Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

[Old-N-Feeble]

Leica (and CarlZeiss-ZF too) lens will make more "crisp" image, more clear details than other lenses. With good film and developer choice the image compete with 6x7 film combined with Rodenstock or Schneder lens.
The quality of Leica camera-body is that it can use Leica lenses, plus shutter and film revinding sound quality. That is all.
Does it worth money? To some yes to some no. If you are around art-potential photography yes, otherwise no.

Umm... nope.

 

[Xmas]

Leica (and CarlZeiss-ZF too) lens will make more "crisp" image, more clear details than other lenses.

Noop Nikon and Canon just as good or better note also the ZF lenses are in the majority made in Ja by Cosina.

So it is cheaper buying Cosina own brand. It is called badge engineering.

The Ge optical industry failed to adopt as efficient production techniques as Ja in 50s.

 

[Slixtiesix]

There is no way an image shot on 35mm with any lens (whether Leica or Zeiss, does not matter) could compete with any decent medium format picture. Not even 645!
Neither would I dare to claim that my 6x6 negatives could compete with 8x10, even when the latter was taken with a camera from the 19th century equipped with a brass lens...

 

[frank]

True. When I want the best image quality possible, I reach for a larger format camera than 35mm Leica. This is how I can sleep peacefully at night even though I do not own any aspheric Leica Summicrons.

 

[Xmas]

Hi all,

I noticed that often here and on many other forums feedback about Leica cameras is that you get same result with much cheaper cameras, and you don't need Leica. And often this feedback is pretty strong (not to use another terms).

But when somebody buys some other expensive camera (often more expensive than a Leica) there are no similar discussions. For example if somebody buys Plaubel machina - nobody speaks that you can get same results with cheap folder like agfa isolette, or when you get Hasselblad - nobody writes why did you get this expensive camera, why not Bronica of Kiev 66 that will give you same result ...

What are your toughs on this ?

Regards,

Unless you use a block of concrete for a tripod you won't see any difference in photo

One of the US magazines compared Nikon and Contax lenses about 53 and the contax was just detectably better in test conditions but a lot more expensive.

The noct gives better results at /0.95 hardly meaningful.

If I use a LTM on my CanonP and the same lens with adapter on my M2 their might be the slightest difference cause the P has internal baffles and control flare better...

The Leica has a faster wind on which might get a second shot.

More people will say look that man has a Leica.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I didn't know APUG is limited to stingy old farts who live in the past.

You have a PM.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Noop Nikon and Canon just as good or better note also the ZF lenses are in the majority made in Ja by Cosina.

So it is cheaper buying Cosina own brand. It is called badge engineering.

The Ge optical industry failed to adopt as efficient production techniques as Ja in 50s.

Objectively there's no much to distinguish between a good Nikkor, Canon, ZF or Leica lens.
The MTF graph are almost the same, some might have a bit of distortion one way or another. They end up being just that: excellent lenses.

Subjectively, they can be quite different. Even the "feel" how a lens handle will make some prefer this lens over that.
They are just preferences. Some will hate how a Mark I Series E handles or renders a picture. I like them.
I also liked the CV lenses I once had: they were small, light and very nice.

 

[dpurdy]

Hi all,

I noticed that often here and on many other forums feedback about Leica cameras is that you get same result with much cheaper cameras, and you don't need Leica. And often this feedback is pretty strong (not to use another terms).

But when somebody buys some other expensive camera (often more expensive than a Leica) there are no similar discussions. For example if somebody buys Plaubel machina - nobody speaks that you can get same results with cheap folder like agfa isolette, or when you get Hasselblad - nobody writes why did you get this expensive camera, why not Bronica of Kiev 66 that will give you same result ...

What are your toughs on this ?

Regards,

Always when someone wants advice about a TLR many people will advise that a Minolta or Yashica or Rolleicord or Mamiya is just as good as a Rolleiflex but at a fraction of the cost. If someone expresses that they would like a new Rolleiflex 2.8FX people will be quick to point out that it is an idiotic idea. To want a new Rolleiflex is to have "more money than brains" I was recently told.

Whenever a camera brand and type reach collector status, the willingness of the collectors to pay top dollar drives the cost up for everyone. That is the reason for all the collector hate. I don't hate collectors, I just wish they weren't so interested in my favorite camera. I am a collector. I collect crow feathers I find lying around the neighborhood but only if they are perfect.
Dennis

 

[frank]

Always when someone wants advice about a TLR many people will advise that a Minolta or Yashica or Rolleicord or Mamiya is just as good as a Rolleiflex but at a fraction of the cost. If someone expresses that they would like a new Rolleiflex 2.8FX people will be quick to point out that it is an idiotic idea. To want a new Rolleiflex is to have "more money than brains" I was recently told.

