I guess I'm screwed. My user-friendly M2with its 1939 summitar might just be inviting those evil Japanese spirits into my home. I have tried to balance things out `by keeping both the M2 and the Nikon D700 with the 50mm/1.4 on the same shelf.
Sterilizing the shelf with silver water, say 33ppm per gallon helps.Bad move. The Leica and Nikon cancel, so leaving the door open to all sorts of unpleasant spirits. Aliens, too.
Before you know it, George Noory will be interviewing you.
georg16nik, you live on another planet mate.
no lens like the leica lens. period.
Not to take sides, but are you attacking his statement that an excellent film camera made better prints than a digital one?
Keep in mind that some people aren't native English speakers (kudos for them for posting here!) and maybe express themselves somewhat unsubtly...
Yes it counts! Could you suggest a "starter kit" ?
Morituri, I remembered a recent thread from You, from 01-19-2011. A thread in which You asked "How does un-finished "fix" film look like?"His childish and un-educated opinions, it's like listening to a 16 y.o. child saying his toy is the best even though he hasn't tried any of the new items, makes me laugh really. He constantly confuses opinion with fact and sits on a horse so high king arthur would be jealous. "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
If it's true that every lens has it's own signature and each sample as well, you could be right...
While an admirer of Leica lenses, blanket statements such as yours aren't helpful (and this holds true for whatever brand).
I've shot for over 40 years with both Nikon and Leica glass. No one has been able to tell me accurately which lens I was using when they see a print. Nuff said.
Morituri, I remembered a recent thread from You, from 01-19-2011. A thread in which You asked "How does un-finished "fix" film look like?"
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Now, You are obviously still have a lot of yellow around Your mouth and You are too green to talking with me about what I have tried as far as B&W film photography goes.
If You are trying to tell me something else - there is no way I will be able to understand You over internet
One of the advantages of choosing any good-to-great quality system is that it tends to free up one's choices. Whether one picks Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus or whatever, if one uses cameras and lenses that are well maintained than the results will be of high quality if the photographer's skills are of high quality.
I choose Olympus because I like their optical performance, and because in combination with the Olympus cameras, their size, weight and mechanical operation works well for me in the focal lengths I like to use.
My main kit consists of one of two bodies (OM 2n or OM 2s) and three lenses - a 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0 set. Small, light, sharp and most importantly the focal lengths available to me suit my "vision". I have additional bodies (2 OM Gs) and other lenses (several 50mm lenses, including a 50mm f/3.5 macro that I like a lot, as well as a 75-150mm zoom that comes out from time to time) and in the past have got great use out of three different OM1 bodies, but I use my main kit the most.
What I would stress, however is that even though I think that the Zuiko lenses are excellent, I think that it is the combination of the lenses and cameras that is most important. I would drop them (the lenses) in a heartbeat if I had to use them all the time with cameras I didn't like.
EDIT: so, to actually answer your question, I guess I would suggest that you decide which focal lengths work best for you, and then consider the options available. Any of the OM bodies will work well with any of the lenses, so questions of price, features, pro vs. amateur grade and, most importantly condition would determine the camera choice.
I almost want to sell my Leica, simply to not be associated with the same kind of blanket-statement-making-zealotry exhibited by some of the posters here. Seriously, guys, get over the fact that Nikon has made, and makes, at least a couple of lenses that are every bit as good as anything Leica has. The Leica-philes here would get a nasty wake up call if they were ever to lay eyes on negatives made with Olympus Zuiko 50mm F2 Macro, 90mm F2 Macro, or 250mm F2 lenses, I'll tell you that.
You dug up a post from a year ago? You are pathethic, took me a week to learn that and move on, since then I've done enough research, I've studied basically non-stop since then, so I know better, unlike you it doesn't take me 30 years to learn insignificant basic things such as sharpness of lenses (for example) you fool, and unlike you, if I do have a question I immediately ask, I don't muck around, and I do have more common sense then you to understand when I spot an idiot. So I just call them as I see them. As I said, you are a bit of a joke and you should learn to separate OPINION from FACT, when you do this, come back, until then, step away from the keyboard. Just like a bunch of other people have said already.
Here is you spot on;
Amateurs worry about equipment, pros worry about money, masters worry about light.
...in fact, quite often i am not able to tell whether a particular shot of mine was taken with one or the other... which was one of the reasons my leica finally went on the block earlier this year. less babysitting, actually none, with the F2
to the OT--FM+50/2 is about as good as it gets... just got in after a day of shooting with F2+50/2, same thing, only heavier. other beauties that easily compete with that german thing in specs and character: 28/2, longnose 50/1.8, 105/1.8, 180/2.8... i'm sure the list is longer
dark autumn day, same situation, same film. 50mm lens. 100% crop of the scanned neg.
View attachment 42135
View attachment 42134
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?