Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,587   Posts: 1,545,834   Online: 1126
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    748
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by chip j View Post
    I want fabulous glass. Maybe a Contax slr would be a better choice. My Nikkors lack "sparkle".
    What's your preffered focal length?

    p.s. Nikon has fabulous glass too, and Leica has no more sparkle than anyone else.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by chip j View Post
    I actually don't have any Leica slrs yet, but I'm thinking of going that way and wondered if they'd be a good investment.
    If you have an eye on investment, then go for the "M" series rangefinder, although at today's high prices, you may have missed the boat. The time to buy was about 10 years ago. My Nikon F has been a good investment as well as a fabulous camera over the years, but, and it's a big but, because I've used it professionally it's not in the same mint condition it was when purhased back in the 70's. Yet it is still worth double what I paid.
    If it had been kept mint, then I could sell it for four times the original purchase price.

    You have to decide whether you are a photographer or a collector. If the former, then providing you use the best of the fully mechanical, top of the range gear, then it will hold (or even slightly increase) its value. The very best cameras whether German or Japanese, made in that decade roughly encompassing the 1970's before automation and plastics took over, were manufactured to the highest standards, to last a lifetime.

    The digital stuff has no investment value at all, it's all made with built in obsolescance, like 5 year old computers, it's destined for "old technology" scrapheaps, somewhere in Africa or India.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    If you have an eye on investment, then go for the "M" series rangefinder, although at today's high prices, you may have missed the boat. The time to buy was about 10 years ago. My Nikon F has been a good investment as well as a fabulous camera over the years, but, and it's a big but, because I've used it professionally it's not in the same mint condition it was when purhased back in the 70's. Yet it is still worth double what I paid.
    If it had been kept mint, then I could sell it for four times the original purchase price.

    You have to decide whether you are a photographer or a collector. If the former, then providing you use the best of the fully mechanical, top of the range gear, then it will hold (or even slightly increase) its value. The very best cameras whether German or Japanese, made in that decade roughly encompassing the 1970's before automation and plastics took over, were manufactured to the highest standards, to last a lifetime.

    The digital stuff has no investment value at all, it's all made with built in obsolescance, like 5 year old computers, it's destined for "old technology" scrapheaps, somewhere in Africa or India.
    I have a Contax G1/G2 system w/5 lenses, which will last me a very long time, I guess, since they get light use, and which I much prefer to Leica M {and my G lenses do have "sparkle!}. But I use slrs mostly and want that "sparkle" there also.

  4. #24
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,132
    Quote Originally Posted by chip j View Post
    I want fabulous glass. Maybe a Contax slr would be a better choice. My Nikkors lack "sparkle".
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  5. #25
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by chip j View Post
    I want fabulous glass. Maybe a Contax slr would be a better choice. My Nikkors lack "sparkle".
    How to add "sparkle" to your Nikkors.

    Nikkor Sparkle Maker


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  6. #26
    Thomas.Goehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    51
    Actually, Leica R-cameras are not as sturdy as one might think, given the questions and complaints about them in German forums. I guess, any Canon or Nikon from the seventies or eighties will last longer and fare better in the long run than a Leica. R4 has lots of electronic faults, SL-Leicas are the hardest cameras to repair because of their mechanical complexity (plus spare parts are hard to get by now), so I doubt that a Leica will be a good investment in terms of longevity.
    They sure are fascinating cameras and I'm often on the verge of getting one myself, but so far reason has always won over desire and has made me stick with my Canons and some other Japaneses sisters.
    Canon FD &EF, Mamiya AF, Nikon, Pentax, Praktica, Minolta

  7. #27
    photopriscilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    I am so sad to learn this! I don't know if I should stop using my [COLOR=#333333]Leica R6 altogether. It is my sweet salvation. I have have not had to havce any repairs and I see that I have now just been taking this for granted! Upsetting news![/COLOR]

  8. #28
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,617
    Leitz cooperated with Minolta and this resulted in both the XD- and R-series.

  9. #29
    Rolfe Tessem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Egremont, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    184
    I believe the Minolta cooperation was with the early R cameras, the R3 and R4. By the time Leica got to the R6 and R7, I'm pretty sure those were all Leica. The R6 is basically a reflex Leica M6 camera. The R7 is basically a reflex M7. The R6, in particular, is all mechanical so it is free of any electronics problems that plagued the R3 and derivatives. This is one reason, no doubt, that the R6 has held its value pretty well. The R8 and R9 are different cameras entirely and were completely Leica.

  10. #30
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolfe Tessem View Post
    I believe the Minolta cooperation was with the early R cameras, the R3 and R4. By the time Leica got to the R6 and R7, I'm pretty sure those were all Leica. The R6 is basically a reflex Leica M6 camera. The R7 is basically a reflex M7. The R6, in particular, is all mechanical so it is free of any electronics problems that plagued the R3 and derivatives. This is one reason, no doubt, that the R6 has held its value pretty well. The R8 and R9 are different cameras entirely and were completely Leica.
    I understand Leica cooperated with Minolta to use their expertise in electronics design mainly.
    Ben

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin