I'm thinking about selling it all...

Stephanie Brim · Mar 16, 2008

My Canonet 28 is a cute little camera that has its functions. I paid way too much for mine. It has its problems, but overall I believe it functions well enough to give me a good enough image when it comes out of the beaten up case.

I think that, for now, the Bessa will serve me well. WHen it comes time to get the Leica, I'll be ready for it.

John Koehrer · Mar 16, 2008

Just gotta laugh at comment regarding "build quality" when talking about M2/M3/M4's. What'd they do use tin for the later cameras?

Photomann · Mar 16, 2008

Into the real past

How about a Leica IIIc like mine, which I had out today in the beautiful late winter, working like a jewelled watch, its unblinking blue Summitar 50mm eye taking in the sun and wind, speaking softly in its quiet shuttered voice, capturing the magic has it has for about 60 years.

Mark Layne · Mar 16, 2008

Mike Kennedy said:
I was at an auction a few years ago where the entire stock of a local camera shop were put on the block.I recognized a someone in the crowd who I consider the best photographer in town.I saddled up to her and after a bit of a chat mentioned that I was attending the auction in the faint hope of purchasing a Leica.She asked me why and made a most profound remark "It won't make you a better photographer.Sure your images may be sharper but it will not improve your technique.Work on the fundamentals".
It still makes a lot of sense to me today.

Bit like telling a Lexus customer he would have been just as happy with a Kcar

David H. Bebbington · Mar 16, 2008

Mike Kennedy said:
I was at an auction a few years ago where the entire stock of a local camera shop were put on the block.I recognized a someone in the crowd who I consider the best photographer in town.I saddled up to her and after a bit of a chat mentioned that I was attending the auction in the faint hope of purchasing a Leica.She asked me why and made a most profound remark "It won't make you a better photographer.Sure your images may be sharper but it will not improve your technique.Work on the fundamentals".
It still makes a lot of sense to me today.

The thing about a really good camera is that you know it is capable of producing the greatest technical quality possible, the only limiting factor is therefore you the photographer. Im my case at least, this inspires me to greater effort. For me. there's nothing worse than taking a great shot on a mediocre camera and not being able to do anything with it due to lack of basic technical quality!

jd callow · Mar 16, 2008

David H. Bebbington said:
For me. there's nothing worse than taking a great shot on a mediocre camera and not being able to do anything with it due to lack of basic technical quality!

I agree with this 100%.

Jack Lusted · Mar 17, 2008

It seems that it is all to do with confidence.
About 17 years ago I had an OM1 - excellent camera, but one day it jammed so I sent it off to repair but the wind on always felt gritty afterwards. Later I got an OM4. Nice camera, but it seemed to eat batteries - so I never really trusted it.
Decided to look at Nikon, which were very nice, but there was also a well used M4P in the shop. I asked if I could try it. 'Sure', said the assistant - 'show us some ID and you can borrow it for the week end'.
Three days later I was minus 1 OM1, 1 OM4 and a number of lenses and quite a bit of cash for an M4P and 50mm Summicron. It was the best photographic purchase I've ever made as I've stopped worrying about the camera.

Jack

Keith Novak · Mar 17, 2008

A few months ago I had more Leicas than you could poke a stick at and was frantically hopping from one camera to another convinced that one in particualar would suit my shooting style and I would thus improve... but which one?

Sold most and kept the beautiful ones that meant something to me (M2 and M3) but put them in the cupboard and forgot about them and went and bought a Zeiss Ikon which is now virtually the only camera, along with my Hexar RF, that I use. Now that I've stopped worrying about which Leica to use and concentrated on learning to use the Ikon (primary) and the Hexar (backup) instinctively ... my photography has improved!

There's a lesson here!

Donald Boyd · Mar 19, 2008

I wonder if there are Zeiss plans to set the Ikon apart from the Bessa R2A/R3A.

Navy E9 · Mar 20, 2008

I got the Leica bug myself a few months ago . Having 6 different Soviet rangefinders / lenses and getting good results with them I thought that adding a Leica would give me even better results .
I was dead wrong. I found that any of my good working FSU`s come close enough to make any perceived Leica quality advantage negligeable. I also discovered that the lens is far more important than the body and that it`s impossible to tell what camera produced my prints.
John

Fotoguy20d · Mar 20, 2008

I have two IIIc's and two Zorki I's. I have four 50mm lenses - a coated Summitar and coated Industar-22, and uncoated Elmar and Summar. The only difference between the bodies is that the shutters on the Leicas are noticably quieter, and the mechanical actions of the knobs and shutter release in particular are noticably smoother on the Leicas. As for the lenses, the Industar is quite capable, and being coated has some advantages over the uncoated Leica lenses. With a bit of care in shooting and printing, I don't know that you'd be able to tell any of them apart in a blind test.

Navy E9 · Mar 20, 2008

To be honest i should have mentioned that the Leica i bought was not exactly the smoothest camera I`ve used. The seller claimed a recent CLA but i knew different. In the end he gave me a full refund.
Getting a Leica that doesn`t quite meet expectations can certainly diminish the enjoyment of owning/using one of the best vintage cameras produced but I have to say my 2 Kievs, Zorki 3 and Zorki 3M are quite smooth and quiet. Maybe not to Leica standards but good enough to squash the need for more.
John

Chaplain Jeff · Mar 29, 2008

lens_hacker said:
.
So what camera to get that is less expensive to match up with the Canon 35/2.8? You know that one- Canon P, Canon Vt, Canon VI-T, Canon 7...

Hello,

Another LTM option to consider might be the Minolta Model 35 - in any of its variations. You can consistently find them for under $200 and there's a great repair / CLA guy in the Oregon area who overhauled my last one for $99, light seals, timing and all.

The Model 35 is built out of brass, just like the M's and will work either as a great camera - or a great hammer, whichever you need at the moment.

Just a thought.

Jeff M

lens_hacker · Mar 29, 2008

John Koehrer said:
Just gotta laugh at comment regarding "build quality" when talking about M2/M3/M4's. What'd they do use tin for the later cameras?

The M2/M3/M4 used brass gears, rather than Steel gears used in later cameras. "I think" The change was required to accomoodate power winders. The brass gears give a smoother feel to winding the camera. Some changes were intrroduced to lower production cost, such as stamped film counters rather than engraved counters. A few other changes as well. There is a Pop Photo issue, ~1992 that compares the M6 with the M2.

lens_hacker · Mar 30, 2008

Found the article- August 1994, Popular Photography. A comparison of the internals of an M6 with the older M2. Some points- both shutter brakes were adjustable on the M2, meaning more accurate speeds. M2 had more adjustments for the RF mechanism opposed to "spot welds" on the M6, and a few more. But- pretty much agreed the M6 changes worked overall as well. The 500 speed and 1000 speed of the M6 were slow by 25%, attributed to the simpler design.

elekm · Mar 30, 2008

Donald Boyd said:
I wonder if there are Zeiss plans to set the Ikon apart from the Bessa R2A/R3A.

The Zeiss Ikon isn't a Bessa, so I don't see a need to set them apart.

Donald Boyd · Apr 1, 2008

The Zeiss Ikon isn't a Bessa, so I don't see a need to set them apart.

No, but it comes out of the same factory and it sure is similar.

jolefler · Apr 1, 2008

Photomann said:
How about a Leica IIIc like mine, which I had out today in the beautiful late winter, working like a jewelled watch, its unblinking blue Summitar 50mm eye taking in the sun and wind, speaking softly in its quiet shuttered voice, capturing the magic has it has for about 60 years.

Great phrasing! Exactly how I feel taking my Barnacks everywhere. Ya' nailed it with your first post!

Jo

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Apr 1, 2008

Donald Boyd said:
No, but it comes out of the same factory and it sure is similar.

The Zeiss Ikon is pretty much (seen as) the middle ground between a Bessa and a Leica - according to the learned owner of my local store, and they dont sell as well as either.

I just got a Bessa R2A today, to go with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 I got from Davela a while ago. I'm having a lot of fun so far, but if I ever find it limiting I know I'll save my pennies for an M6.

photophorous · Apr 28, 2008

The biggest problem with the Bessas (I have an R2A) is the short EBL. The Ikon has a longer EBL, like the Leicas, which makes focusing more accurate for faster and longer lenses. It's probably not built any better...just prettier, different framelines, and longer EBL. I love my R2A, but I never use anything longer than 50mm. I drool everytime I see an M6 in the classifieds. Ivan Pavlov must have secretly worked for Leica in his old age.

Paul

dxphoto · Apr 28, 2008

I am selling my Bessa R and the 35/2.5 lens.

kennethcooke · Jul 16, 2008

Stephanie Brim said:
...and buying an M2. I kinda hate myself for it. I told myself I'd never let the Leica bug bite me so bad as to want to sell everything I had for one, but yeah...it's happened. The Canon 35/2.8 lens I just got screams for a nice body, and with an LTM to M adapter the M2 would be a perfect fit. I would also finally have my M body that I've been wanting for so long. Both my Kiev and the Nikon FE would go bye bye in an attempt to fund this fool's errand.

I can't even really tell you WHY I want one other than I've wanted one since the day I saw them, and holding an M4 in a camera shop really didn't help things. They just feel so solid. It's like a perfect fit in my hands.

I think I'm going to succumb to this madness. Others have gone before me, at least. Makes me feel a little better.

Well done and welcome it's good to hear from other people on the poverty line but happy

Larry Bullis · Jul 17, 2008

Steve Bellayr said:
If you can do without the light meter the M2 should be great. The Leica lenses are so incredible easy to focus that they beat the autofocus. The only tough part is loading film. See Tom A's video on the subject. His trick is to fold the leader before inserting it into the take up reel. The fold hooks onto the reel.

On my M2, I have the Leica easy load spool. It is amazingly easy to load, just like it says. Don't have to fold it. Can do no wrong.

It is not about the quality, really. It is sometimes about the sharpness of the optics, but that's less important than what it is REALLY about. It is REALLY about how it becomes a part of the body. I shot for editorial with my M2 and M4 for over a decade, and working was just an easy flow, it was like a dance.

I still have a beater M2 and (horror of horrors!) an M5. This is the only mention of that pariah of the Leica line so far, I believe!

Actually, I absolutely love that M5. If I get some money sometime, I'll buy another one. It is probably the best of them all, but for some reason, it has been regarded with everything from disdain to outright hatred. Seriously under-rated. So many great things about that thing. What a great meter! But it is shaped differently. If you got mugged, though, you could put a serious dent in the mugger, and the camera wouldn't notice. And they don't cost quite as much.

Here's what I think. If you aren't going to USE it, forget it. Don't buy a pretty one. Buy an UGLY one that works perfectly. Buy the worst one you can find and send it to Sherry or DAG for CLA (how's that for acronymy? Almost like the CIA!). Consider that a part of the price. Sherry will charge about $250 or so.

My M5 looks great, needs shutter work, and I'll send it in as soon as a ship comes in (or at least a small boat). The M2 works perfectly, has lost half of its covering and has someone's driver's license number scratched into the back of the top (not my driver's license number). I got the body for $400. I have the CV 40mm Nokton f/1.4 in the single coat version; love it.

Frank Szabo · Jul 17, 2008

glbeas said:
Life is short. Buy the best you can afford. What else is there?

Sinar

2F/2F · Jul 17, 2008

The M2 is my favorite M, and a hell of a camera (my favorite is button rewind with no self timer...so clean and bare), but why sell everything for a camera that can be fairly easily obtained in decent condition for $600 or less? Work some overtime, and you can get one right quick! For $1,000, you can probably get a fairly nice one with a lens, *and* get it serviced. Just sell what you don't use and/or will never use, but don't sell everything. A Leica M is not worth it. If I had to have one camera, it would definitely not be a Leica M2. It would be a tough call. My IIIa or IIIc would be among the finalists, but I think I would have to go with something in medium format.

I have a suggestion: Try a Yashica Electro 35 for a while before committing to an M2. They are no more than $10 in most cases, give good image quality, and will give you a feel for a rangefinder. As added benefits, they are so cheaply made that they weigh almost nothing, and they are among the most silent 35mm cameras ever made. They also have a pretty fast lens (f/1.7), which you will have to pay through the teeth for with a Leica.

The whole time you are shooting with the Yashica, be saving your extra money. Then, after a while, if you dig the rangefinder and are still buggin', get the M2 with what you have saved! If you decide that a RF is not for you, then you are only out a fraction of what you would be out with the Leica.

I'm thinking about selling it all...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency