really__

I think Leica might go bankrupt because their customers are a bunch of cheap wankers

who spend all day yakking on the internet instead of using their cameras.

There is a demand for Leica quality lenses, especially in the wide primes, from

professionals using cameras like the Canon 1Ds2 (visit Robb Galbraith's forum). Many of

these folks are jerry-rigging adapters to use Contax and Leica primes on their Canons. If

Leica made Canon mount SLR lenses, they would find a ready market of a few thousand

pros willing to spend $2500 on a good lens. It's probably at least as large or larger than

the current market for R lenses.

However, lenses are a profit center for the SLR makers. I doubt Canon would readily accept

a competitor on the high end, against its expensive L lenses. They can handle competition

from Tamron, Sigma, etc on the low end, but allowing Leica glass into their market would

erode their sales.

Downsize everybody but Werner and Klaus, and set them up in a beautiful workshop. Have

them repair existing Leicas until the parts run out; and sell even more expensive ala-carte

editions. Milk the brand by licensing its name only to Panasonic's digital lenses. But don't

dilute it any further. Drop the digitals, compacts, and SLRs once the inventory is depleted.

In other words, obtain maximum profit with the least overhead. Leica's sweet spot is

having a handful of German perfectionists making the best 35mm cameras in the world.

Most of these other suggestions are only wistful thinking...

Who will be their prince charming this time?

You all could PayPal me $100 each and together we could buy a Hermes. Then we could

pass it around, each of us getting to use it for 3-4 days per year...

My friend from Kodak, who's at the PMA show that just opened today, said that Leica failed

to show up and set up their booth. The footprint is clearly marked out and labelled - but

no Leica.

Hmm...

They could just shrink into becoming even more of a boutique manufacturer, and offer

repairs and parts for the million plus bodies and lenses still in use. It may not be a big

business, but if they do it right, it could be a excellent and profitable small business (as in

only a handful of employees.)

Simply licensing their designs and brand to Panasonic or some other Asian imaging

company has to be worth a lot. And so what if they do? The transparency of internet

forums like this one makes it easy to determine whether a lens is made in GhuaongZou or

Solms.

I've given up waiting for a true digital Leica. Even if they could produce a good one, they

wouldn't be able to keep up with the fast product cycles and the next cycle would quickly

make their model obsolete. Nikon is finding that out as we speak - Canon is running

circles around them - the new Rebel 350XT just killed the D70 competition, with the pro

bodies already as much as conceeded to Canon.

I've done business with Clay too. He is perfectly reliable and honest. And that's really hard

for a Texan to do.

A late Yashica-Mat is probably a better choice than a funky Rolleicord for the same money.

The build quality and smoothness of winding isn't as nice as a Rollei but there is nothing

at all wrong with them and they have a nice feel.

You pretty much get what you pay for. I think the best "bang for buck' is a 2.8 E2 or E3 -

they are practically an F. Avoid the worthless meters and 120/220 capabilities to save even

more money ($500-$600 for a clean one.) For $150-$200 or so, I'd stick with as nice a

Rolleicord or YashicaMat as possible, as most Rolleiflex would have "issues" at that price.

Rolleis need consistent cleaning and service, they do gum up. You probably need to

budget a CLA into anyone you buy for serious work. Also, be sure to check focus wide

open and close up - it is not uncommon to get back or front focusing over time.

I loved my Rollei 2.8f and used it for the majority of my work for several years. I foolishly

sold it when I had a fit of going "cold turkey" onto digital, and I soon regretted selling it.

All the more so once I decided I was being foolish, and tried to replace my missing Rollei

by purchasing two more. Neither was as good as my earlier one, and I sold those too.

Now it's Leica or 4x5. Which is fine. With the square I was creating too many centered

compositions by default, instead of investigating the possibilities. And also, the 2.8 lens is

pretty borderline slow for a lot of difficult lighting that I encounter. I do miss the tactial

quality of the Rollei, and the delightful bokeh, and I do get tempted to shoot square

photos because they look cool - but I get better low light photos with the Leica, and better

formal photos with the 4x5 - which means the Rollei was a compromise. A really nice

compromise, but why compromise if you don't have to?

The final results are such that the Leica lenses usually produce nice out of focus areas. I

love my Nikon digital, but even their "better" 50/1.4 has a hexangonal aperture, where my

Summilux produces a nicer circular aperture. Not enough of a difference to seperate a

great shot from a mediocre shot, but rounded flare and OOF areas are definitely nicer.

Look at the manual Canon F-1n bodies to compliment the Leica. They are probably even

better built than the Nikons, and the lenses are at least as good. The big plus is the

apertures and focus turn the same way as a Leica...

In addition to foam, they have padded dividers and even an organizer lid. If you are trying

to pack a lot of gear, the dividers might be better - remember, you have to make it easy

for the TSA to paw through your stuff. If everything has to be put back "just so" then it

probably won't be...

As nice as the Leica gear is, I think it is more about what the Leica gear does to the

photographer, than what the Leica gear does to the photograph. Knowing that you have a

beautiful tool used by generations of great artists can provide you added confidence and a

new challenge - you realize that your equipment is not going to be holding you back from

making a great photograph. It all relies on ... you.

What is amazing is how so many people still blame the poor camera for their

shortcomings!

Of course, I don't see how the FM2n would hold you back either. In most

practical situations the choice of a Leica M is really a matter of preference (and budget)

than absolute critical necessity.

As for value, a M6 Classic is the most "bang for your buck" these days. The more

expensive M6 TTL and M7 features are rarely used by most photographers, as the cameras

are so well suited for available light work. If TTL flash is important to your work, a recent

Nikon body (FM-3, F5, F100) has far superior TTL features than anything else on the

market.

He makes Eugene Richards look like a tourist. All those pretty Magnum

photographers couldn't lick his shoes.