Whenever a camera brand and type reach collector status, the willingness of the collectors to pay top dollar drives the cost up for everyone. That is the reason for all the collector hate. I don't hate collectors, I just wish they weren't so interested in my favorite camera. I am a collector. I collect crow feathers I find lying around the neighborhood but only if they are perfect.
Dennis

Minty.

 

[georg16nik]

It goes down to how good are you in the dark room and what films you are shooting in the Leica, Zeiss or even your Zorki or Fed.
A lot of folks shooting film and printing optically are, in reality, mediocre printers; you can hardly blame the 35mm Leica format for not passing 3rd grade in the darkroom.

There is no way an image shot on 35mm with any lens (whether Leica or Zeiss, does not matter) could compete with any decent medium format picture. Not even 645!..

 

[cliveh]

With regards to Leica, it’s not just about precision and lens quality, but weight and tactile usability. Oskar Barnack was a genius to create such a beautiful camera.

 

[frank]

Leica does offer a wonderful tactile experience. Some people appreciate that (I do) and others either can't feel it or don't appreciate it, and that's okay.

I can appreciate the feeling/heft of a quality wood-working tool, and almost recoil when I pick up a cheap, poorly designed/engineered one.

It's kind of like "knowing" how much to tighten a nut. Some people have that feeling/touch, and others don't.

 

[cliveh]

It's kind of like "knowing" how much to tighten a nut. Some people have that feeling/touch, and others don't.

What a beautiful analogy.

 

[Nathan King]

I particularly enjoy rangefinders for the ability to place a filter in front of the lens without dimming and tinting the image while composing in low light. There's an intangible feel that is unique to the Leica; work the film advance, focus the lens, depress the shutter, and tell me you disagree.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Pioneer]

I particularly enjoy rangefinders for the ability to place a filter in front of the lens without dimming and tinting the image while composing in low light. There's an intangible feel that is unique to the Leica; work the film advance, focus the lens, depress the shutter, and tell me you disagree.

Dead Link Removed

Now don't get me wrong, I own and enjoy Leica cameras. But I think this "intangible feel" thing that is unique to the Leica is taking things just a touch far IMHO. I start to wince everytime I hear this. I think this is one of those arguments that get other camera owners a bit grumpy.

I own a Minolta SRT-102 in which the film advance is as smooth as any Leica I have owned. The lenses focus very smoothly with just the right feel of weighting. The shutter is a dream to work with, it may be a touch louder than an M4, but not by much. Everything works perfectly in synch, and it also capable of some lovely photographs. And this camera was a LOT less expensive when new. And then there is the Nikon, the Pentax, and many others. There is a reason that the Japanese stole the market from underneath the Germans. They started building some very nice cameras for a lot less money than the Germans.

And I own other cameras that operate just as nice, and feel just as nice in the hand, maybe even nicer. The Leica is a very nice rangefinder, but it does not have any patent on how a camera should feel. Even in the early days there were some very, very nice cameras out there, and I am not just referring to the Contax.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I particularly enjoy rangefinders for the ability to place a filter in front of the lens without dimming and tinting the image while composing in low light. There's an intangible feel that is unique to the Leica; work the film advance, focus the lens, depress the shutter, and tell me you disagree.

How is "intangible feel" possible?

 

[frank]

I own/have owned quite a few cameras. Cumulative total, maybe 150-200. I've handled all of them, including Minolta srt's. Leica, Rolleiflex, and Hasselblad are top shelf: nothing else feels as good TO ME.

YMMV, that's okay.

I'm guessing "intangible" means difficult to describe/explain.


je ne sais quoi (uncountable)

An intangible quality that makes something distinctive or attractive.
She has a certain je ne sais quoi about her.

 

[frank]

Now don't get me wrong, I own and enjoy Leica cameras. But I think this "intangible feel" thing that is unique to the Leica is taking things just a touch far IMHO. I start to wince everytime I hear this. I think this is one of those arguments that get other camera owners a bit grumpy.

I own a Minolta SRT-102 in which the film advance is as smooth as any Leica I have owned. The lenses focus very smoothly with just the right feel of weighting. The shutter is a dream to work with, it may be a touch louder than an M4, but not by much. Everything works perfectly in synch, and it also capable of some lovely photographs. And this camera was a LOT less expensive when new. And then there is the Nikon, the Pentax, and many others. There is a reason that the Japanese stole the market from underneath the Germans. They started building some very nice cameras for a lot less money than the Germans.

And I own other cameras that operate just as nice, and feel just as nice in the hand, maybe even nicer. The Leica is a very nice rangefinder, but it does not have any patent on how a camera should feel. Even in the early days there were some very, very nice cameras out there, and I am not just referring to the Contax.

Your experience is totally valid and I in no way am trying to tell you that you are not experiencing what you say. I believe you completely. It is your reality.

My experience, while different from yours, is also valid. It is my reality. It does not diminish yours.

Some people feel a difference, some don't. Neither is wrong.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I own/have owned quite a few cameras. Cumulative total, maybe 150-200. I've handled all of them, including Minolta srt's. Leica, Rolleiflex, and Hasselblad are top shelf: nothing else feels as good TO ME.

YMMV, that's okay.

I'm guessing "intangible" means difficult to describe/explain.


je ne sais quoi (uncountable)

An intangible quality that makes something distinctive or attractive.
She has a certain je ne sais quoi about her.

It's a joke... saying "intangible feel" is like saying "intangible tangibility". Perhaps handling them numbs ones hands.

Do all Leicas have a certain je ne sais quoi and if so, what is it?

 

[frank]

You are correct of course. Whoever wrote "intangible feel" was being imprecise/sloppy with their language.

It's an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, and military intelligence.

 

[darkosaric]

It goes down to how good are you in the dark room and what films you are shooting in the Leica, Zeiss or even your Zorki or Fed.
A lot of folks shooting film and printing optically are, in reality, mediocre printers; you can hardly blame the 35mm Leica format for not passing 3rd grade in the darkroom.

Here it is:

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/ADOX_Films/page25/page25.html

35mm film that can give results like bigger formats. Which lens did they used in the test ?

 

[film_man]

Ok but APUG is a forum for people who live in the past, and take photos still using film? I can burn off 36 exposures in 3 minutes normally, perhaps you are on wrong forum?

It seems I am in the wrong forum indeed. I thought APUG was a forum for film photography. I would not consider using a film camera as living in the past since you can still buy new film cameras and you can still buy fresh film.

It appears however that APUG is for people who would much rather Leica stop making new film cameras as anything new they make is obviously a rip-off and who would much rather knock down and stop any efforts to make new film as a rip-off, rebranding excercise or whatever (see the Cinestill and Ferania threads elsewhere here...).

I can understand saying that you prefer an older M3 or whatever to a new one but knocking down any new film camera made as inferior to the good old days is just tiring.

 

[georg16nik]

Here it is:

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/ADOX_Films/page25/page25.html

35mm film that can give results like bigger formats. Which lens did they used in the test ?

It reads Holga lens, known on APUG as old Coca-Cola bottom cutout, mounted on single use Hasselblad, also known as Hasslebrother.

thou, scan from negative is not doing CMS20 justice at all.

 

[Slixtiesix]

It goes down to how good are you in the dark room and what films you are shooting in the Leica, Zeiss or even your Zorki or Fed.
A lot of folks shooting film and printing optically are, in reality, mediocre printers; you can hardly blame the 35mm Leica format for not passing 3rd grade in the darkroom.

It was not my intention to say that you can´t make a fine print out of a 35mm negative. Of course a real master printer will get a more decent result from a 35mm neg than a beginner would yield from a 645 neg. But it´s all the limitation of the film. Most excellent lenses (and this is the level we are talking here) can yield resolutions that are beyond what most films can resolve. And this is why a doubling or tripling of the film area will inevitably lead to more resolution. Same with the Adox film Darko mentioned. It is true that when put in a 35mm camera, one can achieve stunning resolution. But put the same film into a 120 camera (and it is available as 120 as far as I know) and one can achieve even higher resolution.

I´d like to come back to my original argument here. The great benefit of a Leica is not that it could challenge larger formats (which it can´t) but that it is the most compact 35mm system camera around (together with Zeiss Ikon and Voigtlander Bessa, but these ones rarely anyone bought) and can be equipped with lenses of very high quality. All the other 35mm cameras that fit in your pocket either have plastic lenses, or if they have quality lenses (like Rollei 35) you have to get along with one focal length only. A Fuji GW690 may offer more resolution, but it does not fit into the pocket of one´s jacket.

 

[Xmas]

military intelligence is
Edward Snowden
Katherine Gunn
Antony Blunt
Mavis Lever
Try google