Speaking Of Leica Film Bodies ...

[Chan Tran]

Nikon had released a collectors copy of the S2(?) , from what I recall at the time Nikon had most of the tools and dye in storage. With moving all camera production to Vietnam dont know what Nikon has in storage. My guess is that Nikon is not thinking about a new film body and if they were it would be another collectors model, maybe a F. Pentax is working a new series of K mount bodies, Cosina has of cousre made Leica SM and M bodies, one M42 body, not sure what else.

I had a IIIG, other than having to cut the film leader to load, it was a nice camera.

Nikon moved their production to Thailand not Vietnam.

 

[chuckroast]

The F6 isn't a camera that would sell well like the Leica M. It has way too many features. Something like the F3 would be much better but then Nikon also stopped making AI-S lenses.

No Nikon film body after the F3 ever felt right to me. The F4/5/6 all just seemed like bad hybrids and film and digital control. Sure, if you're a news or sports photographer, being able to shotgun through film like a minigun on an attack helicopter is a useful feature. But otherwise, these cameras just feel big, bloated, and inelegant to me.

 

[ic-racer]

I think rangefinder 35mm cameras are a pain to use. I'm not alone, rangefinder 35mm cameras were never big sellers after the 1950s. The F6 is light years ahead. More lenses available too. Maybe just collectors and poseurs are buying the Leicas?

 

[chuckroast]

I think rangefinder 35mm cameras are a pain to use. I'm not alone, rangefinder 35mm cameras were never big sellers after the 1950s. The F6 is light years ahead. More lenses available too. Maybe just collectors and poseurs are buying the Leicas?

I've used Nikon SLRs extensively. I've used a Barnak Leica extensively, they are simply different cameras.

SLRs excel when you want to use very long lenses or need the benefit of motor drive.

An RF viewfinder never blacks out. That makes it perfect for in the moment shooting to capture Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".

RF cameras and lenses are substantially lighter and smaller than SLRs. Not only does that make them easier to carry, it also makes them far less intrusive and immediately visible to a subject. (Try putting any SLR in your pocket and going skiing. You better have really big pockets.)

You don't buy Leica (or Hasselblad) first for their camera bodies (says the guy who just bought an M2). You buy them for their lenses. The Leica optics have a look that belongs just to them, particularly at wide apertures.

RFs are generally very simple designs whereas SLRs are much more complex. So, SLRs, by the nature of their design, require more maintenance. My Leica IIIf is almost 70 years old and has had two maintenance cycles I am aware of. My Nikons (I have 7 Nikon film bodies) require shutter adjustment, foam replacement, and regular CLAs every decade or so.

But, SLRs give you an almost perfect view of the final captured image dimensions without parallax.

SLRs are noisy. Leica RFs, at least, are whisper quiet.

One is hammer, the other is a surgeon's scalpel. Both have a place. That's why I own and use both when I do shoot 35mm.

 

[mshchem]

I've used Nikon SLRs extensively. I've used a Barnak Leica extensively, they are simply different cameras.

SLRs excel when you want to use very long lenses or need the benefit of motor drive.

An RF viewfinder never blacks out. That makes it perfect for in the moment shooting to capture Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".

RF cameras and lenses are substantially lighter and smaller than SLRs. Not only does that make them easier to carry, it also makes them far less intrusive and immediately visible to a subject. (Try putting any SLR in your pocket and going skiing. You better have really big pockets.)

You don't buy Leica (or Hasselblad) first for their camera bodies (says the guy who just bought an M2). You buy them for their lenses. The Leica optics have a look that belongs just to them, particularly at wide apertures.

RFs are generally very simple designs whereas SLRs are much more complex. So, SLRs, by the nature of their design, require more maintenance. My Leica IIIf is almost 70 years old and has had two maintenance cycles I am aware of. My Nikons (I have 7 Nikon film bodies) require shutter adjustment, foam replacement, and regular CLAs every decade or so.

But, SLRs give you an almost perfect view of the final captured image dimensions without parallax.

SLRs are noisy. Leica RFs, at least, are whisper quiet.

One is hammer, the other is a surgeon's scalpel. Both have a place. That's why I own and use both when I do shoot 35mm.

Not sure if any of the news photojournalists that cover politics shoot with dig*#al SLRs anymore they're just too noisy. Film SLRs aren't any different. I love both rangefinders and SLRs, I shoot a lot with MF rangefinders, but Leicas are sublime for disappearing into the woodwork so to speak.
I have a F6, just another, very nice camera, nothing special. I have Leicas too

 

[chuckroast]

Not sure if any of the news photojournalists that cover politics shoot with dig*#al SLRs anymore they're just too noisy. Film SLRs aren't any different. I love both rangefinders and SLRs, I shoot a lot with MF rangefinders, but Leicas are sublime for disappearing into the woodwork so to speak.
I have a F6, just another, very nice camera, nothing special. I have Leicas too

I have both a Mamiya Universal and a Fuji GW690II as MF rangefinders and they are fun, fun, fun to use. I also have a 2x3 Speed Graphic which can be used that way, but I never have.

I suppose these days, news photographers probably are using mirrorless for political events, but I wouldn't know. If I want to know what a liar thinks, I know plenty of them myself. No reason to pay any attention to what the politicians are saying...

 

[Kodachromeguy]

@Kodachromeguy- there's a nice Leica IIIg for sale at Monument Camera in Tucson. The owner is a friend and an honest businessman, and I'm sure he'd like to sell it.

Oh, oh, I will call him. Thank you for the hint. But must fight GAS......

 

[summicron1]

"the company is now considering new designs based on pre-M cameras but with M-mounts.” A body like the IIIG with an M mount would definitely interest me. I recall seeing in a book some test IIIG bodies just like that. As I get older, I want a compact kit I can take easily with me wherever I go (sort of like a Rolleiflex is a perfect take-anywhere 120 camera). When I use a 35mm SLR, a Pentax MX or Spotmatic is convenient because the body and lenses are compact.

This is precisely why my forever travel camera is the Leica CL -- made by Minolta, yes, but to Leitz quality specifications. I bought a spare when I started worrying the one I bought in 1975 was going to "wear out" on me, but so far it is still ticking along and the spare gathers dust.

A CL body with a working meter can be had for less than $1000 easily.

 

[Hassasin]

Uh, well not exactly

Kind of took my line out of context ? New Leica M's are mostly bought by new users who do not look for a used one, and that comes form a different end of demographic spectrum, so not same as saying all of them. And by that alone, used prices for earlier bodies are effectively unaffected, If anything they will continue to rise as web gets more and more proliferated with Leica greatness (salt shaker please) posts.

 

[Besk]

I've used Nikon SLRs extensively. I've used a Barnak Leica extensively, they are simply different cameras.

SLRs excel when you want to use very long lenses or need the benefit of motor drive.

An RF viewfinder never blacks out. That makes it perfect for in the moment shooting to capture Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".

RF cameras and lenses are substantially lighter and smaller than SLRs. Not only does that make them easier to carry, it also makes them far less intrusive and immediately visible to a subject. (Try putting any SLR in your pocket and going skiing. You better have really big pockets.)

You don't buy Leica (or Hasselblad) first for their camera bodies (says the guy who just bought an M2). You buy them for their lenses. The Leica optics have a look that belongs just to them, particularly at wide apertures.

RFs are generally very simple designs whereas SLRs are much more complex. So, SLRs, by the nature of their design, require more maintenance. My Leica IIIf is almost 70 years old and has had two maintenance cycles I am aware of. My Nikons (I have 7 Nikon film bodies) require shutter adjustment, foam replacement, and regular CLAs every decade or so.

But, SLRs give you an almost perfect view of the final captured image dimensions without parallax.

SLRs are noisy. Leica RFs, at least, are whisper quiet.

One is hammer, the other is a surgeon's scalpel. Both have a place. That's why I own and use both when I do shoot 35mm.

Well said. I'll add for color snapshots - it is now all mirrowless digital for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think rangefinder 35mm cameras are a pain to use. I'm not alone, rangefinder 35mm cameras were never big sellers after the 1950s. The F6 is light years ahead. More lenses available too. Maybe just collectors and poseurs are buying the Leicas?

I agree, but I am happier with the very capable and lighter F100. Before someone posts about the F100 door latch, note that I do not use any of my cameras as hammers.

I love the way Leica M series cameras feel when advancing the film and firing the lens but the rangefinder drawbacks have kept me from buying one.

 

[Chan Tran]

I agree, but I am happier with the very capable and lighter F100. Before someone posts about the F100 door latch, note that I do not use any of my cameras as hammers.

I love the way Leica M series cameras feel when advancing the film and firing the lens but the rangefinder drawbacks have kept me from buying one.

Who uses their cameras as hammers? None of the cameras would survive.

 

[Dali]

Who uses their cameras as hammers? None of the cameras would survive.

The same using their hammer to take pictures.

 

[Chan Tran]

The same using their hammer to take pictures.

I hate when people said, this camera is so tough you can hammer a nail with it. No you can't. Built like a tank? As if built like tank is a good thing. And no camera is built like a tank. A great camera is a fine and delicate instrument. It's not built like a tank nor you can hammer a nail with it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not sure if any of the news photojournalists that cover politics shoot with dig*#al SLRs anymore they're just too noisy. Film SLRs aren't any different. I love both rangefinders and SLRs, I shoot a lot with MF rangefinders, but Leicas are sublime for disappearing into the woodwork so to speak.
I have a F6, just another, very nice camera, nothing special. I have Leicas too

When I watch the news the clips show a lot of clusters with many news folks shooting with DSLRs, my guess is that high end bodies are still expensive, swapping out both bodies and lens is expensive. AP has gone to Sony A1 and 9s, but many stringers are still shooting with DSLRS. When a working PJ in the 70s and 80s I had Nikon and Leica IIIG and Canon 7s, the 7s with a 35mm or 50mm and Nikon with 105 were my go lens lens set. The only rangefinders I have are 70s fixed lens models, Minolta and Canon, and ny Retina IIIC big. All are consumer grade. I keep my "want" of a Leica M or Canon 7, maybe a Nikon S2 or SP in check.

 

[btaylor]

Are we really having a RF vs. SLR argument here? That “war” was won in the ‘60’s by the Japanese SLR. But I have and use both as many (most?) of us do.
RF’s have their place, which is why they are still out there. I especially like how quiet and quick to focus they are.
It’s all kind of meaningless though in the face of giga megapixel AF digital mirrorless, no? But old farts like me just won’t give up on film.

 

[chuckroast]

Are we really having a RF vs. SLR argument here? That “war” was won in the ‘60’s by the Japanese SLR. But I have and use both as many (most?) of us do.
RF’s have their place, which is why they are still out there. I especially like how quiet and quick to focus they are.

I just walked out of the darkroom having printed a 6x9 negative shot on the Fuji GW690 II rangefinder. It's spectacular. No 35mm camera SLR or RF would come close to the rendering power and sharpness of that negative.

I would have gotten the same or better results with a Hasselblad SLR only it was cold and miserable outside when I took this and I didn't much feel like humping all that equipment into the woods (I'm lazy, so shoot me

It’s all kind of meaningless though in the face of giga megapixel AF digital mirrorless, no? But old farts like me just won’t give up on film.

Until you start to look at dynamic range. When you get into the $10K+ range for MF digital backs it begins to be comparable with MF film. Even that cannot touch a 4x5 negative for tonal smoothness and rendering power.

What we do in the analogue world is surely an edge condition but it still has a place.

 

[BMbikerider]

The F6 isn't a camera that would sell well like the Leica M. It has way too many features. Something like the F3 would be much better but then Nikon also stopped making AI-S lenses.

I have a F6 and going by the serial number it is probably one of the last made/sold (I bought it S/hand) Yes I agree it has more features than I would ever think about using so they are largely wasted, but what a quality build! I am mainly a a/priority, matrix metering but occasionally spot and AF single shot sort of person. I also have a F2a which is my B&W camera and I use that exactly the same simply because there are no other choices. Lovely instruments and far better made than some of the plastic bodied "alternative" types They will not go out of vogue.
There is no shortage of very good and clean AIS lenses at present some at very reasonable prices too.

 

[mshchem]

I love all cameras. I have used Fuji 6x9 rangefinders for the last 20+ years, those are the cameras I grab most often for shooting black and white film that I want to print. I love my F5s, I have a F6 rarely use it, my bad! I have Leicas they are a blast, There's no bad cameras only need a little love and understanding.

The Fujis have a huge click sound thats a problem.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have a F6 and going by the serial number it is probably one of the last made/sold (I bought it S/hand) Yes I agree it has more features than I would ever think about using so they are largely wasted, but what a quality build! I am mainly a a/priority, matrix metering but occasionally spot and AF single shot sort of person. I also have a F2a which is my B&W camera and I use that exactly the same simply because there are no other choices. Lovely instruments and far better made than some of the plastic bodied "alternative" types They will not go out of vogue.
There is no shortage of very good and clean AIS lenses at present some at very reasonable prices too.

I don't say it's bad. I just say it doesn't sell well. That's all. The Leica M would sell well because of its spartan features. I don't say the features of the F6 are wasted but people buying film cameras just prefer that their cameras don't have those. It's the case of less is more.

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't say it's bad. I just say it doesn't sell well. That's all. The Leica M would sell well because of its spartan features. I don't say the features of the F6 are wasted but people buying film cameras just prefer that their cameras don't have those. It's the case of less is more.

I have always understood why the F6 didn't sell in big numbers was it came onto the market just at the point that digital cameras also became saleable and usable. Faced with a similar cost price, but without the benefit of a reusable memory card compared to having to buy single use film and then have it developed was the real start of the demise of the F6

 

[Saganich]

I hate when people said, this camera is so tough you can hammer a nail with it. No you can't. Built like a tank? As if built like tank is a good thing. And no camera is built like a tank. A great camera is a fine and delicate instrument. It's not built like a tank nor you can hammer a nail with it.

Must really not be a selling point for camera, I couldn't find a single video of anyone hammering a nail with a camera... phones on the other hand....

 

[chuckroast]

I hate when people said, this camera is so tough you can hammer a nail with it. No you can't. Built like a tank? As if built like tank is a good thing. And no camera is built like a tank. A great camera is a fine and delicate instrument. It's not built like a tank nor you can hammer a nail with it.

It's a turn of phrase or colloquialism meant to indicate how tough something is. Reading it this literally misses the point.

I can attest to just how tough the Nikon F is. I was once sitting on a bench reloading an F. When I stood up, I failed to put the strap around my neck and the camera tumbled from my lap onto the hard concrete below - easily a 3 foot drop. Apart from a very minor scratch the camera was completely unharmed and ready to use. That indeed is "built like a tank".

 

[guangong]

Contemporary Leicas are worn as jewelry and status symbols. Leica is even trying same sales strategy with the Leica Watch. Except that their advertisement in the Wall Sreet Journal magazine fell flat…on opposite page of $12,000 Leica watch was an add for a $53,000 watch. Made Leica look cheap.

 

[chuckroast]

Contemporary Leicas are worn as jewelry and status symbols. Leica is even trying same sales strategy with the Leica Watch. Except that their advertisement in the Wall Sreet Journal magazine fell flat…on opposite page of $12,000 Leica watch was an add for a $53,000 watch. Made Leica look cheap.

Ken Rockwell Review