eliot_rosen

Does anyone know if there will still be Leica days. That would be a way of saving several hundred dollars.

?Does everyone feel some deeply felt need to constantly express their viewpoint on these cameras? I certainly don't care what your personal relationship is to your camera, that's just too much information. I'd just rather see pictures.?

 

Yes, I believe everyone feels that way. I know I do. After all, this is the Leica Photography Forum. My Leicas are my friends. I prefer to fondle them and talk about their virtues, but not use them. Because using them might cause scratched and dings; and the oils from my finger tips would play havoc with the fine finish on the cameras and lenses. If I wanted to post and look at pictures, I would go to the Street and Documentary Forum, where all of the cool guys (you know, the ?in? crowd) hang out. And if I wanted to take pictures, I would use a Canon or Nikon autofocus SLR or digital camera because they are much more practical than Leicas and all of the pros use them. I'm just one of the many dwebes who likes to babble on incoherently about unimportant equipment issues and Leica history. I hope that clarifies the issue for you.

I never log out from pnet, I just go to another site ad lib. I have never had any problems. In fact, I have never been to a website where I had to actually logout to go onto another website. The only thing that happens is that after a period of time, you time out and when you go back to the site you have to login again.

Wide angle zooms have been getting wider and wider in their focal length range. Staring at 20-35 mm, they have gone to 17-35, 16-35, and 17-40. That doesn't mean there has been a commensurate improvement in the optics. In some cases the wider range zooms are not as good as older lenses with narrower ranges. You pay a price for convenience. I would bet that the original Canon 20-35/2.8 is the best of that lot and the 20-35/3.5-4.5 non-L lens is probably better.

"There is also the mental condition known as DDD or Disorder Defecit Disorder. That terrible feeling of disbelief when you realize that nothing is wrong with you."

 

However, the paradox is that when you realize there is nothing wrong with you, that's the first sign that there is something wrong with you. Thus, it is only the people who have not yet recognized that there is nothing wrong with them that suffer from DDD. On the other hand, maybe they are just being hypochondriacs, which means that there really is something wrong with them (ie., they suffer from hypochondria). Wait, I need to think about this more...

Eugene, your somewhat confusing and meandering first paragraph doesn't address the really serious issues of intolerance for differing (namely conservative) opinions on college campuses. This by people who profess to be all about intellectual freedom and diversity, as long as they don't stray too far from their own dogma. In fact, your response is a very good example of the art of obfuscation. You'd rather hide what goes on, sweep in under the rug, and quibble about the significance of the word mafia. Well I used the word that best conveys my meaning. These people do represent a mafia, just not one that kills people, one that kills ideas. And stray too far from their code of behavior, and you will be on their "hit list", ie., list of students that will receive a low or failing grade, list of junior faculty who will not become senior faculty, list of applicants who will not receive a faculty appointment and the like.

 

Try for once gibving a straight answer without the psychobabble.

Should have titled this thread "Look how dim the question writer is".

Doris, there's an old saying "if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, come on the Leica Photography Forum and bash Leica." Your sarcastic "humor" isn't even funny, it's just sophomoric. Try it on a college or high school campus, though I'm not sure anyone with any amount of maturity would find it amusing.

Of course it is correct that the quality of construction is greater on the M2 and M3 than on any of the recent cameras, any Leica repair person will tell you that. On the other hand, I have an M7 and I don;t think it will become unuseable any time soon. It may even outlast film. The same is also true of every other camera manufacturer. Cameras from the 1960s were in fact built better than todays cameras. Its a fact of life. We live in a throw away society for most goods. Most manufacturers don't build there products to last 10 years, let alone 40-50.

Well I don't know about that Sheldon, I wonder what there books would look like if they only considered Leica M sales and not R etc. which has been a losing proposition financially for a long time. Sales of the M7 and MP have been pretty good.

Robert the huge second hand market is a tribute to how well made Leica products are, that 50 year old cameras are still in use and the forward and backward compatibility is so great (not perfect, but better than any other camera maker). Nothing you can do about that except make cheaper products that need to be replaced more often. :-)

Patrick, have you ever thought about the possibility that there ARE some people out there who want a 75/2 APO lens (we have had several threads about exactly this lens). I can see that if they made something that you want (like the cheap M body), other people who wanted something else might complain. BTW, there are cheaper M bodies available from Konica and Cosina. Not happy with those? How about the new ZI, less expensive than an M7. I don't see any need for Leica to compete in markets it can't possibly win.

How about we're a tiny company without the resources of Cosina and with much higher labor costs that needs to somehow recoup the design costs for a lens that is not made for the mass market and will not sell in large numbers. The C/V lens does not have a floating element nor does it use rare glasses, nor is it as well made, nor is it even F/2. Yes, there are people willing to pay more money for a better product, hard though it is to believe.

I think the one that Raid has is the SBLOO 35 mm brightline finder, which is a beautifully made chrome finder that is a pleasure to look through. The Weisu was (I believe) the earliest individual 35 mm finder (not including the torpedo multifinders that had a frame for 35 mm. The came in chrome or black paint with the flared front (as in the picture above) or without the flare. There was an even rarer 50 mm finder of similar type (I forget the code name) that I believe was made for the Leitz single shot device.

 

The rare Leica finders, believe it or not, can reach prices of $ 1500 or more. The SBLOO is not in that league but can bring $ 350 to 500 depending upon condition.

Bruno, you're right, it does say that. But how much could the packaging weigh? I did notice that it has a floating element (pair) for close up performance/ Once Leica developed the technique to do this in a limited amount of space (as in the 50/1.4 ASPH M), they will use the same technique on other lenses. Just like the ASPH technology to make reliable aspherical surfaces without had grinding and polishing, which started with the 35/1.4 ASPH-M.

