jerry_kirkwood Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 <i>Why only five? I believe most of the Leica M6 commemoratives are at least ten years old</i></p>Isn't it true that Leica has released at least two commemoratives in the last 5 years, the Hammer Tone MP and the MP3? Your original response "What camera company has not done that?" implies that every camera company has done that recently. I don't recall Canon doing it, but maybe someday they will make a model to commemorate all the other brands they've buried {grin}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 what is so good about a Leica?<P>New, current models -- nothing.<P>Older models -- state of the art in ergonomic design and precision manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Removable take-up spools ergonomic? Other than that, how different does a newer model handle any differently than an older model? Maybe THAT is what is so good about a Leica. 8*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Bob Atkins: <i>I've always thought that this article (first published in Professional Photographer (UK) December 1995) provides a reasoned and reasonable view of Leicas. <p>http://www.caliach.com/paulr/articles/html/leica/index.html <p>I'm afraid the Leicaphiles and especially the Leicaholics may regard it as heresy theough.</i> <p>IMO, Bob is right in his assessment of Leica gear. Another web page worth reading is: <p>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/rangefinder.html <p>PS. I tested a Nikon FM2n with a 50mm f1.8 lens (total price $500), and the pictures were just as sharp as a M6 with a 50mm Summicron (total price $1,600). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vics Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 WOW! I've never seen so many responses to any question on this or any other forum! So, here's my two cents worth: I've used and enjoyed a GREAT many different 35mm cameras over my 40 years of photo experience, and when my kids gave me an M3 for my 60th birthday, I worried that it couldn't live up to the hype. After about a year, my daughter asked the same question you ask. I replied at that time that one thing is that the M3 is the easiest to use camera I've ever had. Since then I've begun to learn more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dg1 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 >Matt- it's fundamental Zen philosophy: The experience is everything Yeah but what you're experiencing is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 "I tested a Nikon FM2n with a 50mm f1.8 lens (total price $500), and the pictures were just as sharp as a M6 with a 50mm Summicron (total price $1,600)." Then why do/did you have so much Leica gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 <i>Then why do/did you have so much Leica gear?</i> <p>Steve, this question applies to most on this forum. I'll be selling my gear in May, so let me know if you need anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Hello, 1. I like mine, most of all, because they combine extremely good optical and build quality in a very tiny package. It's all about convenience. Almost every other cameras that is so convenient is poorly made and has lenses that leave something to be desired. There is no other camera that I have tried that is so easy to carry every day, yet which can provide such beautiful pictures. 2. Also, for me, they are very intuitive cameras to use. They feel much more like an extension of your body than an SLR. Maybe this is a bit of a mystical answer, and maybe it varies with the individual. 3. Rangefinder lenses produce what I feel to be a more accurate reproduction of what the human eye/brain sees as far as depth, sharpness, and depth of field than do SLR lenses. Don't ask me any technical details, as I don't know any. This is just how it seems to me with what I have shot. I am probably full of crap, since all I have experience with are a Summitar, a Summar, and a Serenar 1.8 (all screwmount 50s). 4. Sneakiness factor. They look like amateur, clunky antique cameras, and thus don't attract as much negative attention an an SLR. To the average Joe or Josephine, you look like some eccentric nut using one, not a professional photographer. 5. They are easy to sneak into places in the bottom of a woman's purse. I don't know how many times I have brought a lady friend with me just for this purpose. If I get bloacked from entering a club with my SLRs, I put them back in the car and use the RF that is stashed in my friend's bag. Once you are already inside with the camera, see #4. 6. They are pretty quiet, which helps a lot, as long as there is at least some ambient noise. If not, you will still be heard. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacek_witold_chmielewski Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 What is so good? The name Leica on top plate = 75% of it. This one for $10 works the same way http://aukcja.onet.pl/show_item.php?item=239269775 and everything fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now