I honestly didn't mean this to be a big thing on the blog this week, but I guess, by popular demand, I have to elaborate. But please see the note at the very end of this post.
First of all, what I'm suggesting is an exercise. Young people think a year is a very long time. All us older people know it isn't. A year spent learning several important aspects of photography at once, in a concerted way, will pay off for many years after that, regardless of where you take it later. That's assuming you really want to be a photographer in the first place, of course.
Why using a Leica for a year doesn't cost anything, as several commenters have correctly guessed: a used M6 goes for between $1000 to $1200, give or take, and won't depreciate much (if at all) in a year. How much interest would your bank give you right now for keeping that grand parked in a savings account for that period of time? I don't know if you've checked interest rates recently, but the answer is "not very much." At the end of the year you'll lose maybe $100, counting shipping and Ebay fees and lost bank interest, maybe $200 if you're unlucky and/or impatient. Dave Terrell recounts, in the comments to the previous post, how he used some Leica gear for four years and came out $140 ahead. The same has been true for me. I've owned three Leicas at various times over the years, and I made money on two of them. Not much, but the upshot was that the three together ended up not costing me a dime to own and shoot with for a while. Not a dime. (Wish I could say the same for my digital cameras, which have collectively depreciated more than enough to cover a nice Leica and a good lens.) If you do what I suggest, film and paper, or outside processing and printing, will cost much more than the camera will—and both will be dwarfed by the value of the time you'll put in.
And in case you're feeling all whiney about not being able to come up with a grand for the camera: you're young. Work. Save up. Get an extra job. Sacrifice a little. Drink less. Get motivated and go find the damn money, for chrissake. (Malcolm Forbes used to say that no motorcycle enthusiast should be jealous of his motorcycle collection, because any working stiff could afford one motorcycle, and one is all anybody really needs.) Even if you don't have enough credit with anyone on Earth to borrow a grand for a year, it's still not impossible. When I wanted my first camera, I worked two jobs, seven days and 70 hours a week. Granted, I wouldn't have wanted to do that for the rest of my life, but after a few months of that grind I had my camera and lens. In any event, if you're not committed to being out of pocket to the tune of $100 or $200 for a camera you're going to use every day for a year, well, then maybe you aren't committed enough for this exercise, is all. No penalty, no prison time. But don't complain.
Why it has to be a Leica: well, other cameras can be good teachers too. But the Leica is the best teacher, and here's why you should pick it and not a substitute:
1. It's no fun to look through. Totally boring, in fact. Just a window. The framelines aren't even accurate, so you you can't get all prissy about edges and exact framing. And about that "what you see is what you get" with an SLR, digital or otherwise? Not so, because you're always seeing through the lens at its maximum aperture, meaning its minimum d.o.f., aberrations maximized. That particular distortion is just as distracting as parallax and the other flaws of rangefinder viewing, just different. The RF camera sees like you should during this year: at a glance, taking everything in at once. A few months of shooting with a Leica and you'll start to get a feel for what aperture you need for what depth of field. (Mostly I think you'll learn it's not as all-fired important as the SLRs—and the online forums—would lead you to believe.)
2. The Leica is really simple—truly, "as simple as possible, and no simpler." (Well, except for that frameline-preview lever.) You know what "the feel of the wheel" is? It's when you've been driving for a few months and suddenly you realize you don't have to think about anything consciously any more. When you first got behind the wheel of a car, you had to think about everything. After a while it becomes second nature. You think what you want to happen, and it happens. I'm not saying this is some deep spiritual thing. I'm reminded of the old joke—what did the guru say to the hot dog vendor? "Make me one with everything." But "becoming one" with the camera is a cool thing, and a good lesson. It is really, really hard to achieve on a modern DSLR, because they're not built for that. I'm not saying it's necessary to learn to handle the camera this way to do good work or anything like that, but it is really cool, cool enough that it's worthwhile experiencing at least once in your life with cameras.
3. The Leica is quiet. Not super quiet, any more, but quiet enough. It changes how you can shoot compared to most SLRs. You'll see.
