shoot some slides with a few other brands, then some with an M6, put them on the light table to have a look... -ensure you have some padding on the floor for when you get to the M6 bunch and fall off your stool (at least that's what happened to me..)
Sean,
You bring up an interesting point.
Suppose I have a "limited" but reasonably generous budget. Given your observation, would it make more sense to spend the bulk of my cash on Leitz lenses and buy a modest body like a Cosina/Bessa R2A (or similar)?
The lens "makes" the picture - not the body.
Food for thought.....
Hi George,
Yes, if I had to choose the glass is the more important. However, there is something to be said about handling and using Leica glass on a Leica camera body. The cameras be they M, screw, R (or older SL) they just handle well and feel right in the hand. As to the M series lenses, do not forget that the ergonomics, hand holdable (or tripod mountable) body contributes to the final on film performance of the glass. Certainly the accuracy of the rangefinder will also contribute. As Roger has said, though expensive, well cared for the Leica bodies will last a very long time. Though the initial outlay may be high, averaging the cost of the camera body over such a long life really indicates how economical these camera can be.
Rich
Hi George,
If you develop an eye for it and look at the film (negatives or transparencies) carefully I am pretty sure that you will be able to start to recognize some differences between the Nikon, Cosina, and the Leica/Leitz glass. I know that as mentioned people really experienced claim to be able to see and recognize the Leica from other brands for transparencies. When I print my transparencies digitally via the Chromira machine, Bill Nordstrom (Laser Light and my printer) suggests that the differences may become less evident and you may not be able to recognize the differences. Printing by hand in B&W or color you may well see a difference. I am still of the opinion that some of the difference with the Leica glass is attributed to the coatings that they use. But, I think that can in part be said about lenses produced by the big German makers including Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Rollei. I am of the opinion that as good as the Japanese lenses are, they use different coatings than the Germans, and it is a contributing factor of the on film performance.
Rich
I'm thinking this same equation works with Leitz lenses and Cosina's M-mount bodies too.
With Leica rangefinders? At or around $1000! I am a novice by all means (35mm SLR only) and am looking at trying out other cameras/formats. I apologize for the navitiy of my question. But what gives?
What about a Contax IIa or IIIa?
They aren`t that expensive and the quality is there.
Cheers
André
Dear Andre,
Very limited lens choice; expensive if you want good, late lenses; inferior finder (to M); bigger and heavier; wilfully complicated. When (not if) the shutter tapes go, you are looking at a VERY expensive repair. I'd be more inclined to say that the quality WAS there, 50 years ago, but nothing lasts forever. Not even my 1936 Leica IIIa.
R.
[...] and in fact not all that expensive if you average out the cost over 30+ years of ownership. [...]
With Leica rangefinders? At or around $1000! I am a novice by all means (35mm SLR only) and am looking at trying out other cameras/formats. I apologize for the navitiy of my question. But what gives?
I believe this to be true, but the cost/price of entry is the real barrier.
[Warning - wet blanket alert!]
But, assuming no interest, a Leica M7 "starter kit" (M7 + 50/2 lens) is appx. US$4395.
Divide by 30 -- assuming a (generous) $1600 residual value at the end -- makes the "total cost" about $2795
If you were to invest the money and earned a conservative 8% interest for 30 years - the $4395 would be $44225. (This is the opportunity cost)
So... your total loss would be US$47820, or US$1567/year.
(By the way, this is NOT the reason to not get a Leica - these sorts of things are why you would save and invest more than the bare minimum over your life. And of course, this does not include any income you might be able to make off of it)
[/wet blanket]
If you are looking to try out a rangefinder camera, start with the Canon Cannonet QL17 GIII with the 40 f1.7 lens. If you have some money, a voightlander Bessa R or R2a.
Snip>
<Snip
If cost is no object, I want a Leica MP
Bill
First of all, if you want a new M7 you buy an M7. Unless you need the newest with the automatic exposure and more accurate shutter and meter, there are many other older Leica M cameras available. Additionally, unlike almost any other camera, the M series cameras and lenses maintain their value. So you can probably recover the money that you paid for that same camera and lens if you wish to sell it in the future.
You are asking a very volitile question. Doing so bespeaks of your naivite.
I suggest that you take a visit over to the Rangefinder Forum website:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/
I would also suggest that you "modify" your query when you post there and just ask:
"Should I buy a Leica for my first RF camera"?
Then, put on a helmet and watch the fireworks!
The RFF is too busy having a huge circle jerk over the M8 at the moment to answer sensibly any question about *whisper* a film Leica...:rolleyes:
If you want to get into rangefinder cameras you could do worse than start with a Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa (R, R2, R3 etc).
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?