Leica M7 a la carte arrived yesterday!

[adam h]

Job is Job , I dont become sad if the gov builds or owns the factory. A lots of people are using Soviet goods , a cinema lens cost them 700 but a american cinema lens cost 10000 or more.
You are still wearing Chinese goods and depend on the money China will give you.
If China can feed 1 500 000 000 people with this method , I think they do good business.
At next 10 years , China will graduate 100 million new university students And their population will reach to 2 billion in next 20 years. And USA have 250 million population. You will not be able to write big letters for big expectations at future. And Russia have two times more researchers than usa , they went to space first with their gov built rockets.
I think you must look at to the world with bigger perspective RAMBO

Sorry, no need to close it; I'm done; I came back, bc I don't appreciate being referred to as RAMBO. Seriously...I'm sorry, and, I'm done.

 

[Diapositivo]

Yes you understand me correctly. Most people all over the world don't give a fig for freedom. They want economic security, a sense of tranquil prosperity. Cubans leave Cuba for the same reason why Ethiopians leave Ethiopia and Senegalese leave Senegal. They don't care who rules in their countries.

Castro is not a tyrannical dictator, he used to be a dictator we may say, but now he passed hand. Tyrannical dictators were the Generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, a big bunch or other pro-US dictators all over South and Central America, the self-proclaimed Shah in Iran, the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan. Less tyrannical, but nonetheless dictators, were people like Sadat and Moubarak in Egypt. Oh, they all have in common they were put in their command post by the US. And there is a big number of other dictators in the world who are not communists, are not anticommunists, are simply dictators.

Take the case of Afghanistan. They were destined to a bright destiny of western progress: Equality, freedom (the kind of freedom you have in a communist state, which is a lot compared to what they have under "sharia-rule"), solidarity. And knowledge. The bigot bunch drove a fanatic war against them, fuelled by the US. The legitimate Communist Afghan government, recognised by the UN by the way, asked their Soviet allied for help against the internal enemy. The US managed to transform this into "the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan", one of the biggest worldwide lies and a demonstration that the press, in your country, is not as free as you think.

Nobody noticed that the Red Army was actually called by the Afghan government to the rescue. Still nowadays it is common to hear that the Soviet Union "invaded" Afghanistan. Puah.

Ultimately, the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, and the US-fed guerrilla prevailed (in 1992 IIRC, 12-13 years after the Soviet came to the rescue of the Afghan state).
So the Afghans found themselves straight in the middle of the Middle ages again after only a few decades of blessed Communist rule. Then a civil war ensued between the two Mujahiddin factions, the "Talebans" and the "Northern front". In 1996 IIRC the Talebans prevailed in the main cities (Kabul, Mazar-el-Sharif) and the Northern front remained cornered near the Northern border.
The rest is a part of history which should be rewritten.
We would all be better by now if Afghanistan had remained a happy communist state.

No, I'm not a communist. It's easy to be anticommunist when you leave in Italy, or in the US.
If I were an Afghan peasant, or one of those miners photographed by Salgado, you bet I would be a communist, and I bet you would be a communist yourself.

Fabrizio

PS Mexico is a western-style democracy, yet people try to emigrate to the US. The Cubans do it for the same reason the Mexicans do it.

 

[Diapositivo]

Rambo is a positive guy, somebody who fights against the arrogance of a sheriff who behaves against the law, somebody who is a victim of the fascist side of American culture. The first Rambo was a "leftist" film, a film in defence of people pushed to the margins or just "different" and therefore oppressed. Then Rambo become rich and passed on the Reagan side

Adam wrote:
The US is not perfect, even on the issue of personal liberty; however, please name one country, especially one communist country, where citizens' liberties are protected, as they are, here. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

Well, I'm personally not one of those who confuses belly with freedom but, for many people in the world, political freedom is nothing without economic security. When you are poor and desperate, the only thing you benefit from your right of vote is that you can sell your vote. Some people consider the concept of "freedom" to encompass freedom from anxiety, desperation, hunger, illnesses, ignorance. If we adopt that definition of freedom, than I think any communist country can be said to protect freedom more than the US. It's difficult to become rich in a communist country, but it was even more difficult to lose your sleep over some economic difficulty.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Then Rambo become rich and passed on the Reagan side

You say Rambo was a travesty ?
Greece was the number one right wing country and after collapse - they had been planted plastic olive trees to be marked in satellite photos and get europe aid and hired 250 butchers and non educated people as cartographers for 20 years and paid 40 million euros them -they been converted in to leftists.
Rambo converted to right wing
Greeks converted to left wing

You cant be sure that Rambo turn to the red army finally

 

[lxdude]

Some people consider the concept of "freedom" to encompass freedom from anxiety, desperation, hunger, illnesses, ignorance. If we adopt that definition of freedom, than I think any communist country can be said to protect freedom more than the US.

No anxiety living in a communist state? The KGB and Stasi come to mind, along with forced displacement under the regimes in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc.

Desperation? The boat people (Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Cuban, etc.) come to mind.

Hunger? The famines under Stalin and Mao and the Kims in North Korea come to mind.

Illnesses? Look for example into the Cuban medical system and see the huge disparity between the care and facilities for important people compared to those for ordinary people.

Ignorance? Where governments freely censor information, people only know what they're told.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Only difference between kgb and cia , kgb kills you at camp , cia kills you at car accident.

 

[dnjl]

So, uhm... nice camera?

 

[adam h]

So, uhm... nice camera?

Yes, it's a beautiful camera!

 

[2F/2F]

Time to hit the RESET switch, I think.

I'll start:

Hey, Segedi. Wowzers! Nice camera! Congratulations!!! Have fun using it, and make some great pictures!

(Edit, oops, I saw that somebody already hit reset above.)

 

[adam h]

Yes, it's a beautiful camera!

What are the main differences between an M7 and an MP? Thanks.

 

[2F/2F]

What are the main differences between an M7 and an MP? Thanks.

I believe that the MP is basically a modern version of a camera like the early mechanical Ms, while the M7 is a modern electronic step forward from the M6.

I'd personally have a hard time deciding which to use. I think I would choose the M7, though. I generally prefer fully mechanical cameras. But If I wanted an all-mechanical Leica, I'd just get an M4 or earlier camera, save several thousand dollars, and get a camera that is actually built better (IMO). The way I see it, the MP is blown away by the competition, which, ironically, is Leica's own cameras from 40 to 50 years ago. If I was going to actually spend the money on a brand new Leica, I'd get the model with features that only the brand new one has.

Now, if the MP was $2,000 – what I feel it is actually worth – I might feel differently.

 

[jacarape]

What are the main differences between an M7 and an MP? Thanks.

If you have an MP, you'll get more chicks.

The MP is pretty much an M6 with brass top and bottom plates, different rewind and film advance levers, M3 stylish. Perhaps a slightly better meter, a VF less prone to flare.

An M7 has AE, and some other semi modern nice things. The l-camera-forum.com is a great place to do some searches.

 

[Diapositivo]

Nice camera! Considering the cost of a Nikon D3, also quite a bargain!

 

[adam h]

I believe that the MP is basically a modern version of a camera like the early mechanical Ms, while the M7 is a modern electronic step forward from the M6.

I'd personally have a hard time deciding which to use. I think I would choose the M7, though. I generally prefer fully mechanical cameras. But If I wanted an all-mechanical Leica, I'd just get an M4 or earlier camera, save several thousand dollars, and get a camera that is actually built better (IMO). The way I see it, the MP is blown away by the competition, which, ironically, is Leica's own cameras from 40 to 50 years ago. If I was going to actually spend the money on a brand new Leica, I'd get the model with features that only the brand new one has.

Now, if the MP was $2,000 – what I feel it is actually worth – I might feel differently.

I've never used a rangefinder, bc I always thought it'd be difficult to focus. Is that true or just a myth? I assume the benefits of using a Leica M would be the lenses; however, are there benefits to the rangefinder focusing, itself? Is it faster to focus than SLR? I realize it's manual focusing. Thanks.

 

[SkipA]

I have an M3 that I'm very satisfied with. I take it or my IIIc with me everytime I leave my house. I'm sure that an MP or M7 would be equally satisfying. It would be a really difficult decision for me to choose between the two of them.

 

[sandholm]

If the "free health care" one receives in many socialist countries is so wonderful, why is it that so many people come to the United States for life-saving surgeries by top specialists? Why not just have the surgeries or treatments in their home countries? Why are lines so long, and quality relatively poor? Rationing?

That made me laugth, so you mean that the health care in Sweden, Switzerland, France is bad (all these countries are in US eyes socialists). I am a former biomechanist, working close to orthopedics and people travel all over the world to get specilist helath care because the only exist only a couple of people in the world doing that procedure. The clinical I was active in had 20% US customers because we were the only once carring out that specific knee surgery. Please, US health care is good, but nothing special.

just some quotes from wiki:

" An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue."

"Some US employers have begun exploring medical travel programs as a way to cut employee health care costs."

"Because of Costa Rica's close proximity to the USA, the country is able to attract over 20,000 US patients a year.[57] It is also the prices of medical services that are quite attractive to consumers seeking quality care at an affordable price"

"The cost of the surgical care in New Zealand is significantly cheaper. On average it is considered that New Zealand’s surgical costs are around 15 to 20% the cost of the same surgical procedure in the USA."

"Germany is a destination for patients seeking advanced medical technology, high standards, safety, and quick treatment.[116] All German citizens have health coverage,[117] resulting in a high hospital density, with twice as many hospitals per capita as the United States.[118] The high hospital density results in shorter waitlists for treatment. Costs for medical treatment compete well with other developed European countries and are commonly 50% of those in the USA"

"US citizens sometimes travel to Germany to seek treatments such as artificial cervical disc replacement that are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved"

hmm... sounds like people and companies think in the opposite direction then you do...

Why do millions of people comitt the CRIME of sneaking through our "porous" border, to come to this country? Comparatively speaking, how many people WANT to sneak into China, North Korea, Luxembourg.

Luxembourg ??? that is hilaris and just show that you can be serius. One of the most riches countries in the world, the home for several banks and hedge founds, its even more wealthy then Switzerland.... thats just comic.

I mean who sneaks INTO Mexico? How many people have YOU heard of crammed into a fishing boat in Miami and risked their lives to float to CUBA? To "sneak" into CUBA?????? Let me see.......ummmmmmm, like....NONE! Maybe, there's a reason????
Have a good day.

Are you serious, comparing socilism with communist/dictatorship countris, that just show that debating with you is just pointless.

for the record, I am pro-capitalism and also voting right, but I am not neo-white-right-anarchist-tea-party-style

have a nice day

 

[sandholm]

I have an M3 that I'm very satisfied with. I take it or my IIIc with me everytime I leave my house. I'm sure that an MP or M7 would be equally satisfying. It would be a really difficult decision for me to choose between the two of them.

Same here, I have now a M3, M6, M7 and I love them, actually I have started to shoot more and more with the M3 body, dont really know why. The M7 is perfect to be use with flash. Another overlooked Leica camera is the R8 and R9, got both but my wife is using the R9 so that just leaves the R8 for me, but its an excellent camera and the lenses are just excellent.

(dont dare to say, but I also just got the Leica M9-P, had a M9 but sold it and got the P version, this camera is just sweet, love it, expensive, but you can feel you shoot a Leica even if its a digital. I havent done any digital negatives with the images yet but when holidays comes I will do some platinum print from them).

 

[Diapositivo]

I've never used a rangefinder, bc I always thought it'd be difficult to focus. Is that true or just a myth? I assume the benefits of using a Leica M would be the lenses; however, are there benefits to the rangefinder focusing, itself? Is it faster to focus than SLR? I realize it's manual focusing. Thanks.

With a RF you normally have to use an "autofocus" strategy: put the subject you want in focus in the centre of the viewfinder, focus, recompose, take picture.
With a SLR you can keep the subject you want in focus on the edge while focusing.
Some RF have an "all patch" viewfinder though, you can focus without recomposing, but the image in the viewfinder can be very confusing, you have to get used to it.

I find it slower, but I am an SLR guy mainly and I don't practice street photography. The slight loss in focusing speed is to be considered together with the quietness and small size of the camera. A RF with leaf shutter can be extremely silent. My Voigtländer Vito CLR has a Prontor 500 LK which is basically inaudible. Leica cameras have a focal plane shutter and are not as silent, but much quieter anyway than any SLR. RF cameras are generally speaking much smaller than SLR.

RF have a viewfinder which is relatively bright also in low ambient light conditions, there is no coupling between lens and body (which raises complexity, slows actuation, introduces noise and vibrations), and especially there is no mirror slap (big noise, big vibration problem).

With an SLR for maximum quality shutter times like 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 should be used with the mirror locked up. That's something you can do when using a tripod.

If you find yourself using 1/15 free-hand with a SLR, and supposing you are holding the camera steady enough (very wide-angle lens, bean bag, whatever) you are leaving some quality on the table because of the mirror-induced vibration. It might be that a small quality decay is visible also at 1/30.

In a RF you normally see a central patch where the image has a double contour (either vertical contour or horizontal contour) if it is not in focus. Normally the rest of the image is not "patched" and you don't see anything special, I mean outside of the patch everything is always in focus. Somebody like this, somebody don't. If the lines of the subject are not what works with your RF you have to rotate your camera to be able to focus, e.g. to put it vertical, focus, then put it back horizontal (not that it happens often).

It's a bit like focusing relying only on the central stigmometre.

If you want to experiment, I suggest you buy a second-hand cheap RF such as a Canon Canonet. In the right environment they can be just the right tool for the job.

 

[adam h]

With a RF you normally have to use an "autofocus" strategy: put the subject you want in focus in the centre of the viewfinder, focus, recompose, take picture.
With a SLR you can keep the subject you want in focus on the edge while focusing.
Some RF have an "all patch" viewfinder though, you can focus without recomposing, but the image in the viewfinder can be very confusing, you have to get used to it.

I find it slower, but I am an SLR guy mainly and I don't practice street photography. The slight loss in focusing speed is to be considered together with the quietness and small size of the camera. A RF with leaf shutter can be extremely silent. My Voigtländer Vito CLR has a Prontor 500 LK which is basically inaudible. Leica cameras have a focal plane shutter and are not as silent, but much quieter anyway than any SLR. RF cameras are generally speaking much smaller than SLR.

RF have a viewfinder which is relatively bright also in low ambient light conditions, there is no coupling between lens and body (which raises complexity, slows actuation, introduces noise and vibrations), and especially there is no mirror slap (big noise, big vibration problem).

With an SLR for maximum quality shutter times like 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 should be used with the mirror locked up. That's something you can do when using a tripod.

If you find yourself using 1/15 free-hand with a SLR, and supposing you are holding the camera steady enough (very wide-angle lens, bean bag, whatever) you are leaving some quality on the table because of the mirror-induced vibration. It might be that a small quality decay is visible also at 1/30.

In a RF you normally see a central patch where the image has a double contour (either vertical contour or horizontal contour) if it is not in focus. Normally the rest of the image is not "patched" and you don't see anything special, I mean outside of the patch everything is always in focus. Somebody like this, somebody don't. If the lines of the subject are not what works with your RF you have to rotate your camera to be able to focus, e.g. to put it vertical, focus, then put it back horizontal (not that it happens often).

It's a bit like focusing relying only on the central stigmometre.

If you want to experiment, I suggest you buy a second-hand cheap RF such as a Canon Canonet. In the right environment they can be just the right tool for the job.

Thanks

 

[jacarape]

I've never used a rangefinder, bc I always thought it'd be difficult to focus. Is that true or just a myth? I assume the benefits of using a Leica M would be the lenses; however, are there benefits to the rangefinder focusing, itself? Is it faster to focus than SLR? I realize it's manual focusing. Thanks.

As my eyes get older and more useless, RF cameras are actually easier to focus then an SLR.

That's becasue there really isn't any focusing to do. The RF VF is always in focus, it's basicly a window on he back of the camera that sees out the front.

So why is it easier for somebody like me to focus? Becasue I don't have to, I align a split image.

Dia is exactly correct, but it's much more simple then it sounds.

 

[drumminor2nd]

Wow... I had to turn my head and double-check this was the same thread as 2-6 pages ago... dang, what a turn-around!

Anyway, to the OP: Nice camera. I'm happy with my IIIf, but hey, your camera sure looks nice.

Not going to lie, just messing around earlier I made up a sheet for my own a la carte camera earlier. It was a chrome MP with British Green leather, .72-3 framelines and engraved on the top and back with a quote from Henry V. "The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge, Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'" I called it my 600th Battle of Agincourt Anniversary model