Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,565   Posts: 1,545,316   Online: 902
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52
  1. #31
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington View Post
    For me. there's nothing worse than taking a great shot on a mediocre camera and not being able to do anything with it due to lack of basic technical quality!
    I agree with this 100%.

    *

  2. #32
    Jack Lusted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Robertsbridge, East Sussex, UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    150
    Images
    13
    It seems that it is all to do with confidence.
    About 17 years ago I had an OM1 - excellent camera, but one day it jammed so I sent it off to repair but the wind on always felt gritty afterwards. Later I got an OM4. Nice camera, but it seemed to eat batteries - so I never really trusted it.
    Decided to look at Nikon, which were very nice, but there was also a well used M4P in the shop. I asked if I could try it. 'Sure', said the assistant - 'show us some ID and you can borrow it for the week end'.
    Three days later I was minus 1 OM1, 1 OM4 and a number of lenses and quite a bit of cash for an M4P and 50mm Summicron. It was the best photographic purchase I've ever made as I've stopped worrying about the camera.

    Jack

  3. #33
    Keith Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9
    A few months ago I had more Leicas than you could poke a stick at and was frantically hopping from one camera to another convinced that one in particualar would suit my shooting style and I would thus improve... but which one?

    Sold most and kept the beautiful ones that meant something to me (M2 and M3) but put them in the cupboard and forgot about them and went and bought a Zeiss Ikon which is now virtually the only camera, along with my Hexar RF, that I use. Now that I've stopped worrying about which Leica to use and concentrated on learning to use the Ikon (primary) and the Hexar (backup) instinctively ... my photography has improved!

    There's a lesson here!
    Last edited by Keith Novak; 03-17-2008 at 11:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    110
    I wonder if there are Zeiss plans to set the Ikon apart from the Bessa R2A/R3A.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8
    I got the Leica bug myself a few months ago . Having 6 different Soviet rangefinders / lenses and getting good results with them I thought that adding a Leica would give me even better results .
    I was dead wrong. I found that any of my good working FSU`s come close enough to make any perceived Leica quality advantage negligeable. I also discovered that the lens is far more important than the body and that it`s impossible to tell what camera produced my prints.
    John

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    3
    I have two IIIc's and two Zorki I's. I have four 50mm lenses - a coated Summitar and coated Industar-22, and uncoated Elmar and Summar. The only difference between the bodies is that the shutters on the Leicas are noticably quieter, and the mechanical actions of the knobs and shutter release in particular are noticably smoother on the Leicas. As for the lenses, the Industar is quite capable, and being coated has some advantages over the uncoated Leica lenses. With a bit of care in shooting and printing, I don't know that you'd be able to tell any of them apart in a blind test.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8
    To be honest i should have mentioned that the Leica i bought was not exactly the smoothest camera I`ve used. The seller claimed a recent CLA but i knew different. In the end he gave me a full refund.
    Getting a Leica that doesn`t quite meet expectations can certainly diminish the enjoyment of owning/using one of the best vintage cameras produced but I have to say my 2 Kievs, Zorki 3 and Zorki 3M are quite smooth and quiet. Maybe not to Leica standards but good enough to squash the need for more.
    John

  8. #38
    Chaplain Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by lens_hacker View Post
    .
    So what camera to get that is less expensive to match up with the Canon 35/2.8? You know that one- Canon P, Canon Vt, Canon VI-T, Canon 7...
    Hello,

    Another LTM option to consider might be the Minolta Model 35 - in any of its variations. You can consistently find them for under $200 and there's a great repair / CLA guy in the Oregon area who overhauled my last one for $99, light seals, timing and all.

    The Model 35 is built out of brass, just like the M's and will work either as a great camera - or a great hammer, whichever you need at the moment.

    Just a thought.

    Jeff M

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    Just gotta laugh at comment regarding "build quality" when talking about M2/M3/M4's. What'd they do use tin for the later cameras?
    The M2/M3/M4 used brass gears, rather than Steel gears used in later cameras. "I think" The change was required to accomoodate power winders. The brass gears give a smoother feel to winding the camera. Some changes were intrroduced to lower production cost, such as stamped film counters rather than engraved counters. A few other changes as well. There is a Pop Photo issue, ~1992 that compares the M6 with the M2.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    173
    Found the article- August 1994, Popular Photography. A comparison of the internals of an M6 with the older M2. Some points- both shutter brakes were adjustable on the M2, meaning more accurate speeds. M2 had more adjustments for the RF mechanism opposed to "spot welds" on the M6, and a few more. But- pretty much agreed the M6 changes worked overall as well. The 500 speed and 1000 speed of the M6 were slow by 25%, attributed to the simpler design.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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