Alternative to leica m6?
neobluskie
Require smooth operation and quality optics.
Dilbertdroid2
>Require smooth operation and quality optics.
The Konica Hexar RF shares the Leica M-bayonet mount but a whole outfit with
flash and 50mm lens can be had for around $1200 new. Also has autoexposure
and motor drive. Quality and build is similar to Contax G-series cameras.
The Voigtlander Bessa-R is a little more similar to the Leica CL, but also uses
LTM lenses, so Leica-M lenses aren't an option. Voigtlander LTM lenses cover a
wide range, including some very unique products like the 12mm and 15mm heliars,
and are mid-priced, about $400-$800. Of course, the quality of these lenses
falls way below that of Leica but they perform well for the price.
Voigtlander Bessa-T takes Leica-M lenses but has no viewfinder, only a
rangefinder, so you have to use an aux viewfinder for all you lenses. Nice
wide rangefinder base for good focus accuracy and both Voigtlander bodies are
based on the same chassis, with conventional film loading but lots of plastic
and definitely not up to the rugged standards of even a used Leica.
QZI
uses LTM lenses, so Leica-M lenses aren't an option. "
This isn't entirely correct, you can easily buy a M -> LTM adapter.
Leicaddict
been in production for 75 years. But having said that, the Voigtlander
series remains the dominant down & dirty player. In fact on many levels, the
Voigtlander optics can stand comparison with any other series, including
Leica and Zeiss. Voigtlander also has several interesting bodies that seem
to appeal to the RF hobbyist. I think another interesting alternative to a
small, lightweight system could center around several AF-slr's. For
instance, I also use a Nikon N80 with Nikkor AFD 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm
lenses. It really doesn't get any small, lighter weight, or more compact
than this. And no one in their right mind will debate the quality of Nikon
optics. To help with your decision, I've included two links. Both of these
gentlemen are among the most knowledgeable RF avocets around.
Edwin Puts http://www.imx.nl/index.html Sandy Grady
http://cameraquest.com/
Glenn Travis
"neobluskie" <neobl...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a09fpj$shv$1...@newsie.singa.pore.net...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
LTM has 1mm more distance from lens flange to film plane so an M->LTM
adapter would not allow focus to infinity.
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi
the Voigtländer Bessa-R. It's a simple camera with an excellent
viewfinder, the lens line is quite good, and the LTM lenses could be used
if at some later date you wanted to buy a Leica M body.
The Konica Hexar RF is also a very good camera and has excellent lenses, I
just don't like the layout of the body as much as the Leica or
Voigtländer. I also prefer the Bessa-R's higher magnification viewfinder.
Godfrey
dave
the Konica Hexar RF, a Voitlander rangefinder camera or even a Contax
G1 or G2 camera. I use the M6TTL and can honestly say that it's
unique and uniquely suited to what it does best. Just last night,
though, I shot with it and with my Contax G1 at a family gathering,
and the G1 didn't put me at any disadvantage when I was using it! If
you don't need to absolute quiet of the Leica rangefinder shutter --
and I think I wanted that more than I really needed it -- and if you
want really sharp lenses, the Contax G1 is a great deal. It typically
sells in a kit for around $800 for the G1 body, a 35mm lens and a
handy little TTL flash. You might want to try handling these
different models and running a roll of film through each before
deciding. -Dave
SWB
?
> Require smooth operation and quality optics.
>
you want to go down the shoddy Voigtlander route, or the whizz bang (I'll do
it all for you) Konica route. I think a lot of people have maybe asked this
question, made a cheaper choice, then regretted it. A Leica is for life, you
know you can get it serviced in thirty years time, you know the lenses have
no competition, so bite the bullet, get an M6 body second-hand or new, and
also know that should you subsequently sell your second-hand M6, the price
will (should) be the same as you paid for it.
Steve :-)
Robert Monaghan
have you used a rangefinder? there are lots of good quality optics fixed
lens rangefinders out there from 1970s at under $100 with features like
autoexposure and builtin metering that make use easy, also leaf shutter so
flash synch to 1/500th sec. Many are even lighter and more compact than M6
see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html and mf/clones.html
if you decide you like rangefinders and can live with limitations, then
you might consider issues like format and size (lots of medium format
rangefinders). You can also find a lot of leica clones and LTM mount
lenses from various sources (old canon,nikon.. and newer russian
production and Kiev etc.). These can be fun, and you can add a leica body
and lenses cheaply too. I like the really small Olympus clamshell RF
models as a pocket RF camera with metering etc. YMMV
others have pointed to the newer bodies, esp. Bessa R and T series. I
think they are rapidly evolving towards a new best buy combining a decent
body with more electronics, so I've decided to wait for developments ;-)
regards bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html *
Iskandar Taib
Robert Monaghan <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote:
>have you used a rangefinder? there are lots of good quality optics fixed
>lens rangefinders out there from 1970s at under $100 with features like
>autoexposure and builtin metering that make use easy, also leaf shutter so
>flash synch to 1/500th sec. Many are even lighter and more compact than M6
>see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html and mf/clones.html
A LOT less than $100! I got my FED5C for $12, and my Yashica G for $10
(plus shipping, of course) from Ebay. I'm still in the process of
getting a battery for the latter. All that's wrong with it is a
slightly bent filter ring.
I guess I'll still shoot mostly with SLRs, but the rangefinders are
interesting. I don't know if match-image focusing is any faster than
SLR focusing, though.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Matthew Powell
?
> Require smooth operation and quality optics.
The Bessa R is a good bet, though some people on the Cosina-Voigtlander
mailing list (from www.cameraquest.com), say that the company is planning on
introducing something early next year. Perhaps an M-mount body with built-in
rangefinder/viewfinder...
The prices are excellent right now - a new Bessa R body runs ~$400 and a 35
f/1.7 ~$350 (or 35 f/2.5 ~$200-250). The new (alleged) body would probably
debut for ~$650-700 and drop from there (as the R did).
McEowen
Require smooth operation and quality optics.
>>
Sure, let's start with other Leica offerings: the M4-p and M4-2 -- either of
which can be had in the $750 to $900 range. Also user grade M3 and M2 bodies
can often be bought for considerably less than an M6.
There is also the Konical RF but the cheapest I've seen a used Konica RF is
$750 -- not much less than a nice M4-2 so then it becomes a matter of comparing
"features."
With a limited ability to accept the same Leica lenses there is the Minolta
CLE, CL and Leica CL but IMHO, a user M4-2 or M4-P is a better bet.
There's also the Voigtlander Bessa R for still a little less. It's debatable
whether it has the same smooth operation and quality optics, though.
Beyond that, there is the old (like 40 year old) Canon screw mount rangefinders
but they are getting pretty collectable.
Matthew Powell
"McEowen" <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011225184923...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> << Any one can recommend any similar featured (and less pricey)
rangefinders ?
> Require smooth operation and quality optics.
> >>
> Sure, let's start with other Leica offerings: the M4-p and M4-2 -- either
of
> which can be had in the $750 to $900 range. Also user grade M3 and M2
bodies
> can often be bought for considerably less than an M6.
And another $100+ for a Leica or Voigtsina hotshoe meter, which isn't very
convenient.
McEowen
convenient. >>
I've owned four non-metered Leica bodies and never used a hotshoe type meter.
Even with my M6 I generally use a handheld meter. Certainly if somebody is
ready for a Leica they ought to be able to handle a meter . . .
Jay B
Hexar Classic - the 35MM fixed length version. The optics were
incredible - results tack sharp, etc. I actually lost it after only 6
weeks of ownership and while I was in the process of mulling a Leica
RF purchase. In retrospect - it was a blessing as the Hexar still had
me relying on its semi-auto features and didn't give me the full RF
experience.
My question centered on M2/3 vs. M6 and then new M6 vs. pre-owned.
Eventually went with a new M6 because of the built in light meter and
3 year passport warranty. Felt the insurance made the purchase of a
new model worth it and went with a used 35/2 lens. Take the plunge
and ignore the buyer's remorse. You'll be glad you made the move.
Dilbertdroid2
You'll have to tell me where I can buy one of those, since the M-bayonet is
larger than the LTM thread. If such a beastie existed, you wouldn't be able
to focus to infinity with it.
Dilbertdroid2
Weren't you were pushing a voigtlander and lens on another thread with an
out-of-focus photo?
Anon Terry
> And another $100+ for a Leica or Voigtsina hotshoe meter, which isn't very
> convenient.
Bonus Clue: Leica isn't about convenience. You want convenience, do
like your average green-eared amateur and buy a Rebel XS with a 28-200
zoom, set on full auto. Gimme a break.
Anon Terry
> Require smooth operation and quality optics.
Oxymoron. Doesn't exist. Kinda like trying to look for a car that's
1) fast, 2) reliable, and 3) economical. Pick any two features and
the third won't apply.
If you're definite about smooth operation and quality optics, you
might as well save yourself the grief and take the plunge now. If you
go any other route you will still end up at Leica, but with a lot of
wasted time and money. I've been around that block more than once but
what can I say, I'm a slow learner.
The sad fact is that Leica is for life, despite my wife's,
conscience's and bank account's desperate pleas to the contrary.
Get yourself a clean used M6 and either a 35/2 or 50/2 lens and be
done with it.
Walt...@my-deja.com
If Leicas make people have such bad attitude like yours, I'd stay away from
it.
Walter
Robert Monaghan
bodies below $1k US$, and most of those user bodies in the $700 range have
been stated as requiring a variety of repairs that would clearly boost the
prices by $200 or more, and back into this range. I see an awful lot of
M6 bodies at $1100+ and $1200+. They used to sell more often at that range
during the time when the japanese were dumping their collections in the
early 90s, but not as frequently anymore. Or is there a mother lode for
these $700 Leicas not advertising on shutterbug or other dealer sites? ;-)
That's why I noted that the kind folks who pointed out that those $2k
Leica body prices get reduced by $200 USA rebate and on Leica days you
take another 10% or $200 off, so you are down to about $1550+ for a brand
new, full USA warranty Leica M6 body rather than $2,000 or so. To me, this
makes the used older bodies seem a good bit less of a buy, at $1100 to
$1200+ in most dealer ads, in losing the Leica passport warranty etc on
used gear and a new vs used (abused?) body for $300-350 difference. USed
older gear at 80% of the price of new M6 body with USA warranty? Hmmm?
Again, it seems a curious market to me because of these high used prices.
With hasselblads, you can buy lots of bodies for $300 and less (EL/M,
500c), backs from dealers for $100 and up, and entire 500c/elm kits for
$700 and $800, while the new equivalents are five times that price. Like
leica, the old and new gear is compatible, and the old gear quality is
very high and reliable. This remains one of the reasons I am holding off
myself, along with the rumored new "M7" M-mount rangefinder now in the
wings, which may well force a rationalization of used Leica prices. If so,
then those $700 Leicas would indeed be a good buy for many users...
Dennis
whinning about that thread all over again. :-)
Is he now "Leicaduck?"
Respectfully,
"RokkorRon"
or how 'bout "TakumarTed?"
dilber...@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2) wrote in message news:<20011226061120...@mb-mr.aol.com>...
SWB
"Robert Monaghan" <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote in message
news:a0ddna$jit$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
>This remains one of the reasons I am holding off
> myself, along with the rumored new "M7" M-mount rangefinder now in the
> wings, which may well force a rationalization of used Leica prices. If so,
That sounds like a great reason not to buy an M6 now, I don't think. Just
imagine, you've waited and waited, got your new M7, and some jerk starts an
M8 rumour. But I guess if you haven't got a Leica the next best thing is to
say one day you will get one, but not just yet. Surely the criteria for
purchasing anything as expensive as a Leica has to be, 'will I use it'. If
its what you want and need a $300 difference between new or used, buy now or
buy later, all pails into insignificance over the lifespan of the camera.
Just go get one. And you've said yourself, the second-hand price stays high,
so how much can you loose if the M7 exists in anything other than rumour and
you swap later? Your logic seems flawed to me if you think an M7 would bring
prices down for M6's. Look at the cost of any M body, in a forty year model
span from M3 to M6, and there is virtually no price difference second-hand
for similar quality. So introducing an M7 would suddenly buck the trend of
forty odd years? I don't think so.
Steve
Robert Monaghan
sure you could get such a beastie, it is only 1 mm off, but it would take
a modest negative optical element to do the trick (sort of like a 1.05x
teleconverter). Lots of these are available for far larger discrepancies
in lens registration distances for popular 35mm SLR mounts. See examples
at http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/bronmounts.html
regards bobm
McEowen
>> myself, along with the rumored new "M7" M-mount rangefinder now in the
>> wings,
Is this a new M7 rumor or an old M7 rumor? It's hard to keep the M7 rumors
straight. Say, are there any rumors of an M6-D? You know, the digital M?
Paul Chefurka
There is a new M7 rumour floating around - it's scheduled for introduction
at PMA in February. Same rumour as last year, but with new dates filled
in. The M6D rumour has been officially denied by Leica, which puts it in
the same category...
You're from Missouri, right?
McEowen
>>
"I come from a country that raises corn, cotton, cockleburs, and Democrats. I´m
from Missouri, and you´ve got to show me."
Robert Monaghan
yes, sorry I wasn't clear, the "M7" being rumored is not being made by
Leica, but by Bessa, extending to a fully featured electronics rangefinder
with M-mount and standard viewfinder setup (unlike the latest bessa
M-mount model with accy finder).
The new camera series is expected to have auto-exposure modes as well etc
so be more interesting to the large market of current 35mm SLR users who
expect such features even in a rangefinder (along with full manual
options). Cost is expected to be in line with the current M-mount versions
of the bessa line, yet use the standard M and LTM->M lenses and adapters.
Not needing an accessory adapter for viewing may make it even cheaper per
some notes?
So the question is would you pay $1200 for a used Leica M series body if a
more modern body design featuring the same lens mount with advanced
electronics, manual or auto exposure option and so on was available for
say $700 (maybe $500 street?)? THe answer may well be yes for true-blue
Leica fans. But for me, I'd be happy to save $700 on used Leica w. lesser
functional bodies, or $1,000+ on new M6, and yet have a nice rangefinder
for the price of a mid level SLR, and built-in metering, TTL flash, and
autoexposure/manual option.
So I think that this new bessa rangefinder may well be a factor which
causes folks to have to re-evaluate the current high used leica body
prices, with these going lower as demand drops due to many entry level
buyers preferring the newer more feature rich camera(s). It is supply and
demand, as you have noted, until now there hasn't been a really comparable
M-mount rangefinder. Now it appears there soon will be, along with
features and electronics not found in the Leica series.
Yes, many leicaphiles will buy only Leicas, but I believe lots of folks
will buy a cheaper fuller featured electronics camera, just as you can
still buy a manual 35mm SLR today (nikon FM3a..) but most folks have
auto/manual (if not AF) cameras as the bulk of the sales in 35mm & P&S
THe related question, given the stats I have cited on Leica's modest sales
and supposedly low markup on bodies, is whether Leica can weather the loss
of some substantial fraction of their sales to a new M-mount rangefinder,
given only 1,000 Leica M sales per month? They are already considering
dropping the R line, right? How many of those 50 worldwide leica M6 sales
a day do they have to lose before dropping the rangefinder line or going
under? What will happen to Leica prices if the corp goes under, and
warranty repairs and parts are no longer available from the mfger? Given
the size and sales of Cosina, that seems less a problem and concern for
them, 35mm RF is just a small line for them, and a prestige building item.
your point about being able to buy a leica, use it hard for 20 years, then
make money selling it used to the next buyer, sounds great - if you aren't
the last buyer when the musical chairs stop ;-) It smacks of the greater
fool theory to me ;-) I just can't see how 20+ year old used prices can be
75-80% of new, and 150-250% or more than new purchase price for now much
used gear, and not come down to earth when competition suddenly hits this
niche market. ;-)
Already, a lot of the leica types have bought various non-Leica M-mount
and other (LTM..) lenses and been surprised/shocked at the relative
quality and low cost. Again, I see that eroding Leica's mindshare, and
marketshare, as a major threat to the economics of this small niche market
mfger.
The use of the Leica name on rebranded P&S cameras and their efforts to
get into the digital market also seem problematic, and with digital, the $
spent there drain the $$ they can spend defending their core rangefinder
and SLR markets. The P&S may generate $$, but I find it worrisome (as with
Hasselblad) that they are milking the brand name and its adherents. It is
an indicator, to me, that they now have a bunch of the new MBAs running
around, and I suspect those guys are going to be more likely to drop the
RF and SLR line than the older more traditional managers would have been?
And Hermes isn't in business to offset Leica's losses, rather the other
way around, yes? ;-)
in short, it will be interesting to see what happens when Leica finally
gets some competition, and to leica (used) prices, and that competition is
expected in the next year, so that was the context of my comments...
regards,
SWB
> Hi Steve,
>
> yes, sorry I wasn't clear, the "M7" being rumored is not being made by
> Leica, but by Bessa, extending to a fully featured electronics rangefinder
> with M-mount and standard viewfinder setup (unlike the latest bessa
> M-mount model with accy finder).
A skillful twist in the arguement there. Of course you were talking about
Voigtlander...
>
> So the question is would you pay $1200 for a used Leica M series body if a
> more modern body design featuring the same lens mount with advanced
> electronics, manual or auto exposure option and so on was available for
If it ain't broke etc etc. But you can get a Konica already that does that
anyway.
> Now it appears there soon will be, along with
> features and electronics not found in the Leica series.
But thats whats called choice for the consumer. Just because electronics are
available to monitor all the camera functions doesn't mean you have to
incorporate them. It would be pretty awful if the only choice was between
brands, and not functions as well. Do you have the same philosophy on other
products? Do you have a toilet in each room just because its possible. Do
you take all the food in your refrigerator and liquidize it to make a meal?
>
> Yes, many leicaphiles will buy only Leicas, but I believe lots of folks
> will buy a cheaper fuller featured electronics camera, just as you can
> still buy a manual 35mm SLR today (nikon FM3a..) but most folks have
> auto/manual (if not AF) cameras as the bulk of the sales in 35mm & P&S
common sense says so, and plenty of Leica users also have other cameras.
Your point is redundant before its made.
> your point about being able to buy a leica, use it hard for 20 years, then
> make money selling it used to the next buyer, sounds great - if you aren't
> the last buyer when the musical chairs stop ;-) It smacks of the greater
> fool theory to me ;-) I just can't see how 20+ year old used prices can be
> 75-80% of new, and 150-250% or more than new purchase price for now much
> used gear, and not come down to earth when competition suddenly hits this
> niche market. ;-)
I didn't suggest you 'make money', just that at the moment the prices are
very equal. I am also damn sure that the majority of Leica users won't be at
all bothered about a price drop should one theoretically happen. They
weren't going to sell their kit anyway, and it means you can buy more lenses
at a better price. You really do have to understand that some people don't
drool over the next big electronic revolution in rangefinders or any camera.
A lot of people look at new functions and decide if they need them before
buying or upgrading. You obviously do want them. If thats your interest, OK.
But don't tar everybody with your brush.
> Already, a lot of the leica types have bought various non-Leica M-mount
> and other (LTM..) lenses and been surprised/shocked at the relative
> quality and low cost. Again, I see that eroding Leica's mindshare, and
> marketshare, as a major threat to the economics of this small niche market
> mfger.
You forget that when Leica introduced the LTM and M series they had far
more competition than today. Somehow they survived, what a miracle! Maybe
they did something right. Maybe there is a niche market for pride in
production standards, a consumer base that wants and needs quality, and a
steady evolution rather than 'buy today, throw away tomorrow'.
> The use of the Leica name on rebranded P&S cameras and their efforts to
> get into the digital market also seem problematic, and with digital, the $
> spent there drain the $$ they can spend defending their core rangefinder
> and SLR markets. The P&S may generate $$, but I find it worrisome (as with
> Hasselblad) that they are milking the brand name and its adherents. It is
> an indicator, to me, that they now have a bunch of the new MBAs running
> around, and I suspect those guys are going to be more likely to drop the
> RF and SLR line than the older more traditional managers would have been?
> And Hermes isn't in business to offset Leica's losses, rather the other
> way around, yes? ;-)
You have a very selective view of Leica products. In back to back tests the
Leica P&S cameras mostly come out with better optics and results than other
brands. How is that a failure? Have you ever come across the expression
'raced on Sunday, bought on Monday'. Not many people seriously believed they
we're going to purchase a pukka NASCAR Dodge Daytona, Hudson Hornet et al.
But a successful product is a successful product. I suspect that people who
buy the P&S line have mostly never heard of the M and R ranges. You seem to
think that M and R owners should feel ashamed of the P&S line? I'd get one
if I could afford one, I no snob.
> in short, it will be interesting to see what happens when Leica finally
> gets some competition, and to leica (used) prices, and that competition is
> expected in the next year, so that was the context of my comments...
Once again, this competition amounts to Voigtlander right (Konica don't seem
to be releasing any lenses any more)? Having out lived rangefinder
competition from small companies like Canon and Nikon, and out sold Contax,
if I we're a marketing man I would suspect that the market for Leica's is
pretty solid. Come the day that Voigtlander can hand assemble and
individually test each and every component that goes into a lens or body,
and design better bodies (not just with more electronic gimmicks), and make
better optics, I may change. I rule nothing out. But by then the Voiglander
product will cost the same as Leica, so I won't need to anyway.
> regards,
> bobm
Steve ;-)
Anthony Polson
> So I think that this new bessa rangefinder may well be a factor which
> causes folks to have to re-evaluate the current high used leica body
> prices, with these going lower as demand drops due to many entry level
> buyers preferring the newer more feature rich camera(s). It is supply and
> demand, as you have noted, until now there hasn't been a really comparable
> M-mount rangefinder. Now it appears there soon will be, along with
> features and electronics not found in the Leica series.
Have you forgotten the Konica Hexar RF?
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
Simon ALIBERT
> THe related question, given the stats I have cited on Leica's modest sales
> and supposedly low markup on bodies, is whether Leica can weather the loss
> of some substantial fraction of their sales to a new M-mount rangefinder,
> given only 1,000 Leica M sales per month? They are already considering
> dropping the R line, right
They actually sell more than 1,000 Leica M Body per month, and they
don't considering to drop the R line, they just introduce two new R
Lens, and since Hanns Peter Cohn is the general manager (2 years ago),
the Leica M sales is growing, it's a fact..
--
Simon ALIBERT
Nes Groups
the M series lenses .. has the frames for 40, 50 and 90mm.. About $600 used
and half the size. Image quality is from the optics not the body ( one
hopes the shutter works fine).
####
McEowen
>Take
>the M series lenses .. has the frames for 40, 50 and 90mm.. About $600 used
>and half the size. Image quality is from the optics not the body ( one
>hopes the shutter works fine).
If you go with the CLE (the best of the three IMO) I've heard that the shutter
from a cheap Minolta XG series SLR camera (i.e. XG-1) will drop right in should
you ever need parts. I've even seen used CLE cameras being sold with a spare
parts minolta slr body.
Of course, you almost have to question the wisdom of paying $600-$700 for a CL
or CLE when a user M4-2 or M4-P often sells in the same range on ebay. Getting
repairs done on old Leicas is not a problem (unless you consider the cost to be
a problem).
ArtKramr
>news:a09fpj$shv$1...@newsie.singa.pore.net...
>> Any one can recommend any similar featured (and less pricey) rangefinders
>?
>> Require smooth operation and quality optics.
There is no substitute for a Leica. Bite the bullet, save your money and get
the real thing.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Nes Groups
M series lenses and are about $600 used. Half the size and half the cost.
Same optics
Regards....
georg...@rogers.com www.mgi.ca
####
"neobluskie" <neobl...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
Bob Hickey
helped by some competition, by way of the old up-grade syndrome. People
buying a competitive product, can now upgrade, whereas before there
wasn't much to upgrade from. I just don't see many people going from a
$50 e-bay Canonet, to a Leica. Trading in a Bessa or Hexar, for an M6,
maybe. Not to say RFs will ever compete with SLRs in tems of
numbers sold; they're just not versatile enough, not to mention the
missing "gee whiz" factor. Sometimes I think the reason Canon/Nikon
sells so much, is because people are affirming their loyalty; casting
their vote, so to speak. If Minolta/Pentax started a war, maybe they'd
sell more too. Bob Hickey
Matt
> That sounds like a great reason not to buy an M6 now, I don't think. Just
> imagine, you've waited and waited, got your new M7, and some jerk starts
an
> M8 rumour. But I guess if you haven't got a Leica the next best thing is
to
> say one day you will get one, but not just yet.
OTOH - if you're someone like me who wants the features (well... the
*feature* - onboard TTL metering) of the M6, but isn't willing to pay (as
Robert has noted) almost-new prices for used equipment - if/when a new model
came out and drove down prices of used models I'd be on it in a heartbeat.
User M6 for $700 or $800? That $400 means that I can better afford a 35/2
ASPH.
> Surely the criteria for
> purchasing anything as expensive as a Leica has to be, 'will I use it'. If
> its what you want and need a $300 difference between new or used, buy now
or
> buy later, all pails into insignificance over the lifespan of the camera.
This is true. I've pretty much ruled out a Bessa R system, because I'm
young, and plan to use this camera for as long as film is available. And I'm
sure Leica won't abandon M-mount lenses if digital managed to completely
kill film.
SWB
"Simon ALIBERT" <nojunk.si...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1f534pr.104h55d461ruyN%nojunk.si...@mac.com...
Hi Simon
Robert also conveniently forgets the value of sales on Leica lenses in the
equation he has for the downfall of the company. I don't know, but a
pessimistic figure may be three lenses to one body, on average, for the
lifetime of the camera?? That generates a tidy income stream itself. I also
agree that the 'rumour' of dropping the R line is another of Roberts very
own fantasies.
Steve
Anon Terry
> If Leicas make people have such bad attitude like yours, I'd stay away from
> it.
>
> Walter
Leica "makes" people have bad attitudes? People's attitudes actually
have an effect on what YOU do? My, I don't know whether to be
flattered or laugh my ass off.
Robert Monaghan
supporting older cameras - up until recently, anyway, as parts are getting
impossible for some repairs and have to be modified or hand made etc.
see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/nofix.html#leica on scarce leica
parts etc.
this seems to be a similar situation on med fmt, with hassy parts for
older lenses being harder to get now too, and even 20 year old bronica E
series bodies are now orphans, without any official product or parts
support from the mfgers.
still, lots better than the 7 years (or 5 years) after last sale in USA
for many more modern cameras, yes? ;-)
bachch...@my-deja.com
- Leica purists please stop reading. :)
I just compared the finder of my M6 TTL 0.85 with my (ahem) Contax
Aria + "cheapo" 1.7/50 Planar and to my surprise, the SLR combination
is actually brighter and easier to focus than the M6 TTL with the 50mm
'Cron, not to say without any rangefinder flare. The Leica M is
traditionally prized for its compactness but in fact the Aria is even
smaller and lighter, with a built-in motor-drive to boot. Of course,
the Contax is not an all-metal camera but unlike so many current AF
SLRs, it does not feel cheap or flimsy at all, thanks to a judicious
use of polycarbonate. (Being a metal-holic, the Aria is the only
non-full-metal, serious camera I like and care to buy.)
Many of us will agree that Zeiss glass is as good as Leica and I'm
also of this opinion. Granted, the colours (Zeiss a bit more vibrant
and Leica more neutral) and bokeh (Zeiss already very good and Leica
perhaps somewhat smoother + more aperture blades) may be slightly
different but with equivalent lenses, you just can't beat either make.
Leica holds the edge in the compactness of the M lenses but not in
price, even with the good deals I got with the penultimate 'Cron and
thin Tele-Elmarit. On the other hand, Zeiss lenses are very well
constucted too, noticeably better than the equivalent Ai-S Nikkors and
with much more useable depth-of-field scales.
The material, fit and construction of the M6 is also reflected in its
price. The lack of noise and vibration are unmatched too. But the
Aria is surprisingly quiet even with the built-in motor - I'd say its
noise is lower than the average AF SLR. The shutter-mirror are also
very well damped - I can hand-hold a 85mm Sonnar at 1/30 easily, which
was a lot more difficult with the (ahem) N*k*n FM I bought more than
20 years ago. The maximum flash sync speed is 1/125 and to me, a lot
more useable in daylight fill-flash than the Leica's 1/50 because I
use ISO 400 film almost exclusively. Unlike earlier M's, my TTL won't
even do 1/60 with flash. Needless to say, the Aria has the usual
exposure info (also a frame-counter) in the viewfinder, auto-exposure
modes plus spot/centre-weighted/evaluative metering, though I usually
go with aperture-priority and manual only. With the M6, all we have
is the non-weighted meter and LEDs in the finder. As for ergonmics,
while holding the Leica's rounded metal contours is a great visceral
feeling (save for the clumsy lugs of the original strap), the Aria is
actually easier to hold, especially with only the right hand. Both
handle nicely.
My eyesight won't allow me to use the M6 in 20 years (or maybe even
less) so I have to enjoy its exquisite craftsmanship and top-notch
compact lenses while I can. I'd like to own the Noctilux but can't
afford it and don't actually have the need. Of course, unlike the
Leica M, the Aria is not a classic legend and won't hold its value
like the former. But for my purposes at least, the Aria is a better
user (and much better bang-for-the-buck) than the M6 TTL.
Andrew
Dilbertdroid2
Aria + "cheapo" 1.7/50 Planar and to my surprise, the SLR combination
is actually brighter and easier to focus than the M6 TTL with the 50mm
'Cron, not to say without any rangefinder flare.>>>
What's the serial number of your M6?
bachch...@my-deja.com
there's the infamous rangefinder flare.
Andrew
On 30 Dec 2001 11:13:15 GMT, dilber...@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2)
wrote:
Ernest Nitka
With the Aria - for context - I do love my M6 but did at one point have the
Aria and your points about the Aria are all on the money - I believe the
contax lenses to be on par with the leica at a fraction of the cost. I
actually believe that as my eyesight goes I will be using my M6 more than my
Manual focus SLR. Just interested in your motivation in getting the M6
Ernie nitka
On 12/30/01 7:24 AM, in article 2q1u2u4vvnl5tpjq4...@4ax.com,
Dilbertdroid2
there's the infamous rangefinder flare.>>>
Just checking. You'd be surprised how many of the photographers here own
equipment only in the "imaginary" sense. (BTW, my serial number is 25959XX)
I would suggest, though, that if you find the M6 to be so inferior to your
Contax, you get rid of it and invest the money in some Zeiss lenses.
Mike Corn
his M6. One thing people on these Leica vs. the world threads seem to forget is
that many of us just like owning these cameras. It's not a quest for the
greatest camera and then abandon everything else. I have a really lovely Contax
G2, but I keep my el cheapo manual Pentax (with noticably inferior lenses) for
situtations when I need to drag my camera through the mud. If money were no
object I'd probably pick up an M6 just for the hell of it. Yet for most of my
purposes the G2 is nearly perfect.
MC
Pat Chaney
>I just compared the finder of my M6 TTL 0.85 with my (ahem) Contax
>Aria + "cheapo" 1.7/50 Planar and to my surprise, the SLR combination
>is actually brighter and easier to focus than the M6 TTL with the 50mm
>'Cron, not to say without any rangefinder flare. The Leica M is
>traditionally prized for its compactness but in fact the Aria is even
>smaller and lighter, with a built-in motor-drive to boot. Of course,
>the Contax is not an all-metal camera but unlike so many current AF
>SLRs, it does not feel cheap or flimsy at all, thanks to a judicious
>use of polycarbonate. (Being a metal-holic, the Aria is the only
>non-full-metal, serious camera I like and care to buy.)
Thanks, I found that interesting. Getting an Aria for the Zeiss optics
is becoming increasingly tempting.
Any thoughts on the Planar 50/1.4 vs the 50/1.7?
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Robert Monaghan
Hi Steve,
yes, I am sure that many leicas will have to pulled out of the cold dead
fingers of their owners ;-) Nikon did just make some number (5,000? a lot
by leica standards, trivial by theirs) of the collectible rangefinders, so
it is also possible now that they have the tooling to re-do theirs too?
I doubt anyone will try to duplicate Leicas in their zeal in handcrafted
quality and optical excellence, simply because that niche isn't big enough
as I have noted. I think cosina (voigtlander is wrong w/o umlauts, I
think, and anyway, a trade name and play on a fine old firm's reputation)
is going to create a much larger niche with their electronic variant RFs
of the M-bayonet cameras, and while their lenses may be a bit less
superior than Leicas, the results may be hard or impossible for most real
world users to tell, and anyway at 1/5th to 1/3rd the price many of us
will be happy to go with the lower cost optics.
Lots of leica owners are already using non-M mount lenses, or have
multiple bodies and lenses, as I have noted the leica sales figures don't
support many lenses per body sold (like 1.2 lenses per body sold). But for
a small niche corp like Leica, these losses may be hard to makeup within
the M line division, and have to come from profits in rebadging cameras
like P&S or digital lenses?
as for production costs, assuming a decent production#, Cosina is probably
enjoying a 200% to 400% lower cost per camera simply by using production
line vs handcrafted line, and with slightly less costly body designs they
seem to be able to make more money on a clone with more features at a
fourth the price. Good for those of us who are happy for that option and
bargain. Until now, the choice has been Leica new, or leica used for about
80% of leica new prices, or collectibles, or russian camera clones. To me,
these new models will open up exciting options and possibilities, just as
my Nikon FE etc. expanded what my nikon F and F2 could do...
grins bobm
Robert Monaghan
you guys need to join the leica lists (including the topica one) ;-)
see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999 Leica R sales are
6,000 - a YEAR ;-) A half a day's worth of the other SLRs from japan
alone is more than that ;-) Like 20 per business day. Got the picture?
Do you think they can continue investing in R&D with lagging sales? Or
should a small niche company invest in high profit rebadging of P&S and
future digicam lenses?
and if you have Leica's old financial reports, you can read their own
discussions and concerns over lagging R line sales and warning to
investors etc.
and if you take their projected growth figures on M body sales, and divide
into Leica's total sales of M-body cameras, lenses, and accessories, you
discover that their sales are circa $3,000 US$ per leica M body sold. Do
you see a problem there? How many Leica bodies and lenses can you buy for
$3,000? Part of that goes for the M body, and assuming you buy a Leica
lens for it, you haven't got much $$ left, right? Maybe a lens cap or two?
I have previously pointed all this out here, with the sources and
calculations, if you want to check dejanews. So your assumption that they
are making up profits by selling 3 or more lenses per body or whatever are
hard to justify with their known sales of bodies and total revenue figures
for the M system in financial reports (audited). They aren't making much
money, really, due to the high costs and small sales etc.
so my suspicion remains that the average leica body only has one and a
fraction M mount leica lenses for it made, and only a handful of leica
owners actually have multiple leica made lenses (due to cost) and that
most leica owners make do with clone lenses, cosina, konica, adorama,
nikon, canon, reid,and the many russian clone lenses, including in LTM to
M mounts.
now that you've caught up, let's get on with the debate ;-p) bobm
bachch...@my-deja.com
something close to what they did, I'd probably give it a try when I
can still afford to do so. Plus the fact that I've been admiring the
M for at least 20 years. I've also mentioned that I'm a metal-holic
and the construction and craftsmanship of a Leica M is virtually
unmatched among current 35mm offerings. (Yes I know the F5 or EOS1
are no less flimsy but you don't get the visceral enjoyment holding
them like an old-fashioned, metal-clad camera.) Today I'm still
amazed at the compactness of my "cheapo" 50mm 'Cron and thin
Tele-Elmarit and the near-silent shutter.
Using a Leica M is a unique experience that comes with a considerable
learning curve and acclimatization, though. That's why the Aria is a
better user to me.
BTW, my Leitz (yes Leitz) lenses don't give annoying hexagonal
highlights like those from my "cheapo" Contax/Zeiss lenses.
Andrew
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:09:32 GMT, Ernest Nitka <eni...@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
Ernest Nitka
Taking an M even without film and playing with it. Not something that one
can say about the modern SLR - it's a tool not a object of lust or art.
Happy new year
Ernie nitka
On 12/31/01 6:55 AM, in article udj03ukklckgbi8nn...@4ax.com,
Roberto Strappafelci
> Well, I'm a sucker for classic marques, and if they still make
> something close to what they did, I'd probably give it a try when I
> can still afford to do so. Plus the fact that I've been admiring the
> M for at least 20 years. I've also mentioned that I'm a metal-holic
> and the construction and craftsmanship of a Leica M is virtually
> unmatched among current 35mm offerings. (Yes I know the F5 or EOS1
> are no less flimsy but you don't get the visceral enjoyment holding
> them like an old-fashioned, metal-clad camera.) Today I'm still
> amazed at the compactness of my "cheapo" 50mm 'Cron and thin
> Tele-Elmarit and the near-silent shutter.
>
> Using a Leica M is a unique experience that comes with a considerable
> learning curve and acclimatization, though. That's why the Aria is a
> better user to me.
>
> BTW, my Leitz (yes Leitz) lenses don't give annoying hexagonal
> highlights like those from my "cheapo" Contax/Zeiss lenses.
>
Andrew,
What lenses do give you those hexagonal highlights?
Thanks
Roberto
McEowen
Aria + "cheapo" 1.7/50 Planar and to my surprise, the SLR combination
is actually brighter and easier to focus than the M6 TTL with the 50mm
'Cron, not to say without any rangefinder flare. >>
In my experience, the focusing advantage of the rangefinder is best seen with
wideangle lenses -- especially in low light. The problem -- for me anyway -- is
that it is sometimes hard to find the point of absolute sharpest focus when
viewing the image from a f2.8 wideangle lens projected onto a ground glass
focusing screen. There's enough depth of field at f2.8 that it's hard to
differenciate depth of field from sharp focus. With the rangefinder, though,
it's easy.
McEowen
learning curve and acclimatization, though. >>
That is certainly true. Give it time. I've had mine almost two years (plus
about two years ownership about 20 years ago) and I'm still getting used to it.
Probably 8 times out of 10 I still pick up the SLR first but there are certain
situations where the Leica excells . . .
McEowen
Taking an M even without film and playing with it. Not something that one
can say about the modern SLR - it's a tool not a object of lust or art.
>>
No camera should EVER be without film any longer than it takes to remove one
roll and put in the next . . .
bachch...@my-deja.com
blades and closer to a circle) to avoid those hexagons, for a higher
price and heavier weight. If memory serves, the 1.4/50 (SLR) and 2/45
(G series) Planars also have 6 iris blades.
Andrew
bachch...@my-deja.com
advantage. (1/2 stop faster doesn't make that much difference.) I've
read that the 1.4 gives a "rounder" image and the 1.7 a "harder" one
though I suspect that "proper" lighting will cancel out any differnce.
The optical construction is almost identical for both - just go to the
official Contax site for details.
BTW, the 1.4 should come with a lens pouch but the 1.7 doesn't.
Andrew
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:32:05 +0000, Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com>
wrote:
Paul van Walree
>>Any thoughts on the Planar 50/1.4 vs the 50/1.7?
>The 1.4 focuses closer and this is about the only significant
>advantage. (1/2 stop faster doesn't make that much difference.) I've
>read that the 1.4 gives a "rounder" image and the 1.7 a "harder" one
>though I suspect that "proper" lighting will cancel out any differnce.
>The optical construction is almost identical for both - just go to the
>official Contax site for details.
Yes, optically they compare well but the 1.4/50 is mechanically
superior to the 1.7/50.
W.
Pat Chaney
>The 1.4 focuses closer and this is about the only significant
>advantage. (1/2 stop faster doesn't make that much difference.) I've
>read that the 1.4 gives a "rounder" image and the 1.7 a "harder" one
>though I suspect that "proper" lighting will cancel out any differnce.
>The optical construction is almost identical for both - just go to the
>official Contax site for details.
OK, thanks for the feedback Andrew. I just checked and the close focus
on the f/1.4 is 3/4 of that on the f/1.7, so worth having I'd say. Quite
a lot of money for an extra half stop though.
Pat Chaney
>Yes, optically they compare well but the 1.4/50 is mechanically
>superior to the 1.7/50.
That's interesting - could you elaborate on this please?
Pat Chaney
>Yes, optically they compare well but the 1.4/50 is mechanically
>superior to the 1.7/50.
That's interesting - could you elaborate on this please?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com>
Newsgroups: opera.test,news.admin.censorship,alt.test,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: cmsg cancel <v3i43us2mla3kmkii...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <v3i43us2mla3kmkii...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:30:46 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.v3i43us2mla3k...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949838 28790 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:37:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:37:18 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
autocancel
Jay B
effectiveness of eBay and how that eats into their lens sales
specifically. As a recent M6 purchaser I have already purchased a
used 35/2 and 50/2 and don't really forsee purchasing new lenses in
the near term. Granted I am still new to the system, but these lenses
will serve me well enough and the cost savings is significant.
Feel free to point out the folly of this thought process...
Anon Terry
Yet there are many who prefer a "virgin" lens, along with its almost
unheard-of no-fault warranty for three years (and an extra two years
of defects-only coverage for $75 or thereabouts), and are willing to
pay the premium for it.
Even though you're new to Leica and are apparently satisfied with your
35/2 and 50/2, there will come a day when you will be at least curious
about the 35/2 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4, and 50/1 Noctilux. It's not
a question of IF, but WHEN. Trust me. You might not foresee it now,
but these things have an ugly habit of sneaking up on you when you
least expect it. It goes something like: well gee, these are serving
me "well enough"... but I wonder what the BEST is like? Then it's up
to you to figure out if the Emperor is naked or not.
In terms of sales prospects, I think a far bigger problem for Leica
than eBay's apparent effectiveness is the Catch-22 of Leica build
quality. The religious might argue that any given modern example is
nowhere near the build quality of legends like the M3 or DR Summicron,
but with normal use and regular maintenance I don't think any of the
modern models would have any problems lasting a lifetime or maybe
longer. The fact that they aren't disposable (unlike your average
consumer third-party zoom) and are fully mechanical (easily
serviceable by anyone with the right skills and tools), means they're
in service for a LOT longer before needing replacement. I don't know
if Leica minds having such a "problem" - they do accept for repair
almost any Leica ever made - so it may even appear that they're
perpetuating it and making some bucks off it at the same time. So how
do they keep selling new products?
By using magic words like "3 years", "no-fault", "TTL", "APO", and
"ASPH."
;-)
SWB
"Anon Terry" <ano...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbfb796b.02010...@posting.google.com...
heavy snip
> By using magic words like "3 years", "no-fault", "TTL", "APO", and
> "ASPH."
>
> ;-)
Hello Anon Terry
I foolishly thought that I would economize by purchasing second hand lenses
when I first got a Leica M many years ago. But one experience of handling a
new one, open the box, open the leather lens case, read the warranty etc,
and I was hooked. The only problem is that I now have the four lenses I want
and use, some are even quite cosmetically battered, but the retail therapy
has worn off long ago. Maybe I do 'need' a Noctilux....
Steve
McEowen
The only folly is that the used market for Leica gear has always been strong
and predates ebay by decades.
EDGY01
or leave my Noctilux in the oven, and Leica shows up with a replacement without
a lot of hassles...
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
M. Talaian
>I particularly like the Leica protection program. I can drop my M6 in my pool,
>or leave my Noctilux in the oven, and Leica shows up with a replacement without
>a lot of hassles...
What if I loose my Leica (?) and have not registered the serial
number? Can I get a replacement?
M. Talaian
>
>Dan Lindsay
>Santa Barbara
remove donot. before "start" to mail reply!
Robert Monaghan
re: leica lenses options, ebay etc.
I think that there is growing competition, not just due to Ebay, but also
the new lens offerings from Konica, Voigt-sina, and the huge increase in
Russian lens offerings now directly available to USA buyers via EBAY and
various russian and ukrainian ebay dealers. This is very different than
the market that has long existed for true blue Leica or Leitz optics. The
market is now much broader, more options, and many more lenses available.
re: leica's problem - self-competition?
the problem for Leica is that they compete with their older lenses which
are very good, and now with newer lenses at much lower prices (esp. the
wide angles), which are also very good for most users needs too. I assume
this explains the high used prices for leica lenses?
now Leica must also compete against options that may be optically quite
good, if not quite superlative as the newest Leica optics. the new wide
angles have displaced leica's rare and pricey options in ultrawides; the
f/1.5 lenses have also impressed many buyers. Even some of the russian
ebay lenses in M adapters may be quite acceptable to some users with
diverse needs and modest budgets that preclude buying the leica variants.
re: leica mindshare?
so the expanding market seems to imply diminishing mindshare for Leica
(from nearly 100%, they can only go downward, yes?). Will buyers of the
clone lenses or Russian cheapy lenses be prepared to pay kilobucks for new
or used Leica made replacements? Personally, I doubt it, though they might
get some upgraders who find they like 35mm Rangefinders in leica formats.
re: Leica big dealers going EBAY?
One of the big Leica dealers, Don Chatterton, has just started listing on
EBAY. Many other dealers are dumping their stocks via EBAY, presumably
partly as a result of savings over ads in Shutterbug etc., and perhaps due
to lagging sales in weak economy? So those who dismiss EBAY as a factor
may be in for some surprises. The switch of top Leica dealers to EBAY is
an interesting phenomena, but I don't know its full global implications -
yet ;-)
regards bobm
Godfrey DiGiorgi
All this academic discussion of Leica this and that is getting kinda boring.
I think *I'm* going to concentrate on taking more pictures, using my Leica
and other cameras, and leave the discussion of what ontological truths the
company is pursuing to you and others. I got my gear, it works just dandy,
and that's all there is to it really.
enjoy!
Godfrey
EDGY01
number? Can I get a replacement? >>
If you 'loose' (sic) your Leica and have not registered the serial number I
would simply take it off the box. Would you lose the box, too, do you think?
The registration papers would normally be kept with the box, right?
Dan
Anon Terry
> What if I loose my Leica (?) and have not registered the serial
> number? Can I get a replacement? M. Talaian
Yes, all you have to do is hand your credit card to your dealer and
assuming you've got $2000 credit available, a replacement shouldn't be
a problem. <g>
Seriously though, the Passport warranty covers just about everything
EXCEPT fire and loss/theft. They require you to send the pieces back
to them, including the hotshoe (which bears the serial number). And
no, the hotshoe by itself is not sufficient.
Some might shoot me for this but I think the "no-fault" aspect of the
Passport warranty is useless as a marketing tool. I don't think it
helps sales (it sure wasn't the main selling point for me nor most
shooters I know). People buy an M6 because they want an M6, not
because "oooo, the M6 is better than the EOS-1V because if my bungling
ass drops it I'll get a new one!"
IMHO Leica would be better off getting rid of the no-fault part and
just throwing in the currently-extra-$125 two-year extended warranty,
making it 5 years total of manufacturing-defects service. That would
be 5 times longer than your average modern camera warranty and would
speak more about Leica's confidence of their product quality - and
therefore would be a superior selling point - than "we cater to clumsy
oafs" no-fault coverage.