Canon 7 vss Leica M

Jim Jones said:

Leica solved that long ago when SLR meant an Exacta. However, macro work with a Leica is inconvenient and expensive. SLRs do have a few advantages!

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining why I bought a Nikkormat instead of a Leica and a Visoflex back when. The Leica-Visoflex combination seemed distinctly second-rate in comparison.

Come to think of it, I used to know people who did a lot of macro work with their Exaktas. None of the Visoflex owners I knew back then actually used them. OTOH, at the time there were already serious Leica collectors whose goal was to own at least one of everything.

Dan Fromm said:

Thanks for explaining why I bought a Nikkormat instead of a Leica and a Visoflex back when. The Leica-Visoflex combination seemed distinctly second-rate in comparison.

Come to think of it, I used to know people who did a lot of macro work with their Exaktas. None of the Visoflex owners I knew back then actually used them. OTOH, at the time there were already serious Leica collectors whose goal was to own at least one of everything.

Click to expand...

Dear Dan,

I'm still using my Viso -- on an M8 as well as on 'real' Leicas. And the Viso has held up better than the Nikkormats, which I also own.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Dan,

I'm still using my Viso -- on an M8 as well as on 'real' Leicas. And the Viso has held up better than the Nikkormats, which I also own.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Its good to know that there's an exception. Roger, do you use your Viso with mobile subjects?

Cheers,

Dan

Dan, why do you even post in an RF forum? You truly look foolish.

The first Visoflex predated the Nikon F by about a decade. It's intended purpose was to extend the capabilities of existing RF camera for macro work on tripod and often used mounted to a microscope.

Are there better tools today? Absolutely and hopefully with the DSLR or SLR firmly mounted to the tripod.

Y'know, Solinar, I do a fair amount of macro work with a handheld SLR and flash illumination. The right tool for mobile subjects, IMO. And I do a bit of macro work on 2x3 with a press camera that happens to have a rangefinder. Its for static subjects, sometimes lit with flash, sometimes with available darkness, and always focused on the ground glass. For macro focusing through the lens is slightly important.

And yes, I am slightly acquainted with copy stands. Also with devices for attaching camera bodies to microscopes; all of them are second-best to microscopes with cameras built in. If I had the money I'd own a Wild Photomakroscope (or current equivalent).

Finally, I'm acquainted with Exaktas. One of my aquarium photographer friends, unfortunately now dead, started with a Contax (RF, not an SLR from the dark side of Zeiss or a rebadged Yashica) in about 1937 and got lousy results until he discovered Exakta in, IIRC, 1949. He got good results with a lowly Tessar, later got better results with a Macro Quinon.

As far as I'm concerned the Visoflex converts a first-rate RF camera into a third-rate SLR. Same goes for the mirror box attachments for Contax RFs. Not everyone agrees with me.

Wow,
I have a $8 Mamiya Super Deluxe, does that qualify me for the hallowed "out cheapskate Jim Galli" award? Of course, due to a lifetime of cleaning with a t-shirt or some such by a previous owner, it's great for "period" shooting, and the meter doesn't work, but hey, it was only $8.



erie

MattCarey said:

hey Jim,

I have a $55 Canonnet. I never thought I'd out-cheapskate Jim Galli, but there it is...

I will say that as a non-rangefinder addict, it has offered me opportunities I couldn't otherwise get. My absolute all-time favorite photographs were taken with this toy. The reason--stealth.

I had this camera with me when my first son was born (OK, I had it with the second as well). I had fast film and no flash. I was able to take images from 5 feet away where my wife later said, "I didn't know you had a camera then!"

No flash, quiet shutter. Looks dorky, so it doesn't register as a camera in a lot of people's minds.

Now, as a point of heresy--the other camera that proved it's value was the digital point-and-shoot. With the first kid, he was in the NICU and my wife was stuck in bed. I was able to take pictures of him and show them to my wife on a laptop. For the second kid, they had free wireless, so I was able to upload images to the family instantly. I think I developed a roll of film from my folder that had images from that visit...oh, a month ago.

Matt

Click to expand...

Now for a different perspective on this debate.

I sold camera's at several stores when I was in college. I came to these conclusions:
1) Forget about which has the better "image" [what people think, not photographic image]
2) Which camera feels more comfortable to use - location of the adjustments, shutter release, ... and
3) The most important issue which camera fits best in your hands.

Do not under estimate the importance of #3. Forget what everyone else tells you => you are the one carrying and using the camera. A person will very large hands will not be comfortable with an Olympus Pen F no matter how much his friends like it. [Place an example of a person with small hands here]

Steve

MattCarey said:

hey Jim,

I have a $55 Canonnet. I never thought I'd out-cheapskate Jim Galli, but there it is...

Matt

Click to expand...

Ha ha Matt, I have you beat! I just bought a Zorki IV for $30CAD! That also includes the 50mm Jupiter lens. I will be souping the first roll thru it tonight.

Eric

Dan, I too use a Visioflex II. I use it with my CL. Leica had a little known replacement arm so the Visio would work with the CL and the arm would mate with the shutter release on the CL as it was different from the M placement. Sadly, I do not have it so I use a dual release cable to trip both. No, not as easy to use as my Bronica with the extension tubes but as my macro work is not often and I spend quite a bit of time in setting the stage, lighting, etc. it makes no difference. When installed just need to advance the film and set the mirror in 2 steps vs the 1 step for the Bronica. As the CL has the TTL there is also no metering issue. I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable with the setup if using a non-metered body.

While the slr did away with some of the limitations of a rangefinder, I am still more in awe of how well Leica engineers worked around them. Also, how Leica took the long view of their lens mounts and from their intorduction of the M39 based camera throughout the decades to the current M7 (not sure about the digital M8 and M9 compatibility) their lenses have been usable on their bodies.

When pros used film cameras (in 60s) most used a Nikon F some carried a rfdr as well (Canon P or Leica M2), wide on rfdr normal or tele on SLR.

The big advantage of a M is the fast changing mount compared to a Canon VI, P or 7.

The big advantage of the Canons is the fast film change, loading is a lot quicker. If you are only using one lens the mount advantage is not significant, but reaching the end of a film could be annoying.

The viewfinder and range finders of Canons and Leicas are different, but that is less significant in good light and with age some of the rangefinder images have faded. So you need to check the one you are buying.

If you are gonna shoot a lot of film you need a Canon if you are going to juggle lenses a Leica.

The Canon lenses were good for their day, and you can also now get new LTM lenses. Prices of the Canons have escalated, you used to not be able to give them away, almost. Still cheaper then a Leica.

Noel

Failed

I had forgotten about this post long ago.

To satisfy any curiosity I thought I should report that I failed miserably at being a 35mm rangefinder photog. After the Canon I tried both the Konica RF Hexar and the Yashica Electro 35 which I still have 2 beauty's if anyone wants them.

The Konica was by far the best of the group from my standpoint. Easy, accurate, pretty to hold, well thought out, etc etc.

The Canon (yes I had an 0.95 50mm for it) was just a '58 Chrysler 300 with Hemi of a camera. Awesome to look at, miserable to use.

The Electro 35's at the far other end of the spectrum are awesome little best bang ever for the buck machines. Light as a feather and the glass is excellent in every way. A $45 Leica??

Ultimately, I guess my problem is what do you do with all those pictures. My other problem is 'what pictures???' I guess for me I have a hard enough time finding something I think is worth setting up the 8X10 for, and what would I do with rolls and rolls of pictures and where are all those good pictures anyways. So for me, 35mm is a lot of poor quality pictures of nothing very inspiring. I'm better doing 5 8X10's or 10 4X5's in a weekend of something semi-worthy of photographing.

Where I live is also in the equation. No street photogs needed. The desert lends itself to large format.

That's my story and I'm stickin' tuit.