swamiji

Roger, your reference is correct but inaccurate. While their were still cameras before the Leica that used 35mm movie film, they all used the Kodak standard of 18X24. Oskar Barnack decided that the format was too small for reasonable enlargements, and came up with the 24X36 format, in 1913. He was an engineer for Leica, however WWI prevented the company from going into production. It is Leica's 24X36 format that today is referred to when we speak of full frame, or 35mm.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I guess over the years some things have changed, however would you say that the quality is the same or less?

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

'Fraid not. Simplex (USA, 1913) allowed the user to switch between both formats; Le Furet (1923) was 24x36.

If you want to talk about prototypes, there is a British patent dating back to 1908 and George P. Smith of Missouri also built a 24x36mm camera in the same year as Barnack, while Le Furet (see above) was patented in 1913.

Even though I wrote it some 30 years ago, the book is still regarded as a standard by photo historians: I am told that it was used as a text at RIT, though I have not verified this. The actual formats of the cameras listed are given in the book, but I did not bother to reproduce them in the post above.

Cheers,

R.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Are you the Roger Hicks that authored the book "Rangefinder: Equipment, History, Techniques" that has become a standard in the industry?

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Well, yes, I wrote it (with my wife Frances Schultz), but I think you're flattering it a bit to call it 'a standard in the industry'. Mind you, I'm never averse to a bit of flattery.

I'm currently in discussion with GMC (the publishers) about doing a much updated e-book version.

Cheers,

R.

dawgtired Loc: Raleigh, NC

I don' have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said and demonstrated, especially by Roger. There are a couple of sites I would recommend you go to in order to see more about the Leica M9. One is Thorsten Overgaard. He has a great review of the camera and the whole Leica experience. Also, Steve Huff and Reid Reviews. The latter is a subscription site but it may well be worth you time and just a few dollars. As for me, I have an M9 that I absolutely love along with a three lens kit 35, 50, 90. I was tired of complicated menus and lugging around a big Nikon and my big heavy lenses. Yes it's a small fortune, but I no longer need the next DSLR with all the new bells and whistles. I'm completely happy with my M9, and will most likely have it to give to the kids one day. That is when they pry it from my cold dead hands :-)

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Hard to say. Leica has undertaken to support digital models only for a minimum of 20 years (!) after introduction, presumably on the grounds that the electronics will be hopelessly outmoded by then -- unlike a mechanical film Leica, which can be fixed forever. Put it this way: I believe that the M9 is as well made as it possibly can be, as most Leicas have been.

Cheers,

R.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Got a spare laying around I can borrow? Yes, nice cameras but some how my cheap brain can't justify it.

Jim D

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Leica also markets the Panasonic FZ-150 with the Leica name and logo on the same camera...for $300 more than one with a Panasonic name on it. It's a V-Lux 2 point and shoot.

dawgtired Loc: Raleigh, NC

I read somewhere that the Panasonic has different software. I can't confirm that though

friedeye Loc: Los Angeles

My first camera - the first one I paid hard earned cash for - was a Leica IIIF that I bought from a classmate in Junior High. Paid 60 bucks for it and its 35mm F3.5 Elmar lens. I shoot with that camera today and love it.

Recently, I bought a full frame M9, and some thread mount lenses that I could use with both cameras. Used lenses, a couple of new Voigtlanders, and a Zeiss.

It's an expensive camera and it took a lot of soul searching before i took the leap. I shot exclusively with my IIIF for a couple of months to make sure I really wanted to commit to a rangefinder. By the end of those two months, I realized that I was never leaving the house without my camera. It's small, it's fun, it had become a part of me. And I was getting terrific stuff with it.

But, understand -- Leica's aren't for sports or for wildlife.... or even for shooting your moving kids. They work best as landscape and street photography cameras. They also aren't for photogs who like to switch lenses frequently or use zooms. The Leica ethos is to use one lens as your primary - usually a 35mm or a 50 - and maybe carry a second lens in your pocket. Your legs are your zoom.

And, as for the expense, I think it's ridiculous. I will never buy a Leica lens new and can't even justify popping for one of the newer lenses used -- they start at about 2 grand on eBay. I use old Leica glass, Voigtlander and Zeiss and am very happy with the results. The super expensive camera bodies (like the Titanium M9) are made for Asia and rich fetishists.

And that's my final point: I think in general, Leica is a fetish camera. In this day and age, there are amazing cameras out there that do everything and deliver stunning IQ. Leica's make you work for the shot. You buy a Leica because it speaks to you. They're beautifully made. They don't belong in a drawer. They belong on a shelf or desk within reach so you can pick them up and admire them and play with them. They're small, so they belong over your shoulder when you head out for the day. And, when you see a shot, the camera's there, in your hands. Aperture, shutter speed, focus, click - when it all becomes automatic to you, it's magic.

RobertW Loc: Breezy Point, New York

I used a Leica M6 for many years, and have a Leica VLux 1 and am waiting till I can afford the M9...It's a MAGNIFICENT product!!

Phyllis Loc: NE PA

I have been a Nikon user for 40 years, slowly making my way up to the D3s. Last week I purchased a Leica M9 ($6995) and a 50mm Summicron 2.0 lens ($2350), thinking that this will be the last camera I'll ever buy. While I only have the camera and lens for a week, I think I'm right. It may very well be the last camera I'll ever buy.

The M9 is small, light, and easy to use, without all the dials and buttons that clutter typical DSLRs. The pictures are the sharpest I've taken and the colors are phenomenal. I'm thrilled with my purchase.

Like many of you, I am retired and living on a fixed income. I have to save over a period of time to be able to buy my "toys". Eventually I would like to add two more lenses, a wide-angle and a telephoto. This will take a while, but I'm willing to wait.

So, my answer to the question, "Is the Leica worth the money?" is an emphatic "YES".

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Do you mean Leica? If so, I know that Ann Curry (The Today show) always has one hanging around her neck when trotting all over the world. She is also a great phtographer. And yes, it is all about the glass. Cheaper versions of the Leica lenses used by Panasonic and Samsung P&S cameras are fabricayed in Japan.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

You have to hold one. Or should I say try one on. The camera just feels right, fits the hand, is very easy to use. You do not have out of focus issues. The coupled range finder is so precise.

They are tough, withstood numerous fire fights, can be used in the worst of conditions and just keep on clicking with no noise emitting.

I have not used a digital Leica but with 35mm you can just blow up the prints. The glass is superb. The 135mm is just about what you need for telephoto. It is a camera that you use close up to that which you are going to shoot. If going on safari take something else unless you can get close to the lions. Going to shoot eagles get them when they are low in flight. But, if you are going to shoot low light just shoot away with the .95 or 1.0 lens no need for a flash here.

When you shoot a Leica you keep both eyes open so you can see what is coming and going.

It is just a different photographic experience.

If I still had a soul I would sell it to get a M-9!