4. The Leica is really responsive. First of all, it doesn't ever do one damn thing you don't tell it to do. Modern cameras are your servants: always stepping in trying to help, always trying to take things out of your hands and do the work for you. Which is fine. But we're talking about learning here, and you will learn more if you have to do everything yourself for a while. Think of the difference: who is better off, the rich man who has servants doing everything for him, but who is fully capable of taking care of himself if he has to, or the rich man who is helplessly dependent on his servants to take care of him, and would perish without them? Learn to pull your own weight, then go back to all the helper-cameras. You'll be infinitely better off. Forever, not just for the time being.
And the shutter lag is 18 milliseconds, with a very positive mechanical shutter feel. That, coupled with the total absence of blackout in the viewfinder window, will teach you to take the picture at the exact right moment, not some vague approximation of it. All good pros know how to do this, regardless of how they learned it.
5. A Leica is cool to wear in any language, in any country. You don't need to make excuses, feel sheepish, wish you had something else, worry about your image, etc. If you can't get better, then you never have to fret about not having good enough.
6. Finally, and just as importantly as any other reason here: a Leica is a Leica. The icon, the legend, all that, yatta yatta. It has been responsible for far more than its share of great work; more great photographers used it in the second half of the twentieth century than any other camera, at least part of the time. You can see even in the comments to the previous post that the camera provokes strong emotions and opinions; no other 35mm excites nearly the same passions nearly as universally in our little craft. Until you get to grips with a Leica, you haven't gotten to grips with a Leica. So, do it. Then you'll know firsthand what everyone is bloviating about, and need never suffer a scintilla more angst on that account.
Do this while you're young, and have time in your life. Do it while you have the energy to commit, while all your possibilities are still open, while you still have the motivation to stay in training. Because make no mistake, photographing the way I suggested in the previous post is the photographic equivalent of being a top athlete: it takes dedication and coordination and talent and time and sacrifice and lots of training. Not everybody can do it. (I can't, these days. Too old, slow, stiff and lazy.) This whole idea works better—it's simply more possible for most of us—when we're young and have energy to throw away. You can tell from the comments that a lot of our readers have done something similar to this at some point in their lives, and only a few don't agree it was a good thing for them.
So what I'm suggesting is that you devote a year and some cash and work your butt off and learn some lessons about photographing that will stick in your brain pan throughout the rest of your life. It's not a film vs. digital thing; you can go back to digital and never look back and it will still never stop helping you. It's not a black-and-white vs. color thing; a year of seeing "luminances only" will help your color photography too, even if you never shoot another "capture" of B&W in your life. It's not a rangefinder vs. any-other-kind-of-camera thing; I think you'll find that the lessons the rangefinder will teach you are exportable. And it's not even a Leica vs. other-rangefinder thing, either. But until you've gotten to know life with Leica, you don't know about life with Leica, and it's just going to keep on being one more thing you don't know. So why not get to know it, firsthand and for yourself?
I don't even really like rangefinders. Most other people don't either. (What they like is Leicas, not rangefinders, for many reasons, some sensible, some stupid.) If they did, there would be more people buying them, and there would be a few viable digital rangefinders on offer. The reason there aren't is that only a few people really like the damn things.
They still have a lot to teach you, though, in my humble opinion. Most people will never get to, but a year with a Leica as a teacher is something every passionate photographer would experience once in their lifetimes if they were really lucky.
P.S. A year with a view camera, too. But, as Ctein would say, "Put down the can opener and step slowly away from the worms...."
Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Amazon Germany link
Amazon Canada link
B&H Photo link
Adorama Camera link
N.b.: Again, remember, nobody's going to actually do what I'm suggesting. It's an historical moment whose time has passed. I'm glad I got my year in, but the experience is going to be extremely rare in the future. So if you're tempted to get your bonnet all askew over this, please don't bother.
As to why then I bothered to spell all this out, people asked, that's all.
UPDATE (5/6/10): Two illustrations were removed from this post at the photographer's request.
Featured Comment by Tod Papageorge: "Two great posts, I think, and not only because they echo a sweet tirade I've been abusing my graduate students with for the last several years (none of whom has used any kind of 35mm camera over that period). I resist getting mystical about the Leica, as the fact that I earned my great friend Garry Winogrand's less-than-benign puzzlement when I gave it up for a medium-format Fujica should testify. But, sorry everyone, or some of you, there really is nothing else remotely like a Leica for in-the-hand picture-making, and the only reason I could consider setting it aside for the clumsy Fujica was precisely because I'd put in a decade of steady practice using it and was ready to apply what I'd learned to a more ponderous kind of process.
"Also great to see Garry and his between-the-legs method. In all the years I knew him, never once, not once, did I observe him resort to this particular shooting style. He must have been inspired by Arnold."
Featured Comment by Paul Amyes: "I teach photography at an art school and we are just starting to get the first totally digital generation of students coming through—they have never used anything but digital. The first year of the three year program has them shooting monochrome, developing and printing. We recommend totally manual cameras with a 50mm prime. They all bitch about this and say they know all there is to know about exposure and composition. Second semester tranny [transparencies] is introduced to teach them a little more about exposure and composition. The rate of improvement is considerable as they learn that they have to work for an image. At the end of the first year they have to produce a portfolio of 16 B&W prints of professional standard. It is at this stage the penny drops and they realise what we h ave been on about.
"Oh, and second year it's all 5x4 transparency in the studio and on location.
"As to Mike's suggestion about the Leica, yes I would tend to agree with him, only because the depreciation is very small. Any rangefinder would do, and a few of the students who really catch on buy Bessas. But I think most people would benefit from doing this exercise using an OM-1, a K1000 or an FM, as long as they used just one prime. when I first started I had an old Praktica Super TL and a 50mm ƒ/2.8 Zeiss. It was truly an agricultural experience but I have still got a couple of the photos from those days which have stood up rather well to the test of time. So just get a mechanical 35mm camera and just one lens—35–50mm is probably best—and shoot away."
Mike: My first 35mm camera was an Argus A5, which had 4 shutter speeds, 5 f/stops, 'guess' focusing, one lens (naturally) and no lightmeter (although I did have an external one). I used that camera for several years before I could afford an SLR (Pentax Spotmatic F), and it taught me a lot.
I think your exercise is a valuable one.
Mike.
Posted by: Mike Nelson Pedde | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 01:56 AM
I feel ambivalent toward your last two posts. A potentially great idea ruined by your interpretation that it *must* be a Leica.
I carried a mechanical SLR (batteries only for the three dot under-, correct-, over-exposed meter) with me every day for a year and a half shooting film, about two rolls a week. Did it make me a better photographer?
I don't know. Probably?
It taught me some of the mechanics of photography - aperture, shutter speed, how to manually focus (which greatly helps me use autofocus), and gave me perspective on a more thoughtful way of shooting. But I could say that I've learned equally as much using digital - mostly due to the benefits of instant review, fearlessness in committing to an exposure, and the ability to practice, practice, practice without being bogged down by the mechanics of developing and printing or scanning. (Yes, I still shoot 6x7 and develop the film in my bathroom sink.)
And yet, I'm still learning that there is more to photography than understanding and being competent with your tools.
Your post inspired in me the idea to pick up a 35mm rangefinder and carry it around with me every day to expand my photographic horizons... but your insistence that it be a Leica and no other has left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and slightly confused. Your justifications seem to be more against the convenience and automation of modern dSLRs or even SLRs, and you mention some reasonable points of why it has to be a rangefinder and not a SLR. But your justifications of why it should be a Leica and none other seem weak, and very unworthy of you.
To assume I would be ashamed of the camera I wore around my neck is condescending. Whether it's a prestige model or a bargain brand, I have personally made a choice to use that camera. No one should be ashamed of their choice, and for you to accept or even cater to such superficiality is irritating.
I've never owned a Leica before, so yes, it would be nice to use one... or even hold one. But it would also be nice to drive a Rolls Royce or wear a Rolex. But rather bemoan the fact that they are too expensive, or work hard to earn enough money to afford one as you suggest, I'm going take the third option - drive a car that I can afford and wear a watch I can buy. No, it won't be a Rolls Royce and it won't be a Rolex, but I will still learn to drive, and I will still be able to tell the time. And for you to tell me that I will never reach the same skill as you with your Rolls Royce and your Leica... I mean Rolex, is terribly condescending. Then again, since I don't own a Leica, maybe this is all true and Leicas really are like magical unicorns.
Then again, maybe they aren't.
Posted by: Andrew | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:22 AM
"Then again, since I don't own a Leica, maybe this is all true and Leicas really are like magical unicorns.
"Then again, maybe they aren't."
Then again, maybe you should just try it and find out for yourself. Then you'd know.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:38 AM
I think that you would learn a lot more if you bought three or four high-end DSLRs of different brands, and at least five lenses for each (ten is better). And every time you had any sort of problem at all, you should buy a new item. Not important what it is, just that you get used to that kind of problem solution.
Sure, not a cheap way to go, but what price education?
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 03:00 AM
"...not a cheap way to go, but what price education?"
You're not helping!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 03:09 AM
A Leica. Is that black or chrome?
Posted by: Christian | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 03:36 AM
It seems just yesterday I read a quote by ol' Ansel- something to the effect of how small cameras simply allow us the opportunity to shoot lots more mediocre pictures.
Actually, I don't dispute the Leica, 1 yr premise- at any age. I plan on doing it sometime in the future (even if, alas, only with a Bessa), when I'm even older and stiffer and lazier. Should help infuse some much needed energy into my work by then, although I know I'll be cussing up a storm at first because my framing and composition won't be anywhere near as exact- which, of course, could be a plus right there.
So many people today don't understand the subtleties between say... what a 35mm can do as opposed to a 28- it's just one endless zoom ride as far as they're concerned. Actually, I also kind of like the idea of just shooting strictly with my Widelux for a year- that would definitely improve my panoramics.
Posted by: Stan B. | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 03:37 AM
I have to say I'm confused about which Leica too. In particular would you recommend something without a light meter, or with? (M3/4 vs M6, as an example) I've been interested in RF cameras for a while and this is finally pushing me over the edge. There are a lot more variations between the cameras then I expected and picking one is difficult.
Posted by: Charles | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 04:22 AM
Thomas Risberg wrote:
"I think it has to be a Leica because as far as I know it is the only non-automatic camera that let's you use it without looking at the camera."
You can do this equally well on any camera with absolute-position dials/rings and a shortish focus throw, i.e. on just about any non-auto 35mm camera with a suitable lens. If you're concerned about the absence of tabs you can glue them on.
Leica photographers develop the skill because the type of photography typically done with Leicas benefits from it. It's not restricted to them.
Posted by: expiring_frog | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 05:01 AM
Dear Mike,
I've used Leicas. Eh, shrug.
Maybe they are magical unicorns, but then I'm no virgin.
==================
Dear JC,
You just led me to a new realization. Up until this moment, I had never thought of this: while I have some clear ideas on how I would teach a class of students to be good photographers, I don't have the foggiest how I would teach them to be good printers.
Understand that I'm not using "good**" to mean "technically competent**." I can and do teach that all the time, through columns, articles, and books. I can say that being a really good printer is more than mere technical competence (the same way being a really good photographer is more than knowing the mechanics). So it's not that there's nothing to be taught/learned. But I don't know how.
I find this peculiar, seeing as I am a much, much better printer than I am photographer.
[**If there are any readers who are not understanding the distinction I'm making here, consider that I am a technically competent writer, while JC is a GOOD one. ]
~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Posted by: ctein | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 05:11 AM
You do realise you're in danger of agreeing with Ken Rockwell. Not saying that is good or bad, just sayin'. Simon
Posted by: Simon, Norfolk UK | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 07:52 AM
Great article, Mike. You have put the Leica in practical perspective much better than anyone else's ramblings on Leica's magical and ethereal qualities. It's just a damn good and honest camera. While I shoot digitals more and more, I will always keep and use my Leicas.
Posted by: Dogman | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 09:23 AM
I don't miss film. Sorry for the heretical comment, but I don't miss it at all. Digital, for me, is essentially free, and with wife, kids, mortgage, car payments, etc, I could not afford film, especially as much as I love to shoot. There are days I miss my 4x5 and TLR Yashica 6x6 shooting Tri-X or Tech Pan in the Texas Hill Country. I learned from a professor who insisted we use Yashica TLRs with NO LIGHT METER, and shoot Plus X or Tri X in college. IMHO, the Leica is vastly over-rated when a good TLR will give sharper/better images on the film. If I could afford film again (and had a place to print real prints), I would use the Mamiya 7 series. There is no substitute for a large negative. That being said, a good 12 mp Nikon/Canon/Sony/Olympus/etc is just as good for any real purpose these days except for Fine Art prints. Just my two cents worth. Digital has allowed me to get back into photography. I use one lens, and one camera when I go shoot however.....
Posted by: Murph | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:16 AM
Adam,
Fine. So go shoot with one for a year and then get back to me on that, will you?
Mike,
I'm seriously considering doing so. Probably the Yashica FX-3 with a Contax 50/1.4 although I might go with the FM2n and Voigtlander 58/1.4 instead since I'm not really sure the FX-3 can handle 100 rolls of film without self-destructing.
Posted by: Adam Maas | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:24 AM
Hey, why even a rangefinder? What about a Rollei 35? Holds value, slips in your pocket, and you get real good thinking in terms of depth of field!
Posted by: Bill Cooper | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:30 AM
I can't help but think a lot of people are missing the point--camera snobbery is not the reason that Mike is suggesting a Leica. In fact, it's the very opposite. He's suggesting it simply because it has the reputation as the very best camera, enabling you to stop worrying about the damn box and start looking at what pictures you're taking. You'll never again wonder about whether you'd get better pictures if you had a Leica, because you've been there, done that.
Also, as the target audience (I just graduated college) I think this idea is great. Actually, before these two articles were posted, I just snapped up a M3. No, I don't think it's because of the magic inherent in the box, I just wanted to have the experience of shooting a meterless Leica and get it out of my system. I also don't have much money (for the next year I'm going to be in an Americorp program--good for subject matter perhaps, not so good for mountains of cash), but I took what I had from working campus jobs over the last 3 years and got the camera and lens for about $1000.
Last point--digital is what got me back into photography. I loved seeing the results on the screen immediately. But I started to notice that no picture I took was as good as what I was getting with my dad's Pentax Super A and 50mm 1.4, which I had used throughout high school. There's something about the process that changes when you're using a manual system. Don't ask me what, since I honestly couldn't tell you, but it's unmistakable.
So, in the end, it's not the camera, but it is the camera, but it's not...
Posted by: Craig H. | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 11:29 AM
I know I'm late to respond to this as there are over 100 other comments, but I have to say again it's not close to free in any reasonable financial model. This doesn't detract from your exercise suggestion, but I think saying that trying it is free is mean to any who may not be able to easily afford the Leica.
I would say there are a couple of categories of people who should not consider buying a Leica for your experiment. Worse, I think these would occur in higher percentage in your target group of the young. First, opportunity costs can be very high: Anyone who has large credit card debt would lose hundreds of dollars over one year compared to using a cheap camera and putting the rest toward the debt. Second, a leica is not a risk-free asset (damage, repair, theft, loss, etc), and constant use increases these risks. You may as well say the lotto makes people money by pointing out the guy who won. Anyone who cannot handle the thought of losing all or a large chunk of the resale value at the end of the experiment should also opt for something cheaper. With my income, losing $1000 so easily would be a paralyzing prospect. Getting a leica is right for some people to be sure, but there are very real costs. Please don't pretend otherwise by saying it's free.
As far as the relatively non-depreciating nature of a leica, I think you would find this is actually true with just about any mechanical camera today. If you take today's used price as the baseline (not original price), most will return fairly stable results. A $40 K-1000 will be around $40 when the experiment ends.
Posted by: Tim | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 11:34 AM
I've been going over this for a day or two, struggling with it, and the bottom line is that these particular two pieces actually made me angry. Hence this public navel-gazing.
Like many others, I recognize the value of curmudgeonly advice from time to time. (Like Kirk Tuck's film rants, some of this IS curmudgeonly, but "curmudgeonly" isn't always a bad thing.)
Some of this is personal. I'm ADD as the day is long and could stand to push a little more discipline into my photography. I'm an inveterate lens-switcher, perspective changer, and I scattershoot as a way to sketch until I find what I want to put down in ink. There is value in both discipline and in implementing some rigid limits in order to focus on specific skills. I do some coaching, and recognize that all drills have some elements that make them differ from real game conditions. They need to be done, focused on, and repeated to build the skills that you can draw on without having to think about them when they're needed. Some drills suck, but they make you stronger.
The bottom line to me is that the advice is so impractical for so many people. To be perfectly honest, it's probably monumentally bad advice for many others. And so I'm seeking something that more people can take away, can benefit from, and can return ultimately much greater value. If the goal is to create perhaps one more devotee of a certain style who has gone through this kind of learning process, then of course it doesn't matter that the advice is utterly unusable for everyone else. But the article doesn't say that.
It's not your responsibility to explain every bit of intent. It's not possible for you to make every recommendation a considered course of study for each individual, with his (all too likely) or her specific experiences, strengths, and weaknesses. So it's not like I'm angry with you personally.
I also know that I would miss shots that I consider worthwhile if I weren't able to paint with all the colors available to me. Breaking it down is important, but so is flexibility. (Coaching: even on some of the practice days where we most focus on specific skills, we get to play some, too.)
The suggestion to work hard - to take two jobs - is ill-timed in an environment where it's so hard to find one job. Work hard, save, prioritize, that all makes sense. But I'd like to hear you offer the alternative for all those folks who aren't going to be able to take two jobs, but who'd still like to develop. The point could be that you have to be 100% dedicated, that you have to suffer, that you have to go through those pains, or else you can never truly learn to be a great photographer. And maybe that's what really troubles me.
Tangentially, I wonder if the next great photographer is going to come out of some of the methods that produced great photographers in the past, or if using some of the same methods is an attempt to create another Winogrand (we already had one). I'm a believer in knowing where it's come from before ignoring it, so I wouldn't want to discount photography's past, but that's pretty far off the original purpose of the post...
But enough about me...
Posted by: Marshall | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 12:48 PM
Will B&W slides do(DR5)? I know the darkroom work is part of the exercise, but I don't have access to one. Is reversal material too inflexible as it does not have the possible adjustments done at the printing stage? This is such a good idea, but it will be difficult not to use more lenses, and lose the benefits of total immersion into simplicity.
Posted by: Michel Krieber | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 12:49 PM
It's Eolake's world. We just live in it.
Posted by: Paul De Zan | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 01:54 PM
I posted here about this late in the last thread, but i need to repeat part of it. If you read the former post you will know i am not a leica "basher", and have used them.
The deal breaker for me, is that for me, it has a very irritating "feature", that i simply do not like. That is (even on the M8-god knows why...) its totally removes back/bottom plate, which has to be done to load film or apparently to change a memory card.
Apart from that, i consider them superb.
But if any other company, with a less historic/respected product line did that, we would all be flaming them for bad design.
Posted by: jay moynihan | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:46 PM
Dear Michael,
In my opinion B&W slides would be BETTER!
The point of Mike's exercise is not to get lost in the details and craft/technical minutiae. B&W neg film and darkroom printing is actually a really poor model (from a craft perspective) for the kind of photography 99+% of the photographers are going to end up doing. It's a way to get you to see luminances. B&W slides will do the same thing, and provide you with much more useful feedback.
In my judgment, anyway.
pax / Ctein
Posted by: ctein | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:36 PM
"In my opinion B&W slides would be BETTER! [snip] In my judgment, anyway."
Yes, I think so. Actually the darkroom work is *the* major impediment to the process, a necessary evil. The point is indeed to learn to see luminances. Beyond that, the easier and less expensive the better.
I just don't have any experience with "black and white slides" and I don't know if they're attractive or dreadful. Any thoughts on that, Ctein, or anyone?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 07:03 PM
Well, I've just packed away most of my kit. I'm going to see how well this idea works for me starting in a week or so when I return a recently-borrowed 501CM.
I've decided on the FX-3 and 50/1.4 Planar. As to film, I won't buy anything other than HP5. I will however shoot non-HP5 from what's in my fridge, if only because buying 100 rolls of film is a non-trivial amount when I already have that much floating around.
We'll see how long I last.
Posted by: Adam Maas | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:41 PM
Adam,
That's great. Good fortune, and let us know.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:54 PM
Adam,
Good choice!
20 years ago I began following an advice from teacher Cora W. Kennedy: a Yashica FX3 and two lenses: Tessar 45/2,8 and Sonnar 85/2,8.
Since I didn't find the "3" in Brazil, I bougth it's sister, the FX7.
I'm using them to this day, Plus-X loaded.
Helcio
Bauru - BR
Posted by: Helcio J. Tagliolatto | Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 11:59 PM
I have moved almost entirely to rangefinder for everything not requiring a tripod. It works for me, but it does depend on your style and the sort of work you are aiming for.
I am a Leica fan, but more the bodies than anything else. Splashing out on a Leica outfit was the best thing i ever did. It changed the way I work and I have never looked back. I am much more fluid, spontaneous and flexible. It helps me capture what is going on 'real time', up close and where it happens. There really is little substitute for getting in close with a RF and a 24-35mm lens and being part of the action. The longest I shoot is 50 and even then, rarely. My 90 has shot about ten frames in four years.
While the one body one lens approach can help, I find two bodies with lenses permanently affixed works for me. I simply could not do what i do with one lens (certainly not a 50, but everyone is different). With a 35 or 28 alone I could perhaps do about 75% though. I would never have thought that possible three or four years ago when using a canon SLR system. Dont get me wrong, that kit is fantastic when you need it, but now I have dramatically improved my personal skills - my 'patter' - and can just be there and get shots without people really giving a damn. This is partly why i totally disagree with the notion that you buy a Leica for the lenses. with Zeiss, Hexanon, CV and a few more) brands available, there has never been a better time for taking advantage of a totally different relationship between you, your camera and what you are pointing it at.
I know a lot of famous work was done with a 50mm lens, but feel that the 35mm is really the standard lens for the Leica. It sits somewhere between Cartier-Bresson and Winogrand!
Posted by: Tom Stanworth | Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 02:46 AM
I spent my first year, in 1975, working with a fixed lens Canon rangefinder. Did B&W with Tri-X and D-76. Learned a lot that I still use daily. I really like the advice and if I had a good film scanner I might be tempted to re-visit a year doing what Mike suggests. I can always find someone else to process the film and then scan negatives and make prints via my computer.
Posted by: Tony In Knoxville | Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 11:22 AM
My learning came from an SLR, but a very simple one, a Pentax K1000. When I later found a classic Voigtlander fixed lens 35mm rangefinder with a 50mm f2.8 lens I learned even more. I now typically carry either a Pentax K10D with a 50mm f1.4 or a Pentax *istDL with a 35mm f2. I guess I am still learning (or at least I hope so).
Posted by: Ira Crummey | Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 11:41 AM
I never wanted a Leica this much before...
Posted by: Simon Mitternacht | Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 04:21 PM
To answer the question asked long ago, which Leica?
I would suggest the M6. Let's face it the meter does help and doesn't take away from the learning.
The M7 has Aperture priority so that wouldn't be the same. I guess an M5 would work as well but is a bit bigger.
For the lens I would suggest the 35mm. Rangefinders seem to be made for the 35mm so why fight it.
It's still a great idea and will be interesting to see who finishes.
Posted by: Rob Skeoch | Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 05:39 PM
You can come out ahead on the resale, but have you factored in the cost of film and processing? The cheapest film you can buy is around $3 a roll. You recommend shooting at least 3 rolls a week, that's around $500 dollars a year. Put another $3 processing per film and you have U$1000 spent, and that's a very low estimate with low quality material and service. Factor in the occasional print you could easily go over U$1500 at this rate. Now consider you can get a pretty good SLR for around $600, which will take pictures with more resolution than budget film, with no extra cost per picture (except for power, which is in the cents), and that will continue taking the same quality pictures for as long as it lives, assuming it doesn't fail ($$ depreciation doesn't make a camera worse). Which is a better deal? In the end you can do the same, just with a little more discipline, without spending half as much.
Posted by: Roister | Monday, 08 June 2009 at 11:11 PM
Today was my first with an M8(2)!
Have been taking photos since borrowing a bellows 120 camera around 1950. Have had darkrooms off and on through that time.
I picked up four M lenses 35, 50, 50 and 90 used while waiting for the camera to arrive.
I've switched from Nikon D300 after more than a year and thousands of images. Got to feeling more and more that the camera was getting between me and composition.
It doesn't hurt that Henri C-B and Robert Capa have been life-time heros.
Today was frustrating but I'm thinking the learning curve isn't all that steep.
Am THRILLED to be embarking on this journey, even as late in life as this...
Posted by: Bill M | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 11:48 PM