If there had never been a Leica, which camera would you...

[charles_stobbs2]

Retina IIa, Olympus Pen D, Olympus 35 ED, Canon A35F

[robert_macdonald]

A Rollei tlr for 6X6, and a Contax II or III for 35mm.

[SolaresLarrave]

Nothing but my Canonet G-III QL17 (not any Canonet, mind you).

[keith_merrill]

I prefer a pentax MX coupled with a M 50mm f1.4. It doesn't need batteries and is pretty darn well built, but I must say that after getting an m3 and m6, the leica cameras feel more solid. But the MX is my favorite slr, the leica is my first real work with a 35mm rangefinder. If I had to pick another camera I would prefer, it would be a Nikon f2. My uncle has one of these and it is just great, never let him down.

[william_vickers1]

In 1960 I was a high school senior on an extremely limited budget. Leicas and Nikons were far beyond my reach so I bought a Beauty Super II rangefinder (made by Taiyodo Koki of Japan) with a fixed 45mm, f/2.0 Canter lens. I had seen the ad for the camera in Popular Photograpy and expectantly sent a $35 check to a New York mailorder firm. When I received the Beauty Super II I was more than pleasantly surprised by its solid construction, hefty feel, and smart good looks. The lens turned out to be a winner too ... capable of making very sharp images and fast enough for available light photography. I used this camera exclusively until 1970 when I purchased a Canon FT-QL (another wonderful camera). But the Beauty Super II undoubtedly gave me the most bang for my buck in my 46 years of photography.

[karl_yik1]

contax RTS2 with 50 planar 1.4 ! ;]

[ralph_barker]

<p>Had there never been a Leica, it is quite possible that none of the other 35mm cameras would have followed. Hence, no Exakta, no Nikon, no Canon, etc. Thus, we might all be using some medium-format camera, but calling it small format.</p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Photo-gear/Kodak3aAutographicBrownie450sbw.jpg">

</center>

[hil3]

Wow! Debating the merits of an F2A (DP-11 finder) vs an F2AS (DP-12 finder) on the Leica forum. Life is good.

 

I still use an F2 that I bought with the DP-11 finder new in 1977. I also have had a DP-12 for the last 4 years. I prefer the - 0 + red diodes of the 12. Faster to use and I think the meter is more responsive. The meter on the 11 has a slight lag. That is, as you change speed or aperature, the needle starts to move just slightly after the adjustment. It's not a matter of needing calibration. The meter is at factory spec.

 

Having said all that, matched needle metering gives you more immediate information. You see right away if you are under or over exposed without having to be close enough to light up the next diode.

 

The DP-11 is in storage. The 12 is always on the camera.

 

Oh yeah! Definitely a Nikon F2. Best SLR body ever made. For me, Leica did not exist when I bought the F2. Had a Nikkormat in the early '70s. The decade of the SLR. Rangefinders were old technology. Only crusty old reactionaries used them. I would not have touched a Leica with a ten-foot pole. After all, that's what my dad used.

[al_kaplan1]

Travis, the fishing has been good!

 

Exakta was an SLR made by Ihagee in Dresden, East Germany. Ihagee started making SLR's in the 1930's first using 127 film with a 4x6cm format. They also made a few 120 cameras. They were the first to offer a 35mm SLR before WW-II. They didn't make lenses, though. Just about everybody but Leitz made lenses for it, from Angenieux to Zeiss. It had a front mounted shutter release like the Swiss made Alpa. The Exakta had a left handed wind and shutter release. Miranda, made by Orion Camera Co. in Japan, had a thin body so it could infinty focus both Practica/Pentax and Exakta mount lenses with adapters. The Alpa, Exakta and Miranda lenses all originally had external auto diaphragm mechanisms actuated by a release button on an arm that extended out over the release button on the camera. When using Exakta lenses on a Miranda body the lens was almost upside down in order to line up the release buttons.

 

http://www.mirandacamera.com/

 

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/exakta/index.html

 

These two sites will get you started. The Miranda ads used to always feature a discretely posed but mostly naked dark haired lady. Orion used to also make adapters to rangefinder couple Nikon/Contax lenses on Leica screw mount cameras.

[h._p.]

I have to agree with Wentong: the original Nikon F. I just bought a battered user to fit the 135 Nikkor Q I found at the back of a cupboard and it is the perfect compliment to my M3.

[dan_brown4]

Nikon S rangefinder with a 50/1.4 Nikkor S-C lens

 

or

 

Nikon F3 HP and bag full of AIS Nikkors.

[dan flanders]

I would probably still be using a little pre-war Rolleiflex 4x4 for routine and an old Kurt Bentzin Primarflex for telephoto work. OTOH I recall being much attracted to the first Hassy (w/focal plane) but economics interfered. The Primarflex was stolen so I sold the tele lenses and concentrated on improving my Leica battery. I still miss the little Rollei, and would trade a lot of Leica gear for one today. I doubt if I would have gone the 34mm SLR route having tried out the Exacta and found it wanting, a prejudice that remains to this day.

[mike_elek]

Probaly a Contax IIa, followed by an Ikonta 6x9 followed by a Retina IIa followed by a Contarex followed by a Retina IIIS.

 

Then, after that the Nikon F2A, Pentax MX, a Rolleiflex, a Super Ikonta. That's good enough.

[andy_piper2]

As already mentioned - historical contingency suggests that if there had been no Leica in the first place, 35mm would have probably followed a very different design path. The movie film would have stayed in use, and eventually SOMEONE would have made a successful still camera that used it.

 

But you'd get a highly divergent "alternative history", and there would be no Nikons, Canons, Contaxes, Pentaxes as we know them today. Mini-Hasselblad-shaped devices, perhaps (like the failed Rollei 3000 design) or TLRs, or bellows folding cameras, or something completely unimaginable.

 

And that alternative technological history probably would have generated an alternative "artistic" history - different photographers gaining prominence using different formats over the past 80 years, influencing different young photographers in different ways, generation by generation. No HCB, no Gary Winograd, no Robert Frank - at least in 24 x 36 format.

 

If Leica had joined the SLR throng and quit making rangefinders in 1960, Nikons and Canons might exist today essentially unchanged - but the "RF revival" of the 90's probably wouldn't have happened - no Cosina Bessas, no Contax Gs, no Konica Hexars, probably no Mamiya 6/7s. No fussing about "digital-compatible" RF bodies/lenses.

 

In that event, or in the event that all Leicas and Leica-compatibles were suddenly "raptured" off the face of the planet - I'd probably be using compact Nikon SLRs, most likely FAs or FM2s, just as I was up until 5 years ago. With used AIS lenses. And probably have ADDED a D100 body and 14/15mm lens by now.

 

A plain-prism Nikon F or two would "rank" 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

 

Soft spots in my heart for: original Canon F1, AE/AT-1, Pentax Spotmatic, Canon P rangefinder - all extremely simple 'get the job done' cameras. Not generally impressed by Nikon RFs, despite their reputation. Had an SP for a year or so - the focusing pizza-wheel bit my fingers, and the lens mount was kludgy. Although I do wish I'd kept it long enough to sell it for $2000 instead of $300.

[vic_.]

It's amazing not to see Canon EOS on anybody's list.

[john_perkins2]

Canon EOS. Not that I particulary care what camera I use - I do a lot of digital with Canon.

[erik_den_hartigh]

I would have kept my original Minolta X300 and spent thousands of euros less on gear and more on film.

[glenn_travis6]

My fist real camera was a Nikon Nikkormat, brought back from HK by a friend of mine. A couple of years later, when it was stolen, I replaced it with a CL& 40mm&90mm lenses. Still consider them to be the best two cameras I ever used.If their was no Leica, it'd be Nikon for me, if there was no Nikon, it'd be Leica. but I don't have to make that decision.

[dan_brown4]

Canon EOS may win the spec-sheet comparison and probably wins th "pros use it because"

comparison, but, IMHO, thhey have never made a camera that inspired me to want or

shoot with one. Not one.

[Allen Herbert]

It's amazing not to see Canon EOS on anybody's list.

 

Canon EOS, to make Vic happy. Or, in the real world, a Nikon F something.

[hans_beckert]

If a policeman takes a photo of you with a Miranda, does that mean he need not 'read you your rights'?

[donald_brewster]

Rolleiflex TLR.

[kent_demas1]

I would have to fall back on my trusty Nikon FM2. The thing has been a rock for many

many years. I also would use my Nikon S3 2000 rangefinder and the terrific Contax T3

when I need a camera for my pocket.

[keith_merrill]

As good as many people say the Canon EOS cameras are, I have not been able to get to like, much less love one. I did have a Nikon F5 for a while with two zooms. That was a very good camera and I really loved the fact that you could manually rewind it if you wanted, plus pull the viewfinder off. To each, his/her own

[Brian1664876441]

RF: Canon 7; Nikon S3; Retina IIIS; Nikon S2

 

SLR: Nikon F2 with any DP. The F2A is the one that I feel most comfortable with; the F2AS is the best. The F2Sb allows Silicon metering with older lenses.