Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

[darkosaric]

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.

I made half meter prints from 35mm CMS 20, and looked with 10x Loupe - and no grain. It is absurd how fine grained this film is.

 

[Xmas]

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.

The thing that a 35mm range finder offered to the stop the press people was immediacy.

A TLR could wipe the floor in all other departments.

At lakenhurst a Leica and 16mm cine and a sound man told the story, the 4x5 guys with plate double dark slides more abstract.

By 1965 the F with motor drive was the background to the TV news sound...

Today the mobile phone video captures a peace officer terminating a news paper seller.

There is no quality involved, only depth of field and sequence rate.

 

[georg16nik]

I made half meter prints from 35mm CMS 20, and looked with 10x Loupe - and no grain. It is absurd how fine grained this film is.

CMS20 really shines in 35mm. I recently semi-retired the Leitz V35 and boxed off my good old trusty Magnifax 4 with BW condenser head and family of Rodenstock Rodagons from 50mm up to 135mm, so that I can easily do above 1 meter from 35mm CMS20.
I've shot some MF back in 2012 when they released it in that format but its a different beer.

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.

Zeiss Superachromat 5,6/250 is one of the very few MF lenses to burst a bit under 250lp/mm on Agfaortho 25 or Adox CMS20.
So, good luck shooting the above lens @ wide open, since the further you go down, the more diffraction gets hungry.
@ f/8 in MF world you should light a candle if you get something like 120 lp/mm.

In 35mm world, especially RF, there are hundreds of lenses, capable of reaching the 400lp/mm diffraction limit of white light @ f/4.
For a typical Leica prime glass, say Summilux 50mm, you get excellent corner to corner even at f/2,8.

So, it boils down to how good are your printing skills.

 

[Xmas]

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.

Nooooo did not mean to convey that.
Before you go out and buy M6 you need to read

http://nemeng.com/leica/042b.shtml

ie the whole database

eg if you shoot gigs and you buy an M6 and have the viewfinder upgraded to a MP finder it is still cheaper than a MP

cause it handles different and does not look as nice

the M6 will also take IXMOO if you want to use cine

So the MP has a better finder and black paint over brass and even second hand a substantial € premium.

If you dont need a meter an M3 will do the job as well and the example only needed 400€.

They will work and any blacksmith can maintain.

This is useful purchasing advice unless you have just bought a M6 and needed to shoot gigs with Fresnels. When you need to send it to Solms & about 1000€

 

[Nathan King]

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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I wrote. I'm not trying to say the Leica is a better camera than anything else as there are many very nice cameras available as you have mentioned, but they don't operate exactly like a Leica. That's not saying the Leica is superior, just different. This difference is something I (and others) happen to prefer. I'm also not going to lie and say my photos with the Leica are superior. An enlarged negative out of my RZ67 blows the Leica out of the water every time, but I wouldn't get any spontaneous images with the RZ67 and can't carry something that large all day long. I will say that I prefer the tones and complete lack of distortion I get from the Leica 50mm Elmar-M lens over my Canon FD 50mm 1.4.

 

[darkosaric]

Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.

 

[removed account4]

Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.

I´d like to accept this sober and judicious statement as the last word in this debate

 

[Dan Fromm]

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 ?

ADOX CMS 20. Can't you read?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/

Good technique is needed, not equipment that's best by a small margin. I continue to be amazed by leicanuts who extol Leica lenses' quality and shoot handheld.

 

[georg16nik]

...I continue to be amazed by leicanuts who extol Leica lenses' quality and shoot handheld.

So, leicanuts hands doesn't shake as much as anyone else. Make sense.
The red dot is really a black hole, absorbs monetary funds, handshake, blurriness and various age-related nuances.

 

[darkosaric]

> handheld

I did test 1/250 and 1/125 with my Leicas on tripod and hand held, and I see no difference. Maybe pro-tripod guys are drinking too much coffee ?

 

[Slixtiesix]

1/250 or 1/125 is no big issue without tripod. I use them more for speeds of 1/30 and below...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

1/250 or 1/125 is no big issue without tripod. I use them more for speeds of 1/30 and below...

I once had two Tiltalls, an original Marchioni and a later Leitz. I got rid of the Leitz version and kept the Marchioni - this was a big mistake because the Leitz version gave sharper negatives with more micro-contrast and superior bokeh.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Definition of best camera/lens is very easy: the one that gives you most keepers on the negative.

One of the good statements in a thread bordering on idiotic.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I once had two Tiltalls, an original Marchioni and a later Leitz. I got rid of the Leitz version and kept the Marchioni - this was a big mistake because the Leitz version gave sharper negatives with more micro-contrast and superior bokeh.

 

[georg16nik]

> handheld

I did test 1/250 and 1/125 with my Leicas on tripod and hand held, and I see no difference. Maybe pro-tripod guys are drinking too much coffee ?

You should be able to shoot at these speeds with a lot of cameras. Now under 1/30 imho, a leaf shutter rules.
Down to 1 sec lots of cameras are holdable without issues.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

So, leicanuts hands doesn't shake as much as anyone else. Make sense.
The red dot is really a black hole, absorbs monetary funds, handshake, blurriness and various age-related nuances.

Actually, this is proof of the power of faith; leicaphools having a very great deal of faith in their equipment.
Here is a good working definition if faith -

"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel".

That is, believing is seeing.

 

[frank]

It is a small minded person that concerns himself about what cameras others choose to use, and throws out insults because of it.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have absolutely nothing against Leica equipment nor those who use it. Why should I? It seems that most of them are referring to the way it handles moreso than superior quality. The same is true for most Hasselblad shooters. There are those who buy photo equipment for the snob-appeal and/or because they believe it's superior to everything else but the same is true for other things like automobiles, houses, wristwatches... and trophy-wives. What difference does it make to anyone if they prefer something for any reason and they can afford to own it? Just because someone owns a $100,000 Leica or Hasselblad system doesn't automatically make them snobs.

The above stated... "true" snobs are irritating.

 

[georg16nik]

Actually, this is proof of the power of faith; leicaphools having a very great deal of faith in their equipment.
...

Poor souls, believing such frauds like Leitz
opinions vary.
When i hear someone saying that a Leica or any premium brand is overpriced for what it is, I always question if the talker can actually afford what's talked about.
Saying that Leica is overpriced and made for snobs who don't know a thing about photography is like saying that people who have more money than the rest are stupid.

...and at the end of the day, Leica is one of the very few cameras having historical and cultural significance.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Many folks would call me a large format lens snob. I dunno... maybe I am. I buy the very best I can afford... and can't afford... because I want to only blame myself for failure. It makes me sad when I'm forced to sell a lens so I can pay the utility bills or buy food. I know that's completely illogical but one cannot apply logic to lust.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It is a small minded person that concerns himself about what cameras others choose to use, and throws out insults because of it.

If that's pointed at me, let me make a few things clear.
I've owned and used Leicas; two M3s, a CL, an R3 and a IIIg. I serviced - basic CLA according to the Leica manual - one M3 and the IIIg.
I've owned, used and serviced quite a few other cameras.
Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal.

I dislike the Leica superiority complex. Having realistic faith in a superb mechanism being durable, reliable, and capable is one thing; having delusional faith that your results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar is quite another.

 

[frank]

If that's pointed at me, let me make a few things clear.
I've owned and used Leicas; two M3s, a CL, an R3 and a IIIg. I serviced - basic CLA according to the Leica manual - one M3 and the IIIg.
I've owned, used and serviced quite a few other cameras.
Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal.

I dislike the Leica superiority complex. Having realistic faith in a superb mechanism being durable, reliable, and capable is one thing; having delusional faith that your results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar is quite another.

Yes, that was directed at you. I dislike the Leica superiority snobbery as well. Read my previous posts in this thread. I equally dislike the anti-Leica snobbery, which I interpreted your "Leicaphools" comment to be. No where in this thread has anyone claimed that Leica results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar .

I agree with this: "Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal."

 

[frank]

I guess we're not disagreeing with each other at all. Your initial post sounded like anti-Leica snobbery. After adding your second post, we agree.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, that was directed at you. I dislike the Leica superiority snobbery as well. Read my previous posts in this thread. I equally dislike the anti-Leica snobbery, which I interpreted your "Leicaphools" comment to be. No where in this thread has anyone claimed that Leica results must be the best because the film was exposed in a product aus Wetzlar .

I agree with this: "Leicas are extraordinarily well made cameras, for what they cost compared to the work that goes into them they're not just a bargain but a steal."

"Leicaphool" is defined in the last sentence of my above post.