Comparing brands is probably one of the worst way to excel in a given craft and most of the time it is just a tedious exercise. Debating whether a Rolex is better than a IWC, or if a Lamborghini over-performs compared to a Ferrari usually leaves the reviewer with a totally subjective conclusion; yet I must admit that the exercise is sometimes quite funny. It was quite clear in my mind that, immediately after being offered the possibility to use a Leica camera for some days during the summer, my idea was to test it against what has become my go-to camera for street candid photography.
The web is full of comparisons between the red dot rangefinder luxury brand and its Japanese robust counterpart, and most of the times it is a M6 vs FM2 battle which is exactly what we are going to explore here (you guessed it, David is the FM2 and Goliath is the M6…and if you know the history you already realised where my preference goes).
Photographers – idiots, of which there are so many – say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs.”
Andreas Feininger
That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest.
Without further ado, let’s go to the actual outcome of my personal comparison: I will list here the aspects I’ve found worth mentioning and should be taken into account when pondering the purchase of one or the other. Practically speaking I shot two rolls of film with the Leica M6 (1 roll of Ilford Delta 100 in D76 1+1 and 1 roll of Kodak Tmax400 in XTOL 1+1) in Capo d’Orlando, Sicily (a place I know very well) and two rolls of the same type in Palermo (my birthplace). I didn’t want to shoot the same picture twice as it would have been such a boring exercise and pixel peeping is not really my thing. Regarding the two cameras, the Nikon is a FM2n (the latest model) which I almost exclusively paired with a Carl Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2 Distagon; the Leica was a M6 TTL version (0,72x viewfinder) coupled with a Summicron-C 40mm f2 and a Voigtländer 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar.
The things I dislike on the Leica
- What am I shooting?
There is no way to know what film is loaded as there is no way to keep a tag of the film (like pretty much all film cameras) or to see through a small window like in recent models from many brands - Avoid wasting frames
No lock mechanism means you can store your camera in the bag and (quite easily) click the shutter to take blank images without realising it. - Save battery life
You must put the lens on B mode (or avoid loading the shutter) in order to prevent the meter to work. - 1/1000 max speed? Seriously?
I was extremely surprised to realise the max shutter speed was 1/1000th of a second. That means is is impossible to shoot on a sunny day with fast lenses at wide aperture and with fast (or pushed) film stocks. I don’t pretend to go as high as 1/4000th as the FM2n…but 1/1000th is the same speed of my Pentax67…I don’t get it. - What are my setting?
There is no indication of the current aperture and shutter speed on the viewfinder. - Should I sell my liver?
The price is ridiculous. Nothing more to say. For a fraction of the price you can get a Voigtländer Bessa (better framelines options), or a Contax G1/G2 (with autofocus, parallax correction and incredible lenses).
The things I missed on the Leica and that I have on the Nikon
- Where is the double exposure feature?
I used only a couple of times on the Nikon…but it is nice to know you can use it - Long exposure?
Unless I plug a long cable release, there is no way to avoid vibrations as a self timer is missing.
The things you must consider before buying a Leica
- Think twice before choosing a model
Depending on your focal lengths preference (wide, normal or long lenses) you might need to choose a specific viewfinder magnification (0.58 vs 0.72 vs 0.85). But what if you like to shoot 35mm for street and do some tight portrait with a 85mm? The Leica solution is: buy two bodies!!! - Compose with some approximation
While rangefinder people tend to say that composition is improved, I must disagree here. It is true that you can see what is coming into the frame but the frame-lines are just an approximation of what will be in the final image (to be fair, most SLR have a 90% coverage as well but at least they don’t have any parallax error)
Where Leica shines
- Pure photography
Shooting a Leica will put you in a hunting mode even more than a film SLR. You set your settings and start looking for patterns and framing options more than with other systems. I can see why it is so highly appreciated by street photographers - Build quality
Yes, the quality if fantastic. A Nikon is probably 90% as good as a Leica from this standpoint, but Leica has an edge. - Glass quality
I haven’t seen the mystical Leica look (but being used to Carl Zeiss glass I am probably a bit more demanding), so I simply trust the judgement of those who say that these are the best 35mm lenses money can buy (let’s put aside the 45mm f2 for the Contax G system which seems even better)
In conclusion, I don’t think I will buy a Leica system (at least not at this price tag). The overall experience has been interesting and refreshing in its simplicity, but being used to complex DSLR well before upgrading to film, I don’t find myself lost in the settings of the FM2.
The rangefinder system is interesting for its size, but I would consider a Contax G1/G2 or a Bessa camera first as these are clearly superior bodies (and the latter can mount Leica lenses as well).
Some images taken this summer will speak probably more than many words to show what the two cameras are capable of (at least when used by me).
davide rizzo photography 