I didn't give up my Leicas, but supplemented them with a Plaubel 67W. OK, it doesn't change lenses like a Mamiya, but I find that once I get shooting in wide angle I don't mind staying in wide angle, for the most part. It's a great travel camera, folds so flat, built-in light meter, very quiet leaf shutter. I think you'd like it.
I never had a Leica but did have a Voigtlander Bessa R and a Fuji Klasse (same as the Rollei 35 I think). I ended up selling both to finance a move to medium format rangefinders. I ended up with the Mamiya 6 and the Fuji GF670 and I can't say enough good things about them both. On the other hand, if you aren't using your Leica now, you might not actually enjoy a MF rangefinder all that much and those cameras I mentioned are expensive. I still prefer my medium format SLR cameras on a tripod for landscape photos but really enjoy handheld casual photography with the rangefinders, especially in B&W.
As for George's comment about not selling cameras, I guess it comes down to whether you are more interested in collecting or photography. My advice would be the opposite, don't keep a camera unless you are using it! Of course I must confess that I don't always follow that advice myself. (Don't ask about the Pentax 645 I brought home today for no other reason than because it was cheap!)
Thanks for the suggestion but I actually had some folders and didn't like them. The ergonomics and viewfinders were not the best. I haven't handled the GF670 or Makina but I believe they are better in this regard (but I'd look more in depth before dropping money on them). I also prefer 6x6 because I don't have to worry about orientation. I feel more comfortable working with just square which is why I'd prefer 6x6 to 6x7 or 6x9. I like a larger negative but 6x6 itself is fine. But again, I can't have it all and so I would consider other ratios if the cameras were better for me (i.e. Makina 67). All I care about is normal lens too and so I think that all three of the above mentioned cameras are suitable and maybe even a few others. None of them are prefect but many of them will probably be good enough for me.
I can understand George's perspective and also revdocjim's but I guess things are relative. Right now I have 2 bodies and 4 lenses and so the first action for me is to reduce and see how I feel. (I am thinking of sticking with M3 + 50 'cron and maybe keeping my M2 body). There is no point for me to have more than one 50mm if I only use one lens once or twice a month (that is how often i shoot my Leica at the present).
Last edited by msbarnes; 05-26-2013 at 12:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.
The only reason I could see to shoot 135 would be go the final outcome, like If your shooting slides for a projector. Yes there are medium format projectors but it's not like you can put 40 slides on a tray and click through them real easy.
On the usability side of things, I don't see 135 being much easer and faster to use then medium format. At least for the way I shoot.
This question makes me think of "Would you trade in your Maserati for a Ford F-150?" It's comparing apples and oranges.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In the same way a plumber may choose a particular pipe/valve configuration for the job he/she is doing, then so a photographer chooses the best tools for the job. If you swap Leica for medium format, you probably have a particular task in mind that lends itself more to medium format.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
I didn't give up my Leicas, but supplemented them
To supplement is the way to go.
I normally shoot with a Bronica RF645 kit. It's a first rank designed and quality manufactured camera. The RF's range finder is bigger and just as bright/contrasty as my MP. When I look at MF images I often say why shoot small format. MF 120 roll film's sharpness and tonality trumps small format and the negs are easier to print and evaluate. That said, I'm keeping a Leica as long as I shoot and print.
1. Shape of neg and print format
2. Depth of field
3. Small size and tiny lenses
4. Fun factor
5. The lenses are excellent
6. Prefer to do portraits enlarged to 5x7 with the Leica kit 28/40/50/90.
7. Better system for street shooting/reportage
8. Marginally better travel camera
9. Shoot quality images at f2.8 - I own older Leica optics
The RF645 is more modern than the M 6/7 or Fuji 670 and much smaller. Great lenses and ergonomics with the features you want and no extras. Simple, light, small, great results. F/4 lenses are slow so I supplement with a Leica.
Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 05-26-2013 at 08:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Of course another reason to keep at least the Leica lenses is because one day you may want to short circuit the quest for sharpness and buy a Leica digital body, either crop format in an M8, or full frame with an M9. And the more of these people buy, the more the value of Leica lenses goes up, so they are worth hanging onto. Yes I know film has a different character, lets not start on that old chestnut, but an M8 body will give as 'good' in terms of sharpness as a 6x6, and cost less than a good Plaubel or Mamiya 6 outfit, and you have some lenses already.
ofcourse this is apples and oranges but I am just seeking general advice and experiences.
Last edited by msbarnes; 05-26-2013 at 04:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If I needed a truck then maybe I would. (+ cash ofcourse)
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch