erik_den_hartigh

sorry, 'Hanscrafted' should be 'Handcrafted'

The SL66's are very finely made mechanical camera systems. Hanscrafted and "made in Germany", beautiful if you like this kind of thing. The mechanics are quite complex however, and the operation of the camera requires some care. Especially the film transport/shutter cocking mechanism: always transport and cock and only then remove or change the back. Also you should be very carful with focussing when you are applying tilt (it can break the focusing mechanism). In short, an SL66 is not nearly as fool-proof as a TLR.

 

You don't want to break an SL66 and have it serviced by Rollei or by a Rollei-certified repair business. I bouhgt my (second-hand) SL66E with a dealer and with a 3-month guarantee. After inspection at home, it turned out that the lightmeter wasn't working properly and that one of the film magazines had a defect. The dealer sent it to a certified Rollei repair business. Skip two months, and it came back, including a bill of around 580 euro (that's about 670 US dollar in todays money).

 

I think you should buy an SL66 (E/SE) only when you are an amateur, doing e.g. macro or portrait work (the camera is extremely suited for both). Definetely don't buy one as a professional camera.

And find someone who can repair it at normal prices if it decides to break down.

It really depends on what you're going to use it for. The SL66 is much more versatile, with great macro possibilities (can't do that with the TLR), interchangeable lenses, interchangeable backs, etc. etc. It is also very heavy (difficult to handhold without the special grip) and it makes a lot of noise. The TLR is in every respects its opposite. You can easily use it handheld, a low shutter speeds as the previous speaker said, for street photography (because of quietness).

It's really best to have both, and use them for their specific purposes.

 

The price of the TLR seems OK, as long as it's in good working order. The SL66 is at least 50% overpriced, unless it's a "like nw in box" of course.

Thanks Travis, nice article.

Two weeks ago I bought the book "Figments from the real world", a selection of Winogrand's photographs by Szarkowski. It's a great book. Highly recommended for Winogrand addicts!

If you all keep buying Tri-X, at least *someone* in the world will be able to make a profit from producing and selling it. That may be at a somewhat higher than current price, however.

Personally I would speculate that the typical 'consumer' films will go down first in the digital avalanche. Most people will in the next few years replace their typical family and snapshot devices by digital cameras.

The specialist films, like black&white and slide films will likely be around for a longer time. These products are niche products by nature, they are produced in relatively small amounts (I guess that sales of all b&w and slide films together is less then 5% of the market). They also have a fairly loyal group of customers. I mean, most of you would likely never give up Tri-X of Velvia, even if the price would double.

In a few years there will probably be a Photoshop plugin filter that will mimic the famous 'Leica glow'. You won't need Leica lenses anymore :-)

It all depends on market factors. As long as there is demand for film, there will be supply. The thing nobody can predict is how large demand for film will be in one year, in five years, etc. And how large film demand will eventually remain after digital iss fully mature.

 

Some generalizations can be made however. Digital is in the growth stage of its product lifecycle. This means enourmous innovation, fast improvement of products, increasing variety, sharply declining price levels. Eventually every market niche will be filled. If there is enough demand and purchasing power, someday some company will make a digital Leica M.

 

Film on the contrary is in the decline phase of its lifecycle. This means that film becomes a cashcow for the big film companies. A cashcow that has to provide the cash for their investements in digital. This means that the will no longer invest in film. There will be no more innovations (maybe that's a good thing, meaning that your beloved tri-x will remain the same forever), no more development of new films. There will be cost-cutting (e.g., the closing of laboratories) and as quantities produced decline, the prices will also rise.

 

The lifecycle thing is just a law of business economics. As long as we are prepared to pay for film, there will be companies that provide film.

Hi Ian

 

Nice camera-lens combination. Most of the picture you can take with the 50. Yet I suspect that sooner or later you will a moderate wide-angle and a moderate telphoto lens. If you're short of cash, you could think of Yashica lenses. They're the same bayonet as the Zeiss/Contax lenses, and a lot cheaper. Will you see the difference? Depends on you technique. If you handhold the camera at longer shutter speeds, probably not. If you use aperture smaller than 5.6, also probably not.

Hi Lucien

 

I was talking about the second genereation tele-elmarit, the thin one, made fron 1974 until 1988. I had one once. It's really small and light (but of course I was always a stop shot, hence the trade-in for a summicron).

Zora,

 

Any enlarger will be OK, as long as it's stable. I know that the Durst models are modular, so wil allow yout to have both a diffusor (for color) as well as a condensor head. The're so cheap at the moment you can easily afford both.

Don't underestimate the difference in dust problems between the condensor and the diffusor types. While clarity and sharpness of the condensor type are somewhat better, you will spend hours and hours retouching your prints. It's a typical trade-off. Best is to have both options.

Hm. I don't know about the filter. My lenses alway get dirty, so last May I decided to put a (not so cheap) B+W filter on my summicron. I shot 3 rolls in a particular light situation and ended up with pictures showing a severe amount of flare. The filter is in the closet again. I'll just carefully clean the lens in the future.

Albert,

 

Nice report! I agree with Alex that some of the photographs of the biker women are quite special. It could be a theme of its own. I would try and work that out further if I were you.

Steve,

 

Just out of curiosity, do you know of any lens testers out on the internet or with magazines who test a representative sample of one and the same lens type?

Hm. If you want to buy it, buy it of course. Keep Leica in business!

For me it wouldn't work. Take a picture and ten seconds later you realize you didn't extent the barrel - oops.

Also I think it's completely superfluous. You want light and small? Buy a second generation tele-elmarit at a fraction of the price. Will you really see the difference in your pictures?

You want close-up? Buy a Visoflex and an old elmarit head. Again at a fraction of the cost. Or buy a Leica R3, a old Elmarit-R and some extension rings.

Besides, did you really want an f4 lens? Even with my summicron at f2 I'm always short of ligth.

Hello Travis,

 

Beats me. Although I hear lots of people complaining about loading Leicas, I never had any problem with it. Actually, I think loading film through the bottom is much simpler and more intuitive than in most other cameras with swing-backs.

 

That is, until that color film in May this year. And it was a semi-commercial assignment on top of it. Luckily the b&w film I shot before the color came out beautifully.

The dimensions of 35 mm film are derived from the classical (Greek) idea of pleasing composition. In the smaller formats in the beginning of the 20th century I think there was either the 6*6 (square, ratio 1:1) or the 6*9 (rectangle, 2:3 ratio), reflecting this calssical idea. When Barnack conceived the Leica, it was natural to select the 2:3 ratio as the image format. As the short side is fixed at 24 mm by the width of the film and the perforations, the long side had to be 36 mm.

 

I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that the later rollfilm formats that do not obey this 2:3 ratio, e.g. 4,5*6 and 6*7, were conceived to better fit standard American and European photo paper sizes. If you print 35 mm on 'Letter' or on 'A4' you always have paper left at the side. If you print 4,5*6 of 6*7, the fit is much better.

Thank you all for the kind welcome!

One more reason perhaps: it's durable. As we're living more and more in a throw-away society, I like things that last. "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." The couch I'm sitting on is over 35 years old. It's still beautiful and I will have it re-covered soon. The same with a Leica. When it's broke, you don't throw it away but you have it repaired. And it this way you can preserve it practically forever. And you can be sure that Leica won't change the bayonet mount of the lensen, instantly obsoleting your camera. With an adapter you can even use lenses from the 1930's on it.

 

Compare that to other camera makers. They will change lens mounts and all kinds of other systems regularly, obsoleting your existing gear. At one time I had program cards for a Minolta autofocus camera. Useless now. Does anyone still have an APS camera? Throw it away, it will be a paperweight in a few years, if not already. With digital it's even worse. If you buy digital, write it off in 2 or 3 years, then dump it and don't look back.

 

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, it's just that I don't like it. There are only a few camera makers that do not participate in this circus, and Leica is one of them (at least with the M's).

 

NB: the above is of course just gear talk, it has little if anything to do with the quality of your photographs

After lurking on this forum for a few months, I feel I'd like to

participate. Let me therefore introduce myself. I'm a 32 year old

university teacher/researcher in the Netherlands. I've been taking

photographs for 15 years now, and I first becam intoxicated by the

Leica virus in 1993 through the writings of Erwin Puts in the Dutch

periodical 'Camera Magazine'.

 

Why Leica? Well, two reasons I guess. First, I like to be completely

responsible for my own pictures. The Leica accomodates this

perfectly because 1) it has complete manual control and 2) it has

the highest quality mechanics and optics. Therefore, if my pictures

are lousy, I am to blame and not the camera. Second, I hate camera's

that do 'beep' when you press the button, instead of just taking the

picture.

 

In the past few years I've done almost exlusively black and white

photography. The last time I tried color, I misplaced the film on

the take-up spool (first time in 9 years of using Leicas), so I

ended up with no photograhs at all. I take that as a sign of not

trying color again.

 

For years, I've been a member of a photography club, but I hardly

have time to go there. I hope to find a sustitute on this forum for

talking about gear and photography.<div></div>