nzdavid

<p>2.8/24 Elmarit ASPH -- it's a beauty. Plus 50 Summicron, any kind, or the 35 'cron ASPH. So hard to keep it to two!</p>

<p>Bryan, the good thing is that you can't really go wrong whichever M you choose, so long as you are happy with the rangefinder way of photography. It sounds like you don't want to bother too much using a handheld meter, so the M6, M7, or MP would be your best choices. If you do need a meter, the little Sekonic 308 is compact, accurate, and easy to use. As for lenses, a 35 'cron is a great general purpose lens (especially for travel) but the 50 'cron is also surprisingly versatile and is useful for both portraits and landscapes and a lot in between. Its tighter framing encourages careful composition. Good luck and have fun with your "new" Leica!</p>

<p>Haven't visited for ages, just dropped in, thought I'd post this. Met a great Leica friend through this site, shared many thoughtful posts since Greenspun days, learnt a lot, laughed a lot. Sniping comments are alway out there and always reflect more on the snipers than the snipee. A forum, or any community, is only as good as its members. </p>

<p>I've looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow, it's clouds' illusions I recall. I really don't know clouds at all. Polarizer perhaps?</p>

<p>I've used the Oly 35RC, Leica IIIa, and Leica Ms. My favorite, beyond a doubt, is the M series. The viewfinder is bright and clear, quality of construction is superb, as are the results. Olympus is very nifty and compact but I love the Leica optics. The LTM or "Barnack Leicas" certainly have their charms, and they are very compact. Have you thought of buying a 35mm lens and separate viewfinder by Voigtländer? Quite easy to get the hang of and your IIIf will feel like a whole new camera. </p>

<p>Why does it take a woman to come up with the most practical solution in just one line? I thought men were supposed to be the problem solvers and women were supposed to be the talkers... :-)</p>

<p>There's something liberating about traveling light and taking minimal gear, especially if you value your back and want to walk a little distance from your car. So it's no surprise I would go for the M option. Saying it's no good for landscapes is nonsense. (See "Lens, Light and Landscape," by Brian Bower, for example.) I have heard very good things about the Zeiss lenses, especially the 21, and it's more affordable than Leica.</p>

<p>The filter and hood size for the Olympus 35RC is a slightly unconventional 43.5mm. A stepping up or down ring for that size would be hard to find. I may have some old filters lying round someplace (my first "serious" camera, when I was 12 in 1975.) I'm not sure about the Minolta. </p>

<p>All film Leicas are rewound by cranks. :-)</p>

<p>Because it has a computer attached. Film Ms cost only a third as much. </p>

<p>Why is "gaining market share and being a big player" considered to be the be all and end all -- for any business? Expanding ad infinitum with no checks and balances has not exactly been a successful formula this past year. Why not just be a sustainable business producing a reliable quality product that meets a steady demand?</p>

<p>"There is little place today in a journalists bag for Leica M cameras."<br>

That's a generalization. Film M cameras won't suit news journalists who have to fire stories back instantaneously. But if you are doing feature work, where the deadline is days or weeks away, there is absolutely no reason why you can't use film. Some magazines still use it extensively.</p>

 

<p>I'm going to do a three-day hike in November; I'm taking M6 for reliability, simplicity, battery-free operation if needed, etc. No worries with cold weather, batteries, cards, etc -- though I shall need plenty of film. </p>

<p>I have 18MB Noritsu scans made from transparencies at my local lab, and have found them mostly excellent -- certainly good enough for publication in a book last year. I have thought about DIY scanning but finding time gets to be a problem. Usually, I pick and choose which ones to have scanned later to save on costs, although will have them done at the same time if I am in a rush.<br>

I use a digital compact from time to time but still love slide film; there's nothing to compare. Also, factor in the joy of using a film, Leica -- its simplicity, high quality results, craftsmanship, and robustness, the facto that it just keeps on keeping on. </p>

<p>Another option, a little shorter but with an excellent ballhead, is the Cullmann Mini. </p>

<p>I agree you have to bond with your camera. Some folks can never get the hang of rangefinders. I'm not one of them. I started off with a compact rangefinder, then moved to SLRs and enjoyed them but then moved back to Leica rangefinders which I love. For low light and wide-angle, I find rangefinders are unequivocally better. You can use slower shutter speeds and focusing is more accurate. Of course, for wildlife, sports or macro an SLR is the only option. Yes, lenses cost a bundle but are actually a damn good investment because they will last for decades.<br>

For more, check out the RF v SLR guide at Karen Nakamura's excellent site, www.photoethnography.com. </p>

<p>Velbon Maxi, Slik, Gitzo, or Benro. BTW, the Canon G-10 is not a rangefinder camera; it's an autofocus compact. </p>

<p>Some books on the world's greatest photographers, composition, and technique. </p>

<p>I'd use a separate handheld meter like the Sekonic 308 -- compact, easy to use, and accurate. </p>

<p>Greek market, ISO 100... But a few rolls of 400 may come in handy.</p><div></div>

<p>Greek Church, ISO 100.</p><div></div>

<p>The light is bright where you are going so 100 ISO will be fine. Those lenses will be perfect but the 24 may come in handy. I'd recommend Kodak 100G or the Elite 100 version as a very good all-round film with saturated colors. <br>

This one was taken with a Leica Mini3 and Agfa CT100 (no longer available). Have fun!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I also have a IIIa with the Summar, 1935, which I had overhauled when the shutter went west. A local repairman fixed that and also rebuilt the rangefinder. He was surrounded by old cameras, including some very nice SLRs, but people mostly didn't bother repairing them any more -- they'd prefer to buy a new digital instead. That's a shame. This thread goes to show that anything mechanical <em>can</em> be rebuilt, and Leicas go on and on. Like you, I wonder who used these pre-WWII cameras first time. They must have seen a lot of history. If only they could talk! </p>

<p>Roger, you say "when I was shooting Leicas". No longer? What happened?</p>

<p>You're running a risk whichever you get. But they are both excellent cameras and <em>can</em> be repaired -- unlike most newer cameras which probably are not worth it. You will still need to give it a CLA sometime. But that goes equally for any rangefinder camera. I'd go for the Leica CL because it has been used constantly. If the meter goes, use a handheld -- easy.</p>