Leica M6 + M39 adapter.
Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto
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.
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
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
Originally Posted by T42
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.
Originally Posted by lilmsmaggie
If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.
Last edited by T42; 01-12-2011 at 12:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A Certified Dinosaur
Nikons F, F2, D700, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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
Originally Posted by ziggy7
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
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
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)
Originally Posted by thegman
Non of the M series comes close. Also, most of the M6 are not even using brass for top cover etc etc..