Not bad for a company that so many people say is gone and buried. Michael, the announcement says 2200 Euros not 1777, but I hope you are right about that. The only downer is that at 595 gm, the lens is as heavy as the 75/1.4 Summilux.

I looked at the competition pictures before looking at the winners and I have to say that except for one pic, those weren't the ones I would have chosen. But my eye is unschooled. BTW, what exactly does "juried" competition mean?

The pancake bunny was mildly amusing the first time it was posted but now that it has been posted dozens of times it is just plain stupid. Come to think of it, it was stupid the first time it was used. Enough is enough. Have you heard the saying "equus moribundum flagellatum et interum"? It means to beat a dead into the ground and bury it".

Robert, we could debate about where the responsibility of the writer to write something comprehensible ends and the responsibility of the reader to make an effort to understand the meaning of the writer's words begins. But this example is plainly and example of poor writing. It is simply pretentious unelegant babble. I like good prose, but this is just not it. I had less trouble understanding the categorical imperative. I can't comment on continental philosophers with knowing exactly who you mean, but to me there is a difference between writing in a flowery elegant fashion to make an interesting and comprehensible point and that kind of obfuscation (a good word to describe the passage in question).

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

--C. Little

Marc it is psychobabble and it's still just as prevalent today as it was in 1975. This is what passes for scholarship in academia. It is the duty of the author to communicate in clear and unambiguous language what he or she is trying to say. That is [usually] what expository writing is all about. On the other hand, some people use this kind of writing precisely so that noone outside of a small group of the "cogniscenti" can understand it. If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly.

"More importantly, spatial compression is a possibility peculiarly inherent in photography, where such junctures can happen accidentally. Friedlander characteristically locates the issue in the domain of control, which he equates with insisted-on consciousness."

 

Doesn't anyone know how to write in clear understandable English rather than psychobabble any more?

The resolution of the RD-1 is sufficient for me. To me the killer is that 1.6 X multiplier, because it makes the focal lengths too different for my taste. Otherwise, it looks like a nice little machine.

Bill, please don't tell me I said something that I didn't say and then call it ridiculous and argue against it.

 

Of course the USA Passport is optional. It is called gray market and you can by a new in box item and save hundreds, which is fine with me. You can also save by buying with a dealer supplied warranty. Don't tell it is mandatory, I have bought a number of Leica items that way. What I expressed was my opinion regarding these Zeiss items in response to the original subject "Anyone interested in the New Carl Zeiss Ikon?" My post said nothing about the value of competition, it addresses the value of ZI offerings. CV and Konica are different because they DO offer substantial savings and some items that Leica doesn't (12/5.6, 15/4.5, 35/1.2 for CV).

 

As far as that estimate of ZI lenses being about 2/3 of the price of Leica's, that was a figure provided by Zeiss, not by me.

 

Now, how about a little reality check.

 

Here is a list of prices for ZI (new) and Leica lenses (new with USA passport) from Sam Shoshan's classicconnection.com website:

 

ZI 21/2.8 $ 1307 + lenshood (127) = 1434

 

ZI 25/2.8 1152 + lenshood (127) = 1279

 

ZI 28/2.8 1042 + lenshood (127) = 1169

 

ZI 35/2 1042 + lenshood (127) = 1169

 

ZI 50/2 824 + lenshood (127) = 951

 

ZI 85/2 (there is NO NEED to leave this one out) 2759 + lenshood (127) = 2886

 

(Did you forget to add the cost of the lenshood, which Leica provides but ZI doesn't)

 

Now lets look at Leica's with USA Passport

 

21/2.8 ASPH 2195

 

24/2.8 ASPH 2195

 

28/2.8 (not available new)

 

35/2 ASPH 1695

 

50/2 1195

 

90/2 2095

 

What about those percentages now:

 

21 mm lens ZI is 65% of Leica

 

24-25 mm lens 58%

 

28 mm (comparison not possible)

 

35 mm 69%

 

50 mm 80%

 

85 mm ZI price is 138% of Leica's price.

 

Now let's average those percentage values:

The average percentage is ... dadada 82%

If we exclude the 85/2 (and there is really no reason to do this), the average is...dadada 68% (for the mathematically challenged 2/3 is 67%)

 

BUT WAIT, we're not done here,

 

The ZI finders are 21 mm $ 491 and 25/28 $ 491

The Leica 21/24/28 finder is $ 429 (429 is less than 491)

 

BUT WAIT, with the Leica lenses, you get a PASSPORT warranty which is an insurance policy. With ZI lenses what kind of warranty do you get?

 

By the way, you DO sound like a shill for Zeiss.

Tongue firmly in cheek, Eliot? LOL

 

No way. Bill, you sound like a shill for Zeiss. Two lenses (15/2.8 and 85/2) are off the wall expensive, the others will be about 2/3 of the price of the corresponding items from Leica. When you factor out the USA Passport (which adds hundreds of dollars to the USA price) the difference is even smaller, unless Zeiss offers the same insurance policy). And Leica lenses are now available used (nibt) at lower prices. I expect the Zeiss products will not be available used for some time.

 

You must realize there is nothing innovative or novel about the new Zeiss offerings. It must be apparent to anyone that Zeiss was merely trying to fill a price niche (ie., lower than Leica but higher than Cosina) in the rangefinder market. Zeiss Ikon is a long dead name that they revived solely for the purpose of adding cachet to this product, rather than letting the quality of the product speak for itself.