I have a nice little iiif. For sheer class it beats the dickens out of my G11.
Originally Posted by Fotoguy20d
I seems that we get all excited (I know I do at times) about old stuff, whether it was a good idea or not. Vinyl vs CD, book vs Kindle, telegraph vs iphone etc.
I'm just speculating that in 60 years someone will have collected all the G series Canon digital cameras. There will be a book. Preferences will be discussed. One model, maybe my G11, will be preferred for all sorts of esoteric reasons.
Leica was the most expensive camera its day , now Leica S2 goes from 35000 dollars and most expensive commercial one. Your plastic camera will be recorded to Japanese Design History as a shame.
I owned Summicron 50mm on Leicaflex , it is not better , it is more modern , its for the tastes of modern colors.
I still like the colors of old Rolls Royce cars , its about elegance. And my haptics psychology , shark skin surface tells me to take more serious shots with older ones.
When it comes to Summitar , it is definitely impossible to understand the quality with LCD screens.
And Summitar made from one of the highest index glass ever used. Making was dangerous and newer lenses never used such a glass , except Noctilux , it is 11000 dollars new.
Do you take pictures too?
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
Dad taught me on a IIIF ST RD that my uncle pocketed and walked past customs while returning from Germany. I learned to love photography using that camera and he still has it. Today I own an M2 and a M8.2. Well made creatures, great heritage.
I use a mix of Leica, Ziess and even CV glass. Each has its own look.
Today if I were going to get a new film camera I would get a M7 and have the finder upgraded to MP so I could have a light meter and the great MP viewfinder.
Kudos on the Summitar lens. They can paint pleasure on your brain when ever you use one.
Totally agree , I owned two IIIF with one coated , one uncoated Summitar and it was the best thing I have ever owned. I did not see more original photographs and long degrades in my life , smoother and sharp tones , microscopic details.
They can paint pleasure on your brain when ever you use one.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
My Zeiss Ikon is probably the only camera I kind of regret selling, they are fantastic cameras and in my opinion the best all round range finder. I've never had a Leica MP, but I've had a Leica M6, which is practically the same camera. I did not rate the M6 at all, and promptly traded it for an M3, which I love. Money no object, I'd get the MP, I'd miss the AE of the Zeiss Ikon though, but the MP has an allure which defies my own logic. I've had a quick play with an M7, and didn't like it, it's like an M6 with a pointless DX code reader.
If you want the option to shoot aperture priority, the Ikon is a fantastic camera, for pure good looks and grace, the MP.
And Leitz Summitar have %20 cooler colors than Sonnar. Sonnar takes ordinary pictures but Summitar takes photographs. If you look to their comparison , skin tones , textile tones , architecture photographs are faraway more elegant. And sometimes , it records a glass object like an swedish art glass. Objects have an dimension and details floats on the print. It is extremelly three dimensional and light washes the objects like North Pole , Nordic Baltic Sea light reveals the color of a diamond , that pure light.
I like my Zeiss rangefinders, in fact I like all my Zeiss cameras.
If you are that good, and you can afford it get the Leica.
For me it's simple, I am a lousy photographer but a smart one. I could go out and buy a Leica and I will still be a lousy photographer but I have a Zeiss and the money I saved sits in a fund that pays enough interest in a month to cover some of my film and processing costs.
I can be a lousy photographer with any camera, but by not owning a high priced top of the line camera I can afford to learn to maybe be a better photographer. Until then my Leica fund will be paying for me to learn. I am learning the same lessons with a Zeiss that I would with a Leica, I just have more money to spend learning. Maybe some day I will have a Leica, but not while I am still a lousy photographer.
Yes, I really did invest my Leica money, and yes it really is that much.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
I have seen better pictures form Holgas then I have seen from Leica III fanatics, its not the camera or the glass, its what you do with it and the message you want to send.
Mustafa Umut Sarac: Leica S2 is not the most expensive professional camera, have you had a look at the new 60 MP and 200 MP (yes, 200 Megapixels... ) Hasselblads?
I like Leica, have several of them, I like Zeiss, if I have to choose I pick my Hasselblad 503cw/H2/H4 any day over my Leica gear, but I choose my leica gear when i want to go light and 35 mm.
Last edited by sandholm; 07-15-2011 at 03:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Five years ago I bought a Leica MP and the only thing I regret is that I didn't buy one ( or its predecessor ) at least 25 years ago. The camera is absolutely wonderful, and even if it was one of the most expensive pieces of equipment that I have ever bought, it is still the one that has given me the best value for the money.
Good luck with whatever you will choose.