bryan_loo

October 19, 2010

Yes I might get myself a good meter too, good as the little Sekonic 308(something like that) is, it's a little bit dinky in feeling for me(got it as a gift and always worried that I would crush it somehow).

And jolly good then. Seems I was worrying a tad too much. Honestly it never worried me when I used to carry point and shoot compacts, though I'd notice the battery dwindle rather quickly if I was out shooting in say Finland during December. But alright then, thanks again for putting my fears to rest!

Though I wonder then how the Zeiss Ikon would survive. Carrying extra batteries is usual for me(I carry batteries with me for all my stuff all the time, from batteries for my flashlight to my camera meters). But would the electronics break from the cold? I hope not.

October 18, 2010

I checked with the local dealer/distributor. For reasons unknown, Leica or their dealers here don't provide loaner M's. I asked what one was supposed to use if he/she sent it for repair, and they said and i quote. Well, wait for it to get back!

But for changing VF magnification, apparently it's possible. For about $1500 and 10 weeks, you can have your magnification swapped out to one of your choice. Everything seems to be possible with Leica, although interestingly enough, when I asked if I could swap the top plate for a brass black paint one(for the M6), I was told that would be impossible because the serial numbers won't tally!

October 18, 2010

Just to clarify. I didn't get 'mixed up' about the magnification. I was just wondering about the process of getting the VF upgraded. If it's just adding a filter, then ok I understand. Changing magnification is probably a process only possible during assembly/construction. But I'll check on the frameline display.

And Stuart, and Colin. Thanks, that does ease some of my worries about batteries seizing up. Like I mentioned, I can't guess the exposure and nail it every single time, so the meters are really important for me. Of course if I go with an electronic camera, there's more to worry about. Although the M4 is meter-less isn't it?

October 17, 2010

Oh also, I forgot to ask another one of my many never-ending questions. I've heard/read people say you can upgrade the M6TTL finder to the MP one. Is it also possible then to upgrade from a 0.72x VF to a 0.85x VF or does that require far more work and is only possible at assembly?

October 17, 2010

I know it's that time of year again, when photo forums get clogged with 'cold weather camera' threads. But I just have a short question. I'm finally getting my Leica M system sometime next week, and this just popped up in my head. Needless to say, I spent a good two hours so far trolling the internet for answers and have gotten some answers but not quite what I need. So once again, I turn to the knowledgeable folk of photo.net.

Because I decided on a Leica MP a la carte, I realised there's no way for the camera to get to me in time for my next trip at the end of this year(28th of Dec to be exact), and while it's not imperative I get it. I'd love to use it while in Korea. At least this is what I've been told by Schmidt marketing(the Leica distributors here in Singapore). 6-8 weeks clearly isn't enough during the holiday season.

Anyway before I digress further, I decided on alternatives. Maybe I'll still get the a la carte, or;

I'll get an MP off the shelf or,

A new Zeiss Ikon or,

A used M6TTL with some MP inspired stylings(ok all the guy did was change the red dot to a black one and have the MP advance lever installed).

The question then is, how would these cameras fare in cold weather? Give or take, -5C(23F) to around -20C(-4F). With the mechanical M6 and MP, it's of course a no-brainer that they'd survive relatively well, but what I'm concerned about is how the meter will fare, since it requires batteries. The Zeiss Ikon is entirely battery-dependent of course. It is imperative that the meter in all the cameras work in the cold(I can't guesstimate), and of course it would be imperative that the Zeiss Ikon continues to function.

October 8, 2010

Hmmm, the Fogg B-sharp does have a handle, although it is a wee bit larger than the Hadley small, but still smaller than the Pro. But like I said, that one is going to take months to arrive, so it's an alternative, but not for me at least for this year.

And is the L2 truly that comfortable? Maybe it had to do with how new the one I tried in the shop was. Because of the thick base, I found it far more rigid than my Hadley Pro. But there isn't much in the way of separate compartments in the L2 is there? As far as I recall, I thought it resembled the Domke F6's form factor quite a bit. But of course, I'm open to suggestion. What do you think of the f/2.8?

October 8, 2010

Hello everyone, this isn't a "I have such and such, will this fit?" nor is it a "XXX brand vs. YYY brand" thread. I tried researching extensively, as I always do before posting but sadly couldn't find any relevant information.

My simple question is, whether there is a bag known to anyone that can be an alternative to the Billingham Hadley small. I already have a Hadley pro, but I find that for my present kit, it's a tad too big, and with all bags with a little too much space left over, I tend to stuff in a little extra than I need. And then it becomes a tad heavy.

Of course there are alternatives, but I am looking specifically for certain things;

1. A handle. Granted the small Hadley has no handle, but after using my pro, I find the handle very useful. And it would be nice if there was an alternative with such a handle.

2. Space for an iPad somewhere in the bag. Whether it's between the insert, or somewhere around.

3. Space for extras, i.e. passport, notebook, pen, flashlight, tickets, maps etc etc(ok so it seems I have to mention what the main is so you can gauge the extras, basically a Leica M with 50/2 and 24/2.8 and about 10 rolls of film).

4. Doesn't look like a box with a strap. Boxes don't ride as nicely with you on your side as slimmer satchels do.

5. Has to be smaller than the Hadley Pro.

Now of course the small Hadley does all this(sans handle), but that's not my question. Do you know an alternative to it? I want something that looks a bit different from my pro, though I'm not saying it's a bad design.

The alternatives I found were;

Billingham f/2.8 - The issue I had with it was that it didn't pass point number 1 and 4. This is the epitome of box with a strap, a very nice looking box, but far too boxy, heh.

Billingham L2/Alice, or Leica combination - It's a box.

Fogg b-sharp - A wee bit boxy in my opinion, but I quite like it. I might even order it but it'll take quite a few months for it to get to me, and I need a bag before the end of this year.

Stash small DSLR bag(bags made by Mari on etsy.com, that I found out from a mention on some photog forum) - again boxy, don't quite understand what the whole boxy look is about, but I may order it if she is willing to customise it for me the way I want it.

Domke F6 - I have this too, boxy and not too secure on the closure in my opinion.

Domke F803 - I quite like the form factor, except it's as large or only a wee bit smaller than the Hadley Pro.

Crumpler X000000 home - I used to use Crumpler, for my laptop at least. Found it heavier because of the nylon.

And that's about as far as I can remember. Sorry if I come off as a fussy, picky person. But just wanted to know if there are/were alternatives to the Hadley small that I may have missed or if my particular fussiness and preferences only allow for the Hadley. Thanks!

October 4, 2010

I want black paint simply because it's sexy as hell, and wears wonderfully, unlike it's black chrome counterpart. Whether chrome or black paint further encourages the 'dinky camera look', I don't know. But with regards to the lens matching, I think that's the least important of my 'fashion goals'. Them not looking like they were made for one another further enforces the belief that's it's a 'dinky camera' in my honest opinion. Wouldn't you agree David?

October 3, 2010

I'm not sure to be honest. I do think the lizard/gecko skin is awful nice, just that it also looks awfully expensive(not with regards to it's actual cost, but rather that it 'looks expensive to everyone'). I was thinking more of the vulcanite. But I wish Leica had better pictures in it's configurator, to think people are going to spend quite a tidy bit, and they stuck with flat lifeless images. Like with the 'saddle leather black', how or what does it actually look like? Black vinyl?

October 3, 2010

--I had a look at Bryan's favourite pic which happens to be a heavily bound young S&M practitioner and while looking at the exif files noticed it was shot with a D700. I seem to remember in an earlier post that Bryan had a bag full of Nikon equipment on his way to India (An S&M meet? I don't know) and it occurred to me that those lenses he has (or is it had) would all work wonderfully on a full frame digital Nikon, especially for fairly static stuff like S&M where movement of one's subject is very very restricted and that there is plenty of time for manual focus, just like you would get on a Leica. Just a thought although it may not be as useful as a Leica at a World Youth Day bash.--

Perhaps you may not believe me, but it surprised me as much as it did you with regards to the S&M favourite. I honestly had no idea what you were going on about, and was perhaps a little miffed with what you assumed to be an S&M meet. I mean, good god man! Anyway, whether by accident or mistake, it's not a favourite any longer. I did remember browsing the image and thinking it was a little over the top. But I most certainly did not remember making it a bookmark or anything like that.

Also, I've sold off all of my Nikon equipment.

October 1, 2010

Thanks David,

My travels will not likely take me to Europe any time soon. I've been to Europe multiple times in the past, but alas my photography then was kind of of the point and shoot variation. I just came back earlier this year from having spent 4 months in Europe. So I believe it will be a while before I want to travel there again. Although several people have asked if I will go for WYD in Barcelona.

After calculation from what people have been saying is a reputable dealer in Hong Kong. The differences between a Leica MP a la carte, and a ZM 50/2 Planar and ZM 25/2.8 Biogon bought from Singapore and one from Hong Kong is quite a hefty USD$1700. Even if you would factor in my air ticket, considering there are multiple brands of budget flight operating over here to get to Hong Kong, the cost savings would still be a big USD$1400.

About the M7 film rewind crank though, a lot of people have been telling me this, but then the question about hard knocks arises and the camera being rendered kaputt. I would follow yours and nearly everyone else's advice but if I want this camera to last long, one way of keeping it out of the repair shop is by having the old style rewind knob. Plus I like it aesthetically. :) But thank you all the same!

And lastly, in my honest opinion. I feel that digital has already surpassed 35mm film. At least for me, the point was crossed a long time ago. Few if any professionals based either at the wedding hall/church or the studio use 35mm film over their DSLR workhorses. For 35mm film to be a viable alternative right now, is when a professional of the trade consciously chooses to shoot film over digital for more than 90% of his current workload. Medium format or large format however, continues to be unsurpassed. This is at least my take on it.

October 1, 2010

First of all,

I'd like to thank both of you for the very good debate regarding lenses. But perhaps, I may be the cause of some of the frustration? I'm not quite certain if that word is apt to describe what's been happening. I apologise too that I didn't reply sooner, have been swamped with deadlines to meet. And I believe I wasn't all too clear what my actual intention for this thread was. I did toy with the idea initially to buy the Leica M9, however, it was just an idea. What I meant to ask in this thread goes as follows;

1. Given that digital has certain convenient advantages over film(no one can deny this I am certain) with regards to ISO, instant feedback and a more streamlined process of getting pictures from the camera to the monitor versus film. My main concern was with the ability to switch ISO as and when I wanted. Would it then be more economical to shoot the M9 with Summicron lenses instead of Summilux lenses given how speed is very much an important factor in film photography.

2. Even though I was willing to buy an M9, I never really settled into the idea. Mainly of how I love the whole film process. From darkroom, to my enlarger, perhaps my scanner and finally up on my wall plus, I've never ever seen digital replicate film grain quite like the actual thing. I will make it clear now, that I have no intention of buying the M9, I should have said this sooner, and I apologise. My choices now are down to the MP or the Zeiss Ikon. I stand by what I said before, I will not buy a used M6 or whatever other camera. Yes, economically, a used camera would make more sense, but this is perhaps what I referred to as my inane need.

3. The reason, I must elaborate on this I believe. Why it is that I'm hellbent on buying a new camera body is because I probably will never sell it. Depreciation and appreciation are of no concern to me. I want to buy one film body that will or I hope it will, outlast me. Barring theft or a natural disaster, it will probably always be with me. For that reason alone, I guess you could say that I want a new camera that I can call mine and mine alone for as long as I live. Perhaps a tad dramatic, but that's all there is to it.

4. As with the lenses. I will probably never sell them. Perhaps only if an update comes around for the lenses that renders my old lenses completely obsolete and if some wacky collector wants my old ones, then maybe I'd sell them for the newer ones. But since I started this thread, I've more or less learned that unlike DSLR lenses, M-mount lenses all have a unique signature to them and it isn't just the f-number that's important. Perhaps this holds true for DSLR or SLR lenses as well, but so far I haven't seen anyone talk about their lenses in quite the same fashion as I've read here. Lens depreciation or appreciation again, is hardly paramount.

5. And I find all statements about how this debate being ridiculous, a whole load of hogwash. Regardless of how much I am willing to spend, if there's savings to be had, I want them. No company would choose the more expensive business contract over the more economical one(take ethical choices and all that out of the picture) even though they deal in the hundreds of millions if not the billions.

6. Finally, Nomad was right in saying that I do have a nice pile of cash to spend on camera gear. Without going into too much detail(I'm not big on bragging), I can afford to buy both a 35mm system and a medium format kit. However it is not bottomless, if it was, and if I was the Sultan of Brunei. We wouldn't be having this conversation. And I am still wondering if I should buy a medium format camera at all. I will be a teacher in the future, so I might not run into such money again. Heh.

And then it brings me to what I've found out. After scouring the internet for every possible argument, review, counter-argument and analysis of the lenses discussed here. Including looking at samples on flickr as well as my local forums. One thing that is important to me regarding lenses is how well it can separate the subject from the fore/background. Bokeh rendering while a factor is less important than how a lens can render a subject in 3D or faux 3D. This at least is what I want to see in my pictures, and although my Spotmatic with it's Takumar lenses can do this well on occasion, mirror slap is really quite the problem. So without being too longwinded, despite the many admirers of the 50 Summicron, regardless of vintage, I just cannot bring myself to love what it creates. I am not saying that I am an experienced reviewer or anything like that, and I am certain that there are pictures floating around which demonstrate all that I mentioned above. But I have not seen them and thus, I believe I will buy the 50/2 Planar. Along with the 25/2.8 Biogon. I'm leaving the telephoto out for now, I have never seen the need for one, nor have I liked using any of my own.

The only thing still on my mind, which is perhaps a little silly, is whether the build quality is up to spec with the Leica lenses. And I will most probably buy a Leica MP a la carte as well, probably from Hong Kong, as it's a whole lot cheaper than Singapore and plus I have friends there I could visit for a little holiday. Perhaps John or David could share some thoughts on build quality. Thanks!

September 29, 2010

Robert,

Thanks for your input! Mighty appreciate an opinion. While I wouldn't discount it entirely, I feel the 28 doesn't quite cut wide angle, but the 24 is ideal for me. The 21/20 is slightly more specialised already in my opinion. But we'll see.

And Mr. S,

While I don't want to bring $8000 worth of equipment to a place like India. That was just a statement about wanting the extra stop, although I doubt people would look twice at an MP without it's engravings, people who know Leica know it. But people who don't would think it's even more an old dinky camera like my Spotmatic was(and that Spotty is in pristine condition). I am also aware that the FL does effectively negate the gain in one stop of speed but then it would seem only normal that I buy a lens that equals the old one at least in speed no? This was why I toyed with the idea of a Noctilux for a while. And why I originally wanted to get the 35 'lux, since it's one of the faster 35's still made today(the only one faster is the Nokton 35/1.2 right?).

This is also a reason why I'm hesistant in considering the 50/2 lenses. Regardless of Zeiss or Leica. Because of the FL, they equate a 35/2.8 don't they? And this is terribly slow in my opinion, but perhaps I need to work on steadying my hands more instead of worrying about lens speeds. Speed is also one factor for me since I shoot film, and I've mentioned this countless times. I can't just "bump up" my ISO in the evenings.

Mr. Yang,

Yes, I agree, I'd only ever take 2 lenses with me on any given trip. 3 if I was going for a long long time, but then again that doesn't quite make sense since I'd have to carry them for a long long time. But about buying equipment used, as much as it makes financial sense. I could see myself buying used Leica lenses, certain lenses I'm sure I can only buy used anyway(like a black paint 35 'cron). But if I decide to buy ZM lenses, I'll probably buy them new, they're not a whole lot more expensive anyway. For the price of a 50 'lux ASPH, I could probably buy a ZM 50/2 and a ZM 25/2.8 I think.

John,

Thank you again. Indeed, I am considering the ZM lenses a whole lot more now. But I'd have to decide on which speed is preferable before I make a choice. I guess another one of my idiosyncrasies is having to tell myself that if I buy something(in this case, an M-mount lens), I'm buying it because I like it. And not that it's a compromise, for example in the case of the 50 'lux ASPH, where long waiting times and potential VF blockage might make me feel that the 50/2 Planar is a better choice because I don't have to wait and it won't block my VF that much. Hope you understand.

And about the Zeiss Ikon, I considered it before. But decided that if I'm going M-mount, I'm buying a Leica body at least.

September 28, 2010

John,

Thanks for all the information along with samples of your personal choices. Truly, I appreciate it. Anything to help me along the 'lens-choosing-road' is very good for me. I would have sympathised with David a while ago, I was rather hell bent on getting the best Leica glass money could buy. Part of that can be blamed on KRW I guess. I know he has mostly a hit-and-miss reputation on several photo forums. But one thing in particular he mentioned was how one shouldn't cheap out on Leica glass if one was buying a Leica camera. I know it's really my money and choices, but that still got to me I really should admit. I wouldn't say I'm impressionable, but I'll give you another example. Steve Huff is rather highly regarded I'm guessing, and I asked him the question. 50 'lux, 'cron or ZM Planar. And he said 'cron. Without the smidgen of doubt. And I was seriously questioning that, because I hate the way the 'cron, the latest one at least renders. And much prefer either the 'lux or ZM Planar.

But I digress, it's really the "cheap-out" statement by KRW that got to me. But I'm slowly turning that around. And with regards to why it is that I want to invest in Leica-M equipment. Well, there's quite a bit to that. But I'll just make it short. I want a 35mm film camera that is still made today and that I don't have to buy used, it has to be small(this immediately discounts the Nikon F6), it has to be well-built and preferably made of metal and not bits of plastic. And on top of it, it has to travel well. M-mount lenses are significantly smaller than most of their SLR cousins if I'm not mistaken. The thought of buying the M9 was just a thought, of how there could actually be 'savings' to be had, if I didn't shoot film although I absolutely love the look of film, and high grain that I cannot see digital replicating as of yet.

Why I'm hesitant in buying used gear at least in the form of a camera body. Used lenses are fine, but the body, oh I don't know. Call me crazy or unstable. But that's just something I have to buy new. And like I said, I want certain specifications not available off the shelf or even on the used market. Sure, if I wait long enough, a black paint MP without that much wear and a nice .85x VF is bound to come along. But I have no idea how long I have to wait. At least with the a la carte, they give me a date or I can set one.

Nomad,

I understand that advise can only lead you to a choice, but you still have to choose. But that's what I'm trying to do, get views and choose. I will probably buy a used 'lux to try for a couple of months or so. If only because I am still unsure of whether I'll like it. VF blockage is a big factor for me, and although I contend that I will have to put up with it to some degree with most lenses. I just can't quite sit with something that blocks a quarter of the VF. And plus, I have no idea just how long I have to wait on it. Since there's a worldwide shortage now.

And the other thing is, the need for f/1.4. I recently went to India and brought one Spotmatic with one 35/2 SMC Takumar lens. Most of my shots are usable, while others are blurred to an artistic degree if there even is such a thing(in my opinion, they're not all that great). But very often I would shoot at dusk, in a cafe or a restaurant. And very rarely would I get good photos, free of shake. I guess in part that can be blamed on my poor technique, or presence of mirror slap(which is pretty hefty in a camera this old). A lot of times, I wanted that extra stop or needed it one could say. Despite my earlier love of the 35mm POV/FL, I realised that more often than not, I wanted a 50 and a wider 24 or 21. Basically, I found the 35 to be either too wide or too long. Again, the 35's only redeeming factor for me during the trip was being at the ideal FL for environmental portraits.

So I'm back to choosing a set of lenses. A longer FL will come in time I guess. But for now, a 50 and a 24/25 or 21 will suffice.

September 27, 2010

John,

Thanks for the reassurance, and I am considering Zeiss lenses now. I must confess though, I was already considering a Voigtlander, specifically the 21/4. And part of this is perhaps another inane issue I have with choosing lenses. Filter size. In my mind, the reason why the 'lux vs. 'cron issue was so tough, was simply because they use different filter sizes. For example, I was looking at the 'cron, simply because then I could get the VC 21/4 and perhaps a 90mm in the future. And they would all take the same filter size, if I got the 'lux, I'd take either the Leica 24/3.8 or the Biogon 25/2.8.

Yes I know it sounds silly considering I'm willing to spend so much money and yet I care about filter sizes. But because I shoot B/W mostly, I want just one set of filters I could switch around with(i.e. yellow-green, red, ND and graduated ND), I detest the idea of having to carry multiple filters or even splitting up my filters, like orange for the wide and 2 sets of the same ND for two lenses.

Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the 50/2 Planar take 43mm filters? And what are your views then on the 50/1.5 Sonnar?

September 27, 2010

Thanks Arthur,

And yes, I've already scoured Mr. Erwin Puts's website long before I started pondering which Leica and which lens, I just haven't quite figured it out yet.

John,

I actually agree with you, a friend used the Zeiss 50/2 before switching to the 50/1.5. And I loved the look of his pictures far more than those made with a 50 'cron. Of course 'look' depends also on the film, but he used very fine grain B/W film. So the grain was actually rather negligible. The problem I guess I face is with buying a Leica body and using Zeiss lenses. I know it's strictly in my head, but I hope someone can sympathise with me on this.

David,

Thanks for the flickr stuff, although I am just curious how you know Andre Takeda shoots with a ZM 50/2, because he doesn't seem to mention it anywhere. Still, it was an excellent browse through images taken with those lenses. And to be honest, I dislike the 'busy bokeh' of the 50 'cron. And am very hesitant to buy it, if I wasn't dissatisfied. I'd probably not be asking questions now with the 'lux vs 'cron in my heading.

Red,

I do shoot B/W, I do develop at home, and I do buy it in bulk. Thanks for the tip!

Nomad,

Thanks for the civility, you seem somewhat exasperated by my naivety or something like that. I can't blame you though, I do make somewhat silly statements from time to time. You are right in that I have a "best lens for everything or best compromise" running through my head. I can't help it, it's part of my wish to simplify everything. But as for the extra size/weight with the 'lux part. Well, I detest viewfinder blockage, detest with a passion and would rather not have it. I tried a friend's Nocti on an M4, and I wasn't at all happy with it. But in my head, the compromise of being able to shoot in most types of low light, was worth the obstruction. I shoot mainly with 400CN film when I want low grain, and Ilford 3200 rated at 1600 when I want high grain. I'm not asking you now to make a decision for me based on my preferences, but I just want to tell you that.

I guess the question now is, go with what is more aesthetically pleasing to me. Heh, either the Zeiss Ikon with ZM lenses or a Leica a la carte(yes I'm still stubborn, but I'm stubborn because I don't quite have a choice if I want a .58/.85 magnification finder with a black paint MP body).

September 25, 2010

Ok, so after a weekend spent with a fellow photography enthusiast(namely my uncle, who is a lot wealthier than I). I've decided on the MP. But with the risk of the original question going slightly off-topic. I just want to ask this, because for me it seems clear as day in my head, but people here keep going on about how I don't need a 'lux to use film.

Yes the 'lux is larger, heavier and more expensive. But isn't it the best lens(50mm) money can buy? And won't it allow for more shots in low light? Yes an RF can be handheld at slower speeds than an SLR. But if a lens can go to f/1.4, aren't you always capable of a stop faster in speed? And wasn't it the whole philosophy of buying an M-mount camera, that you could use M-mount lenses? Yes no one is stopping me from buying anything. But I really want to know if using a 'cron(smaller size, lesser weight, smaller filters, less VF blockage I'm assuming) is really a better deal over a 1 stop difference in speed. That's my question now and I want your opinion.

Thanks in advance!

September 24, 2010

You know, that actually sounds like a really good idea. Just running stuff by the a la carte configurator with different countries. And for reasons unknown, Singapore is one of the most expensive. I thought of it, and it'd be nice to do it if I were to say be in any of those places. Sure wish I had money when I was in Europe for 4 months last year, but sad to say I didn't.

I'll think about it. Thanks for the suggestion!

September 24, 2010

Steve, you have it utterly mixed up. I explained this already. Those are lenses I consider buying, but some are alternatives. For example, I wanted a 50 'lux. But since that's out of stock, I then thought about having a 50 Nocti, then a 35 'lux, then a 35 'cron, then a 50 'cron.

Of all of them, I'd only buy one. It was just that since everything is out of stock, I brought out every alternative I could think of.

September 23, 2010

Thanks everyone, for the responses. Especially Mr. Hooper and Nomad. You both drive very convincing points of view and I enjoyed reading through them thoroughly. Although I am still undecided, indecisiveness was always a character flaw I suffer from. Indecisive when it comes to buying something.

The only real issue I have with the very good advice on buying both systems. Film and digital, is really how I want to get everything new. New camera, new lenses. It's not about having money so much as wanting the initial experience to have as much novelty and pleasure as possible. I think it's a good idea though, to buy 2 cameras, not that much more expensive. I just can't afford nor justify buying 2 cameras BRAND NEW.

Although this brings another question into play. Does the 50 Summilux block the viewfinder? A friend has the old 35 'lux and that blocks his viewfinder a fair bit. Which to be honest, I'm not very excited about.

September 22, 2010

Robert,

I do have a place where I can physically handle the bodies, but not the lenses. As I've said, my local dealers are flat out of stock on every lens on my checklist(ones that I want to buy, and ones that are alternatives, the Noctilux is an alternative.) That's actually what I was gunning for with this topic, but I regret that I didn't make it clear enough. Would the smaller and slightly slower lenses make for a better buy? Since the whole RF philosophy as I see it is to have small quiet cameras with you everywhere. I recently shot several rolls while in India on an old Spotmatic with a 35/2 lens. It made me realise that more often than not I wanted a wider angle for landscape and a 50 for most things. Environmental portraits were the only redeeming factor for the 35 in my opinion. I know that it's an SLR, but I really craved that extra stop(f/1.4) on most occasions.

And yes, I'm well aware of digital rot. Which really makes me hesitant, if it were not the case, I'd jump on the M9.

Also Mukul, yes I'm in the habit of giving prints to people. As it is, I'm trying to sort through rolls of negatives now to see which to print, and on what type of paper(some probably will be on silver paper) and how many to mail to each person on my list.

I made it clear in a previous thread. But a few reasons I want to buy into the Leica M system is how much I love film especially B/W. And the Leica M is probably the best in that field, for 35mm film at any rate. I want to cut down on the cameras I have and just buy one camera and a lens(though I'll probably throw in a VC 21/4 lens too). The Leica MP fits that bill almost perfectly. If there was an SLR that is built as good and with as fine a selection of lenses, and of course, with nearly the same dimensions. I'd have a harder time choosing.

There are a number of factors of course, some inane and some very real. But I guess what's nagging at me now, is my recent experience in India. Most of the time, especially in the evenings or with bad weather, I wanted to be able to shoot at f/1.4. Whether it was because of the dim light or that I wanted even less DOF than f/2 would allow, it doesn't really matter. This is perhaps the only reason why I even considered the M9. As far as I know, there's no way I can shoot a roll of ISO 400 film at varying ISO speeds as and when I want.

Edit: Wealthy or not, seeking advise always made the most sense. Practical or financial. Thanks.

September 22, 2010

Thanks Stuart, that was the answer I needed.

Isn't the definition of economical somewhat subjective? True, spending 10k on something is never quite economical. But to a homeless person, a meal at macdonald's is probably as non-economical as it gets. But to you and me or the average joe. It's probably cheap.

And I wouldn't call anyone 'cheap'. Again that's your preference. Insane? Please define insane. Anyway, regardless of the answers, thanks.

Edit: Take photographs. Did I mention anywhere that I wanted to show off? I think not. Perhaps you could spend some of that money on reading lessons and stop attacking the person that asked a question. Sheesh.

September 22, 2010

Just a short question, I know I keep posting questions, but recently I've been thinking about my looming purchase in October with my first Leica M. Because I want to buy 'brand new' everything, I can't really ask for something to be more economical over another especially when dealing with a Leica system. However, at first I was thinking of a film M over the M9 because I like film, but also because I never thought I'd be able to afford an M9 and the long waiting times it involved.

And things somewhat changed when I was informed by my local Leica dealer that every lens I wanted was out of stock and that I would have to wait months for them(50 noctilux, 50 and 35 'lux, 35 'cron). The only lens they have, and there's only one left even then. Is the 50 'cron. So regardless of whatever I want, I'd have to wait. So here's my rationale, and I wonder if it's right. Or if people can understand it.

If I were to shoot a film M. I want the fastest lenses I can get my hands on. I would buy a Noctilux except the waiting time is an exceptional 5 months. And I'm not for that since I only want one lens. So I was thinking;

All prices are what it costs in SGD(more sense for me anyway) and converted with xe.com.

Leica MP (a la carte, for no engraving, vulcanite, .58 viewfinder on BP body) - about 6180 USD. My country's a la carte prices are little bit more expensive for some reason.

50mm Summliux - about 3225 USD.

So that total is about 9405 USD.

If I were to shoot a digital M however, I would shoot with Summicrons instead since I could tweak my ISO and although the rendering is a little different. You get my drift.

Leica M9 (according to my local dealer) - about 8300 USD. I know Steve Huff says it's $7k, but after conversions, that's what it is.

50mm Summicron - about 1975 USD.

So that total is 10275 USD.

The difference is like $870, if I'm spending so much already, I could definitely afford to shell out more for the M9. The question is, or the question I'm posing is. Given my views, can I argue that the digital M is more economical in that you could shoot 2000 images and it would cost nothing versus film? Or does it both work out to around the same?

The only real draw of the M9 for me, or a digital M, is how I could use much smaller lenses(i.e. 35 or 50 'cron) instead of larger 'luxes because I could set the ISO to match what I needed and that would translate into a better travelling companion. Of course I've never held or travelled with a film M + 'lux combo, so I don't really know what I'm talking about, but that's just some background for you.

August 14, 2010

Just a small update, it seems the new 35 'lux is in short supply. Which is a major bummer for me even though I won't purchase all of this til' October. The local retailer I often frequent offered to put me on a waiting list, but even they cannot confirm when my turn will come.

And I'm not sure if I want to wait months for a single lens. Might just have to settle for a summicron or even a non-Leica lens. A pity truly.

August 9, 2010

Honestly Tom,

Yes, I want to buy new. As the M7 and the MP are the two only film Leicas still left in production, I don't have much of a choice. Although money is no object, saving money is always a good thing, but based on my criteria regarding the purchase of a Leica. I have no choice, if I want something new, that's what I have to do. I'm not saying the M6 is a bad camera or everyone in the world doesn't know how to take care of their cameras such that every old Leica is scratched and bruised, I'm sure I could find an M6 in all the specifications I wanted without so much as a scuff on the paint job. But I want it new. Brand new.

I'm fine with the tougher to use as well as tougher in durability rewind crank. That's the least of my worries. It's more on the viewfinder magnification(tried a .72x magnification on another person's M9 with a 50mm lens and I couldn't see all of the framelines without moving my eye about).

With regards to the f/2 vs f/1.4 lens issue. Yes, I've debated it over and over again. The Summicron may be smaller, more lightweight, doesn't block the viewfinder and be hell of a fast lens in it's own right. I'd still rather have the heavier, viewfinder blocking, and one stop faster Summilux since I can afford it. Pushing film one stop is not ideal due to excessive grain, but being able to stop down an extra stop without loss of quality is by far a better trade-off in my opinion.

Oh also, I never really said I wanted the 75mm lens, that was what someone else said would make the perfect combo. I personally prefer the 85-105mm focal length(at least when I use my SLRs). But regardless, I do not intend to buy another lens for a good few years after I purchase my MP and Summilux. Even if I do, I'd probably sooner cave to an even wider-angle than a telephoto.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bryan_loo