The leica RF's in my local store are 1000$ body only, opposed to 500$ for a R system body
shoot some slides with a few other brands, then some with an M6, put them on the light table to have a look... -ensure you have some padding on the floor for when you get to the M6 bunch and fall off your stool (at least that's what happened to me..)
A photographer told be leicas are good for war photography
Originally Posted by Sean
You bring up an interesting point.
Suppose I have a "limited" but reasonably generous budget. Given your observation, would it make more sense to spend the bulk of my cash on Leitz lenses and buy a modest body like a Cosina/Bessa R2A (or similar)?
The lens "makes" the picture - not the body.
Food for thought.....
I leica Minolta, personally.
(cricket . . .cricket . . . cricket)
Hey, where'd everybody go?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Recently I had a chance to try a couple of new Zeiss Ikon bodies, hoping this would be it. But it turned out, they were not nearly as ideal for me. I just didn't like the 100% battery-dependent shutter system and the plastic nob for the different frame lines for the viewfinder. And they are about 1,000 bucks each like the old Leica M bodies.
So, I'm still in search for a good M4-p, M4-2, or M2 body to fulfill my needs. The store clerks who didn't keep any fresh batteries handy for the ZI bodies certainly did a wonderful job to remind me those were not the kind of cameras I wanted.
Rolex is expensive, but isn't accurate as its price.
The same for Leica.
It is emotion, not the function.
But isn't photographic art an emotional work?
I've personally seen that little exercise sell at least a half dozen Leicas, both rangefinder and slr. I also know of a customer that challenged a salesman to tell the difference between (late '70s vintage) Nikor and Leica R glass. The customer shot paired shots with 50mm normals on a tripod with Kodachrome 25. The customer scrambled the slides (stamped sides down) on a light table and the salesman sorted them about as quickly as he could pick them up and put them down. He was wrong on one pair out of the 36.
Originally Posted by Sean
Last edited by Lee L; 11-08-2006 at 09:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
Yes, if I had to choose the glass is the more important. However, there is something to be said about handling and using Leica glass on a Leica camera body. The cameras be they M, screw, R (or older SL) they just handle well and feel right in the hand. As to the M series lenses, do not forget that the ergonomics, hand holdable (or tripod mountable) body contributes to the final on film performance of the glass. Certainly the accuracy of the rangefinder, lens aperture and shutter (shutter damping, and if an inboard meter) will also contribute. As Roger has said, though expensive, well cared for the Leica bodies will last a very long time. Though the initial outlay may be high, averaging the cost of the camera body over such a long life really indicates how economical these camera can be.
Last edited by naturephoto1; 11-08-2006 at 09:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by naturephoto1
The reason I ask is that I, being a Nikonian, went the RF route a year or so ago. I bought the "granddaddies" (i.e. a S2 and later a SP) but also picked up a couple of Cosina R2S bodies (er....multiple houses make for multiple cameras kits!).
I have a mix of Nikkor glass and some modern day Cosina glass.
I definitely prefer the Nikkor glass (old as it is) - but the Cosina body (which is identical to the R2A/R2M etc.) is a joy to use. It is much lighter and more ergonomic etc.
[Oh, and the TTL metering is nice too! ]
If I were to do it all over again, I'd just get Nikkor glass to use with R2S bodies.
I'm thinking this same equation works with Leitz lenses and Cosina's M-mount bodies too.