- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,524
- Format
- 35mm RF
Never mind the ultra expensive M models, get a Leice II, Leica IIIc, Leica IIIf and you will begin to understand.
That may very well be true but....it still seems like there is no rational justification for the extraordinary cost of a Leica.
for example, in 2003 (the last time I paid much attention to, or cared about the prices of new 35mm cameras)* a new chrome Nikon FM3a body cost roughly, $570 and a new Leica M6ttl body cost about $2500. As far as I can remember, they are functionally similar. However, the Leica cost more than 4 times as much as the Nikon! I just cannot see how it is possible that the Leica M6 is more than 4 times "better" than the Nikon FM3a. For the cost of the M6 body alone, one could have instead bought four Nikon FM3a bodies and still had enough left over to buy a brand new Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. I do appreciate a beautiful and elegant design...but at a reasonable premium...not, 4x and the Leica is not 4x more beautiful and elegant that the leading Nikon manual focus body of the period. So again, I'm stuck feeling like there is no rational justification for the extraordinary cost of a Leica.
Just for fun, consider that in that same year, the very capable, exceedingly pocket-able, fast handling, intuitive and easy to use, auto focus, auto exposure, point and shoot Olympus Stylus epic, a camera that is still respected and sought after, cost what....$80 ? One could have bought 30 of them for what the Leica M6 body alone cost...yeah, yeah, I can hear all of the Leica and Nikon aficionados howling...I'm just having some fun with this one....but I did have an Olympus point and shoot and it was very capable and I never worried about taking it with me in a jacket pocket.
I also remember that, in the not too distant past, a new Wisner 4x5 Technical Field cost about $2500 as did the Canham wood field. A similarly spec'd Ebony SV45Ti cost a little more (I remember around $3200). Yeah, there was a small premium for the Ebony but not 4x. ! Incidentally, I've owned all thee of these cameras. The Wiser and Ebony were beautiful, precise and each was a joy to work with...I really did not get on well with the Canham but it is an engineering marvel and has a beauty and feel of precision all its own. So, I get the tactile beauty thing...but the premium to be paid should be reasonable.
*note: I picked the FM3a and M6 for this example just out of the blue and really, only because I remember the numbers...The Olympus number is admittedly, a wild-ass-guess that I believe is in the ball park.
...
for example, in 2003 (the last time I paid much attention to, or cared about the prices of new 35mm cameras)* a new chrome Nikon FM3a body cost roughly, $570 and a new Leica M6ttl body cost about $2500. As far as I can remember, they are functionally similar. However, the Leica cost more than 4 times as much as the Nikon! I just cannot see how it is possible that the Leica M6 is more than 4 times "better" than the Nikon FM3a. ...
That may very well be true but....it still seems like there is no rational justification for the extraordinary cost of a Leica.
People buy them as status symbols.
Have [Leica] made a camera with autofocus yet?
... I was struggling trying to load it. Found a youtube video, The fellow walked you through, setting the camera to T, firing the shutter, leaving it open, removing the lens, then taking out the spool. I swear to The Almighty, that's the only way I could get the spool out! ...
I had no problem loading once I got the spool out. Little bugger didn't want to come out. I can't see why I would need to take the lens off etc. And your point about trimming the leader would eliminate the pokin' the finger through the camera. I have a leader trimming template somewhere in my hoard . Thanks for your comments, it's been a long time since I loaded anything older than an M6That's strange. My black 1934 III is very easy to load: remove the baseplate, pull out the spool, insert the trimmed film (as shown in the diagram) into the spool, insert cassette and spool into camera, and slightly turn wind knob so that you can see a sprocket engage the film. This last part is 10 seconds, tops, and is reliable. No need to remove lens and use T setting, though I know many people do.
The key to all this is the film trimming.
I was struggling trying to load it.
IIRC the XA series are retro-focusing designs, meaning the camera fits into a pocket. Were there any collapsible Leica lenses apart from 50mm? Clearly the Zuiko is the superior design if you want a pocket camera.
If your priority is a camera to take everywhere, being pocketable is a major plus. A Barnack and collapsible 50 is theoretically a carry round, but weight would tend to exclude it. As for getting what you pay for, it depends what you hope to get. In the 35mm compact camera market £500-800 can buy you an over-hyped, electronically fragile, technologically bypassed and unrepairable fashion accessory if you followed current trends. My XA3 sets to mid distance on opening, and a click either way for close ups and long shots. It is without doubt the fastest shooting, most portable camera I've owned. It cost £15 in a box of 3 other cameras. It has proved perfectly reliable.Pocketable by itself means nothing. Pocketable and at the same time having quality means far more and at prices that tickle the back of a Leica.
I find the XA and its Zuiko being quite over-hyped for what they give. Take the Contax T for example, being a wonderful one, quite pocketable and very expensive. There are also many others that are just a bit bigger, but yet pocketable, offering a lot more than the XA in every aspect and of course tagged with a higher price.
It has always been a case of you get what you pay. Nothing gets away from it.
It is very easy - once when you learn. See chapter "Film Loading" on great Ken Rockwell site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/screw-mount/iiif.htm
If your priority is a camera to take everywhere, being pocketable is a major plus. A Barnack and collapsible 50 is theoretically a carry round, but weight would tend to exclude it. As for getting what you pay for, it depends what you hope to get. In the 35mm compact camera market £500-800 can buy you an over-hyped, electronically fragile, technologically bypassed and unrepairable fashion accessory if you followed current trends. My XA3 sets to mid distance on opening, and a click either way for close ups and long shots. It is without doubt the fastest shooting, most portable camera I've owned. It cost £15 in a box of 3 other cameras. It has proved perfectly reliable.
By comparison a cheap Barnack would almost certainly require a CLA (£200+ any repairs) and I've no idea what a 35mm lens and finder would cost to put on it. There are many technically superior and more versatile 35mm film cameras (an F5 for example), but few that match an Olympus XA for speed of use. Those qualities matter to some people.
My XA3 was cheap but not exceptionally so. Sold prices on eBay shows them selling for £19 to £60 with £35-40 the going rate for a good one with flash. Mine was purchased on eBay by normal bidding, no special insight required. Same for a box of 25 film compacts for £5. About half were AF zooms, the rest were prime lens cameras of which a handful were high quality like the 6-element 35mm Pentax. I was the only bidder, presumably because most people saw a box of junk. 24 of them worked on arrival.Ahhh! That 1 buckazoid thing! I also know someone who had bought a 70's Summicron for 50 euros! I bought a Fed-I with the Fed-50 lens in wonderful condition for just 20 euros and I love using it a lot more than my XA2. Forget the being lucky factor and get landed to common sense and the current facts. Look at the prices of confirmed working and not ran-over-by-a-truck XAs and you will see that they are not cheap after all.
It gets even more silly comparing the XAs with the F5! I also have an F100 and in terms of speed and accuracy at the same time (set aside pocketability) surpasses every camera I own. I don't use it though simply because it does not inspire me as much as other cameras I own. It makes me feel like the camera does all the thinking and not me.
A £200+ CLA on a mechanical camera will make it serve you for quite many years, and thus it is really worth it. A broken XA3 (or XAx), would cost almost the same to get fixed as long as replacement circuitry can be found. Fyi, I had a pile of XA2 that had problems with "stars" in the optics, shutter button not working properly, completely dead circuits, running at just one shutter speed and many more.
Leica cameras and lenses are expensive by no luck. They are not just collectable (old ones mostly), but also equipment with quality and reliability. I agree with you that if you just need a pocketable camera, you cannot go wrong with an XA, although I would do with a noisier and a bit slower mju.
My XA3 was cheap but not exceptionally so. Sold prices on eBay shows them selling for £19 to £60 with £35-40 the going rate for a good one with flash. Mine was purchased on eBay by normal bidding, no special insight required. Same for a box of 25 film compacts for £5. About half were AF zooms, the rest were prime lens cameras of which a handful were high quality like the 6-element 35mm Pentax. I was the only bidder, presumably because most people saw a box of junk. 24 of them worked on arrival.
My point is people extol the virtues of Leica quality, reliability and affordability, but an old Leica is unlikely to be reliable, and the fix will cost money. The lens is likely to be so-so unless it too costs lots of money, and probably no better than more modern and much cheaper equivalents. This may not dissuade people from buying a Leica, but unless you're exceptionally fortunate it's a case of choosing between reliability, affordability and image quality. For anyone of moderate dexterity and logic I'd recommend getting a junker, opening a camera up, following a repair video and having a go for themselves. They'll increase their knowledge of its workings, can decide for themselves whether their reputation is deserved, and might even fix it.
Old Leica will be still functioning after all of XA will crap out due to the fail of too small electronics. I regret to put XA on recycle without taking out VF. Have to buy crapped out XA2 to get one. It is on my Zorky with Jupiter-12 now.
Highly recommending crapped out XA for the source of VF. XA2 and XA3 are not rangefinders, but scale focus, so just 35 frames are visible. And entire VF field is good for 28mm.
I picked up a Leica III today. Early camera s/n 133xxx, Has a cute collapsible Summar 5cm f2. The eveready case bottom wouldn't screw into the body. After some fine thinkin' on my part, I tried a 3/8 in tripod screw, fit like a glove. I put a 3/8 to 1/4 inch bushing on the camera, now the case screws onto the body .
According to some genius on the internet, this camera was made late '33 early 34. I was struggling trying to load it. Found a youtube video, The fellow walked you through, setting the camera to T, firing the shutter, leaving it open, removing the lens, then taking out the spool. I swear to The Almighty, that's the only way I could get the spool out! Loaded the film fine, including poking my finger into the lens hole, and making sure the film was tracking. Everything works perfect, it's not Mint but It's got all it's leatherette , rangefinder is bright, according to my books this camera with the Summar f2 was a ACHOO CHROM . Hilarious . Pure camera, I feel like I should be getting on a Zeppelin heading for Rio de Janeiro . Best Regards Mike
View attachment 197061
It is very easy - once when you learn. See chapter "Film Loading" on great Ken Rockwell site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/screw-mount/iiif.htm
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?