Some questions about alpa cameras

cuthbert · Aug 8, 2015

SindreS said:
Other cameras that I know of is the Nikon fm2 and pentax lx. How are the pentax lenses? Are there any good slr's with a low shutter sound?

If size matters and you want a system camera with interchangeable finder the LX is the only camera that would fit the bill, with the mirror locked up the shutter is as quiet as a Leica M.

The Pentax glass is second to none, especially the old lenses (Takumar, K but also M), they were the first guys to develop a 50mm f1.2 for SLR, their SMC coating was the best in the businees and traditionally they made smaller cameras than Nikon or Canon.

The LX tough is a sophisticated camera and be ready to spend more money for a SLA than a standard camera, if you want a simpler camera there are other choices in the Pentax area, an humble Spotmatic weight about 600 gr without lens and handles wonderfully, it has a simple needle lightmeter (average on all screen) and the building quality is in the Leica territory.

Theo Sulphate said:
I think if you want the Alpa very much, you should get it. Otherwise, if you choose something else, you will always wonder about the Alpa.

Besides, you can always buy another camera. Even Benji here has more than one camera.

This is true: all the cameras we talked about can be obtained for little money, I spend $70 plus shipping for a wonderful SPF with Tak that came with its original box, case and paperwork

4season · Aug 8, 2015

No experience with Alpa, but I've been casually browsing around for one, also.

This one-man shop seems to be the place to go for service:

http://3rcamera.com/index.htm

But frankly I'm not real enthused with some of the asking prices that I'm seeing: $1500 and up for a well-used camera body + 50mm Macro-Switar? Far more $$ for the lens by itself? Thanks but no thanks: Look at the completed auctions and you'll see that actual sales are slow, and the items which actually do sell are going for a whole lot less. Avoid fixer-uppers unless you know what you're getting yourself into.

If the flagship Nikon and Canon SLRs seem too ordinary for you, how's about a Leicaflex? Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL and SL II are homegrown efforts designed and built by Leica in Wetzlar Germany. And it seems, really out of vogue right now--you can have your pick for not a lot of money (by Leica standards).

But in terms of pro-grade build quality, it's going to be tough to beat the Nikon F-series: I think they didn't scrimp on ball bearings or hardened steel! If built in small numbers and sold as a luxury product, no doubt these would have been enormously expensive. If you crave something a bit more exotic than a standard-issue F3, you might pursue one of the less-common variants like the F3/P or F3/T.

As for rangefinder cameras, you are probably looking at Leica M6. Leica M prices went crazy from around 2007-2011 with the price of a new 50mm Noctilux lens soaring from under $3000 to about $11K for the current f/0.95 version. But prices since then have been falling to more realistic levels. I think there's a ways to go yet, but still, a nice M6 for ~1300 isn't bad as these things go, and you might fetch a fairly modern 50/2 for about the same. Leica M is most fun when it's not too wildly overpriced. I still see M cameras in restaurants and art galleries from time to time. Alpa? Never seen one. Ever.

John Koehrer · Aug 8, 2015

I agree with Theo Sulphate. If you want it, buy it. The cameras are unique enough that they're not going to change value if you don't care for it.
Comparing it to other cameras simply can't be done, they were not aimed at the same user or market but a very select group.

No doubt, it's going to take a bit of adjusting to get used to the ergonomics with the front to back advance and front mounted shutter release. Who knows, you may love it.

Sirius Glass · Aug 9, 2015

SindreS said:
One final attempt from you to make me not want the alpa. What is so unrealible about it? I know a workshop who can do a CLA cheap however maybe not fix it i guess due to rare spare parts. Don't quite comprehend why alpa (with adapters for afforable lenses) is such a bad choice. I really want to try something that just feel amazing in your hands. When we are talking about unrealibity, how unreaible are they? Major breakdown every year? If there are any other cameras that tick these boxes then i'm considering those.

What if I told you that I wanted this.
- Small body (small body over weight)
- Reliable
- High build quality
- Must have build in lightmeter
- Shutter sound (or lack of)
- Don't need any accesory finders
- Good selection of quality lenses.
- Battery dependancy is not an issue.
- I prefer diodes (LED for instance) however not that big of a deal

All these points are very important for me.

Other cameras that I know of is the Nikon fm2 and pentax lx. How are the pentax lenses? Are there any good slr's with a low shutter sound? Also places that repair the nikon f3? I think the nikon f3 is very good looking. Sure the f2 is also good looking but also a bit bulky looking and the fact that the f3 is a lot newer with higher shutter speeds makes me go towards the f3. However I heard the shutter (or motor, not quite sure) on an f3 and it was nosiy. Very nosiy. Is it the motor thats noisy or the shutter?

I am truly sorry for all these bothersome question. If it wasen't for the darn good looks then I would have gone away from alpa much faster but... However if I get more posts about why going down the alpa road is bad then I will have to listen to you. So final post, I promise!

If you want an Alpa, then buy an Alpa. You can always get a Nikon or Canon or Minolta later, but you are the one who has to be happy with the camera. Go for it!

Jet · Aug 9, 2015

I've got an Alpa 9D in the collection, as well as a lot of vintage Nikon and Canon gear, among other things. If I was to have only 1 35mm SLR, it would probably be a Nikon F2 or a Nikkormat FTN. They feel great in my hands, and I suspect that they'd last forever. The FM2 is also nice, but it has a less substantial feel.

The Alpa 9D is an unusual beast, and from what I understand is warmed over 50's camera technology. The Kern 50mm 1.9 seems to be the lens to get, but I don't suspect it would perform better than a 70's era 50mm 1.8 Nikkor. It's hard to say though, as there is very little Alpa information on the internet, and I don't have any Alpa lenses.

Alpa adapters are available, but from what I've seen quite expensive. I wouldn't mind spending $50 for adapters to let me use my Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Exacta lenses, but the ones I've seen are more in the $300 range. If anyone sees a reasonably priced adapter, please let me know.

For rangefinder cameras, the Canon 7 is a very good deal. I picked one up with a working meter recently for under $100. I've read that it compares favorably with the Leica M5.

flavio81 · Aug 9, 2015

Many people giving great advice above.

I'd suggest to look at it a different way: First choose which lenses do you like the most. And then pick camera system accordingly.

Perhaps you're attracted by the Pentax classic M42 takumars, slow but small light and high quality. Or perhaps there is a Nikkor you really want to use, like for example the classic 105mm lenses. Or perhaps you are more attracted to Canon FD, for example you really want the outstanding 85/1.2L. Or you really want Carl Zeiss (C/Y mount) lenses. Or perhaps you feel you'd like to have Leitz glass.

Research your lenses, perhaps by looking at sample images as well, and THEN choose cameras, which I feel would be easier once you know the lens brand, my picks would be:

Canon: F-1, F-1N
Nikon: F, F2
Pentax M42: Spotmatic
Pentax bayonet: LX
Minolta: XK, Xe-5
Leica: Leicaflex (SL), as long as it's working OK.
C/Y: Yashica FR-1
(I have no love for the Olympus OM lens line)
Camera selection is really easy.

Now, if you want COMPACT SLR cameras:
Canon: A-1 or AE-1P
Nikon: FG
Pentax: MX, LX
Minolta: ?

flavio81 · Aug 9, 2015

PS: I'd characterize lens lines as follows:

Pentax takumars M42: Compact, conservative, really well made
Nikon pre-AI: Tough, beautiful, heavy, smooth, classics
Canon FL: Big, heavy, well corrected, well made
Pentax K: Plentiful
Canon FD: Big, heavy, high tech, well made, all-round correction
Canon New FD: Compact, very high tech, contrasty
Nikon AI: Well made, wide lens selection, sharp
Canon EF: Not so well made, high tech, contrasty
Nikon AF: ugly, high tech, not so well made, sharp

Europan · Aug 9, 2015

The Switar 50-1.8 and 50-1.9 are both not apochromatic. The 1.9 has seven elements in five groups. You cannot correct colours, prismatic aberration, coma, astigmatism, and curvature of field far enough with seven spherical lenses. It takes at least eight elements. If a six-element lens is designated as apo, it usually covers only smaller formats where curvature of field or rather flatness of field is not that pronounced relative to the chromatic aberration. Colour films layer thickness is more or less the same with 16-mm. movie film and with 35-mm. still film.

The ALPA is only another Kleinbild camera after the LEICA. I think taste matters a lot with the 24 by 36 mm format. The French FOCAFLEX has a unique reflex viewfinder design worth consideration. A Tessar-type four-element lens yields also sharp images. The Swiss are often too expensive.

Dan Fromm · Aug 9, 2015

Europan said:
The Switar 50-1.8 and 50-1.9 are both not apochromatic. The 1.9 has seven elements in five groups. You cannot correct colours, prismatic aberration, coma, astigmatism, and curvature of field far enough with seven spherical lenses. It takes at least eight elements.

Hmm. And what about process lenses? Apochromatic, flat field, distortionless. For example:

Apo Nikkor, asymmetrical type: tessar, 4 elements in 3 groups. Other makers, e.g., CZJ and TTH (Apotal, Cooke/TTH Copying lens) made apo tessar types.

Apo Nikkor, asymmetrical type: dialyte, 4 elements in 4 groups. Other makers, including Goerz/Schneider (Apo Artar), Rodenstock (Apo Ronar), Schneider (Repro Claron) made apochromatic dialyte types.

Apo Saphir and Apo Skopar, heliar types: 5 elements in 3 groups.

I could go on, but these simple apochromats with no more than 5 elements suffice to demonstrate that you shouldn't lay down the law.

Sirius Glass · Aug 9, 2015

Jet said:
I've got an Alpa 9D in the collection, as well as a lot of vintage Nikon and Canon gear, among other things. If I was to have only 1 35mm SLR, it would probably be a Nikon F2 or a Nikkormat FTN. They feel great in my hands, and I suspect that they'd last forever. The FM2 is also nice, but it has a less substantial feel.

The Alpa 9D is an unusual beast, and from what I understand is warmed over 50's camera technology. The Kern 50mm 1.9 seems to be the lens to get, but I don't suspect it would perform better than a 70's era 50mm 1.8 Nikkor. It's hard to say though, as there is very little Alpa information on the internet, and I don't have any Alpa lenses.

Alpa adapters are available, but from what I've seen quite expensive. I wouldn't mind spending $50 for adapters to let me use my Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Exacta lenses, but the ones I've seen are more in the $300 range. If anyone sees a reasonably priced adapter, please let me know.

For rangefinder cameras, the Canon 7 is a very good deal. I picked one up with a working meter recently for under $100. I've read that it compares favorably with the Leica M5.

Welcome to APUG!

Jet · Aug 9, 2015

I've never had a Leicaflex. I'd be interested in knowing how this camera would compare to an Alpa, such as the 9D. Someone once mentioned to me that Alpa's were mostly hand made, while Leica's were mass produced.

Sirius Glass · Aug 9, 2015

Jet said:
I've never had a Leicaflex. I'd be interested in knowing how this camera would compare to an Alpa, such as the 9D. Someone once mentioned to me that Alpa's were mostly hand made, while Leica's were mass produced.

Alpas are the Rolls Royces of the 35mm SLR [and range finder] world. Leicaflex not so much.

Paul Howell · Aug 9, 2015

The Alpa made was from the mid 1940s until the late 1980's (?)although the last model the 11E was in terms of technology just an upgrade from the 70a or even 60s, all manual open aperture metering, electronic readout rather than match needle. It had an accessory all mechanical motor drive. Alpa did not make it's own lens, Alpa contracted with the best European lens makers. I don't know if Alpa designed the lens, but every lens was tested by Alpa and a reference negative was kept at the Alpa factory. As Alpa was going under Chinon released a camera under the Alpa brand, it had nothing to do with the Alpa, it was a just another M42 screw mount body.

Leica-flex designed both the camera and lens, later models bodies and some lens were designed in partnership with Minolta who as I understand the history provided much of the electronics for later models.

Leica, both rangefinders and SLRs were made to very high standard, but I have never been under the impression that Leica were hand made.

I guess I think of the Alpa as a classic 60s Rolls Royce, while Leica Mercedes.

Sirius Glass · Aug 9, 2015

Given the design goals and quality of Alpas I would not worry about the optics quality.

flavio81 · Aug 9, 2015

I think Leicaflexes were assembled at hand. BTW in the 60s and 70s the S-class Mercedes were assembled by hand as well.

jimjm · Aug 9, 2015

Leica rangefinders were hand-assembled up until the end of M5 production in 1975. Leica manufactured all the parts and components, and made the machines that made those parts. Leica also made their own lenses. With the M4-2 and M4-P, manufacturing was moved to Canada and changes were made to materials and processes in order to save costs. If this hadn't happened, Leica may have ceased production of rangefinders altogether.

For SLR's, I would suspect that the original Leicaflex, SL and SL2 were still hand-assembled. Never owned one, but I've heard they are overbuilt tanks, with great viewfinders in the SL and SL2. With the R3, which shared many components with the Minolta XE-7, electronics became more integral and manufacturing was moved to Portugal.

Obviously, Leica had to do this in order to keep costs down and compete with the Japanese, especially since rangefinders were losing quite a bit of market share during the 60s and 70s. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and others were able to offer high-quality cameras with more advanced features at a lower price.

Mass-produced doesn't necessarily mean lower-quality or reliability, however. Certain cameras like the Nikon F2 or Canon F1 were built "just right", and will always be easily serviceable at a reasonable cost. Same for Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT and Olympus OM. But there is something different about holding a Leica M2 or M3 in your hands. I suspect the Alpas may be the same - you just have to weigh the added cost and inconvenience of owning one (finding repairs and parts) against the practicality of a more common, reliable camera.

Sirius Glass · Aug 9, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Alpas are the Rolls Royces of the 35mm SLR [and range finder] world. Leicaflex not so much.

Notice I did not comment of Leica RF cameras which were/are will made and a pleasure to handle and use. They were an entirely different thing kind of camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxp-NxJny8

cuthbert · Aug 10, 2015

jimjm said:
Mass-produced doesn't necessarily mean lower-quality or reliability, however.

You are right, actually to be honest mass production ensure higher quality than hand fitting, just think about all the process of shimming or filing parts is derived by the fact the manufacturer cannot keep the parts under the necessary tolerance, with the result that the same part with the same part number can work on a camera but not on another.

It's a concept hard to accept for Leica men, tough. They keep insisting hand fitting is better.

Europan · Aug 10, 2015

Dan Fromm said:
Apo Saphir and Apo Skopar, heliar types: 5 elements in 3 groups.

I could go on, but these simple apochromats with no more than 5 elements suffice to demonstrate that you shouldn't lay down the law.

Please dont compare process lenses to landscape taking lenses. Theyre built for specific distances.

Tessar types let go with sharpness towards the rim. Some may be fully colour corrected but wont have a flat field.

Also with the others you mention, highly doubtful whether one doesnt have any colour fringes in the out-of-focus.

Paul Howell · Aug 10, 2015

jimjm said:
Leica rangefinders were hand-assembled up until the end of M5 production in 1975. Leica manufactured all the parts and components, and made the machines that made those parts. Leica also made their own lenses. With the M4-2 and M4-P, manufacturing was moved to Canada and changes were made to materials and processes in order to save costs. If this hadn't happened, Leica may have ceased production of rangefinders altogether.

For SLR's, I would suspect that the original Leicaflex, SL and SL2 were still hand-assembled. Never owned one, but I've heard they are overbuilt tanks, with great viewfinders in the SL and SL2. With the R3, which shared many components with the Minolta XE-7, electronics became more integral and manufacturing was moved to Portugal.

My guess is that Leica were hand assembled on a production line, my other guess is that Alpas were assembled by one craftsman like a watch, one camera at a time.

What about Contax SLRs, were they made by Yaschia?

flavio81 · Aug 10, 2015

A watch is a good analogy. Most likely those ALPA cameras were assembled one camera fully by one man. However, even for an 11-series camera, it's really late 50s technology.

Jet · Aug 10, 2015

I'd be interested in knowing what these Swiss marvels were like under the skin. Were the parts of a higher quality than other cameras of the era?

4season · Aug 10, 2015

What Leica's got better than pretty much any other maker? A cult following, not too big and not too small. No shortages of Leica-centric sites online, and there are very few Leica problems which haven't been documented, sometimes ad nauseum. People live eat and breathe this stuff. Most of it is centered around the M-cameras, but some nevertheless rubs off onto the other lines.

Alpa on the other hand...if there is a Cult of Alpa, it must be tiny, smaller than that surrounding Quester telescopes.

Paul Howell · Aug 10, 2015

4season said:
What Leica's got better than pretty much any other maker? A cult following, not too big and not too small. No shortages of Leica-centric sites online, and there are very few Leica problems which haven't been documented, sometimes ad nauseum. People live eat and breathe this stuff. Most of it is centered around the M-cameras, but some nevertheless rubs off onto the other lines.

Alpa on the other hand...if there is a Cult of Alpa, it must be tiny, smaller than that surrounding Quester telescopes.

If there is Alpa cult it is dwindling, last year when I tested by friend's 11e prices seem to rather high, I just at Ebay, prices are down. My friend Mike wife who inherited the camera wanted to hold on it for a while rather than sell, seems that ought have sold. On the other hand it their 11e is like new, I doubt that her uncle used it much, she also got her Uncle's Konica T3 and FS with 4 lens, all Konica lens, the T3 was more than well used, to the point of being battered, so of the 2 the Konica got most of the action.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 10, 2015

I'm not sure if the watch analogy is quite correct. High-end watches such as Patek Philippe, Lange & Söhne, Ulysse Nardin, Jaeger LeCoultre, etc., although hand-assembled and featuring their own unique calibers, probably don't manufacture their own gears, springs, and screws, etc.

4season said:
Alpa on the other hand...if there is a Cult of Alpa, it must be tiny, smaller than that surrounding Quester telescopes.

The 3.5" Questar is a thing of beauty. I first saw the Hercules globular cluster through a Questar.

Some questions about alpa cameras

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency