firecracker said:But at the same time, the tools shouldn't be "bargained", either. Throwing out what's still fully functional and usable based on the market agenda is like half a step to committing suicide and so harmful to the environment. That is a real disgrace to what we call "civilization."
Roger Hicks said:Cameras like the Nikkormat (I have two) are the 'African knives': a well made product at a fair price. M-series Leicas are, in that sense, Samurai swords, folded and re-folded from an incredibly worked steel. They are several times more expensive than the 'African knives' but these are in turn twice the price of the stamped steel that breaks. Too many people take the stamped steel, not the Africvan knife/Nikkormat, as the basic unit of currency.
I wouldn't really use a flash with such a camera, however one can snag a rangefinder with a 1/500 X-Sync much cheaper on ebay.Further, it was brought up that Leicas only synch flash at 1/50 second. True. I've never used a flash with my Leicas. Since I bought them both used and they both came with the little plastic plug in the PC sockets and unscarred hot shoes, I must assume the previous owners didn't use flash either. In my opinion, putting a flash (or a motor drive) on a Leica rangefinder is like putting deep-tread mudgrip tires on a sports car. They might fit but they really detract from the machine's strong points.
Stephanie Brim said:It's not that people need a Leica to produce great images...that is simply not the case. There have been tons of great photos made by cameras other than Leicas. It's that some people want to use Leicas to produce their great images. That is perfectly okay. I'm still pondering my first, but I'm sure that by the end of next year I'll be pondering a second.
Leica's reputation for outstanding optics and incredibly put together cameras makes people want them more and more regardless of the price.
And, for the record, some of the people who have told me that they could never afford a Leica generally have one thing I won't have to worry about for a long time: a digital SLR.
Stephanie Brim said:I have a Canon P...I can tell you that I love it. It's not a Leica, though. I don't want one or the other, I want both. I won't be giving up one to have the other. I won't stop using one because I have the other. The Canon P gives me access to all the screwmount glass I want, but not the m-mount glass. The real reason I want an m-mount camera is so that I can use the 50/2 Summicron and the 35/1.2 Nokton. I don't *need* to go Leica for this, but I want to. It's my choice. I want the quietness of the Leica compared to the Voigtlander bodies. I want a used camera with something of a history. I want a camera without a meter and with a mechanical shutter. I want something that feels right in my hands and that I'm not going to be afraid to abuse. This is why I like the Canon P as much as I do, and that's why I want a Leica to accompany it.
I pay more for the quality I get and I expect the things I buy to stand up to me. So far the Canon P hasn't let me down. I highly doubt a Leica would either.
Stephanie Brim said:<snip>
And about the Zeiss Ikon...I want a mechanical shutter. You missed that part. The Zeiss Ikon has an electric one, which means that when batteries go out so does my camera. I have had horrible luck with electric shutters going out at the worst times in the past in other cameras, so I've vowed not to use them.
firecracker said:Exactly!
I have and use both types: "Samural swords" (Leica M3, Canon New F1, Contax T3) and "Afirican Knives" (Nikon FM, Retinette 1a, Mamiya Press Universal). But now too many people are throwing out and giving away the "Afircan Knives" for nothing and I'm collecting them back so they can be used again.
I think what's really new and pretending to be the "Samurai swords" today are just as good as "Ginsu Knives" from some late-night TV ads programs a while back. It's a "You-can-make-10-easy-payments-of-29.99$" type of cheesy stuff.
But one more question: How come Nikon Fs' prices are coming down now, but not any of the Leicas except for the earlier R series models? In your views, which "knife" group do they belong to?
Lachlan Young said:The Canon P and its ilk are as good as Leicas anyway - how else would Canon have made its name?
Lachlan
Roger Hicks said:Then why are Leica still selling Leica RFs but Canon can't make a profit on Canon RF?
I've owned both and didn't have much difficulty in deciding which to keep.
Plus, of course, the M-mount.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks said:Dear Lachlan,
Manufacturers seldom discontinue profitable lines. If Canons really were as good as Leicas, they'd still be selling.
Canon made neither the M-series nor the Nikon F. At the risk of starting a flame war I'd say that in the late 50s/early 60s Canon made second-best (or maybe third-best) RFs and reflexes.
Certes, I'd rather have an M-series than any RF Nikon ever made (and I have tried them). What is more, the lens mount of the Contax/Nikon/Kiev (yes, I know there are differences) is extremely limiting. The M-mount (and direct focusing) is a lot more versatile.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks said:Dear Stephanie,
I'd second the advice NOT to have new frames fitted -- too damn' expensive -- but I am completely with you on the batteries. This is however one of those points where the Battery Taliban will tell you that you are a Bad Person and deserve to lose your pictures if you do not always carry spare batteries with you at all times.
I'm also completely with you about 'something that feels right in my hands'.
Cheers,
R.
Claire Senft said:I bought one of the last brand new Nikon SP cameras available in the US..I am unsure but it was about 65/66 I believe. The Nikon SP had a light weight body and a very relable titanium shutter as well as a nice selection of framelines 28 in a LH window, then 35,50,85,105,135 frames as well as rangefinder in the other. The Nikon lenses, that I owned, 35,50,85,135, when used at moderate apertures were capable performers. I know I have read in Modern Photography, and Popular Photography that these lenses were better Contax and Leica lenses. sold at the same time..what a load of crap.
Even at that though the Nikon SP with the Voigtlander lenses would be very nice to use today.
Stephanie Brim said:I won't need the other framelines right away and I may never need them, but I wanted to get an idea of how much it would cost if I did. I asked on RFF and found out and it isn't actually that bad. I mean, it is, but it's a number that I was expecting and not overly outrageous.
About the batteries. It's not just the running out of batteries, it's missing the shot when you realize they've gone out on you. I don't want to ever be cursing my camera because I've lost a shot when batteries go belly up on me at the wrong time.
You might be very surprised what the cost of changing the RF isStephanie Brim said:I could just get an M6, too, but I figure that a user M2 + trip to Solms for framelines would still be cheaper than buying an M6.
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?