Documentary style photography has always appealed to me. Stark black and white images, beautiful grain, moving images. Naturally as I became more and more interested in photography the classic rangefinders that represent the birth of the 35mm format began to call out to me despite their limitations and high price tag. When I began looking at rangefinders I was of course drawn to Leica's. They are simply beautiful, well built, stylish cameras. Of course, the 1000 dollar cost of admission (and that's a film body only), led me to believe I'd have to start somewhere else. I've heard good things about Bessa's and better things about Zeiss Ikon's, and Leica's are just for rich people who value style over function right? I mean, if you can mount an M Lens on a new 500 dollar Bessa body, then why would someone dish out the cash for a M7 or even a used M6 that's twice the cost of the Bessa?
Every photo book, guru, and internet poster loves to throw out the "it's not about the camera, it's about the cameraman" cliche. We've all read it and taken at face value it's pretty good advice. We've all seen the great work some photographers have done with disposable cameras and iphones. So if that's the case why not just get a decent point and shoot and be done with it?
Another cliche, "the best camera, is the one that's with you" just might hold the answer. Photographers take inspiration from everything around them. By definition they are concerned very much with aesthetics, great design, and in most cases, capturing a little bit of history on the film or sensor. If a fine camera, such as the Leica, inspires the photographer to take their work seriously and aspire to carry on the tradition of the great documentary photographers of the past, I say, such an acquisition would be money well spent. I've come to the conclusion that the history behind the camera is important to me and the kind of work I want to do. I've decided to go with the kind of camera I really want. A Leica Rangefinder.
