I get along; in a spiritual sort of way. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), June 04, 2002.

I can sense the fustration of choosing.

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), June 04, 2002.

I completely agree with Rob.

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

The lenses -- at first. Then the body sucks you in. Then of course the package begins to work (or not) as a system. Then I think the system ends up either becoming an extension of you or "for sale", and that decision seems to occur pretty early on.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

The finder---but for that I might have bought a Contax. The Contax finder: now that IS lame!

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@mindspring.com), June 04, 2002.

The body, no automation, go gadgets, no nonsense.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), June 04, 2002.

The body, otherwise you could just use the R system. The M cameras do things that virtually no other camera can.

Great lenses are all over the place. If anyone here (myself included) becomes so good of a photographer that their Nikon or Canon pro lenses are holding them back, I'll eat my hat.

Body body body.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), June 04, 2002.

This is what lawyers call a 'closed question' in that it limits the answers, in this case to two: the lenses or the bodies.

What about all the accessories - what would we do without 1.25x magnifiers and ABLONs and AUFSUs? What about snob value?

As for me, I'm going to sit on the flange and say it was the lenses and the bodies.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), June 04, 2002.

It started with the body, clean and uncluttered. With tabbed 50mm lens, the camera and lens have become (almost) transparent to me.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

To echo Michael, the one element of the Leica that is most important to me is the finder. That straight-through window lets me connect with my subjects in a different way than any SLR.

That said, there are other VFs out there that are competitive (or even better, like the Cosina), so why Leica in particular? For me it's the gestalt that Leica have wrought - the finder, the quality and feel of the body, the feel of the shutter, the simplicity of the system, the quality and feel of the lenses. The whole exceeds the simple sum of the parts. Any one of these individual aspects can be or has been equalled by other marques. None have put it all together in a package that has the same sense of utter integrity and completeness. That, for me, defines the joy of using this camera system.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), June 04, 2002.

In addition to all the above reasons, I have to honestly say that reading this forum for a few weeks, seeing examples of people's work, and reading about their passion, was a major factor in my going into the Leica M system. So thanks guys and gals!

The availability of some hard earned funds did make this fantasy a reality, for without the money I would be still using my 20+ year old manual Nikon setup, which I still use for tele and super-wide fun.

When I was a kid, the Pentax Spotmatic had just come out and I wanted a SLR for the longest time. And now I'm back with a rangefinder. Sometimes one ends up back at the same place after a long journey, but (hopefully) with some more vision and clarity.

Thanks again for this forum. It rekindled a love of taking pictures, something that had been dormant for a few years.

If I hadn't bought the M, the money would have gone for shoes, clothes, cafe lattes, dinner, cosmetics, and more shoes, i.e., on women. Different bodies, no lenses. :)

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), June 04, 2002.

I aggree with Jay on this one. The size (ie portability) are the major determinants here. The optics are outstanding and equal to those of the R system. I love them both however and make my choice depending on the photographic situation (and how strong I feel!)

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), June 04, 2002.

The following portrait was made possible solely because of the great optics of the M series 50mm Summicron, which is sharp wide-open. No wait... it is made possible because of the pin-point accuracy of the rangefinder focusing system within the camera. On the other hand, that lens has some nice bokeh. But then again, the ability to hand- hold a camera at 1/15th of a second due to no mirror bounce makes the M body a winner. That lens is pretty flare-free with the window right in the frame. But that body let me see the expression during the exposure, unlike an SLR. Wait... Uh... I know....

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

Manual RF body + Noctilux lens = NIRVANA!!!!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

I got to Leica M because of the body. But then discovered the fine qualities of the lenses and from simple satisfaction I went into complete happiness

-Iván

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

neither. i just like buying expensive cameras so i would look cool. what's that word? ah..."equipment masturbator"....

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

Lux;

As with other things in life, the first attraction was the body, then the face, then looking into the eyes... . In the words of Molly Bloom at the end of the Odyssy: "Yes yes yes yes yes oh yes!" In the fullness of time, after the bells have stopped ringing and the lights have stopped flashing, The "System Entire" is what binds me to it, as it is more than the sum of the parts. "Synergy", without a thesaurous.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

The size of the whole system which is small, matched to the performance which is big. Josh, while other equipment has comparable offerings, no one offers this combination of size/performance. Canon has very fast "L" lenses but you need a fork lift to haul them around. This weight factor does limit my performance as a photographer. By the end of the night when shooting a wedding with the Canons, I'm so bushed I start missing all the great winding down shots...not so using the tiny Leicas with the BIG performance.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 05, 2002.

Dear Lux,

I think this is the most intelligent question that has been asked in a very long time--and given the daily number of intelligent questions here that is saying a lot. The question is simple--basic--but profound.

I chose Leica M because it was the best I could find in RF cameras. The lenses, the finder, the build quality, the feel, you name it. I did not go for the name. I have loved RF camera since the early 80s when there were not many to choose from. You had the Canons then which I liked better than the Leicas screw mounts, and you had Ms. I used to collect a lot of used equipment because there was no other alternative. Then in 1984 the M6 was born. Before I bought an M6 in 1989 (used) I already had a CL and CLE. The M6 allowed me to use 35mm and 50mm and 28mm lens in one metered camera without external finders. Before that I had gotten an M3 (1985), M4 (1987) and M2 (1987).

My other auto M is the Hexar RF, which is not bad--good with wide angles--but has a slow shutter button. Leica M still remains the best RF camera.

Recently I bought a Bessa R2 and I love the thing. My 'cron 35/ 2ASPH is more or less permantly afixed to it. I think it is a splendid camera. I wish I'd had it 15 years ago. From now on I see no reason for buying manual Leica M cameras. They are quieter for sure. Outside that, in terms of price and feel, the Bessa R2 is the M manual camera to beat! The finder is bigger and easier to focus than the M6 0.58 at wide apatures. The feel with Triggerwinder and long grip beats M. If only the shutter could be quieter. On the other hand, the shutter is metal, thus there is no chance of sunlight burning a hole through it.

In sum: I use M Leicas because at the moment they are the best RF cameras around. The Leica mystique is fun of course, but it is not necessary, per se, to creation.

Good question, Lux.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), June 05, 2002.

Thanks Alex..

For me, it has always been the lenses first. But those bodies....whoaaa.

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), June 05, 2002.

The rich selection of forums to read.

-- Steven Hupp (shupp@chicagobotanic.org), June 05, 2002.

The body's the thing. The lenses work okay, too.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), June 05, 2002.

Same question as cars again, too. Do you like yours because of the motor or because of the tires? Etc, etc, etc... ?

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 05, 2002.

The body, because the rangefinder is easy to focus. The lenses are great but you'd never know by looking at my photos.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), June 07, 2002.