Leica

I have 2 Lieca's, a 11 and a 111a, both date from the 1930's, fit easily in your pocket with a 3.5 Elmar, and always work, also great conversation starter at events, dont need to worry about batteries either.

Bit biased, but I vote for Leica, they just feel right.


Dave.
 
Starastin said:
Ujjwal - thanks.

scratching the CLE of the wishlist.
moving G1 + 45mm f2 further behind as I it seems that my dynaxes will do a better job at focusing. the MF in contax looks out of this planet.
won an auction yesterday of a Rollei compact, will start with that + will try to sell some of my minoltas :nuts:

still truly wanting a good film camera + 50mm f1.1(voigtlander) or f1.2 to shoot portraits on film. I only wonder why my f1.7 and f2 are not good enough :D , so I still need to cure some GAS .
Click to expand...

I dont think the SLR and G1 are comparable cameras. For one, the Contax glasses are far superior to Dynax glasses; at least the Minolta 50mm and the 2 zoom lenses I have compared to the 3 Contax G lens. Plus the contax is far smaller, can be used handheld in lower light ( less camera shake), and looks less obstrusive. The low light condition comparision was strictly comparing to Leica manual focusing; I believe G2 ( not G1) is as good as any AF SLR for low light focussing. SLRs score over RF in accurate framing for close up shots and the usability of lens longer then 135 ( 90mm for G1/G2); RFs score on size, no mirror shake and quality of glass ( the same glass design performs better for Rf lens that SLR lens due to the complexity of SLR lens design). I use my RFs much more than my SLRs - I only have the SLR for the C/Y glasses; and will not miss them if I had to sell them off.

Which Rollei compact was that? Rollei 35 with Tessar or Sonnar is outstanding; but the Triotar lens is very average and not worth the faff.
 
Musicman said:
I'm a bit suspicious of collectors and what they do to some markets, especially when they becomes collector-investors.
Click to expand...

Joking apart, that's the real issue. In the 80s the perceived value of a Leica and its true worth were much closer. I knew a number of Leica fans and they were enthusiasts of the camera's photographic capabilities, with rising values proving a hinderance not a help. Even impoverished students could stretch to an M2 and a couple of good lenses. I suggest a summer job wouldn't buy that now.

Many Leicas are withdrawn from the market to sit on shelves, leaving an over-heated bunfight for some pretty rough cameras or absurd price tags on clean machines that should be out taking pictures.
 
I'm going to chip in here - I have Nikon F and it is superb. Hand built, every component checked, checked again and checked some more (it was a government funded and encouraged Japanese initiative).

It was built in 1969 and I have a good understanding that it would be along the lines of a Leica M2. It is perfect and will be in another 41 years time (if used and kept well i.e. clean it after getting soaked & covered in snow and mud!)

Oh yes, lenses and then some and in low light perfect.

Just my twopence.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I dont think the SLR and G1 are comparable cameras. For one, the Contax glasses are far superior to Dynax glasses; at least the Minolta 50mm and the 2 zoom lenses I have compared to the 3 Contax G lens. Plus the contax is far smaller, can be used handheld in lower light ( less camera shake), and looks less obstrusive. The low light condition comparision was strictly comparing to Leica manual focusing; I believe G2 ( not G1) is as good as any AF SLR for low light focussing. SLRs score over RF in accurate framing for close up shots and the usability of lens longer then 135 ( 90mm for G1/G2); RFs score on size, no mirror shake and quality of glass ( the same glass design performs better for Rf lens that SLR lens due to the complexity of SLR lens design). I use my RFs much more than my SLRs - I only have the SLR for the C/Y glasses; and will not miss them if I had to sell them off.

Which Rollei compact was that? Rollei 35 with Tessar or Sonnar is outstanding; but the Triotar lens is very average and not worth the faff.
Click to expand...

tried to answer couple of times but TP was having problems. to cut it short -
compact has Vario lens I think.
and - I'm not comparing slr vs rf , I just need the best reasonably priced gear for portraits.
 
alistair.o said:
I have Nikon F and it is superb. Hand built, every component checked, checked again and checked some more (it was a government funded and encouraged Japanese initiative).
Click to expand...
I agree, pre-AI Nikons lacked nothing in quality of assembly or glass, which is why I'm a fan. Even they are beginning to attract hoarders, but less than mint examples can still be bought for the kind of budget that leaves money for film.
Lest anyone thinks I'm on too high a horse, I've nothing against collectors of Arthur's ilk who have a completist tendency for a particular brand, especially when they still take pictures. Unless he corners the market in Konica rangefinders and convinces those with more money than sense they're the Next Big Thing!
 
totally different beasts - film leica vs digi epson (voigty?)
I've seen M8 go for about 1,3k pounds so the same as epson. why would you want to choose epson over leica ? or better - why would you want to have a cropped sensor in RF body ? It's probably still amazing. what lenses does it take ?
 
colpepper said:
Lest anyone thinks I'm on too high a horse, I've nothing against collectors of Arthur's ilk who have a completist tendency for a particular brand, especially when they still take pictures. Unless he corners the market in Konica rangefinders and convinces those with more money than sense they're the Next Big Thing!
Click to expand...


Dang... moving to plan B then :D

Actually though, I'm not a completist, I have a few Konica C35 models (various), the I, II and III first-run models, a couple of SLR's and a few lenses. It's really the Hexar glass I am going for were the truth to be known. Yes, I do have the odd Minolta as well, but with the Minolta digitals there it made sense to get film bodies for the same glass (actually, it happened the other way around so all my glass is full frame).

Arthur
 
Starastin said:
totally different beasts - film leica vs digi epson (voigty?)
I've seen M8 go for about 1,3k pounds so the same as epson. why would you want to choose epson over leica ? or better - why would you want to have a cropped sensor in RF body ? It's probably still amazing. what lenses does it take ?
Click to expand...

They are totally different, but also quite similar in many ways. That's what I like about the Epson. I also use film cameras so can see the advantage of both systems, and the Epson (or indeed a Leica M8, 8.2, 9) let me use a rangefinder (which I find more to my liking) and digital (which I don't want to get into an argument about(!!), but I find more convenient for every day small volume shots.)

The reason I went for the Epson over the Leica? cost was one factor - you can get the Epson body for around a grand. The body takes Leica screw lenses (or M lenses with adapter) making it flexible, and I love the all analog controls for ISO, shutter speed, the cocking lever for the shutter - matched to the fact that the screen flips backwards it is exactly like using a film camera to all intents and purposes, along with the fact that it has a superb 1:1 viewfinder.

The whole cropped sensor thing I have never found a bother at all, especially when there are so many lenses to choose from. I simply put a 28mm f1.9 lens on my Epson making it a 42mm equivalent. Seems to be the perfect focal length for me, and I haven't even thought about the crop factor since. In fact, having just ordered a 50mm lens I can get an equivalent 75mm focal length from a very compact lens, so it can also be an advantage.

After all is said and done, I love its quirks, its build quality, the fact it was the first, and the fact that it is a little different. The Seiko analog watch hand dials are just awesome and it inspires me to take better photographs, because the 1:1 viewfinder means I can compose the shot with my eye, then bring up the camera to capture.

To look at the OP's question, I find rangefinders quite easy to use in low light, I find manual focusing much easier in this environment as I don't like having to wait for auto focus and dislike using a flash where possible. There are so many fast lenses in Leica mount available, you can get something very fast for quite a reasonable price. In fact, the low light ability is one of the main reasons I carry mine with me everywhere because I know it's ready for anything (forgetting mine is digital, of course, but the same is true of film)

The good thing about all this smoke, mirrors and bickering about Leicas (not referring to this thread especially) means resale is healthy should you decide it isn't for you in the end.

Cheers
ped
 
the flipping screen is very adorable. although Leica's design is more in my blood :( . And I believe in others as well.
 
C6 is not different - it's outright weird :D
 
It's a (po)Tata actually... like a Jaguar :D
 
ped said:
The reason I went for the Epson over the Leica? The body takes Leica screw lenses (or M lenses with adapter) making it flexible,


ped
Click to expand...


I know its possibly just a typo, but Epson RD-1 is a M mount body, and can take LTM lens with an adapter ( not the other way around)

I dont think there are any adapters which lets you mount a M lens on a screw mount body (something to do with the lens to film plane distance, I think). But you can mount a LTM lens on a M body with an adapter ( but be careful to collapse a collapsible lens, they often damage the internals when collapsed on certain bodies, like CL)
 
Well, I have an M6 (and also had an M6 TTL, before I came to my senses and sold it for £150 more than I paid for it new).

Lovely camera - beautiful...and the 35mm f/2 Summicron lens is exquisite...

But..

I find it a real pain to use. Bought an old Nikon F3 + 35mm f/2 for £300 and find it much better...

My Leica is a class act, no question...I just find it slow and clunky compared to an SLR...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top