another lost slr buyer

[elise_s.]

first of all, much thanks for dealing with another one of these

questions....

i am looking to do a major upgrade from a canon rebel g body. i am

looking at used canon 1n's, but would so appreciate some advice on

the matter. i've been doing a lot of research, but everyone seems to

think that most slr bodies are pretty decent. here are my hopes:

optical quality is first priority; all the programmed modes and such

seem a bit excessive, as i always choose full manual anyhow; recent

manufacture...i'm too lazy to go through trying to find old lens

models and accessories :). leica seems the best choice, except that

the newer models are way beyond my budget...okay, the older ones are

too...

if it helps, i shoot mostly e-6, and do quite a bit of macro

shooting, as well as portraiture and some landscape.

any ideas?

[the_macman]

Canon Elan 7E... pleny of superb optics and obviously if you only shoot full M

and would like a Leica you certainly don't need the features of an EOS-1n...

Besides, the Elan smells new :-)

[vandit]

If you do macro, then you're going to have a whale of a time trying that with a Leica or any other non-TTL camera.

 

Macro pretty much means an SLR. Mirror lock-up and DoF preview are other essentials you need for macro. So get a body with these features.

 

Brands, etc have been discussed to death. Read the archives.

 

Vandit

[marbing]

Let me put in a suggestion for Contax SLRs. With the Zeiss lenses of the Contax you would have all of the optical quality you would desire and the cost is less than the Leica.

[basscheffers]

Vandit, Leice makes SLRs with TTL metering as well. But for the most part, Leicas are for people who like posh cameras. Sure, they are fine (wonderful?) cameras, but not worth the expense.

 

As you are already a Canon user, why not stick with it? The Elan 7/EOS 33 is a great camera and you can use the money you save on lenses. The 100/2.8 is a great macro that is great for portraits as well. Get the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8 as well and you'll have all the lenses you'll ever need. Alternatively, you could go for a used EOS 3.

 

Cheers,

[elise_s.]

thanks so much for taking the time to give opinions. i do think i'll be getting the elan 7e, as that seems to be a consistent response. i do have the 100/2.8, but the other lens recommendations were really helpful! just want to say that this site is fantastic....and i'll try not to bother you all with too many questions, but it's kinda irresistible! on that note....do you think it would be worth it to get a tripod lens mount and a ringlite? what are THE necessary filters? THANK YOU!

[the_macman]

Why the heck does Leica seem to be the best choice? Because it's so sturdy

you can kill someone with it, because the magic touch of perfect glass is hold

by Zeiss with the Pope's blessing and evidently from the point where one

company (Zeiss) makes good glass absolutely NO OTHER can also make

good glass... or because dozens of brainwashed have told you so on some

forum?

[j.w.]

Laine, if you don't mind switching brands, I believe Nikon still makes a good manual focus lens compatible body .... don't recall the model number, and Nikon experts may correct me anyhow.

 

As for the Leica R-series SLR, I've never owned one, but "word on the street" (other postings on photo.net) indicate that the R-series bodies may not be as reliable as their Nikon and Canon counterparts; but hey - this is just gossip.

 

You can also purchase more lens for the money with Canon and Nikon vs Leica ... the difference in quality you may never notice; it may get lost in the 'noise' of other quality issues in your total photographic system.

 

If manual control of exposure and focus is your primary concern other than lens quality, I would look into the ergonomics of many newer cameras that offer so-called manual controls. Having to toggle through menu screens to get to "manual" controls is not as efficient as properly laid-out direct controls at your fingertips.

 

Since you indicated you shoot mainly slide film, you want a system that offers adequate metering technology. As for shooting portraits, having a flash system that works well with your camera is far better than having to manually set the dial on the flash and manually setting the f-stop of the lens. Although I tend toward manual control, I find flash is one of those areas where I appreciate automation.

 

Finally, for landscape work, find a camera body that offers manual lockup of the mirror. This will really come into use in those sweet-lighting conditions near dusk or dawn. Your enlargements will appreciate this feature.

[greg_mason]

i personally would stay with canon since that is what you already have, however, if you really are into macro photography you whould switch to olympus. they no longer make the OM series any more, however i believe that they make 9 macro lenses, some in speeds and focal lengths that no other manufacturer makes. you can try posting on the olympus form for more information.

[dan_fromm1]

Vandit Kalia advised: "If you do macro, then you're going to have a whale of a time trying that with a Leica or any other non-TTL camera."

 

As has been pointed out, Leica makes SLRs. And surely you meant "rangefinder," not "non-TTL." FWIW I've been doing macro work with flash for > 30 years with a Nikkormat. TTL autoflash just isn't necessary for macro. TTL helps for out-and-about, especially for mindless fill flash, but close up it isn't needed at all.

 

The original question stated that "optical quality is first priority." This is just plain dumb. Optics aren't limiting. Film and technique are. The difference between results obtained with the very very best lens and fifth-best is, under the best of circumstances, barely perceptible. That difference is easily lost to poor technique. Good glass is not a substitute for good technique. Further, no one manufacturer makes the best lens in every focal length/max aperture category. If you must have the very best, you're going to own many bodies.

 

You're invested in the Canon AF SLR system, there's no reason not to stick with it. And although I use Canon cine cameras, I'm not a Canon bigot. Nikon 35 mm gear from the start, more recently 2x3 Graphics with Ilex, Kodak, Konica, Reichert, Tominon, Taylor Hobson, Wollensak, and Zeiss glass, soon adding Schneider and Nikon. Good gear is nice, so is ok gear.

 

Thinking of my Graphics, if you want better image quality in your results, you may want better than can be done with 35 mm. Consider moving up in format. Otherwise stick with Canon. The stuff works.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan