jtk
Member
vs leica m: canon p. better operational design including viewfinder and hinge back.
As I remember, at the time (before Leica made any SLR), many people working for Leica/Leitz felt that they already had a functional SLR in the M/1,2,3 rangefinders fitted with any of several Visoflexes at the time (and today) were/are able to more easily do 1:1 to infinity than any SLR that was and is on the market. I own an Olympus OM2n, like it and use it but for serious macrophotography Macro photography, I still use an M2, or M3 rangefinder camera fitted with a Visoflex 1 and bellows. Any for you unbelievers out there, I can only say "try it, you'll like it"......Regards!I guess I never really looked at the Olympus OM cameras as Leica-like. Nikon F, certainly, you can easily see the transition from rangefinder to SLR in the NIkon. But not Olympus. I see no rangefinder cues in the Olympus body, it is all SLR. Small, yes, but not like a rangefinder.
Even the Minolta connection was a little odd to me but I have to guess that Nikon was just not interested in partnering with Leica to build SLR cameras by the time Leica was ready.
I find that extraordinary to be honest. I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder other than they both take the same film cartridges and are a rectangular box with a lens at the front. While the Leica styling cues on the OM stare at me in plain sight, and have never been denied even by its chief designer. In no way am I saying you're wrong, it clearly just goes to show that we all look at things differently.I guess I never really looked at the Olympus OM cameras as Leica-like. Nikon F, certainly, you can easily see the transition from rangefinder to SLR in the NIkon. But not Olympus. I see no rangefinder cues in the Olympus body.
It makes sense. If you already have the M-series Visoflex and other macro bits, why would you acquire the same for Olympus.As I remember, at the time (before Leica made any SLR), many people working for Leica/Leitz felt that they already had a functional SLR in the M/1,2,3 rangefinders fitted with any of several Visoflexes at the time (and today) were/are able to more easily do 1:1 to infinity than any SLR that was and is on the market. I own an Olympus OM2n, like it and use it but for serious macrophotography Macro photography, I still use an M2, or M3 rangefinder camera fitted with a Visoflex 1 and bellows. Any for you unbelievers out there, I can only say "try it, you'll like it"......Regards!
I find that extraordinary to be honest. I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder other than they both take the same film cartridges and are a rectangular box with a lens at the front. While the Leica styling cues on the OM stare at me in plain sight, and have never been denied even by its chief designer. In no way am I saying you're wrong, it clearly just goes to show that we all look at things differently.
I understood Pioneer to be referring to the transition between Nikon rangefinders to the Nikon F, not Leica rangefinders to the Nikon F.I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder
I still don' t know why people didn't like the M5, I think it came down to price, thus the CL success.
vs leica m: canon p. better operational design including viewfinder and hinge back.
... a poor way to determine choice ...
It would be interesting to have a poll, asking Leica M film camera owners if they also used 35mm SLR's and if so which one.
It would be interesting to have a poll, asking Leica M film camera owners if they also used 35mm SLR's and if so which one.
Hmm. Obviously I screwed up somehow.
I forgot to buy my SLR so that it matched my rangefinder.
Does the Contarex match anything??
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |