totifoto
Well-known
Ok I finally did it. I have been shooting digital for the last 5 years and have been upgrading my canon digital gear a bit
over the time and had in my hands a Canon 5D and a 24-70L lens + the famous 50 f1.4. I also have Eos 650 and 1N film cameras. Over the past 1,5 year though I have been shooting more and more film, both 35mm and 6x6. I found out that the only time I pick up my digital camera is when I have to do some shots for work, (I work for an alcahol importing company), photos of wine bottles and stuff. I figured that I dont need a 2200$ camera for that and a 1200$ lens so I sold it and am getting the 30D for 650$ and a 17-40 L lens for 600$, same gear I had before the 5D and 24-70 and the pictures look the same but can not be printed as big. That does not matter anyway because they never print them big. So I have about 1650$ left and was thinking about getting a portrait lens for my Hasselblad or a Leica.
My dream is Leica M6 .85 and the 35mm f1.4 but I doubt that anyone would sell that for 1650$
I have also been looking at the M5 and M2 but the M2 does not have built in light meter. I use handheld one most of the time but I have been wondering about the built in meter in the Leicas if they are as good as in the Canon EOS 1 bodys or not.
What do you Leica experts say? I have 1650$, wanna get a Leica camera+lens and my biggest terms are big viewfinder and a 35mm lens.
over the time and had in my hands a Canon 5D and a 24-70L lens + the famous 50 f1.4. I also have Eos 650 and 1N film cameras. Over the past 1,5 year though I have been shooting more and more film, both 35mm and 6x6. I found out that the only time I pick up my digital camera is when I have to do some shots for work, (I work for an alcahol importing company), photos of wine bottles and stuff. I figured that I dont need a 2200$ camera for that and a 1200$ lens so I sold it and am getting the 30D for 650$ and a 17-40 L lens for 600$, same gear I had before the 5D and 24-70 and the pictures look the same but can not be printed as big. That does not matter anyway because they never print them big. So I have about 1650$ left and was thinking about getting a portrait lens for my Hasselblad or a Leica.
My dream is Leica M6 .85 and the 35mm f1.4 but I doubt that anyone would sell that for 1650$
I have also been looking at the M5 and M2 but the M2 does not have built in light meter. I use handheld one most of the time but I have been wondering about the built in meter in the Leicas if they are as good as in the Canon EOS 1 bodys or not.
What do you Leica experts say? I have 1650$, wanna get a Leica camera+lens and my biggest terms are big viewfinder and a 35mm lens.
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
You should be able to get a .85 ttl and a Voigtlander 35/2.5 lens for that...
venchka
Veteran
Hmmmm...getting out the calculator.
Bubba, my second M5 purchase, + Konica 28/2.8 M-Hexanon lens fit your budget. Almost. I think sales tax on the lens may have put me over a little.
35mm lenses from Canon will keep you under budget with change for another lens.
$1,650 would get you a nice M5 and 2-3 lenses. And money for film leftover.
Bubba, my second M5 purchase, + Konica 28/2.8 M-Hexanon lens fit your budget. Almost. I think sales tax on the lens may have put me over a little.
35mm lenses from Canon will keep you under budget with change for another lens.
$1,650 would get you a nice M5 and 2-3 lenses. And money for film leftover.
namelast
Member
The CV 35mm 1.4 is a good alternative to the Leica model (or so people tthat *know* say). You could be able to find an M6 with the money left here in the classifieds (maybe not the 0.85, I guess they will cost more than the 0.72).
Meleica
Well-known
see my pages at antiquecameras.net for price guides on all things leica
Dan
Dan
totifoto
Well-known
Sounds like you just want a Leica!
The best advice as given above would probably be an M6 and CV 35 lens. If speed isn't important, the 35 Skopar is a good choice. Otherwise, the 35 1.4 would work for you.
Or, just get a Bessa R3a and use what's left over for film and processing. (I know, you really want a Leica). GAS is a terrible thing.
yea I have wanted a Leica ever since I bought my first camera. It was a used Canon EOS. I saw the Leica in the store and fell in love with the look. Over the years I have been reading about them and every time I see one I go :"Damn thats a nice camera!"
But the alternetive choise there is not a bad idea, get the Bessa with a lens and still have money left for the portrait lens I also want for my Hasselbald
abenner
undecided
There's an 0.85 M6TTL over at photo.net classifieds for $1375 with a Luigi case. Doesn't leave much for a lens, but if you're patient you could probably find a 40/2 for $300. Would make a fine kit. Or sell the case and add that to your lens fund.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"and my biggest terms are big viewfinder and a 35mm lens."
Do you realize an .85 finder is not "bigger" than a .72 or .58 finder? That it's only the FRAMELINES for the 35mm lens that are more 'spacious' within the same finder?
Secondly, have you held/used an .85 finder? I had an .85 M7, and found it very uncomfortable to use the 35mm framelines. They were just too far out to the viewfinder edges for my eyes, and to compose i had to search around the outside to be sure of what i was including versus cropping out. I don't think the .85 is ideal for a 35. It's marvelous for a 50, though.
If you're not married to the idea of a Leica, i would suggest you look at the Zeiss Ikon. After two M7s, i've sold them both and now have an Ikon, which feels perfect for a 35mm lens. You should be able to get one 'used' for a grand. Then, $600 buys you a pretty good 35mm lens, or a combo of 35+50. Great glass doesn't have to read "Leica" across the front. And, the Ikon's viewfinder is better, in my opinion, than either of the M7s i owned. If the viewfinder is the primary consideration, the Ikon has it.
Do you realize an .85 finder is not "bigger" than a .72 or .58 finder? That it's only the FRAMELINES for the 35mm lens that are more 'spacious' within the same finder?
Secondly, have you held/used an .85 finder? I had an .85 M7, and found it very uncomfortable to use the 35mm framelines. They were just too far out to the viewfinder edges for my eyes, and to compose i had to search around the outside to be sure of what i was including versus cropping out. I don't think the .85 is ideal for a 35. It's marvelous for a 50, though.
If you're not married to the idea of a Leica, i would suggest you look at the Zeiss Ikon. After two M7s, i've sold them both and now have an Ikon, which feels perfect for a 35mm lens. You should be able to get one 'used' for a grand. Then, $600 buys you a pretty good 35mm lens, or a combo of 35+50. Great glass doesn't have to read "Leica" across the front. And, the Ikon's viewfinder is better, in my opinion, than either of the M7s i owned. If the viewfinder is the primary consideration, the Ikon has it.
jack palmer
Well-known
I have a .85MP and can see the 35mm frame lines just fine. There's very little space around them but otherwise no problem.
abenner
undecided
also an m3 (0.91 finder) with goggled 35/2 could be had for $1600
aizan
Veteran
a used zeiss ikon + 35/2 biogon can be had for about that much, but an m6 .85 + 35/2 pre-asph summicron will be about $2800.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
I paid under 1800 for my .85 M6TTL+Current 50mm Summicron.
It's not a 35mm lens, but it shows that a Leica set up in that price range is feasible.
It's not a 35mm lens, but it shows that a Leica set up in that price range is feasible.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"I paid under 1800 for my .85 M6TTL+Current 50mm Summicron."
When? Recently?
When? Recently?
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Not at the same time, but in the past 6 months or so. The cron I got today.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I know I am in the mass minority in this opinion, but I find the M6 meter to be just short of horrible. Its practically useless in a backlit situation. I have found a peace in my m6 with the battery removed. And no, there is nothing wrong with the meter. There is no way its going to perform like an eos meter, its a very simple thing... If you know how to meter and you are critical about what you are metering, do not bring high expectations to the metering in an M6.
Beyond that, the finder is lousy. The frame lines are very thin, which some people like, but they are anything but accurate. If you put a lot of things along your frame edge, like I do, expect to be frustrated by the M6 framelines. You'll wind up catching lots of stuff outside the lines. And no, there isnt anything wrong with my finder either.
I have an .85 finder. Sure, you can see the frame lines just fine for 35mm, however you nor I or anyone else that is a human is going to see the whole frame without having to scan around the edges. Its perfectly usable, but its very slow compared to a .72 finder. You'll eventually get used to it and may even grow to prefer it, but I dislike using my M6 for anything shorter than a 50.
If you are remotely considering an M2, just get it and a nice lens. .72 is ideal for a 35mm lens. I lusted after an M6 for ages while owning several M3's. And then I got one and used it for about 6 months before realizing I just hated the thing. For the guy that cant deal with life with a hand meter, the M6 is rad, but for my expectations, its nothing but an exercise in compromise: the meter is stone age practical, the finder is simply NOT accurate, the wind is nothing like an older M and if you want to really get "Im bored at work and have nothing better to do than be critical on the internet" then you can add the finder does flare and for 1 out of every 2000 frames you shoot, you'll have trouble seeing your frame lines. Some people make a big deal about this, but for how annoyed I get with other real features of the camera that have to be dealt with every time you bring the thing to your face, that finder flare thing seems to be somewhat of the paradigm of insignificance. An M6, for my experience with Leica is an exercise in compromise. Savior for some, the metering is just too poor to use on people. Fine for landscapes I guess, but if there was ever an argument for an incident meter, isnt it landscapes? Anyway, for all this, you pay an awful lot of money.
this of course is my experience, not something Ive conjured after reading things online or anything like that. You really shouldnt accept this for anything other than that, but you should really try to handle a M6 before dropping your savings on one, especially when your budget can get you a killer lens and an M2 or an M4. you might find yourself way happier with a 2 or 4 and have money for better glass, which is really what matters in the end anyway. Youve mentioned you want a big finder, make sure you look through an .85 finder for 35 before you get super excited about it. Ive found that alot of what I like about rangefinder shooting goes against the grain of some very accepted wisdom about these cameras. This was a big suprise to me. Drawing your own opinion from what you actually like is a much better route than making a purchase based upon what some others like.
good luck!
Beyond that, the finder is lousy. The frame lines are very thin, which some people like, but they are anything but accurate. If you put a lot of things along your frame edge, like I do, expect to be frustrated by the M6 framelines. You'll wind up catching lots of stuff outside the lines. And no, there isnt anything wrong with my finder either.
I have an .85 finder. Sure, you can see the frame lines just fine for 35mm, however you nor I or anyone else that is a human is going to see the whole frame without having to scan around the edges. Its perfectly usable, but its very slow compared to a .72 finder. You'll eventually get used to it and may even grow to prefer it, but I dislike using my M6 for anything shorter than a 50.
If you are remotely considering an M2, just get it and a nice lens. .72 is ideal for a 35mm lens. I lusted after an M6 for ages while owning several M3's. And then I got one and used it for about 6 months before realizing I just hated the thing. For the guy that cant deal with life with a hand meter, the M6 is rad, but for my expectations, its nothing but an exercise in compromise: the meter is stone age practical, the finder is simply NOT accurate, the wind is nothing like an older M and if you want to really get "Im bored at work and have nothing better to do than be critical on the internet" then you can add the finder does flare and for 1 out of every 2000 frames you shoot, you'll have trouble seeing your frame lines. Some people make a big deal about this, but for how annoyed I get with other real features of the camera that have to be dealt with every time you bring the thing to your face, that finder flare thing seems to be somewhat of the paradigm of insignificance. An M6, for my experience with Leica is an exercise in compromise. Savior for some, the metering is just too poor to use on people. Fine for landscapes I guess, but if there was ever an argument for an incident meter, isnt it landscapes? Anyway, for all this, you pay an awful lot of money.
this of course is my experience, not something Ive conjured after reading things online or anything like that. You really shouldnt accept this for anything other than that, but you should really try to handle a M6 before dropping your savings on one, especially when your budget can get you a killer lens and an M2 or an M4. you might find yourself way happier with a 2 or 4 and have money for better glass, which is really what matters in the end anyway. Youve mentioned you want a big finder, make sure you look through an .85 finder for 35 before you get super excited about it. Ive found that alot of what I like about rangefinder shooting goes against the grain of some very accepted wisdom about these cameras. This was a big suprise to me. Drawing your own opinion from what you actually like is a much better route than making a purchase based upon what some others like.
good luck!