Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'd rather have a Cosina Voigtlander in good condition with new lenses than a Leica that's beat to hell with a beat up lens. A lot of people have what they call "User" Leicas, which often means "Beat to hell and back, has lots of issues". No thanks. I use my gear professionally and there's nothing more annoying than equipment that doesnt function 100%. I've found it easier to work with a new or not very old inexpensive camera in good condition than an expensive camera that's essentially worn out. A nice Leica and Leica lens would be the best, but if (like me) you can't afford that, I think a CV camera and lens in good shape is a much better deal than a beat up Leica.
Dogman
Veteran
I've never fully understood the logic of the photographer who would spend five grand on a perfect lens to fit his Leica and then take the camera to the street to shoot blurry photos of people in action. I've not really understood the fascination of the photographer who buys an f/1 lens and then shoot the majority of his pictures in bright sunshine.
I like using Leicas for the way the cameras handle for the purpose I'm trying to achieve not for the lenses, as excellent as they are.
I like using Leicas for the way the cameras handle for the purpose I'm trying to achieve not for the lenses, as excellent as they are.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, all depends, really. I have seen terribly pics taken by some state of the art cameras and lenses as well as absolutely superb photos from very ordinary, inexpensive ones. Plus in this Leica vs Cosina vs Zeiss, vs etc comparison, some things are only offered by either Leica or CV or Zeiss. For instance, CV 35/1.2 is a superb lens, nothing like it is offered by any other manufacturer. From personal experience, after trying Leica m3 and m6, I went with Hexar RF and just now M5. But I think Bessas are very good cameras that I used and never had a problem with. So, it's down to personal taste/preference. As an investment, however, Leica is still the best, yet I buy things to use, not to put on a shelf.
But all in all - if I couldnt afford Leica, Konica or Zeiss, I'd be still very happy with Cosina lenses and bodies.
But all in all - if I couldnt afford Leica, Konica or Zeiss, I'd be still very happy with Cosina lenses and bodies.
Taqi
Established
Agree the 35/1.2 is very very special. Particularly on my m2 
Could live with that combination for the rest of my life (and I probably will).
Could live with that combination for the rest of my life (and I probably will).
mhv
Registered User
Hey guys, you missed the bit about Ken Rockwell. Ken Rockwell said that. Can you imagine that?
Ken Rockwell. You know, the guy about whom you apparently all profess to be indifferent, above his writings, but who nonetheless gets you talking for about six pages.
Where's the hate?
Ken Rockwell. You know, the guy about whom you apparently all profess to be indifferent, above his writings, but who nonetheless gets you talking for about six pages.
Where's the hate?
aizan
Veteran
it's pretty hard to cheap out on rangefinder gear, compared to slr gear. starting out with better lenses makes more sense than better cameras, though.
mojobebop
Well-known
one should get whatever instrument they feel
they instinctively desire.
i've seen incredible pictures with pinhole cameras.
therefore i vote for the leica body.
they instinctively desire.
i've seen incredible pictures with pinhole cameras.
therefore i vote for the leica body.
nome_alice
Established
i shoot all cosina voigtlander lenses, either on my bessa r2a or leica m3. i have no envy or lust for leica optics.
maybe my standards are too low, but i'm not disappointed by any of my cosina voigtlander lenses.
but if i was older and went to dinner parties with annie leibowitz then maybe i'd be embarassed to say i like my cosina voigtlander lenses.
maybe my standards are too low, but i'm not disappointed by any of my cosina voigtlander lenses.
but if i was older and went to dinner parties with annie leibowitz then maybe i'd be embarassed to say i like my cosina voigtlander lenses.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
If I were starting out today I'd likely be buying Bessa where I couldn't locate used Leica bodies and lenses that I wanted. When I started out people were dumping Leicas and buying SLR's. Used Leicas were cheap. For the most part I'm still shooting with the same bodies and lenses purchased second hand nearly half a century ago. I've re-skinned a couple of bodies that needed it badly and had M3 synch contacts changed to M4, which accept a standard PC cord.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Of course the lens makes the picture, but I find the difference between a Bessa and Leica body is greater than the difference between a CV lens and a Leica lens.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
For me, it is all about the glass. BUT .... if the camera breaks down, what good is that 1.4 Lux stuck on the front?
BillBingham2
Registered User
My favorite carry everywhere film camera still is a Bessa L and a CV 25/4. I did not worry if it got trashed, she and I took great pictures together.
I had two Leica Ms when I purchased my Bessas and I would do it again. At that point in time I needed a camera that if it got trashed I would not cry for months, just weeks. I learned that CV glass was great, most outstanding. I learned that Nikon made some great glass in LTM that I could use on my Bessas and then on my Ms.
If I was using my cameras to make money perhaps I could justify $6K USD for a single lens but that would have to be a GREAT chunk of glass and metal that would last forever. I'm hard pressed to not look at ZI, CV or Nikon for glass that is really close.
I would recommend that you find the glass that fits your needs, your style and your budget. Remember, there are some folks who need a 12mm lens, not a lot of options. Perhaps you MUST have a 105mm lens, there are several older ones, one still world class. Or if you need a 35/1.2, what options do you have? (Less if you are not TA and use a Nikon RF! (read it's good to be TA some times)).
Find the glass that matches your style and then pick the body that does the same.
For me while I love the M bodies, my Bessa Ts and Ls worked better at some times. Eventually my requirements changed and my Ms became my main camera. My glass changed over the years as my needs changed. When I went back to my Ms I found that I like other glass and my 'Crons just as much.
What is the best? I would argue what is the best for me while I carrying one toddler and chasing after a slightly older one is very different from when I was as DINK walking around Boston on a vacation. Where as the best when I was doing weddings for money might be very different again.
B2 (;->
I had two Leica Ms when I purchased my Bessas and I would do it again. At that point in time I needed a camera that if it got trashed I would not cry for months, just weeks. I learned that CV glass was great, most outstanding. I learned that Nikon made some great glass in LTM that I could use on my Bessas and then on my Ms.
If I was using my cameras to make money perhaps I could justify $6K USD for a single lens but that would have to be a GREAT chunk of glass and metal that would last forever. I'm hard pressed to not look at ZI, CV or Nikon for glass that is really close.
I would recommend that you find the glass that fits your needs, your style and your budget. Remember, there are some folks who need a 12mm lens, not a lot of options. Perhaps you MUST have a 105mm lens, there are several older ones, one still world class. Or if you need a 35/1.2, what options do you have? (Less if you are not TA and use a Nikon RF! (read it's good to be TA some times)).
Find the glass that matches your style and then pick the body that does the same.
For me while I love the M bodies, my Bessa Ts and Ls worked better at some times. Eventually my requirements changed and my Ms became my main camera. My glass changed over the years as my needs changed. When I went back to my Ms I found that I like other glass and my 'Crons just as much.
What is the best? I would argue what is the best for me while I carrying one toddler and chasing after a slightly older one is very different from when I was as DINK walking around Boston on a vacation. Where as the best when I was doing weddings for money might be very different again.
B2 (;->
Nh3
Well-known
This statement is true the same way that similar statments could be considred true such as, don't cheap out on computer monitor, shoes, fixer etc...
But applying the same statement when it comes to Leica lenses is simpleminded relativism. It could be compared to someone claiming, "don't cheap out on cars, buy a Porsche!"
Turtle
Veteran
Buy any lens that meets your optical, size, build and handling needs and that you can afford. Its that simple.
I personally went into the M system primarily for the bodies. I primarily went for ZM lenses because they are cheaper than Zeiss and do what I need them to do. I also own CV and Leica lenses.
I personally went into the M system primarily for the bodies. I primarily went for ZM lenses because they are cheaper than Zeiss and do what I need them to do. I also own CV and Leica lenses.
photogdave
Shops local
mh2000
Well-known
In SLRs I shoot both a Leica with Summicron 50 and Canon with the crap EF 50/1.8 II... funny thing is that very few images require the Summicron over the Canon for success... not saying there isn't a difference, just that it is rarely the deciding factor for a good photo...
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ever actually tested cheap vs. expensive filters? I mean tested them seriously, with identical pictures with and without filters, using lens testing charts, etc?
Ever seen a difference?
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I doubt that any of us could see a difference.
kxl
Social Documentary
I enjoy the process of shooting and processing as much as the end result. So, with RF's, a body counts as far as it impacts the process of shooting, e.g., big, clear viewfinders, long EBL, accurate metering, etc... with cost as the obvious constraint. Given that, I shoot a Zeiss ZI.
Wrt glass, I start with the FL I need, explore options, and try to get the best price/performance. No, it probably doesn't make much of a difference with what I shoot or my style. I own ZM and CV glass. The one Leica I own these days is the 75/2.5 Summarit -- I chose that since I had gotten 2 bad samples of the CV 75mm and decided to pass on a 3rd, and the other options were just too costly.
Wrt glass, I start with the FL I need, explore options, and try to get the best price/performance. No, it probably doesn't make much of a difference with what I shoot or my style. I own ZM and CV glass. The one Leica I own these days is the 75/2.5 Summarit -- I chose that since I had gotten 2 bad samples of the CV 75mm and decided to pass on a 3rd, and the other options were just too costly.