jsbc

Vahe:

 

I think I understand how you use an M, but I wonder what a M3 can do which a M6 can't.

 

Btw, for those who says you cannot produce a M3 economically nowadays, maybe we have got the argument wrong... someone has remarked that a M3 + lens is 1/12 the price of a Porsche 356 in the 50's.

 

For 1/12 of the price of a Porsche 911, nowadays you get the M-system with several lenses as well.

 

johnson

vahe:

 

Why would a meter-less Leica appeal to converts and beat C/V products? Esp. if it costs more? To show that one is more macho by guessing exposures? I just don't get it."

 

"This all has to do how one uses the camera,...." Vahe's response...

 

Actually, Vahe, I don't doubt that you would like a brand new M3. I suppose others do, and I appreciate the beauty of a M3. Point is, and I should have made clearer, is how it will appeal to NEW converts, ie people who have been using SLRs or digital cameras where everything is executable in the program mode.

 

Point is, for a successful entry level camera, several features are necessary:

1) attractive price-point

2) upgrade path

3) ease of use.

 

Even the CL in its time have the above characteristics.

 

A Bessa-2 is a much better entrylevel machine than an M3 which is not significantly cheaper than a M7.

 

Johnson

Emerson:

 

D60 is one of those cameras where you don't have to be obsessed about battery power.

 

I think it would big more sense (on my D30 at least) to set the camera so that it displays the photo for 2 sec upon capturing, with the histogram. You can also turn the screen off by pressing the shutter anytime.

 

It would be natural to check the screen if you are using flash to ensure there are not blown out highlights which is a big problem with digitals.

 

Johnson

The only thing to watch for, according to archives (I actually use both so I don't want my personal judgement to interfere with your decision):

 

1) If your M7 has a larger mag vf, then it is superior in focusing.

Even if you have a 0.58, you can still add the 1.25 mag

 

2) M7 gives you readout (I think) for longer exposure time

 

3) working with shallow DoF, the so-call Konica back-to-flange problem may emerge

 

4) Hexar rangerfinder usually have a vertical misalignment which compounds the difficulty of focusing.

 

To me, only the first point is important.

 

Johnson

That's funny. I would always read something before passing judgement. Esp if it is from someone intelligent.

 

I am always interested in what NON-photographers think and view about photography. After all they are often the subject of the photos. And Non-photographers, depending on their point of view, may well have a wider perspective than the guy who is standing behind the viewfinder.

 

Afterall, if photographers rule the earth, then we won't need no stinkin' model releases. Thankfully, other values are at work in society.

 

I don't think such writings would aid my composition. But that is not the point. Maybe I'm too old to learn. My photos haven't improved after I read Zen and the Art of the Archery.

 

Johnson

Why would a meter-less Leica appeal to converts and beat C/V products?

 

Esp. if it costs more? To show that one is more macho by guessing exposures? I just don't get it.

 

Why would a M6 whose electrical system is out unusable vahe? M7 yes, but M6 is A MECHANICAL camera. By the way, is anyone championing the introduction of 35mm NON_ASPH lens again?

 

After reading these posts, I realize why Leica thought there would be a market for Leica "0". After all, it iha even more Leica heritage than the M's which in someway copies feature fo the Contax. Let's just hope Leica and its dealers and distributors do not lose out a lot of money to appeal to some enthusaists.

 

As a Leicaphile, I'm just happy with my III's. Even a M-camera seems a dilution of the original barnack concept. But the business analyst side of me just cannot help but object.

 

Johnson

OK, if I plan well, then my standard gear includes:

2 M's and a Tri-Elmar, a 35F1.4, a 21mm and a 90mm.

 

Usually I would use a 0.58x M to mount the Tri-Elmar, and then, depending on the type of shooting, with a 90mm or a 21mm mount on the 0.85x. That way I will pretty much have all the focal lengths covered. The two lens that I'm not using goes into a waist pouch.

 

When it gets dark, I'll replace the Tri-Elmar with a 35 Summilux.

 

Johnson

The cake-camera looks a bit oblong to and some folks argue that the additional 2mm height of the M6 TTL completely ruins the classical lines. Imagine how flat the cake would have look like had the couple opt for the classic M3...

Get a clip-on meter and let her use the M4. That way you can use it too. Plus she will be carrying a backup camera with you. Minimal investment and if she doesn't like it, you can still use other strategies. (and if you are wise, use color neg film on her camera, and b&w/slide on yours).

 

Carrying an EOS means carrying a separate system with lenses etc.

I'm kinda interested in the 80 F2.8 as an alternative to a 75 F1.4, but hey, these will be great for the LTMs.

 

As for the 40F2.8, i haven't used the Rollei 35's, but I find the 40mm Summicron/Rokkor to be good, but not great lenses, esp you compared this to the latest summicrons. The flaw though, could be lens coating, not the optical design. However, I really like the tonal rendition of the 40mm F2.4 Summarit in the Minilux.

 

Come to think about this, is it possible for Leica to produce the 40mm F2.4 in the L-mount, at a very low price? This will definitely compete with the Rollei offering, at the same time, give something state-of-the-art back to the loyal LTM fans without jeopardizing the existing M-sales.

 

I think the LTM scene is very different from that of 4 years ago when Leica introduced the LTM summicrons and luxes. First, the user base is much much larger, thanks to the promotion by C/V, Konica and now Rollei, which produces reasonably priced, metered LTM-compatible cameras. There are even some users which have LTM mount only cameras. Second, even these LTM Summicrons are now selling at a huge premium to the M-mount versions. Third, there are now cheap finders (courtesy of C/V) and even new cameras with built in 40 frame-lines (the Rollei RF). Fourth, a reasonably priced 40 LTM could be an effective substitute to compete against all the 35mm Classics, Pancakes and Ultrons, while Leica can maintain the 35mm Summicron as a higher-priced alternative.

 

Johnson

Come to think about this, is it possible to custom fit the 40mm F2.4 from the Minilux to the L-mount?

 

Johnson

My first Leica was purchased at the height of the stock market in 1Q2000.

I'm now 36.

 

Johnson

Thanks dexter for the info and Muhammad for the attempt at translation.

 

I think this lens could be interesting due to the size etc

And the translation, though not prize-winning prose, at least informed me that the lens is quite decent.

 

Still intrigued though - where can we learn more about this lens.

The lenses are apparently screwmount - which means you can use them with the Leica LTMs.

 

For the 40mm 2.8, you can also use a 35mm adapter to ensure the 35mm frameline comes up.

 

I am disappointed that this is a F2.8 lens rather than a F2!

Sorry Victor, wrong equation. This is purely because we are concerned over the ratio of aperture so only multiplication and divison, no addition or subtraction.

A F1.4 lens is twice as fast as a F2 lens because it allows twice as much light to pass through the aperture (ie 1 EV more).

 

In terms of equation, the area of the aperture hole of a F1.4 lens is twice that of a F2 lens, ie for a 50mm lens, the aperture of a Summilux is 50/1.4 or 35.7cm whilst that of a summicron is 25cm.

 

Hence the area of aperture of a summilux is 3.14* (35.7)^2 while that of a summicron it is 3.14*(24)^2. So the ratio of their area is 2:1.

 

The ratio of the aperture area of a summilux to a Summarit is 1.15:1. Hence a true Summilux is 15% faster than a Summarit because it transmit 15% more light.

 

Actually one should take logs to get the answer but I think the example is more illustrative than equations.

Actually I made a mistake. I have bought two more Leica cameras new - a Minilux and a Leica C1. Somehow, from reading the user reviews on the Internet, the typical Leica profile seems to be more applicable to C1-owners.

OK I'm 36 yrs old and run about 120 rolls a year. Got my first rangefinder, a Canon GIII 26 yrs ago (ie when I was 10) and my first SLR when I was 12. But then I had completely forgotten about photography for 22 yrs. Bought my first Leica 2 yrs ago, which fired my enthusiasm again. Fairly large Leica collection - but many are IIIf's, IIIg's, CL's - so revenue went to EBay sellers and others rather than Solms. The only Leicas that I bought new is a M6 and a M7. But I make my contribution through lenses. They really are something.

 

I'm slightly puzzled by Leica's characterization. People who take <10 rolls a year may not really appreciate the Noctilux, the 75 F1.4, the improvements of 35mm ASPH etc. Most other companies make their money from lens, rather than bodies, so Leica's lens/body sales ratio must be relatively low if they believe the typical user are not photo enthusiasts. They should really spend more ad money on educating these low-intensity users on the special characteristics of the lens as most of Leica's ad to date have been focused on (1) the bodies (2) general brand image. For instance, A gritty B&W tell them the 35mm ideal for lwo light photojournalist shots, a shot inside say Sistine Chapel championing the 28mm Summicron as the wide-angle for low light, A Mike Dixon's type photo with a caption saying ("Intimacy achieved by the 75mm Summilux") etc.

 

Then again, last month my father (who's 68) finally gave me the two Leica M's he has been treasuring last 20 years as heirlooms. (He still doesn't know I treat all my cameras as beater/users). Before I got around to using them, I had to carry them through airport security, who insisted checking every camera and the lady in charge was puzzled by the Leicas because they did not have this tiny window to check whether there's film inside. So I non-chalantly took off the bottomplate of a M4-P, and to my chagrin, the camera turned out to be loaded. Later on I got the film developed and it transpired that the photos were taken in 1985!

 

I think my Dad would have fitted Leica's description.

 

Johnson

Ability to use AF-S and G lens?

Now you wouldn't look so silly lugging a tripod around.

 

This is a Godsend to Leica fans! You can now use your lux'es wide open at 1/250s. This is why many people do not mind that the Leica's max shutter speed is only 1/1000s. In most other circumstances, you would have preferred a Leica.

 

In a few hours you will hav to use flash. Think about it. The ability to use high speed sync is cited as one of the reasons to use M7.

The thread has evolved, but I think the new (well, not so new in view of the age of the thread) direction is of no less interest.

 

Logically, I think a machine, any machine, should not generate any emotional response on account of its origin, manufacturer, style etc. I would attach sentimental value to an heirloom because of what it represents to me, ie the emotive value is assigned by the user / owner and does not come from the factory.

 

However, humans are emotive beings. Also we are dealing with a special case here. In this forum at least, the Leica, though inanimate, is nevertheless an object for dedication. Furthermore, as one of the earlier posters noted, a Leica embodies those qualities - efficiency, precision, dependability, high-quality - that one would associate with the German culture, esp from 1900-45.

 

The fact that the Nazi party SEEM to possess some of these aspects (fictitiously I would add. The Nazi apparatus in many ways was crude, cumbersome, bureaucratic and wasteful) is a source of discomfort to the more sensitive users here. Indeed, I am glad that some of my fellow users possess this sense of social responsibility.

 

What disturbs me is the fact that the Leica-collection circle always has this fringe passion for WWII German equipment which goes beyond a normal appreciation for rare and military items (such as the Swedish Three Crowns IIIfs). Even the Zorki's and FED's sell more under a Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine disguise, as a quick check on eB*y will tell you. In some ways, the Leica camera is treated as a Naze memento or paraphernalia.

 

So I was also troubled by Leica's potential role and implication in the Nazi history. Germany was engaged in Second World War, and no German corporation could have avoided participation, but I would make a distinction between (1) active involvement with the Nazi regime and (2) just caught up in the whirlstorm as a German entity.

 

Yes the Leica train story is uplifting for me. As with the fact the HCB was with the Resistance and Capa risked his life to get war photos. I would still have used the Leica because its design represents the best of Germany in the interwar years. (For that matter, I also appreciate a Contax G2, whose high standards of production harks back to the Contax / Zeiss origins even though it is made in Japan.) But I do feel better after knowing that the corporate philosophy of the firm which produced the Leica does not clash with my other values.

 

Johnson

One more vote for a IIIg with M-mount.

 

plus hot-shoe.

plus meter.

plus a 0.58x viewfinder with 28/35/50 framelines - so it will work with a tri-elmar!

 

Then again maybe not. It would completely screw up the classical lines.

 

What about an updated CLE-sized camera (ie something more expensive but better than a Bessa?) Something to compete with Rollei RF?

 

Johnson

Mike:

 

You have probably already known this but a Summitar is a collapsible lens (which may have to be extended for the aperture ring to work - can't remember from memory. I had some trouble operating the aperture of my collapsible summicron when I first got it).

 

Then check to see whether the lens are clear, front elements have any cleaning marks, oil on the aperture blades etc. A working summitar is worth US$100-200.

 

Johnson

"Ever since I bought my N8008 (F801) back in 1989, I have been using mainly the P mode on all my newer Nikons; that includes the F4, F5 and F100. In the P mode, you can still control the aperture/shutter speed combinations just as in the A mode or M mode. Unless you somehow must use the M mode, you won't lose much. "

 

As any photographer should tell you, using Aperture Priority mode and Manual mode are way different from using P model and then shift the shutter speed to get the desired aperture/shutter speed combination. If you don't mind this tremendous hassle of jiggling with the shutter speed teim everytime after you have focused and composed, then why would merely checking whether the aperture dial is at its mimimal once in a long while be a fuss? In addition, the inability to control the aperture will limit your ability to use manual flash etc.

 

This lens will turn your N70 into a point and shoot and not much more (this is not a condemnation of the lens but merely an observation).

 

With Nikon's new policy, the older cameras are simply not compatible with the G-lenses (or at least maintain their full functionalities). Whether you should buy this lens over the F2.8 version depends on (1)budget (2) how you use your camera (do you do incident metering, manual flash, etc) (3) other older Nikon cameras that you may use as a backup now or in the future. ie you cannot use any of these lenses with the FM3A, one of the latest models that Nikon introduced.

 

Some may say that it could be better to save for a F80 to replace the aging N70. Given the things that Nikon is doing (and I don't like it one bit), this may indeed be the sensible solution.

 

However, do not do it if you have any pre-AF lenses. The N80 will not be able to meter with them. The cheapest body that avoids compromises is the F100.

 

Johnson

Igor:

 

Photos are fuzzy but as you found out, it could be a matter with the camera...

 

Anyway, in your second photo, there are 4 very thin black horizontal lines - not sure whether those are very thin wires (which would be in sharp focus!!) or more likely scratch marks coming from your camera. So if you are taking your camera apart please take a look.

 

At least the shutter speed of your camera is reasonable!

 

Johnson

Jim:

 

If only Cosina will come up with a port of their 35mm Ultron to the X-Pan mount! This would be more useful than producing more lenses for the Nikon S mount. It may even help Hasselblad sell more of their bodies! Is there some patent preventing CV from doing this, I wonder?

 

Johnson