is it worth it?

wharris · Aug 14, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
One thing I don't understand:

1. You say you MUST sell the Pro TL.
2. But you are OK trading it for an M3.

Why do you have to sell the second Mamiya? That I do not understand. A back-up body and lenses is invaluable to have.

I love my Leica. And I love my Pentax KX SLR equally. The 'Leica thing' wears off pretty quickly, and it becomes a reliable box that holds film. In the end, it's the pictures that matter. If you think you can make better pictures with the Leica, then go for it. If not, then why not keep what you've already got? You're just making it more complicated with two different formats and cameras. What purpose does it serve?

I say must cause it will make me feel better =) I have too many cameras and am starting to sell most of them, but I would still like to have a good 35mm system. I dont have a real need for a 2nd 120mm system, I already have a mamiya rb76 and a Rolleiflex 2.8 so instead of having them just sit there I would rather it go to someone that would use it. I guess the real reason im trading it because the trade would benefit me if I would like to flip it if I dont use it as much as I thought since leica's would be easier to sell. the other reason was that while I was deployed I bought tons of 35mm film and its just sitting there and would like a camera that doesn't compromise on quality when it comes to 35mm film. If im not making sense then just punch me in the face and knock some sense into me lol...

John Koehrer · Aug 14, 2013

The prices for Leica lenses above seem to be a bit out of touch with reality.

Newer Summicrons run above the $1k mark but DR & collapsible are common from $400-$500. Similar prices on bodies too around $500 gets a user, better condition=more$$$
On the Chicago CL right now there's a 50/2.8 collapsible Elmar with a recent CLA for $350.
By the same token a Rokkor 40/2 at $700?

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 14, 2013

wharris said:
I say must cause it will make me feel better =) I have too many cameras and am starting to sell most of them, but I would still like to have a good 35mm system. I dont have a real need for a 2nd 120mm system, I already have a mamiya rb76 and a Rolleiflex 2.8 so instead of having them just sit there I would rather it go to someone that would use it. I guess the real reason im trading it because the trade would benefit me if I would like to flip it if I dont use it as much as I thought since leica's would be easier to sell. the other reason was that while I was deployed I bought tons of 35mm film and its just sitting there and would like a camera that doesn't compromise on quality when it comes to 35mm film. If im not making sense then just punch me in the face and knock some sense into me lol...

Context is everything. Now I understand. I thought your only cameras were the two Mamiyas.
Sell the ones you don't use. Sounds like you really love the Mamiyas, though. Why sell a camera that you love?

But do what you think is right. Somebody has to burn through that stash of 35.

(Aside: 120 format is not 120mm. It's 60mm wide. Just FYI).

Xmas · Aug 15, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Context is everything. Now I understand. I thought your only cameras were the two Mamiyas.
Sell the ones you don't use. Sounds like you really love the Mamiyas, though. Why sell a camera that you love?

But do what you think is right. Somebody has to burn through that stash of 35.

(Aside: 120 format is not 120mm. It's 60mm wide. Just FYI).

Well I sold my Leica M lenses could not afford to insure or replace switched to Cosina Voightlander LTM lenses with adapters for M, got 12mm to 90mm. This allows me to use Canon LTM or CV on my Canon Ps or Leica M2s, they are both pro bodies and I have single coated or multi coated option on either.

wharris · Aug 15, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Context is everything. Now I understand. I thought your only cameras were the two Mamiyas.
Sell the ones you don't use. Sounds like you really love the Mamiyas, though. Why sell a camera that you love?

But do what you think is right. Somebody has to burn through that stash of 35.

(Aside: 120 format is not 120mm. It's 60mm wide. Just FYI).

Now i feel dumb lol.. why do they call it 120 film then lol.. and I went for the trade.. I still have my mamiya 645 AF so im good =) heres a few photos that pushed me over the edge on the trade.. nothing special but sharp as hell when it comes to the 50 being wide open =)

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 15, 2013

wharris said:
Now i feel dumb lol.. why do they call it 120 film then lol.. and I went for the trade.. I still have my mamiya 645 AF so im good =) heres a few photos that pushed me over the edge on the trade.. nothing special but sharp as hell when it comes to the 50 being wide open =)

Heck if I know. There have been many film formats in the days of past, 127, 120, 620, 135, etc.
135 is also called 35mm, and a full frame measures 24 x 36 mm, which also doesn't make sense.

I'm glad you have a new camera you like. I enjoy my Leica a lot too, and if you ever want to see what the lenses are capable of, put the camera on a tripod and make some exposures, and enlarge them big. Very good lenses. Have fun!

TheToadMen · Aug 16, 2013

wharris said:
Now i feel dumb lol.. why do they call it 120 film then lol.. and I went for the trade.. I still have my mamiya 645 AF so im good =) heres a few photos that pushed me over the edge on the trade.. nothing special but sharp as hell when it comes to the 50 being wide open =)/QUOTE]

About the 120 roll film, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
The "120" designation appears to be a kind of serial number, not a size in itself.

And congratulations on your Leica + lens: you'll enjoy it!

zsas · Aug 16, 2013

Congrats on making a decision! Sometimes that's the hardest part, figuring out who in the litter next t'a go

Tim Gray · Aug 17, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Heck if I know. There have been many film formats in the days of past, 127, 120, 620, 135, etc.
135 is also called 35mm, and a full frame measures 24 x 36 mm, which also doesn't make sense.

I think 35mm film is actually 35mm wide, measuring edge to edge. Remember the original 'full frame' was for motion picture, which runs the film through vertically, so the frame there wasn't even 24x36mm. Wiki has many more details than this I'm sure.

Have fun with the camera.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 17, 2013

Tim Gray said:
I think 35mm film is actually 35mm wide, measuring edge to edge. Remember the original 'full frame' was for motion picture, which runs the film through vertically, so the frame there wasn't even 24x36mm. Wiki has many more details than this I'm sure.

Have fun with the camera.

Perhaps you're right. And if you are, it just illustrates how inconsistent the format naming is

TheToadMen · Aug 17, 2013

Tim Gray said:
I think 35mm film is actually 35mm wide, measuring edge to edge. Remember the original 'full frame' was for motion picture, which runs the film through vertically, so the frame there wasn't even 24x36mm. Wiki has many more details than this I'm sure.

Have fun with the camera.

The term 135 was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for the cassette for 35 mm film, specifically for still photography.
The film itself is 35 mm wide (and several meters long).

The image size on 35 mm film is 24 mm wide (between the perforations) and 36 mm long in normal film photography cameras.

Hence: the common "full-frame" image size of 24×36 mm, used for d*****l cameras.
Old half-frame cameras like the Olympus Pen (1960's) use 24 x 18 mm on 135 film, thus making 72 images on a 135 film.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Tim Gray · Aug 17, 2013

TheToadMen said:
Hence: the common "full-frame" image size of 24×36 mm, used for d*****l cameras.

Hahah yeah. I wasn't implying that the phrase full-frame didn't mean 24x36mm. It most certainly does. I was clumsily trying to point out that 35mm film was originally used for cinema, where the frame size wasn't even 24x36mm.

TheToadMen · Aug 17, 2013

Tim Gray said:
Hahah yeah. I wasn't implying that the phrase full-frame didn't mean 24x36mm. It most certainly does. I was clumsily trying to point out that 35mm film was originally used for cinema, where the frame size wasn't even 24x36mm.

Hi Tim,
I wasn't trying to correct you, or anything. Sorry if I made that impression.
And your quite right about the cinema use of 35 mm film. Same film but an other orientation: vertical instead of horizontal.
Wasn't it Oscar Barnack who took cinema film (35 mm) back in 1913-1914 and used it to make a smaller and lighter cameras? A concept we still use after 100 years.
Now I that think of it, shouldn't 2013 be an Oscar Barnack Year? Or at least an Oscar Barnack Day?

Don't tell me I missed it. Or are we waiting for 1914?

is it worth it?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency