older rangefinders

[tenter10]

Hello all ,a question if I may, I am not a pro,or even an experienced cameraman. Question, for $100/$200 I can buy a konica auto s2/olympus rd,my himatic 7s, would I see any difference in a scene using the cheapies as compared to the $2000 leicas etc. Exactly how much more detail would I get with the better cameras, and would I see it as an amatuer? jack

 

[zuikologist]

It depends on the lens on your Leica. In many instances, the same shots at the same focal length will probably be indistinguishable. The Leica will allow wide angle and tele lenses to be used. Withe cheapies, you are stuck with a 40-50mm focal length.

That said, an Olympus 35 SP is usually my camera of choice.

 

[Steve M.]

Actually, those cameras won't compare to a $300 Summar lens on a $200 Bessa R. Would most people notice the difference? I think so. Not that there's anything wrong w/ the cameras you mentioned. They're neat cameras I've used and enjoyed myself. But the only cameras I've seen that compare to a 50 Summar or a 50 Summicron are the Kodak Retinas w/ Ektar lenses. You can buy them within your price range. There may be other cameras, but I don't have any experience w/ any but the Retinas. My wife isn't a photographer, but she can see the difference in photos taken w/ Leicas or Retinas every time. Photos I've seen posted online from the Minox 35 cameras look pretty darn good too.

Of course, someone will post their photos from of some of the cameras that you mentioned that WILL look as good as a Leica. It happens sometimes that you get a really good sample. But generally, there's a difference. Whether that difference is worth the added expense is another question, and one only you can answer.

 

[shadowfox]

Hello all ,a question if I may, I am not a pro,or even an experienced cameraman. Question, for $100/$200 I can buy a konica auto s2/olympus rd,my himatic 7s, would I see any difference in a scene using the cheapies as compared to the $2000 leicas etc. Exactly how much more detail would I get with the better cameras, and would I see it as an amatuer? jack

There is no problem of using a fully serviced copy of those cameras.
My issue with those are the focal length. I prefer 35mm, and none of those cameras have it (except for Yashica 35 CC -- which is not fully manual, and some rare older ones).

What you get with Leica is a better built body, RF patch, and more choices in lenses (both focal length, and max. aperture).

Now the question of whether you will see a difference, most of the time the answer is determined by the eye of the photographer. To put it bluntly, I'd rather sleep than looking at a stream of boring snapshots taken with $10,000 lens and $7000 camera.

 

[tenter10]

focal length

focal length

There is no problem of using a fully serviced copy of those cameras.
My issue with those are the focal length. I prefer 35mm, and none of those cameras have it (except for Yashica 35 CC -- which is not fully manual, and some rare older ones).

What you get with Leica is a better built body, RF patch, and more choices in lenses (both focal length, and max. aperture).

Now the question of whether you will see a difference, most of the time the answer is determined by the eye of the photographer. To put it bluntly, I'd rather sleep than looking at a stream of boring snapshots taken with $10,000 lens and $7000 camera.

mate what difference does the 35mm as compared to the 50mm focal make and what cameras have it?apart from the yashica thanks jack

 

[tenter10]

kodak retinas

kodak retinas

Actually, those cameras won't compare to a $300 Summar lens on a $200 Bessa R. Would most people notice the difference? I think so. Not that there's anything wrong w/ the cameras you mentioned. They're neat cameras I've used and enjoyed myself. But the only cameras I've seen that compare to a 50 Summar or a 50 Summicron are the Kodak Retinas w/ Ektar lenses. You can buy them within your price range. There may be other cameras, but I don't have any experience w/ any but the Retinas. My wife isn't a photographer, but she can see the difference in photos taken w/ Leicas or Retinas every time. Photos I've seen posted online from the Minox 35 cameras look pretty darn good too.

Of course, someone will post their photos from of some of the cameras that you mentioned that WILL look as good as a Leica. It happens sometimes that you get a really good sample. But generally, there's a difference. Whether that difference is worth the added expense is another question, and one only you can answer.

thanks I was always under the impression that kodak cameras were rubbish as I never saw them for sale after my first tour of vietnam where all of us were buying canons,yashicas etc When I came home the only cameras I saw were Japanese.

 

[tenter10]

focal length

focal length

It depends on the lens on your Leica. In many instances, the same shots at the same focal length will probably be indistinguishable. The Leica will allow wide angle and tele lenses to be used. Withe cheapies, you are stuck with a 40-50mm focal length.

That said, an Olympus 35 SP is usually my camera of choice.

exactly what is the difference between 35mm and 45/50mmm focal length thanks Jack