Collectors Should Be Shot (or at least, they should learn to shoot)

[Chan Tran]

Very true. And in other situations the Nikon or Canon SLRs aren't as good as M-series Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

That is also true Roger!

As for moonman 54 comments about the M8. I think the M8 may actually hurt Leica. As good as Leica can make cameras, most of the goodness of the Leica come from the fact that they are built the old fashioned way. I don't think Leica can make the guts of the M8 as good as other camera makers as it's not best to make the digital imaging portion of the camera in the old fashioned way. Leica has never been very good with things electronics.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If they weren't worth it to me, I wouldn't have them.

Dear Lee,

Well, yes, that's my view too. I can see why (for example) George says they aren't worth it to him, but what I have some difficulty with is being told that you and I (and Sebastiao Salgado for that matter -- it's the only way I'm likely get in the same sentence with him) are wasting our money because the camera ISN'T WORTH the price differential.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... 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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

What may explain a lot is the fact that the Russian LTM has a slight discrepancy with Leica's LTM - just enough to throw even the best lens out of focus at full bore. Furthermore, the Russian LTM mount for the 85mm f2 was very complicated and didn't really work. If you want good results try the lens on an SLR. The 50mm f2 and the 35mm f2.8 on the Kiev4a for which they were originally designed are both really rather good. I refer you back to my comment about the Picture Post photographers above - the lenses they were using were obsolete but they achieved extraordinary images anyway - the equipment can't have been that bad can it?

Roger, just admit that you are trying to find an excuse for the two Alpas that you own...


Lachlan

 

[Lachlan Young]

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]

Dear Lachlan,

Well, I've tried plenty of FSU lenses on the original cameras as well and was unimpressed -- and my 'like new' 35/2.8 came with the factory test certificate which I would have hidden in their situation -- edge and centre resolution, as far as I recall at several apertures, were laughable.

I fully take your point about 'can't have been that bad', and my own view is that most (though not the 35/2,8 or 20/5.6) were above the 'quality plateau' where the photographer's skill matters more than the lens quality. All I'm querying is the assessment that they were great lenses. They weren't. They were acceptable. Remember too that the repro quality in Picture Post was lousy (I lost my big stash decades ago) so they had to 'paint with a broad brush', using strong contrasts of light and shade -- at which most if them were geniuses.

When this thread blew up I'd just started work on a new module for the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com about using old lenses (all formats) so I am particularly interested.

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. What amazed me was the number of people in China who had heard of them. Fred Zhou (the importer) is doing a brilliant job.

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

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

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?

 

[Roger Hicks]

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?

That's why it's a game I prefer not to start -- someone can always trump you. There's always scanning-back digital, too, where the quality actually does beat colour transparency film if you don't mind $20K for the back, never mind the camera, lens and computer to process it all.

But if someone insists on playing, AND you want a still film camera, Alpas are pretty good.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[copake_ham]

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

Lachlan,

Precisely my point. Up to and including the M3 - Leica was making the best cameras in a competitive RF marketplace. Thereafter, most of the major competitors left that marketplace - either moving the SLRs (e.g. Nikon) or just fading away (e.g. Contax, Voightlander etc.).

As the RF was supplanted with the SLR by most professional photogs Leica opted to re-position the M-series as a luxury good. It's first real disaster was the M5. And while the M6, and subsequent M7, re-established their ability to make quality gear - the decision to position themselves way upmarket almost killed the firm.

Roger, Lee and the others here, are generally speaking about their "older" Leicas. My reference to relative value and "worth" relate the the current luxury models.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

The Russians were trying to get a Contax lens to couple to a LTM camera - 'nuff said. I seem to remeber three helicals but check the APUG archives & Don Cardwell's comments especially.

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.

Hope this helps,

Lachlan

 

[Mark Layne]

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

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.
Good news is they are going to rebuild the MGTD.
And I'm going to hang on to my M3 and Nikon SP
Mark

 

[Changeling1]

Ralph Gibbon's Leica!

*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.

Here's one for the collectors- A special edition Leica model honoring the photographer
Ralph Gibbons. Only 50 made!

 

[Lee Shively]

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.

 

[df cardwell]

Lachlan

I was drinking with Dante when he wrote that.

While it makes a certain sense after a liter or two of beer, it really doesn't apply to the case in hand. It is meant more for the 'wannabe' with a 6 figure income
( see ' dilletante' ) who frets over every comment on the LUG and is too paralyzed with fear of making a mistake to make pictures.

Today's Leica is meant for shooting at the margins of what may be caught on film. Shoot from a tripod on a bright sunny day, and almost anything will be good enough. Shoot wide open in low light with dazzling light sources in the scene, and you can throw out alnost every lens on the market: they all fail. Which is why people are justified in buying $3000 lenses for 35mm.

My big photographic interest is recording the lives of ordinary people. It's what drew me to making pictures almost 40 years ago. Now, when you turn on bright lights, or take out a flash, you don't get the image you might have in normal, everyday lighting. Long ago, you had to push film and hope for the best. Today, you CAN use an f/1.4 lens and 400 film, and record amazing detail, in gentle tonality. AND not spend a long time in the darkroom, or on the scanner, making a satisfying image. 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.

 

[reub2000]

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.

Yeah, but they don't have 1/50th of a second X-Sync.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, before we get carried away by contemplation of the expensive, does anyone here know anyone who owns the latest most best 35 mm Arriflex? I haven't priced one for over ten years, back then they cost $250k.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[DBP]

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

A couple of years ago I photographed my Dad's retirement with my Bessa-R and Nikon FG. The FG had an execrable zoom on it while the I was using first the 35/2.5 Skopar then a Jupiter 8 on the Bessa. While it was easy to tell which camera was which, the change of lenses on the Bessa was not readily apparent. A good Jupiter 8 is a pretty good lens, and certainly as good as my technique with a rangefinder. On a tripod the Voigtlander lenses might have an edge, but if I am going to use a tripod I won't be using a 35mm rangefinder. Admittedly, Soviet quality control being what it was, a good Jupiter is fairly rare. But the good ones are pretty good.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

You can't beat a good Jupiter-3 with a stick, either.

Mine is, proudly, a Brian Sweeney J-3. He does excellent work on these lenses, and, when he's finished, they can be some of the best cheap glass you'll ever find. It'll be one of the first lenses that I put on my M2 (with adapter, of course) and will never be replaced by anything.

 

[copake_ham]

.... 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.

But aren't you speaking now of the Leitz lens - not the Leica body?

Why would this lens perform less on a R2A or R2M etc.?

Go ask Roger, I think he'll know....and if you go chasing lenses....

Will this Summilux lens really produce a such a more superior image than a Zeiss at one half the price? (Sh*t, that last phrase rhymes!).

 

[df cardwell]

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.

 

[Mark Layne]

As for a Zeiss 35/1.4... they don't make one.

and if they did it wouldn't be half the price.

Don
I don't know if you want to head all the way to Roger's, but failing that I'll be in Pictou by the time you reply. Steak and corn and adult beverages at the annual soiree Sat evening.
Mark

 

[DBP]

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.

What about the Zeiss Ikon body?

 

[Claire Senft]

I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.

The major change for Leica is not how expensive it is, not how good it is but the amount of other choices that are less expensive and that may well be viewed by the buyer as better value.

If the cameras are going to sit in the book case and not be used for taking photographs then there are a lot of good choices. If you need a very durable RF camera that will be very reliable and which has available very good glass fully usable at every aperture that comes in very durable mounts then a Leica makes a very credible choice and a good value.

If you work in good light and do not need a camera for heavy duty service that will be used at moderate apertures then a Leica may not be your best choice.

Being mad at Leica for making such a good product that you lust after and can not afford is a waste of emotion.

 

[copake_ham]

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.

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.

So lemme see here.

Roger says he can (or cannot) afford Leica bodies (only Cosinas) because Leicas are "caviar" and he can only afford salmon eggs. But then, didn't he say he had Leicas elsewhere in this thread?

And df says that only Leica bodies can truly focus Leitz lenses.

So does this mean that someone with a non-Leica M-mount body would be foolish to buy a Leitz lens because it won't work as good - so why waste the dough?

And, wait a minute, didn't Roger just review the R2M in that magazine?

Oh and finally, how does a functioning to spec body affect the image taken by a lens?

Yes, over time, a Leica body may be more durable than a Cosina. I agree on that.

But if both are out-of-the-box new and fully functioning with proper distance b/w the rear lens and the film plane - how is the picture different? Or, to be blunt, why would the resultant Cosina picture be of less quality than the one from the Leica?

 

[rfshootist]

My own view is that it's a dinosaur, something that can't be made to the same standard any cheaper.
Roger

Roger,
It could be be made much cheaper ! With absolutely the same quality standard. But not in Germany. This is the wrongest place at all for the production of this Dino. Zeiss did it better at this point, which is decisive when we talk about worth the gap or not.

Bertram