On that last point it is true for one single reason which many here do not like to hear but is nonetheless true, Leica as a company with its M system stayed in some part true to its history, its form and function and backwards compatibility with its legacy M system. That is the fundamental reason why Leica M lenses have so much value and so many people buy into them because unlike practically every other manufacturer of 35mm cameras their lenses didn't become paperweights when new tech such as AF and digital recording came along.
Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica
-
A
- Thread starter darkosaric
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
The plain fact is that even a medium prices reasonable quality medium format camera like a Yashicamat in terms of producing photo- technical quality can beat the pants off any 35mm camera even a Leica.
Ha ha... perhaps that's true but show me any Aston Martin that can compete with any Dodge Viper or Ford GT.
Compete with? That's insulting. The A-M was a hand made, limited production masterpiece with incredible craftsmanship and attention to detail, not to mention the Connoly hide seats, wool carpet, and walnut burl dash. The A-M V8 was docile in traffic and could hit 160mph on the open road in the early 70s.
While a Viper might be faster, in every other way it's a POS by comparison.
For a while there Lotus Elise's had Toyota engines in them. At least the motors were reliable.
My father once owned an XK 120 jaguar. When he asked what to do about the oil seepage from the front cover on the engine, he was told "put fresh oil in the engine".
I'm sorry, sir. I never intended to hurt your feelings.
Don't apologise to me, have a séance and apologise to David Brown!
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 231
- Format
- 35mm
This thread is like compost.
Ha ha... perhaps that's true but show me any Aston Martin that can compete with any Dodge Viper or Ford GT.
True enough! Consistent with Detroit's "philosophy," both the Ford and the Viper have: 1). More horsepower; and, 2). more cup-holders.
Yes, it is. But it is d**m funny to read!
True enough! Consistent with Detroit's "philosophy," both the Ford and the Viper have: 1). More horsepower; and, 2). more cup-holders.
Precisely... and darned fine cup holders they are too. At least Dodge and Ford understand the logic and necessity of putting one's martini down and steering with both hands.
Precisely... and darned fine cup holders they are too. At least Dodge and Ford understand the logic and necessity of putting one's martini down and steering with both hands.
Martinis?!?!?! I thought that folks who drove Dodges and Fords drank domestic beer!
And from a can...Martinis?!?!?! I thought that folks who drove Dodges and Fords drank domestic beer!
Okay... ya' got me there.
On the other hand GM provides an ignition system that kills its owners.
WTH... haven't you heard of a "kill switch"?? At least GM is trying to provide one.
As effective and deadly as the Ford Pinto exploding gas tank!
Hey...lay off my Ford Pinto. That was just a myth. My son has run into lots of things with it and it hasn't exploded yet.
For that feature to work, the Pinto needs to be rear ended.
What!! I can't get him to drive straight going forward. Now I have to get him to drive backwards??
The only other way for him to get hit in the rear is for him to stop sometime...I'm not real sure he has figured out where the brake pedal even is!
True!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
Pioneer,
I see you never used something like apo-macro-elamarit from tripod (or other of the same quality) with say pan-f or agfapan25 and developed it in Agfa rodinal. With f6 or r-leica you use all 35 mm film size, you nearly always crop 6x7... And large format lenses on 6x7 are far from best leica/zeiss 35 mm lenses. It is not only film size, it crop, lens, filter (leica uv filter is c.$400 as I remeber), film/developer "resolving power" (acutance), ..
And I use all of them ...
I see you never used something like apo-macro-elamarit from tripod (or other of the same quality) with say pan-f or agfapan25 and developed it in Agfa rodinal. With f6 or r-leica you use all 35 mm film size, you nearly always crop 6x7... And large format lenses on 6x7 are far from best leica/zeiss 35 mm lenses. It is not only film size, it crop, lens, filter (leica uv filter is c.$400 as I remeber), film/developer "resolving power" (acutance), ..
And I use all of them ...
I am afraid you may have the best of me sir. Are we still discussing exploding Pintos, Aston Martins or the comparison of 35mm vs large format?
I am certainly no expert on everything that can be coaxed from a 35mm frame. I have learned during my short life that nothing should be discounted. With that being said however, I do not believe that it is possible to fit as much detail into a 35mm frame as can be fit into a 6x7 or 6x9 frame.
I am certainly willing to be proven wrong though.
Sure you can put slow fine grain film in a 35, lock it down on a tripod, trip the shutter with a cable release, and use a fine grain/high acutance developer; but you can do the same with a medium format camera.
Either one you can choose to crop or not so that's out of the comparison.
The Leica will give you the edge in portability, but loses in technical quality of the neg. compared to a medium format camera for a lot less $.
(Just to be clear, I own and use several Leicas.)
Either one you can choose to crop or not so that's out of the comparison.
The Leica will give you the edge in portability, but loses in technical quality of the neg. compared to a medium format camera for a lot less $.
(Just to be clear, I own and use several Leicas.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess that I should add that I have loaded Adox CMS 20 into my M6, attached my Zeiss Planar 50 (which I consider an exceptional lens), threaded my viewfinder magnifier into place and shot some very nice photographs off the tripod using a cable release. After developing in the recommended developer I had some excellent negatives with very fine grain. I have enlarged a couple of those negatives to 16x20 and been very impressed with the results.
I have also loaded plain vanilla TMax 100 into my Pentax 645Nii and, using the FA 645 150mm lens, shot some more very nice photographs off of a tripod using a cable release and mirror lockup. After developing in plain old D76 1+1 for 9 1/2 minutes I was very happy with the negatives. I have enlarged them to 16x20 on my poor little Beseler and been blown away by the prints. I have no idea how the acutance of each lens or each film even compares, or how much grain was in each enlargement. What I can tell you from my experience is that the visible sharpness, the depth and the tonality of the medium format TMax negative was miles better than the equivalent image enlarged from the CMS 20 negative. And that really isn't even going big yet. And 6x4.5 really isn't very big on the large format scale either.
I am reminded of something I read in some book and I must apologize to the author for slaughtering his well written analogy.
Downhill with a wind behind me I can make a small motorcycle go almost as fast as a large BMW, Triumph or Harley. But in the end, if what I want is to ride at that speed for long periods of time, the bigger bike is the only way to go. I think the same holds true for cameras. If I do everything perfectly with just the right film, using a special lens, and enlarging on just the right equipment and paper, I may be able to equal a medium format print once in awhile. But if I intend to make a living at it I probably should just use the bigger camera.
I have also loaded plain vanilla TMax 100 into my Pentax 645Nii and, using the FA 645 150mm lens, shot some more very nice photographs off of a tripod using a cable release and mirror lockup. After developing in plain old D76 1+1 for 9 1/2 minutes I was very happy with the negatives. I have enlarged them to 16x20 on my poor little Beseler and been blown away by the prints. I have no idea how the acutance of each lens or each film even compares, or how much grain was in each enlargement. What I can tell you from my experience is that the visible sharpness, the depth and the tonality of the medium format TMax negative was miles better than the equivalent image enlarged from the CMS 20 negative. And that really isn't even going big yet. And 6x4.5 really isn't very big on the large format scale either.
I am reminded of something I read in some book and I must apologize to the author for slaughtering his well written analogy.
Downhill with a wind behind me I can make a small motorcycle go almost as fast as a large BMW, Triumph or Harley. But in the end, if what I want is to ride at that speed for long periods of time, the bigger bike is the only way to go. I think the same holds true for cameras. If I do everything perfectly with just the right film, using a special lens, and enlarging on just the right equipment and paper, I may be able to equal a medium format print once in awhile. But if I intend to make a living at it I probably should just use the bigger camera.
I'm a rebel, I love loading my leica with delta 3200 or pushed trix and get huge grain. It's hard to get this big grain on hasselblad, for some reason it makes it very small. And yes, I could do it with other 35mm cameras. But after I got my M3 I sold my pentax SLR.
I prefer it for low light focusing over my pentax 50mm f1.2. I find it's harder to get eyes in focus with SLR when it's dark. Rangefinder works better for it.
Also I can't use my hasselblad at f1.4 and 1/15 at low light levels. Different tools for different jobs. Leica as a particular tool suits my requirements much better.
I prefer it for low light focusing over my pentax 50mm f1.2. I find it's harder to get eyes in focus with SLR when it's dark. Rangefinder works better for it.
Also I can't use my hasselblad at f1.4 and 1/15 at low light levels. Different tools for different jobs. Leica as a particular tool suits my requirements much better.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |