OT: Anyone own a Leica?

[synthfreek]

I've been drooling over Leica cameras forver and I am intent on adding one to my camera collection. My Canon EX-EE(which I loved but unfortunately there were only 3 lenses ever made for it) bit the dust(actually it bit the conrete) and I'm looking for something to replace it. My main camera is a Nikon FE2 which I love. I can't go more than a grand or so for the camera and at least one good all-around lens. I want something in the M series and I've pretty much narrowed it down to the classic M4. Anyone have any specifics as far as which EXACT M4 models are the best or which serial numbers to steer clear of. Any help would be great.

[Marvel]

Cool! A friend of mine had an M2, and it was just incredible. He had about three lenses with it and silly black and white shot with Tri-X was as sharp ever.

I've always wanted one too, but after I gave up on my more affordable old Spotmatic (from '73), I got a Nikon FM-2. I love it as well. My older son uses the Pentax and still gets great shots with it. You can't get the original batteries for it because they were made with mercury, but I found a thinner one at RS that is workable for it.

Good luck in your quest. Do you have someplace special where you were looking? I know that B&H Photo Video in New York carries a bunch of Leica used stuff, and their prices aren't too bad. I just got a catalog from them this week.

M4-P rated a 9+ is $1399 (body 0nly)

M5 Black sealed in box new $3499

M6 Black Wetzlar (new) $1399

M6 Black Classic $1499

They have a bunch more, even an M2 for $800

Marvel

[davmar]

http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm Check this out, I think it is a good time to buy some of the older quality film cameras, I have a friend who sells Hassabland and he cannot give them away. Here are my thoughts on these old film cameras: Granted the glass on those German cameras are excellent, but I dont think it compensates for the newer technology. I have a Mamiya RB 6X7. I bought it new in 1971 here in Alaska, and I think the newer lens design and glass composition and coating along with the added film area (864 sq.mm for the 35 mm verses 3752 sq. mm for the 6X7 120 mm film format) far out way the final quality of older 35 mm glass. I have my 6X7 negs blown up to poster size prints and without noticeable grain. My digital camera is a Olympus E-10 which I added a 300 mm lens and a Epson 1280

Now on the other hand some of the systems like Nikon lenses will fit on the digital bodies and I think that having the flexibility of having the best of both worlds is worth considering.

So If you are doing your own 35 mm darkroom work, get the M4, yanking out the old dinosaur will always turn heads, something I thought would never happen when I bought my RB in 1971.

[Marvel]

How long do you think we'll be able to buy film?

Out of five professional photographers I am closely acquainted with, three have switched to doing digital almost exclusively. They like the instant feedback, especially at weddings.

[fini]

I have a Leica M3 Double Stroke with a collapsible 50 f:2 Summicron. Very cool old camera. Incredibly tight mechanics. I haven't used it in years. I've been thinking of turning it into audio gear (like a good tube preamp), but I'm not sure. I also have an old Nikon S2, a Nikon F, Nikomat FTn, Nikon FE. Lotsa film stuff too (Bolex, Eumig, B&H...).

[Marvel]

fini,

My friend's M2 was incredibly smooth. It was a double stroke as well. There was no slop in any of the camera movements at all. I wish I knew where he was so I could see if he still had it.

[synthfreek]

You have any pics of your M3 you can email me Fini? Keep me in mind if you wanna sell.

[kenratboy]

I played with a M6 and just LOVED it.

Being a geek, I have a Digital Rebel and friends.

HOWEVER - Leica, Hasselblad (another gem), etc. are all starting to make some hardcore digital stuff (think: Digital M Series) as the technology is at a point where digital is as good or better than film (think: Canon 1Ds Mk. II @ 16MP). I would definetly buy a digital Leica or something, it would be amazing.

[synthfreek]

I'm happy with my Nikon digital. I take too many experimental shots(double exposures, infinite exposure, etc.) so a traditional 35mm SLR is my main camera. I also use the quirky Lomo and am a huge fan of their philosophy on photographing.

[fini]

I'll try and work a few shots into tomorrow's schedule...

[davmar]

I bought my first 35mm in Nam in 1969, it was stolen right when I got back stateside, and I bought the Medium format later that year, with the expense of film and development I tended to shoot less Lomo and more Promo. Now that I have the 4 meg digital I shoot allot. I will go to events like air shows or Pow Wows and shoot hundreds of shots!

[fini]

davmar,

Ain't it the truth! I take WAY more pictures with the digital (Sony DSC-S75). Very convenient. I took a shot of the wires connected to my KSP-400s before unhooking them, so I'd remember how they went back together! I guess that's why they're called "memory cards"...

[LarryC]

I'm a fan of slides and slide shows, so will no doubt keep my M-6 and even M-3, both bought used. I've weaned myself from the Nikon F-3 and multiple, sometimes exotic lenses, and now take nearly all my pics with Leica 50, 90, and 35 mm M-series lenses.

Digital is a must for the web (and forum) of course, but the Nikon 5000-series point-and-shoot is no good for precisely focused pics, e.g., cartridges and styli. So, I'm saving my pennies for a Nikon D-70 with standard zoom, plus a 105 f/2.8 micro for those close-ups. Any comments on these ideas are welcome.

Larry

[colterphoto1]

Just make SURE you can live with rangefinder (not SLR) type focusing. But if you're headed that directing, Leica is the way to go. Might try KEH in Georgia, I've bought lots of used equipment from them and their gear is always fairly rated and priced.

I'm a Hassie/Nikon FILM photographer. I still believe film looks best, hey, it's basically an infinite amount of pixels, discounting grain. Only recently have digital cameras been manufactured that use the original focal length of my Nikkor glass (ie fisheye 16mm) and 1600 asa is a long way off for digital. I kid my buddies in the wedding industry who Photoshop everything to death that one day I'm going to hire a painter to attend a wedding and he can paint whatever artificial reality the Bride thought her wedding was supposed to look like. I think reality is beautiful, it's where we live! If you've got to look every time to see if you've 'made a picture' you don't have enough faith in your equipment, technique, skills! As my assistants have taken to kid me...TRUST THE FORCE! it's part of the magic and immediacy of capturing a wedding day.

Sorry I couldn't be more help with your specifics. Try looking up a Leica owners group or old-timer in your area.

Michael

[Cal Blacksmith]

I thought I would never change from film. I am a bit of a brand rebel and I have 2 pro, 1 pro/sumer Minolta cameras and a 4x5 view camera. I love the way they shoot and for a long time I would say that the quality of film was no match for digital, but now, I have a 6mpxl (12mpxl recorded) digital, my film cameras are gathering dust. It is just very convenient to get 1000 high rez shots on a micro drive. I do not need to check every shot to see if it came out but it is nice to make minor changes in PS if needed. I do not use inkjet for output as most people do however, I burn the pictures onto a cd, then take them to a photo printer where the output is on photo paper with a photo process. I have printed 11 x 14 from the digital and was unable to tell that it came from a digital source. That is as good as 35mm. There is nothing like a large negative for detail though so for HIGH quality, it is 4x5!

Heck, I once shot a wedding (formal pictures) with the 4x5! The rest of the wedding was with 35mm.

I find that the shutter lag of a auto focus / auto exposure digital a bit annoying but you adjust for that. I do like the feature of being able to setup a monitor when taking group shots to see who closed their eyes, looked away or moved out of position during the shot. I dont think I have shot a single role of film since I bought the digital a year ago.

[Coytee]

You might also consider looking into Contax (Made by Yashica). Contax primary lens are made by Zeiss (as are Hasselblad for example) and are also excellent lens. You can "cheat" and look into a Yashica body and put the Contax (Zeiss) lens on them instead of the Yashica lens.

Yes, I'm a Contax fan. I have their RTS II and recently sold my 85mm 1.2 50th anniversary lens. now THAT was a honker piece of glass

[sfogg]

"I find that the shutter lag of a auto focus / auto exposure digital a bit annoying but you adjust for that."

Find a digital SLR that offers a seperate button to activate focus that isn't tied to the shutter release.

My first AF SLR was a Nikon 8008s and I just never used AF on it as I hated that lag too and for action shots it was totally unacceptable. Eventually I moved up to the F5 and absolutely loved its feature of being able to move the AF to a seperate button. That way you can pre-focus the subject (just like you would MF) and when you hit the shutter it fires right then without confirming AF with very very little lag. I used AF all the time on that camera because of that feature.

I wouldn't buy a digital SLR that didn't have that feature. The only Nikons that have it are the D1 and D2 series. I recently bought a closeout D1H and love it.

Shawn

[fini]

My FE is a great film camera. I can see the advantage of sticking with Nikon if and when I move to a digital SLR (that 500mm f:8 mirror Nikkor would be something!), but I also like the Sony stuff, especially the DSC-F717.

I agree that shutter lag is the biggest drawback to digital.

[Marvel]

A friend of mine just retired from teaching at our college (he taught in the Education Dept.), and he bought a D1. Wow! What a nice camera. He has been shooting baseball photography for a few years for enjoyment, but has press passes to get into the Braves games and the Chattanooga Lookouts.

He had used a Sony with the CD-R. The lag time was horrible for sports.

His best shots are the grandkids!

Marvel

[WMcD]

In the early 1980's I received a fat back paycheck and went shopping. My dad had given me a good education in camera operation, exposure, depth of field.

Medium format was just too expensive. And Leica's were expensive too. So I went with an F-3. Over time added lenses and some other extras.

It served well for the following decades. Some was work (accident sites, machinery, factories, toys, coal mines, mountain tops) and some the nieces and nephew; and friend's weddings. I loved available light and the fast, non-zoom lenses. No regrets.

I use it less these days and the Mavica is used more often. Still, when there is something terribly important and light is bad, I go back to the Nikon, Kodak, and a tripod. Unfortunately, I've gotten a bit rusty on the thousand small things which go into "technique."

Someday I'd like to fool with a Hasselblad, mostly because it is so closely linked to the Space Program in the early days. I think Gus Grissum (sp) started it all in a Mercury.

They can be used with helmet and gloves, excellent quality, changable film magazines. It is as Victor was way ahead of his time. Aren't there a few of them left on the moon? Guess he didn't see they'd be point and shoot disposable, to NASA. Smile.

Gil