Having a hard time understanding the Leica Mystique - aka Astronomical Prices

[Xmas]

That will be due to the pixel producing device.

Yes probably the CV focus is not as flat as the ZM, and the micro lenses are more sensitive to this, but they are also shooting with elbows on coffee table.

I have to carry them around all day, weight is important, effective resolution, if it is not detectable less so.

Depends if your shooting is 'brick walls' or not.

Noel

 

[Q.G.]

And the dumbing down/soft focus filter, a.k.a. anti alias filter, will have kicked in Big Time.

 

[dhosten]

My first and 2nd Leicas

Well my first Leica was a functional, but well worn, M3 Double Stroke user, the 2nd was a n M2 loaner. I had come from Olympus OM-1, OM-2, and thought that I would be achieving some kind of photographic nirvana. Well, I quickly found that my Olympus blue tinge disappeared, and my handheld photos at 1/15, and 1/30 improved in sharpness. The OM-1 is already quiet, but the M3 was noticeably quieter. The perceived need for higher quality, sharper negs eventually lead me to larger format cameras, including a Razzle. What I can say about the Leicas is that the build quality was outstanding, but the images were no better than the best from my Olympus days, just a bit different. I am admittedly turned off of the Leica thing by how many dentists and chiropractors own Leicas as jewelry, for that must be what they are as their photos are without doubt some of the worst I've ever seen. Actually, to be honest about it, I see more crap photos from the average Leica user (I suppose collector might be a better word), than I do from the average Nikon F2 or Pentax LX user. Not sure exactly why that is though.

 

[damienm]

IMHO, collectors are making a mess of the used camera market. Especially when it comes to Leica's. I guess I just don't understand. Wouldn't a Zeiss Ikon ZI fit the bill just as much as a M3 or M4? Does it have to be a Leica, and do you have to give up an arm and a leg, mortgage the farm and relinquish your 1st born to pay for it?

No offence, but the above indicates you do not understand the Leica market, which is composed of collectors and photographers. Collectors pay high prices for special editions and used rare versions in collectable condition. Photographers are the ones buying used and useable Leica's, as well as buying new also.

Both operate with quite different budgets and with different needs, and are quite different elements of the market.

Is there something special about a Leica? As with every camera, I say handle and shoot it, and you tell me. We all choose our own tools, and there's quite a lot of people out there photographing with Leica's.

Would a Zeiss Ikon or other camera replace an M3 or M4? No, not for me. Both my M3 and M4 are about 40 years old, and if I was a betting man I know where I would be putting my money in punting on which will survive another 40. The concept of electronics and longevity do not convince me. Now quality mechanics..

 

[lilmsmaggie]

No offence, but the above indicates you do not understand the Leica market, which is composed of collectors and photographers. Collectors pay high prices for special editions and used rare versions in collectable condition. Photographers are the ones buying used and useable Leica's, as well as buying new also.

Au contrair, mon ami! I and many others know all too well the market forces at play with Leica cameras old and new; and many here have deftly identified in their comments those forces.

Leica has astutely taken advantage of their legendary status and supply and demand.

The same forces are at play with the recent announcement by Cosina that they have discontinued their Voightlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical lens, which has driven the price up for remaining stock from $899 to $1199. Once existing stock is sold, its a very good bet that these lenses, which have already acquired a cult following will continue to demand premium prices.

No, CV lenses are not Leica lenses but they hold their own in terms of image and build quality.

 

[damienm]

Au contrair, mon ami! I and many others know all too well the market forces at play with Leica cameras old and new; and many here have deftly identified in their comments those forces.

Leica has astutely taken advantage of their legendary status and supply and demand.

The same forces are at play with the recent announcement by Cosina that they have discontinued their Voightlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical lens, which has driven the price up for remaining stock from $899 to $1199. Once existing stock is sold, its a very good bet that these lenses, which have already acquired a cult following will continue to demand premium prices.

No, CV lenses are not Leica lenses but they hold their own in terms of image and build quality.

Too many conspiracy theories here for my liking. If silly collectors want to buy ludicrously priced special editions, then so be it. I don't think for a moment, ordinary Leica users have been priced out of the market.

 

[mhcfires]

Too many conspiracy theories here for my liking. If silly collectors want to buy ludicrously priced special editions, then so be it. I don't think for a moment, ordinary Leica users have been priced out of the market.

I could NEVER afford a 'collector grade M2, but I was able to find a very good M2 for a reasonable price. It has it's share of small bumps and bruises, but it works well and looks cosmetically in very good condition. As for the price of CV lenses, I do have a Nokton 35/1.4, the 1.2 looked to be too bulky for my taste. I like to travel light, this kit suits me to a tee.

 

[ntenny]

It seems like there are, broadly, two attitudes about equipment (not just in photography, but probably in all gear-intensive activities). One is "if you give me a plastic promotional camera and a lens made of expired lunchmeat, I'll find a way to make a good photo with it"; the other is "my skills are tuned for nuanced interaction with the finest tools available and that magical unity of worker and tool is my best route to a good photo". Both are legitimate, IMHO, and we see plenty of both on display at APUG (often from the same people at different times---I know Mike Cienfuegos can wear both hats with good photographic results, for instance).

The second group are probably well served by Leicae and similar top-end cameras, even at the high prices the spiffier ones command (modulo the outrageous stuff that's obviously collectors-only). The first are out shooting Zorkis. Probably the passionate adherents of each group are just doomed to an inability to understand one another. It all seems to work out OK in the aggregate.

-NT

 

[2F/2F]

It seems like there are, broadly, two attitudes about equipment (not just in photography, but probably in all gear-intensive activities). One is "if you give me a plastic promotional camera and a lens made of expired lunchmeat, I'll find a way to make a good photo with it"; the other is "my skills are tuned for nuanced interaction with the finest tools available and that magical unity of worker and tool is my best route to a good photo". Both are legitimate, IMHO, and we see plenty of both on display at APUG (often from the same people at different times---I know Mike Cienfuegos can wear both hats with good photographic results, for instance).

The second group are probably well served by Leicae and similar top-end cameras, even at the high prices the spiffier ones command (modulo the outrageous stuff that's obviously collectors-only). The first are out shooting Zorkis. Probably the passionate adherents of each group are just doomed to an inability to understand one another. It all seems to work out OK in the aggregate.

-NT

You forgot three groups, I think!

You mentioned:

1) Good photographers who only use good equipment
2) Photographers who can simply work things out the best they can with whatever they have.

I think, in addition, there are:

3) Photographers who purposefully use bad equipment
4) Bad and/or mediocre photographers who use good equipment thinking it will make them good photographs
5) Photographers who see the joy in and usefulness of all sorts of equipment, and use each kind of equipment to its best ends.

I like to think I belong to the 5th group, except in that I often do not use digital when I really ought to!

 

[blockend]

Photography is like fishing, the guy who has bait in the river is going to out-fish the chap with a theoretically perfect rig back home. When that big fish comes by I don't care whether the rod is artisan built split cane or Chinese carbon.

 

[Xmas]

Quote Originally Posted by lilmsmaggie View Post
Au contrair, mon ami! I and many others know all too well the market forces at play with Leica cameras old and new; and many here have deftly identified in their comments those forces.

Leica has astutely taken advantage of their legendary status and supply and demand.

The same forces are at play with the recent announcement by Cosina that they have discontinued their Voightlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical lens, which has driven the price up for remaining stock from $899 to $1199. Once existing stock is sold, its a very good bet that these lenses, which have already acquired a cult following will continue to demand premium prices.

No, CV lenses are not Leica lenses but they hold their own in terms of image and build quality.

Too many conspiracy theories here for my liking. If silly collectors want to buy ludicrously priced special editions, then so be it. I don't think for a moment, ordinary Leica users have been priced out of the market.

Well it it said that Mr S.Gandy had PMed people who inquired indicating the lower price was his stock price and the (20% or so) higher price was the slip between the USD and Yen, between the stock points, when his current stock was sold.
Cosina may be able to do another batch if the glasses used are still available, i.e. not quarantined for hazard or availability or materials.
Given they are stopping while there still might be a lens shortage may mean it was not selling.
The clue is the 20% hike between stock points.

I would not let possible fact stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

M2s seem to have got cheaper in last three or four years, but CV lenses new or used seem to be increasing in line with Yen exchange rates. Note I mean the 'shooters' not the collectors. There were a lot of M2 made even one not out of the box would not be that expensive, unless it is black paint, or smilar.

Noel

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Well it it said that Mr S.Gandy had PMed people who inquired indicating the lower price was his stock price and the (20% or so) higher price was the slip between the USD and Yen, between the stock points, when his current stock was sold. Cosina may be able to do another batch if the glasses used are still available, i.e. not quarantined for hazard or availability or materials.
Given they are stopping while there still might be a lens shortage may mean it was not selling. The clue is the 20% hike between stock points.

I would not let possible fact stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

No conspiracy theory. Fact, not fiction. Read for yourself:

http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/english/wide-e.html

I'm sure the lens was selling.

Only Kobayashi-San and his inner circle know the real reason behind the discontinuance.

 

[Galah]

:eek: But how will he stow it when not in use or in a house move?! I also "play" with model trains but try to always keep the packaging for when track isn't set up...

This reminds me of a story.

A guy goes to a doctor who recommends that -instead of going to work by car or bus- he trundles a hoop to work with a stick.

The guy does this for several weeks, always parking his hoop by the lift in the foyer of his office building.

One day, it's time to go home, but someone has stolen his hoop.

His colleagues console him with the thought he could always buy another hoop the next day.

"That's all very well, " he says, "But how will I get home tonight?"

 

[T42]

Each Tool To Its Purpose....

...Then came Nikons, and they took over quickly because they were the first camera system in a long time that was significantly better than or equal to Leicas in almost every way that counted to working photographers.

It's a point. The Nikon F was indeed a better system solution than even the world's best rangefinder, well matched to the requirements of most journalists of the time.

However, for the more deliberate shooter who prefers a quiet, small, stable, unobtrusive photographic instrument with superb optics, excelling in low light, the M continued to have an important place to play. Many National Geographic photographers used Leica M's until recent times. I doubt that their subjects even knew what a Leica was. They used those cameras for good business reasons, IMO, not for status, and especially not so if status would have gotten in the way of their work.

All that was left for Leica was the legendary status, and, less so, the fact that, although outmatched in almost every way, they were still well-made cameras. When your product is not even close to being able to take on the competition (i.e. Nikon in this case), you can no longer rely on the product itself to keep you in business.

Well, they have had their troubles, haven't they? Somehow they persist. An old photographer told me back in the sixties "Cameras come, and cameras go, but the Leica remains." I laughed at him. I'm not laughing anymore. With all due respect, one limitation in your logic, IMO, is the notion that a camera wins by doing more things better, even if in the process it does a few important things worse.

The Leica mystique was always perpetuated to some degree by the company, and when the cameras gradually phased out in the wake of Nikons, I think Leitz came to rely on their legendary status to keep themselves in business.

They were phased out? The M is the only 35mm camera I know of that has persisted from 1953 to the present day with a single common mount and unbroken product continuity. If I am not mistaken, its latest iteration is the smallest full-frame digital in the market space, and is selling well. I wonder if any of the photographers who once used the film M's will be using the M9 for their work. I would bet that there will be some who do. SLRs cannot do everything best. It's a fact.

My M3 of 1959 and its Summicron of 1954 can still be serviced by Sherry Krauter in New York. My Nikon F has poorer support. Thankfully, it does not need much of it. The Nikon just keeps on going, like that Energizer Bunny. But the Leica M3 is definitely superior in fit, finish, and operation.

The sentimentality of those who had grown up with and made their livings on the legendary Leicas of yore was stoked by the company and passed down from generation to generation.

Probably so. One sells however he can. As we all know, many of the most memorable images in history were recorded by great photographers using Leica rangefinders. And those images did not cease in 1959, with the appearance of the F.

Now we have exorbitantly priced cameras that are no better than what the company made when Nikon first blew them out of the water. Think about it.

Yes, the early M's really were that good. May they always be as well made. Rock solid, heavy and stable, smooth as butter, quiet as a mouse, unobtrusive, wonderful in available darkness, terrific for candid imaging. A tool that in some few ways cannot be matched by an SLR or a dSLR.

How the heck else is a company supposed to stay in business with a product that was handily outmatched fifty years ago?

It wasn't categorically outmatched, and it hasn't been. It became a less suitable match than an SLR for a majority of users. It remained popular for some others for a few very good reasons. How do you compare a wrench to pliers? These are completely different tools. As to how Leica survives, they will have to figure that out for themselves. The M9 and S2 seem to have some promise. I wish them luck, as that is all I have to offer them.

You don't sell the product. You sell something more than the product. The product simply becomes a vehicle for the purchase of status.

As I said, one must pitch it however it will sell, always putting it in its best light. Thankfully, the fact that some people buy it for status is wholly unknown to the Leica. It just does what it does. And that's what matters for those who actually use Leica M's regularly.

Anytime I don't need the special capabilities of an SLR, I shoot with the Leica. I just like it. And as for the status, most folks seeing an old guy like me with an obviously ancient metal camera are more likely to have pity than envy. They don't even know what it is, nor do they take it seriously. That's a good thing in candid imaging, actually. Quite easy to mix in with folks.

Make no mistake. Leicas are primarily luxury/leisure items, and have been for decades.

Matters not to me. Mine has no red dot. I paid $600 for the camera in the 90s and another $250 for Sherry Krauter to go through it. I have no doubt that if I sold it today, I could recover about that. Now think about this: The cost of ownership would be nearly ZERO. What old Nikon SLR matches that?

To the OP, I would suggest that they take your advice quoted below to get a good used M. The cost of ownership might just be so attractively low that they cannot say no. And if they don't like the Leica, someone else will. Hardly any other camera has so little risk to the owner as an M. Maybe Hasselblad 500c or a classic Rollei.

The way I see it, the trick to getting around this overpriced idiocy, and to simply get your hands on an excellent rangefinder camera, is to realize that the company has made no significant upgrades for 90% of truly serious shooters since the M2. If you want a quality rangefinder that simply gets the job done in an old-fashioned manner, don't buy anything past the M2, and do not fall for any of the collector garbage.

On this we agree mostly. If somebody is dumb enough to buy a gold plated Leica with ostrich skin for a blue zillion dollars, then good for them and Leica. It's nothing to me. If it helps Leica survive, then maybe parts for the M's will continue in manufacture longer.

Realize that no matter how good everyone proclaims the optics and mechanics of the cameras to be, they are over all an outdated and inferior tool to SLRs.

Apples vs Bananas I say. Each tool to its own user and purpose. "Outdated" is an irrelevant term if a tool is judged by the photographer to be best for any particular application.

...You shoot one for the same reason you drive a '61 Cadillac: because they're fuggin' cool, and fuggin' fun, not because they are the best in the world in a technical sense (though they may have been at the time they were made).

The public knows what a '61 Cadillac is. They don't know a Leica M from Adam's house cat. For the few areas where a rangefinder (Leica or otherwise) has an advantage, no SLR is its equal. Did anyone ever replace a well appointed tool box with a Swiss Army Knife? The purpose made tools are always better for some specific applications. So it is with the rangefinder.

Everyone is so convinced that having a Leica makes them a serious photographer. Everyone is convinced that they are vastly superior in quality to any other camera. Balls to that.

Not me, and not everyone. Some say my people pictures are better when I use the M3 instead of my F or F2. Maybe so. However, I agree with you that the machine does not make the image. That's the photographer's job! Anyone who thinks a camera makes them a photographer probably believes that cookware would make them a chef, or that a Ferrari would make them a world class driver at Le Mans.

The proof in pictures says otherwise. People shoot the same crap with Leicas that they do with any camera, and often it is even crappier because rangefinders are such a pain in the ass to use compared to SLRs.

You are right in that technology does not make one a photographer. I goof just as often with an F, an F2, an M3, or with any of my other cameras. Anyone who feels that an M is a pain to use should just get something else. It is no pain for me. Most folks don't like rangefinders. Okay by me, as long as I can enjoy mine.

Leicas are cool because they are fun and old fashioned. Embrace that, and don't take them so damned seriously. You'll get out cheap, and have a million times more fun and get a million times better pictures than all the bozos paying big bucks for them so that they can think of themselves as serious photographers. Get an old thread mount camera or an early M and you've got everything that was ever good about using a Leica in the first place. You usually escape for well under a thousand bucks too.

They are good for more reasons than that. As for the bozos, they can simmer in their own mental stew. I like the M because I like using the M and I like the images. That's all that matters to me.

The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it. They've always got to attach some sort of twisted value to it beyond what it actually is: a fuggin' bitchin' old camera that used to rule the world.

You are off the mark in your assessment about objectivity of judgment. I hope for your sake you do not own a Leica M. Fortunately, most folks who dislike them don't, and some who own them actually do love using them.

 

[Okzan]

I bought a 19 year old M3 when I was 20. I'm now 54 and still using the same camera. I get it serviced every 8 to 10 years and it continues to work flawlessly. Battered and bruised but still hanging in.

 

[T42]

The Two Camps

Hello Mr. Tenny.

It seems like there are, broadly, two attitudes about equipment (not just in photography, but probably in all gear-intensive activities). One is "if you give me a plastic promotional camera and a lens made of expired lunch meat, I'll find a way to make a good photo with it";

Have you noticed how it is that an actual real photographer can get better pictures with almost any camera? That says a lot about gear, IMO.

...the other is "my skills are tuned for nuanced interaction with the finest tools available and that magical unity of worker and tool is my best route to a good photo".

It's a beautiful thing when the operation of the camera is almost second nature, almost an extension of the imagemaker. S/he can concentrate on conceptual matters better, no doubt. But that image is created in the mind first, IMHO.

The second group are probably well served by Leicae and similar top-end cameras, ... The first are out shooting Zorkis. Probably the passionate adherents of each group are just doomed to an inability to understand one another. It all seems to work out OK in the aggregate.

Back in 2001, I bought a Kiev 4a just for the fun of it. I already had an M3. I just wanted to see for myself what the FSU camera craze was all about. I must tell you, I was astonished at the high quality of the images which came from the K4a and its Jupiter 8M, which lens I understand is a Soviet era Sonnar copy.

Comparing the K4a and the M3, I would say that a well conceived, very high quality image could come from either. The M3 is mechanically superior in almost every way, and it is easier to use. The K4a's 1936 Contax heritage is clearly not the M3's match in fit, finish, handling, or features, but it works very well just the same.

I like them both and I use them both. It's amazing to me that the two are separated by an order of magnitude in price. Most viewers are not able to differentiate between pictures made with the the K4a+Jupiter 8M and the M3+Summicron. It would not surprise me if it were the same with the Zorkis and Feds as it is with the Kiev 4a. Great pictures at an unbelievably low price.

I learned a long time ago that my limitations in photography are beyond the scope of mere technology. I'm in neither of those camps. When I don't like my pictures it is rarely anything to do with the camera, no matter whichever one I had used.

 

[T42]

Hello Okzan. Welcome.

I bought a 19 year old M3 when I was 20. I'm now 54 and still using the same camera. I get it serviced every 8 to 10 years and it continues to work flawlessly. Battered and bruised but still hanging in.

Welcome to the APUG Forum, Okzan. Pleased to meet you.

Glad to meet another person who loves shooting with an old M3. Looks like your M3 was made in 58 or thereabouts. Mine came off the line in 59. I suspect that our M3's will outlast us both. I Just hope film will continue to be plentiful as we go along.

Happy day.

 

[georg16nik]

I am shooting with my grandfather's wartime Leica, made in 1940.
It is the call of traditions, authentic photographic experience and quality of craftsmanship, standing far beyond the needs of photography
I wish for everybody here to have that real chance to experience that!

 

[T42]

I am shooting with my grandfather's wartime Leica, made in 1940.
It is the call of traditions, authentic photographic experience and quality of craftsmanship, standing far beyond the needs of photography
I wish for everybody here to have that real chance to experience that!

Hello Georg.

That's fantastic. How neat that you are enjoying a camera that was worthy to be passed down as a family heirloom from father to son to grandson.

So many of today's cameras are more like computer accessories, battery driven, and destined for the landfill in a few years.

But not your classic Leica. I hope you will always have it and enjoy creating images with it. I know it must be very special to you. 70 years. Wow.

Happy day.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

fsu cameras

FSU cameras only appear to be a good value because they were sold below cost of manufacture in the west in order for the soviets to gain hard currency. No R+D on the cameras, poor quality control and very little marketing compared to the Japanese. Still the Japanese could produce excellent cameras to a price. The average Chinon/Ricoh/Cosina of the 1970-s was streets ahead of the Zenit E or the Zorki 4K

Leica is a niche product like high fashion clothes

 

[blockend]

A Soviet rangefinder is something I haven't handled for years buy the surprise was that they worked at all. IIRC they retailed for around £30 when the cheapest own brand re-badged SLR was £100. Or about the price of an Instamatic, compared to which Zorkis and Kievs were marvels of precision engineering. The word was that the lenses outperformed the bodies but if you were lucky to get one that avoided quality evasion you hung onto it.

Not all eastern block manufacturing was junk. I ran East German motorcycles for twenty five years and they were very well made and reliable.

 

[dfoo]

...
Leica is a niche product like high fashion clothes

A ridiculous comparison. Some Leica cameras, coveted by collectors, are as you say. The majority, however, were and still are more like blue jeans. The workhorses of working photographers.

 

[Xmas]

A Soviet rangefinder is something I haven't handled for years buy the surprise was that they worked at all. IIRC they retailed for around £30 when the cheapest own brand re-badged SLR was £100. Or about the price of an Instamatic, compared to which Zorkis and Kievs were marvels of precision engineering. The word was that the lenses outperformed the bodies but if you were lucky to get one that avoided quality evasion you hung onto it.

Not all eastern block manufacturing was junk. I ran East German motorcycles for twenty five years and they were very well made and reliable.

Well on bus trips I normally carry two Fed I or Zorki I, the one that works the nicest and gives nice photos is a Fed I (a 1B? -Toilet Seat) circa '36, an uncoated Tessar clone.

But most cameras will have been neglected, and subject to kitchen knife maintenance.

Noel

 

[michaelbsc]

FSU cameras only appear to be a good value because they were sold below cost of manufacture in the west in order for the soviets to gain hard currency. No R+D on the cameras, poor quality control and very little marketing compared to the Japanese. Still the Japanese could produce excellent cameras to a price. The average Chinon/Ricoh/Cosina of the 1970-s was streets ahead of the Zenit E or the Zorki 4K

Leica is a niche product like high fashion clothes

I have to disagree that this is the only reason they were a good value. The piece you aren't counting is the fact that the R&D in a regularly manufactured product has to be amortized across the production. The FED, Zorki, Keiv, lines got most of this cost free. Yes, they did do a little R&D, and some of the later FEDs are clearly better than the early ones until the infrastructure fell into decline.

But when Leitz had to recover the costs for the original development, this was no small part of the asking price for the instrument. Much the same way that PE has been exclaiming that the biggest cost in producing a new master roll of Kodachrome isn't materials, it's the R&D required to get it going. The FED factory had no sunk cost on that. So their asking price could be considerably lower. (OK, yes I'm ignoring a lot of details like how much did the war cost, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da.)

As an aside, I'm also beginning to think that the FSU equipment is getting out of line. When I bought the stuff I have it was about $35, and I had Edy Smolov go through it to make it right. A couple of lenses for it later, and I had a nice kit. The stuff that's on fleeBay now is so out of proportion I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In fact, in my own searches I'm trolling looking for the "blue jeans" Leica rather than pay the premium for gear that's only adequate.

 

[jacarape]

Here is a great pdf from DeviantArt.

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs11/f/2006/227/e/2/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf

The gist is people that use them just don't care what others think.

I took my MP with a 35 Lux ASPH to work everyday on the back of a motorcycle taxi (Okada) in Lagos, Nigeria. I took it to the beach there, I took it walking in Lagos, my dog packed in New Orleans, my other dog packed it in Chaco Canyon NP.

In my lifetime so far:
Leica MP (A camera with a soul.)
Hassy 500c/m (It walked on the moon, what more can you say?)
Contax 645 (Awesome optics, great system.)
Mamiya 645 Pro (It introduced me to MF and it showed me Israel.)
Nikon FE2 (A great companion.)
Nikon FM3A (The last and best consumer 35, but a tad sterile. It would be an accountant if human.)
Nikon F4s (a horse, a stud, a pack animal, if I only have one AF camera, this is it. It's a light weight bludgeon and can be as hard headed as a hound dog.)
Canonete (a cute little girl with bright eyes)
Contax IIIa (Step back in time, enjoy the journey.)
Bessa R2c (meh)
Contax G2 (in two words, Biogon and Hologon. A hybrid is on Mars, the Rover Navcam lenses.)

So while the prices of L gear may lead people to think it's just bling, it's my camera. I have two lenses, a 35/1.4 ASPH which is like an old reliable friend you can rely on, call anytime day and especially at night, and a 75/1.4 Lux. That lens is like a trophy wife, a MILF that you can't resist but can't ever love. But when you see what it can do, you always return.

Damn it, I forgot to take my meds this AM.