Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,660   Online: 963
      
Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 7111213141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 211
  1. #161
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    No one does. There is no fix. The lenses are simply incompatible, and those who claim to like FSU lenses are either too blind to see out of focus images for what they are or willing to accept low quality images to save money. I've tried several FSU lenses and tried to like them but the fact is that they don't focus accurately at all distances.
    Leica M6 + M39 adapter.

    Lenses: several samples of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Jupiters + the 50mm 1.5 as well.

    Tested close up (at 1.5 metres - 2.5 for the 135) and at infinity, at various apertures including fully open.

    Result: Some sample variation, but at least one sample of each lens was sharp wide-open, both at infinity and close up.
    Including the 85mm f/2.0 and the 50mm f/1.5!!!
    (And, yes, I do know what "sharp" is and am not blind yet...)

    I'd take extremely peremptory and dogmatic statements about incompatibility with several large grains of salt...
    Last edited by Rol_Lei Nut; 01-12-2011 at 11:32 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typos
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  2. #162
    lilmsmaggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by T42 View Post
    Glad to help. I'm pleased to know how that my thinking is not alone and in a vacuum on that issue. Thanks for the support and the comments.


    I wonder why it is. I have seen it before. Most people I know who have used an M long enough for it to become second nature really love using it.


    People who think Leica is absurdly priced should pay more attention to that point, IMO. So many folks confuse initial purchase price with total cost of ownership. Totally different things when something holds its value like a Leica.

    Very pleased to meet you.

    I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht

  3. #163
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by lilmsmaggie View Post
    I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht
    I am probably better off with my 1967 M2 than he with his €400k+ MP2. At least I can use mine. His will be a shelf queen.
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  4. #164
    T42
    T42 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by lilmsmaggie View Post
    I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht
    Ah, yes. For some seller(s) along the way that shall have been a very good return indeed. But who could say if the wealthy Asian collector will ever recover his investment or not?

    Of course, I should have been more specific. The low cost of ownership I was thinking of is for cameras subjected to actual use, having no numismatic value. As was stated above by mhcfires, the collector certainly will not be inclined to use it.

    Too bad for him. I'd bet that the '58 MP2 would work about as well as my user '59 M3.

    Last edited by T42; 01-12-2011 at 12:57 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo
    Henry
    A Certified Dinosaur
    Nikons F, F2, D700, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a

  5. #165
    ziggy7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    Quality & prestige

    A new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder costs $1600, so a similar amount for a nice M2, M3, or M4 seems reasonable considering the build quality. There is also the pride in owning the best.
    I collect watches. Rolex is not IMHO a bit better built than many of the fine old American watches like Hamilton, Elgin, and Waltham were. But they were smart enough to position their brand as a prestige luxury item and raised their prices to match. Part of the fun of owning one is that the average Joe can't afford one. I don't have a Rolex, and I'm also quite happy with my $200 Canon P rangefinder. If I won the lottery I would likely buy a Rolex and a Leica.

  6. #166
    Micky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    44
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy7 View Post
    A new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder costs $1600, so a similar amount for a nice M2, M3, or M4 seems reasonable considering the build quality. There is also the pride in owning the best.
    I collect watches. Rolex is not IMHO a bit better built than many of the fine old American watches like Hamilton, Elgin, and Waltham were. But they were smart enough to position their brand as a prestige luxury item and raised their prices to match. Part of the fun of owning one is that the average Joe can't afford one. I don't have a Rolex, and I'm also quite happy with my $200 Canon P rangefinder. If I won the lottery I would likely buy a Rolex and a Leica.
    A Rolex is a like a Canon L series zoom lens; the average joe thinks they are the bees knees, but really they're just a good quality work horse, or mutton dressed up as lamb as they say. Now Leica is more like a Jaeger-leCoultre

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,966
    A Leica shouldn't be collected only to sit in a display cabinet. It should be used and used regularly. Actually it's bad on the camera not to use it. People who just collect things and never use them are pathetic anal retentives. What is the point in owning the finest camera ever made and not using it. If you don't use it then it is merely a chunk of metal and glass.
    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

  8. #168

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    530
    Well, I finally got around to reading this thread. I guess I'm not surprised at the wide variety of opinions expressed. Here's my story.

    You never forget your first Leica. It was the first camera I ever bought for myself, 50+ years ago. I can't remember what model; it was just referred to as "pre-war". I sold it because I considered bottom-loading to be dumb.

    Somehow, having once owned a Leica, I always knew I had to get another. The problem was that I haven't shot 35mm in many years (shooting 828 - unsprocketed 35mm - in a Bantam Special doesn't count). I didn't want a Leica just to have it sit on the shelf.

    So I recently bought a pocket-sized D-Lux5 and love it.

    Sorry to bring up digi here; I'm just confessing to having Leica sentiments. And, I suppose, explaining why I married a blond.

    Oh, and Zig: You wear a Hamilton so it doesn't fray your Turnbull & Asser cuffs. You wear a Rolex to sail. Win the lottery and you'll understand

    Charley

  9. #169

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    623
    I've had a Leica M6 and Zeiss Ikon, and now on an M3. Whilst the Leicas are heavier than the Ikon, I'm not throughly convinced they are better built. The M6 had a sort of creak in the back, and the wind on was no smoother. Many will say "the Leica is 30 years old!" and that's true, but everyone compares the price of a new Ikon to a second user Leica, so I may as well. The Ikon is available second hand too of course, and I paid less for mine than the M6, and only a little more than my M3.

    Of all the cameras I've owned the M3 and Zeiss Ikon have been my favourite, the M3 is such a classic and looks beautiful, and the Ikon just works so well, and in terms of viewfinder clarity, ease of use, convenience of loading, and features such as a meter, it's the much better camera.

    Leicas are put about as "the best" with very little back up. They are outstanding, to be sure, but no better than the Zeiss. For those who say "you never forget your first Leica", mine was an M6, and I sold it after a couple of rolls of film, I found it unremarkable compared to the Ikon.

    The M3 on the other hand, is a pleasure.

  10. #170

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    707
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by thegman View Post
    I've had a Leica M6 and Zeiss Ikon, and now on an M3. Whilst the Leicas are heavier than the Ikon, I'm not throughly convinced they are better built. The M6 had a sort of creak in the back, and the wind on was no smoother. Many will say "the Leica is 30 years old!" and that's true, but everyone compares the price of a new Ikon to a second user Leica, so I may as well. The Ikon is available second hand too of course, and I paid less for mine than the M6, and only a little more than my M3.

    Of all the cameras I've owned the M3 and Zeiss Ikon have been my favourite, the M3 is such a classic and looks beautiful, and the Ikon just works so well, and in terms of viewfinder clarity, ease of use, convenience of loading, and features such as a meter, it's the much better camera.

    Leicas are put about as "the best" with very little back up. They are outstanding, to be sure, but no better than the Zeiss. For those who say "you never forget your first Leica", mine was an M6, and I sold it after a couple of rolls of film, I found it unremarkable compared to the Ikon.

    The M3 on the other hand, is a pleasure.
    The saying - "you never forget your first Leica" was about the classic Leica I (A)
    Non of the M series comes close. Also, most of the M6 are not even using brass for top cover etc etc..



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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