Roger Hicks said:Very true. And in other situations the Nikon or Canon SLRs aren't as good as M-series Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
Lee Shively said:If they weren't worth it to me, I wouldn't have them.
Chan Tran said:... most of the goodness of the Leica come from the fact that they are built the old fashioned way.I fear you may well be correct. Ah well: I shall find out in about five weeks.
Leica themselves expected to sell roughly 60/40 or even 70/30 M7/MP. They were very surprised when the figures were reversed.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks said:Oh, dear, we disagree again. The 135/4 is OK and the 85/2 has a certain charm, but they're pre-war Zeiss designs and the performance in any objective sense is wildly inferior to current Voigtlander designs, which are widely regarded as being on a par with the last generation of Leica glass. Subjective performance is another matter but subjectively I think they're pretty bad too (clearly you disagree).
This desn't stop anyone taking good pictures with them -- after all, if you accept its limitations, and are a good enough photographer, you can take good pictures with a Box Brownie -- but I'd suggest that 'extremely good lenses' is wild hyerbole.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks said:Finally, as for the Alpas, be fair, I only own one. Frances owns the other, and the more expensive one at that (she has a 12 S/WA, while mine is only a 12 WA). They are wonderful cameras, and one of the unexpected uses is when owners of Leicas, Linhofs and the like start playing 'My camera cost more than your camera'. Alpas are an amazingly effective way of stopping them. Those who recognize them shut up immediately; those who don't, clearly don't know what an expensive (film) camera is.
A petty pleasure perhaps, but hey, I like taking pictures with 'em too.
David A. Goldfarb said:Well, if you want to play that game, you really should be shooting movies--
http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/A7B41020E9EEEA6A85256CF60019CF69
$2100 lens shade anyone?
Lachlan Young said:I believe Dante Stella made the following comment: "The old Leitz made stellar cameras like the M3 and breakthrough lenses like the original 50mm Summicron. The new Leica seems to make its money injecting metaphysical doubts into the heads of the weak-minded."
Lachlan
Roger Hicks said:Dear Lachlan,
An afterthought: what do you mean when you say that the 85/2 Jupiter mouint was excessively complicated and didn't really work? I've had three or four and they seemed to work to me. How far wrong can you go with a helical focusing mount, even with a removable lens head?
Cheers,
Roger
df cardwell said:1. There are some lovely lenses out there for SLRs. The 85 / 2 Jupiter in M42 is dirt cheap, and is nothing less than a wonderful Zeiss Sonnar, one of the finest lenses ever made. Yes, it is a preset lens, which should be no problem for anyone photographing with a modicum of deliberation, and works wonderfully well - with adapters - on Nikons, Canons and darn near anything else. For a 'people lens', it has no flaws and a splendid 'out of focus image'.
Likewise, the Helios 85/1.5 is a splendid lens. Big, heavy, and fast. And cheap. It is very similar to the classic Leitz Summarex and Zeiss Biotars of the late '40s and early '50s, except far, far less expensive. It is a time traveler's lens, and if you like the look of those -classic- days, this is a real winner.
The advantage of the SLR lenses over rangefinder lenses is simply this: if the focus mount is a wee bit off, it doesn't matter.
It was that 1 Emergency low combined with the 6 cyl 90 that had the sensuous whine I still remember. In reverence to the rest of this thread I should have bought a Morris Minor instead of the Riley 1500.Roger Hicks said:Yes, the P4 was the standard 50s/early 60s Rover, made as 60, 75, 80, 90, 95, 100, 105 and I think 110. It may have been introduced as early as 1948 and ceased production around 1963 or 1964. Most has the straight six: a couple had the four.
Early models had the sloping boot; the 75, as I recall was the 'Cyclops'; the lat, I think, were the 80 (four) and 100 or 110. Mine was a 105S (for 'sport', a slight exaggeration, though it would cruse at 95-100 mph under ideal conditions).
The four-speed box (with overdrive on many, including mine) was described as
4 Top
3 Middle
2 Low
1 Emergency low
Cheers,
Roger
bjorke said:*sigh*
I have to occasionally say this: Leica M collecting talk makes my blood turn to half-curdled cheese. I think it's a BAD THING FOR PHOTOGRAPHY and has probably prevented a lot of terrific photographers from ever buying good equipment :/
Damage is already done, though.
Yeah, but they don't have 1/50th of a second X-Sync.Lee Shively said:Have a look here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...004&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
And here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...726&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Or, better yet, here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...387&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Puts things into perspective, huh?
(Much rather have my cheap-assed, beat-up old M6's.
Roger Hicks said:Oh, dear, we disagree again. The 135/4 is OK and the 85/2 has a certain charm, but they're pre-war Zeiss designs and the performance in any objective sense is wildly inferior to current Voigtlander designs, which are widely regarded as being on a par with the last generation of Leica glass. Subjective performance is another matter but subjectively I think they're pretty bad too (clearly you disagree).
This desn't stop anyone taking good pictures with them -- after all, if you accept its limitations, and are a good enough photographer, you can take good pictures with a Box Brownie -- but I'd suggest that 'extremely good lenses' is wild hyerbole.
Cheers,
Roger
df cardwell said:.... The 35 Summilux is a passport to another world, and if you are enough of a photographer to use it, you can make good pictures. Nothing touches it. This is saying no more than should be obvious: learn your craft, be committed to what you do, have a compelling urgency to your work, and use the right tool for the job. And go shoot pictures. Tell stories. Be a creative force for good before the maniacs blow the world to bits.
Roger: do you have in more wine left ? I'm coming over.
df cardwell said:George
You can't talk about Leica lens performance without assuming it is on a Leica body. OF COURSE it will perform equally on another body if you could focus it by magic.
I strongly believe in the 80/20 rule: you get 80% of the function for 20% of the cost. I believe, therefore, that when your needs fall outside 80% performance you expect it to cost more. The Cosina bodies are good. But they DON'T focus as accurately as an M camera. If they did, they'd cost as much as an M camera.
Roger Hicks said:We disagree here. A Fed or Kiev or Zorkii -- and I've owned several of each -- is so far from a Leica that it's comparing fish-paste with caviar. I don't care for fish-paste and I can't afford caviar, so I buy neither. But a Voigtlander Bessa-R is salmon or trout eggs, and I can afford those, and I like them, so I buy them.
Cheers,
R.
df cardwell said:George
You can't talk about Leica lens performance without assuming it is on a Leica body. OF COURSE it will perform equally on another body if you could focus it by magic.
I strongly believe in the 80/20 rule: you get 80% of the function for 20% of the cost. I believe, therefore, that when your needs fall outside 80% performance you expect it to cost more. The Cosina bodies are good. But they DON'T focus as accurately as an M camera. If they did, they'd cost as much as an M camera.
As for a Zeiss 35/1.4... they don't make one.
As for the Nikon 28/1.4 ... fantastic lens, but not the same look. Not as good.
Roger Hicks said:My own view is that it's a dinosaur, something that can't be made to the same standard any cheaper.
Roger
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?