I have a $8 Mamiya Super Deluxe, does that qualify me for the hallowed "out cheapskate Jim Galli" award? Of course, due to a lifetime of cleaning with a t-shirt or some such by a previous owner, it's great for "period" shooting, and the meter doesn't work, but hey, it was only $8.
Originally Posted by MattCarey
Ha ha Matt, I have you beat! I just bought a Zorki IV for $30CAD! That also includes the 50mm Jupiter lens. I will be souping the first roll thru it tonight.
Originally Posted by MattCarey
jim, have to handled any voigtlander bessas or zeiss ikons? those are lighter.
Dan, I too use a Visioflex II. I use it with my CL. Leica had a little known replacement arm so the Visio would work with the CL and the arm would mate with the shutter release on the CL as it was different from the M placement. Sadly, I do not have it so I use a dual release cable to trip both. No, not as easy to use as my Bronica with the extension tubes but as my macro work is not often and I spend quite a bit of time in setting the stage, lighting, etc. it makes no difference. When installed just need to advance the film and set the mirror in 2 steps vs the 1 step for the Bronica. As the CL has the TTL there is also no metering issue. I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable with the setup if using a non-metered body.
While the slr did away with some of the limitations of a rangefinder, I am still more in awe of how well Leica engineers worked around them. Also, how Leica took the long view of their lens mounts and from their intorduction of the M39 based camera throughout the decades to the current M7 (not sure about the digital M8 and M9 compatibility) their lenses have been usable on their bodies.
When pros used film cameras (in 60s) most used a Nikon F some carried a rfdr as well (Canon P or Leica M2), wide on rfdr normal or tele on SLR.
The big advantage of a M is the fast changing mount compared to a Canon VI, P or 7.
The big advantage of the Canons is the fast film change, loading is a lot quicker. If you are only using one lens the mount advantage is not significant, but reaching the end of a film could be annoying.
The viewfinder and range finders of Canons and Leicas are different, but that is less significant in good light and with age some of the rangefinder images have faded. So you need to check the one you are buying.
If you are gonna shoot a lot of film you need a Canon if you are going to juggle lenses a Leica.
The Canon lenses were good for their day, and you can also now get new LTM lenses. Prices of the Canons have escalated, you used to not be able to give them away, almost. Still cheaper then a Leica.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I had forgotten about this post long ago.
To satisfy any curiosity I thought I should report that I failed miserably at being a 35mm rangefinder photog. After the Canon I tried both the Konica RF Hexar and the Yashica Electro 35 which I still have 2 beauty's if anyone wants them.
The Konica was by far the best of the group from my standpoint. Easy, accurate, pretty to hold, well thought out, etc etc.
The Canon (yes I had an 0.95 50mm for it) was just a '58 Chrysler 300 with Hemi of a camera. Awesome to look at, miserable to use.
The Electro 35's at the far other end of the spectrum are awesome little best bang ever for the buck machines. Light as a feather and the glass is excellent in every way. A $45 Leica??
Ultimately, I guess my problem is what do you do with all those pictures. My other problem is 'what pictures???' I guess for me I have a hard enough time finding something I think is worth setting up the 8X10 for, and what would I do with rolls and rolls of pictures and where are all those good pictures anyways. So for me, 35mm is a lot of poor quality pictures of nothing very inspiring. I'm better doing 5 8X10's or 10 4X5's in a weekend of something semi-worthy of photographing.
Where I live is also in the equation. No street photogs needed. The desert lends itself to large format.
That's my story and I'm stickin' tuit.