steve_brantley2

George, I have owned three Leica point & shoot automatic cameras (currently have the C3 and the Mini Zoom) and have been very pleased with them all. I recently traded in my C1 in order to get the wider 28mm lens with the C3. I just never could get the scene included to my satisfaction when using the C1 for indoor shoots at home, for birthday parties, etc.

 

The C3 is basically the same design as the C1, other than having a slightly faster zoom lens in terms of the effective f-stop, and it also has a comfortable rubber grip on one side. I sometimes found the older C1 to be a bit slippery to hold.

 

The C3 telephoto zoom lens also doesn't extend out as far as does the C1, but then, the effective f-stop at the long end of the C1 results in a really slow shutter speed with my preferred 100 ASA film. The C3, being a shorter telephoto, is faster by a stop of so, and yields faster shutter speeds as a result, and less opportunity for camera shake.

 

The C3 gift set also comes with a well-made black leather case (made in Tunisia).

 

There is a diopter setting that is handy on the C3, which was not on the C1.

 

When shooting the C3 in flash mode, I have found the camera to cover the entire 28mm area fairly well (considering its limited flash guide number), and actually gives me better results than did the C1.

 

There is also the new C2, but I compared it to the C3 and didn't like it as well. It's great that Leica gives us several choices for point & shoot cameras, so a buyer's personal preferences can be best served.

 

The viewfinder of the C3 is a good improvement over the C1's, as well as compared to one of the nice Contax point & shoot cameras I've seen. The Contax T3 or T4 (can't remember which) was once something I almost bought, until I looked through the tiny viewfinder. Great (made in Japan?) Carl Zeiss lens, and lousy viewfinder like a lot of the smaller Asian P&S cameras I've seen.

 

The C3 has "Made in Germany" printed on the back, but I wonder if it is not really made by Minolta or some other Japanese camera firm. Does anyone know on Photo.net?

 

In conclusion, I can't fairly compare the C3 against other brands, but I can attest to it being well worth the money and is an excellent performer. Your wife would enjoy it, and thank you as well!

Maybe a Voigtlander Bessa MP is "next"?

I ride a 2001 Harley-Davidson FXDX (Dyna Super Glide Sport), painted black just like my M6TTL.

If I could find me some of this obscure NOOKY, then I'd really fall in love with Leica.

Rolleiflex twin lens reflex (3.5 MX-EVS type 2, Synchro-Compur) made in 1954.

I really don't see the rationale for hiding the red dot or the Leica script with black tape. I'm not ashamed on my camera brand, not more worried about theft (no more than if I had a $7,000 digital Canon SLR around my neck), and not a poser trying to pretend to conceal a high-end camera purchase.

 

I also don't have black tape covering the BMW medallion on the front of my car.

 

But if I drove a Citroen and shot with a Holga, then I'd have lots of use for black tape.

Send me your e-mail address and I'll forward a scanned image to you.

I do recall reading a comment made last year by a top manager of Leica, and he mentioned an interest in the company moving into medium format. Perhaps we'll see Leica's own version of the "Texas Leica" as made by Fuji, like their 6"x8' or 6"x9"?

I have a black M6 and a chrome M7, so I don't care anymore. Eventually you'll have that second M body, and then you can decide for yourself. In the end, I say the chrome M is a bit more resistant to scratches.

 

I've had my "Phil" of Grant.

I'm sure Baghdad is full of Citroen automobiles.

 

Besides Lemon Camera in Tokyo as one place to find rare Leicas, another uniquely named Leica dealership in Japan is Lucky Camera, in thed Shinjuku neighborhood of Tokyo.

Does anyone know if the 85mm f/2.8 Hektor projector lens, which

comes standard with the Pradovit P-150 slide projector, is a flat

field or curved field lens? The Leica product catalog and Web

homepage don't state which type lens is included. I am also

considering the 90mm Colorplan lens for its improved quality and

performance, but again, I can't find any reference to this P series

lens being for flat or curved field slides. I even called B&H today

and they couldn't tell me if their Colorplan lens was one or the

other.

 

Also, I think I know the answer to a different question (which is

probably no), but can Kodak's round slide trays fit on the Leica RT

projectors? I have read in the archives that the Leica RT projectors

are actually made in Germany by Kodak, yet Kodal carousel slide

trays won't operate on the Leica RT's?

 

Finally, can the Leica Pro series projector lenses, like the Super-

Colorplan, fit (with an adapter?) on the pro Kodak projectors like

the model 9020? Perhaps the pro series Kodak projector lenses are

just as good as the Leica pro models?

 

Any advice would be appreciated, and I would like to eventually get

a high-quality projector soon. Thanks.

Is that an M Elmarit 135, or are you just happy to see me?

 

My screwmount Leica lacks a NOOKY.

I have the M6TTL (.85) and the M7 (.72), and I keep my 28mm lens on the .72 viewfinder. On my .85 M camera, I lose the 28mm framelines, and shot composition suffers from parallax error. I would recommend the standard .72 viewfinder. By the way, I strongly recommend the M7.

I have seen the new Voigtlander 28mm finder (black plastic model) and found it to be well constructed, less expensive than the similar Leica finder, and actually brighter than Leica's combination 21/28/35 finder. It also has the 28mm framelines, unlike the Leica combination model. I would recommend the Voigtlander 28mm finder.

My local camera store has a new Leica Pradovit P-150 projector (with the basic 85mm f/2,8 Hektor P2 lens) for sale, overpriced at $269. I've thought about the same question as yours, and considered buying this projector for the shop. However, after checking with the www.aaacamera web site, this online ordering firm advertizing this particular "Leica" lens for $29.69, which tells me to be cautious about the whole package. The projector may be OK, but unless I put an expensive lens on it, it is not a wise use of money in my opinion. I'd rather go for a top-of-the-line Leica or Kodak professional projector and lens.

James, I have a Leica CL but I don't consider it a point and shoot. Its just a smaller and more basic M rangefinder. Even if the meter stills works, you have to set your focus and exposure before the shot.

 

I own Leica's 35-70 Vario Elmar point and shoot, and the new C3 (28-80), and they are the best P&S cameras I've ever owned, compared to an Olympus Stylus and similar Nikons. With Color slide film, my results have just been sharper. I traded in a C1 for the C3, and also thought it was great. In conclusion, while I'd also love to have a small Ricoh or Contax P&S, I'm currently loyal to the Leica brand, and grateful.

This past weekend, I unloaded my R gear (R7 and R8) and got a new M7 as my second M body, to compliment my black M6TTL. I hope I don't regret the decision, and only sold the R bodies because I couldn't afford the M7 without trading in the R gear. I feel right now that the chrome M7 is the "one" camera I most would want to own.

 

I have concluded that my M lenses gave me consistently sharper, and better exposed photos, than did my R lenses. I can't say why, except to guess that the M lenses are new and have the newest coatings, etc., whereas my R lenses were perhaps 20 years old. I always feared the dreaded mold growing in those lenses. Then there was the shutter slap and vibration with the SLRs, which I don't have with the M. I also never found my R7 expose well in all exposure modes, something I've read about. Then there is the weight and size differential when using two R or M bodies at the same time. In conclusion, I've committed my Leica gear into the M line and hope I don't regret it.

The Hubble space telescope was actually manufactured in Japan by Cosina/Voigtlander, along with the new Rollei rangefinder. NASA uses a Leica finder and 28mm lens shade, however.

That alien photo is really that Ralien spokeswoman with out her makeup. Or, it is her clone.

I did sneak my M6TTL and 3 lenses into last year's Stanley Cup ice hockey playoffs (Eastern Regional) and got some great shots. It wasn't too hard when I put the camera body and strap on my back, under my team jersey (sweater), with the 3 lenses in my pants pockets. The arena officials don't even want any kind of camera in their place, not even a small automatic point and shoot, so I enjoyed the drama! The best was taken with my 28mm Summicron, and shows the entire ice rink from net to net. I'll post the image once I get some slide scanning gear.

A Canon TX (SLR), in 1976. Manual focus and manual exposure - just like my M6TTL.

With a reported granularity RMS rating of 8, these new Kodak slide films apparrently have slightly tighter grain than does Fujichrome Provia or Velvia, which are both rated at 9 RMS.

Well I'm surprised that this forum doesn't have a consensus on the "Texas Leica", being the Fuji 6x9.

 

I myself prefer my 1954 Rolleiflex TLR.

I dumped all my Nikon N90S equipment some time ago (to include the 12 AA batteries to run it and the SB-26 flash, and the five pound 35-70 D zoom lens), and jumped head first into Leica M and CL bodies. No regrets since, and better photos as well Why? Because I wanted to return to basics with manual focusing and exposure settings, for one thing, and this has forced me to slow down and think about what I'm composing, how I focused or determined the exposure, and so forth. My analogy is that shooting with a rangefinder like the Leica M6 is like slowing sipping a fine, expensive wine, or in the case of fishing for trout along a mountain stream, using a fly rod. The auto-everything approach to photography for me was like catching those fish in a net, or chugging cheap wine by the barrel. No thanks. I'm much happier taking my time with the Leica gear.

 

PS I also own the Leica R7 and R8 and love them as well.

Having once met Carr Clifton quite by accident at Lake Vermillion in Banff National Park, Canada, I'd nominate him for his beautiful 8" by 10" color scenics. He has done several beautiful covers for Outdoor Photographer magazine over the years.

 

I had arrived on scene a bit earlier than he, and thus got the better light for an evening sunset over the lake. I told him he was just a little bit too late, but his reply has stuck with me ever since. He said then he would "just shoot what looks good", meaning I think, regardless of the scene, he looks for the best shot at that given moment, rather than force himself to try and photograph a scene that one had in mind, even if the lighting or other factors were not favorable at that time.

 

I have tried to remember and practive this small bit of photographic philosophy from that day forward.