Suggestions / advice for new camera

[Ray Kilby]

I paid around £1600 in the early 90's for a new M6 body. These pre owned cameras now go for between £2000 to 2500 approx. Wex photography UK are selling the new M6 at £4,990.00 I just looked up what £1500 was worth in today's money via Gemini AI and it said £3,750. So they were a little cheaper then. (if the AI is correct)

I tend to buy new bodies, if they are digital, as I want the latest tech, but now purchase film cameras and lenses pre owned, but only at a reputable store, with warranty and and I go to the actual shop and try them out. I wouldn't purchase via the internet.

I can't speak for other brands and how they have faired. I just don't know. My advice is only you know what you can afford and what you really want. And other range finders are excellent too. It's a choice thing. Buy the camera you want and which suits you and then enjoy it.

 

[boojum]

What to buy, what to buy, what to buy? As has been posted, Leicas lose little value. Buy one used and you can probably sell it for about what you paid or a little less which can be thought to be "rent." Digital, yes, new is better, but . . . The M9 still is prized for its colors. The bugaboo is the corroding sensor glass so you want one that Leica fixed or one an aftermarket tech has fixed. They were cheaper a few years back. A good sensor M9 has doubled in price in the last few years. Why? The color is popular.

The M240, a rugged camera with a great big honking battery, has very good color, more muted than the M9, and is neither as rare or as costly. Ooops, correct that, on eBay they both run US$3K to $4K and more. They are both good with good color. If you can swing it I'd say bite the bullet, get the Leica you lust after and not take the loss on buying and selling another camera on the way to the Leica. And as much as I complain about Leica and their atrocious service and pricing, they are great to shoot.

 

[Ray Kilby]

And as much as I complain about Leica and their atrocious service and pricing, they are great to shoot.

I hear you. It appears to be a common cry amongst Leica users. LOVE the product, despair of the company.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

You can't go wrong with a used M6 from a reputable dealer, like Tamarkin. Also, I don't think you ever mentioned how your thinking on the Pentax Monochrome evolved, but I am pretty evangelical about that camera, which I adore, and I also think of the all-metal Pentax Limited series of lenses as similar in feel to Leica lenses, plus with rudimentary autofocus. One you have the controls set up as you like, you never need to think about them again.

 

[silvershadelynx]

@squirrel$$$bandit thanks for your response! I still find the Pentax K3 monochrome an interesting camera, but it has many buttons and options, so I prefer a simpler camera.

About a leica, for example, M6 camera: except look and feel, has it technical advantages when it comes to technical quality? I guess this is mostly influenced by it's lenses?

 

[Ray Kilby]

@squirrel$$$bandit thanks for your response! I still find the Pentax K3 monochrome an interesting camera, but it has many buttons and options, so I prefer a simpler camera.

About a leica, for example, M6 camera: except look and feel, has it technical advantages when it comes to technical quality? I guess this is mostly influenced by it's lenses?

It is very simple. Thats the beauty. I don't even bother half the time focussing by looking through the range finder, I just go by the numbers on the lenes. And the shutter is very gentle so you can easily hand hold at a 15th. I can get it down to an 8th with little problem,and with a bit of leaning against something even a 4th. It has basic speed. 1000 to 1 sec and B. It has iso settings from 6 to 6400. I leave it always at 400 and only use 400 film. The metering is simple. It's just fully manual. I dont bother ever with a flash, but it's around the 60th mark if you want to go there. The lenses are fantastic.

It fits in my hand and suits my way of taking images. Other cameras might suit you better. It's just choice and preference.

 

[silvershadelynx]

Hi again! I've done some online research about film camera's. Another question I have is whether I want a built in meter or not. I like the idea of having a fully mechanical camera, but I'm not sure if this is a good combination with slide film? My girlfriend did shoot slide film successfully with an old fully mechanical Leica camera, but she has way more experience. Any suggestions about that? If I have to carry a seperate meter, the idea of a compact setup is gone, but I will still prefer the look and feel of a well built camera like a Leica compared to the more plastic Minolta Dynax.

 

[boojum]

Hi again! I've done some online research about film camera's. Another question I have is whether I want a built in meter or not. I like the idea of having a fully mechanical camera, but I'm not sure if this is a good combination with slide film? My girlfriend did shoot slide film successfully with an old fully mechanical Leica camera, but she has way more experience. Any suggestions about that? If I have to carry a seperate meter, the idea of a compact setup is gone, but I will still prefer the look and feel of a well built camera like a Leica compared to the more plastic Minolta Dynax.

There are small battery meters which will slip into the hot shoe which makes them convenient and easy to use. IIRC they are under US$100.

 

[JeffS7444]

About a leica, for example, M6 camera: except look and feel, has it technical advantages when it comes to technical quality? I guess this is mostly influenced by it's lenses?

I've owned plenty of Leica M stuff, and I've enjoyed it. But if my life depended on it, could I reliably distinguish photographs taken with an M6 + the finest Leica lenses versus another good brand? No, I don't think so!

 

[Ray Kilby]

I've owned plenty of Leica M stuff, and I've enjoyed it. But if my life depended on it, could I reliably distinguish photographs taken with an M6 + the finest Leica lenses versus another good brand? No, I don't think so!

I agree.

 

[boojum]

I agree.

OK, unless it is a side-by-side test it is hard to pick the best. But in a side-by-side we see the differences and choose accordingly knowing that the chosen lens has more of what we want than the one we didn't choose. If it is color, you will get better color all the time even if you cannot demonstrate it. The color will always be what you want. :Likewise sharpness or character or whatever. And pixel-peeping or assays aside that is why some lenses are more in demand. I have some lenses I really like because they have what I want. An old cheap (US$100) J8 and a more expensive Cooke Amotal. And you may not like them. That's alright. I bought them because I liked them.

Otherwise just buy the cheapest because it will make no differ3nce to you.

 

[silvershadelynx]

Hi, thanks for your responses! Another thing I've read is about calibration: according to the author, a Leica M rangefinder needs regular calibration when it is moved a lot. So there is a good chance that when one focuses, the real photo is out of focus.

Personally, I would be surprised if this is true. I guess most camera's are moved when the photographer is walking. Just wondering if there is some truth in this warning, or is it non-sense?

 

[Freakscene]

Hi, thanks for your responses! Another thing I've read is about calibration: according to the author, a Leica M rangefinder needs regular calibration when it is moved a lot. So there is a good chance that when one focuses, the real photo is out of focus.

Personally, I would be surprised if this is true. I guess most camera's are moved when the photographer is walking. Just wondering if there is some truth in this warning, or is it non-sense?

I have found my cameras need recalibration every 2-4 years, but not from walking. They fly 20-60 legs a year, get thrown into overhead compartments, boats, cars and four wheel drives. They are driven on very rugged tracks and rough seas. My digital M cameras shoot 10-25,000 frames a year, and before that I shot 200-thousands of rolls of film a year. Digital Ms need recalibration more because tolerances are tighter, faster lenses need it more because depth of field is shallower and modern aspherical lenses need it more because they are designed for focus to drop off more quickly, exaggerating errors. My criteria are also tight; I don’t like focus to be more off than 5mm at close focus, particularly for short telephoto lenses.

If you buy a Leica M film camera that is in calibration or you have it calibrated to your lenses, and you use it lightly (a roll a week or less) and handle it gently (particularly no jolts), it will probably still be in focus calibration in 10 years.

 

[silvershadelynx]

I have found my cameras need recalibration every 2-4 years, but not from walking. They fly 20-60 legs a year, get thrown into overhead compartments, boats, cars and four wheel drives. They are driven on very rugged tracks and rough seas. My digital M cameras shoot 10-25,000 frames a year, and before that I shot 200-thousands of rolls of film a year. Digital Ms need recalibration more because tolerances are tighter, faster lenses need it more because depth of field is shallower and modern aspherical lenses need it more because they are designed for focus to drop off more quickly, exaggerating errors. My criteria are also tight; I don’t like focus to be more off than 5mm at close focus, particularly for short telephoto lenses.

If you buy a Leica M film camera that is in calibration or you have it calibrated to your lenses, and you use it lightly (a roll a week or less) and handle it gently (particularly no jolts), it will probably still be in focus calibration in 10 years.

Hi, thanks for your helpful response! This sounds very acceptable to me. It seems a non issue.

 

[Coldkennels]

This sounds very acceptable to me. It seems a non issue.

Not only is it a non-issue, but it's stupidly easy to fix.

I bought an M240 a few years back. It is still my only M - I prefer the old screwmounts for a bunch of reasons. I taught myself to do rangefinder calibration on screwmounts decades ago - all you need is a pair of screwdrivers. After a short while of owning the M240 for a while, I realised the rangefinder was slightly out. Not much, but enough. From the way people talk about M rangefinder calibration (and the amount of people who immediately send it to DAG/YYe/Sherry/Leica the second they see it's off by a hair), I thought it'd be much harder to fix.

Nope. You just need allen keys instead of screwdrivers.

To me, rangefinder calibration is like a basic oil change in a car - it's part of ownership. Everyone should be able to do it. That's one of the many things I prefer about Leicas over Contaxes; Zeiss seemingly designed the Contax with the arrogant belief that the rangefinder would never go out of spec, so when it inevitably does, it's an utter nightmare to fix. Leitz designed the Leica II and the M3 understanding that the rangefinder would need adjustment from time to time, and made the adjustment mechanisms easy to access as a result. That's carried through all the way to the modern day (unless something's changed on the M11 that I'm not aware of).

 

[Freakscene]

Not only is it a non-issue, but it's stupidly easy to fix.

I bought an M240 a few years back. It is still my only M - I prefer the old screwmounts for a bunch of reasons. I taught myself to do rangefinder calibration on screwmounts decades ago - all you need is a pair of screwdrivers. After a short while of owning the M240 for a while, I realised the rangefinder was slightly out. Not much, but enough. From the way people talk about M rangefinder calibration (and the amount of people who immediately send it to DAG/YYe/Sherry/Leica the second they see it's off by a hair), I thought it'd be much harder to fix.

Nope. You just need allen keys instead of screwdrivers.

To me, rangefinder calibration is like a basic oil change in a car - it's part of ownership. Everyone should be able to do it. That's one of the many things I prefer about Leicas over Contaxes; Zeiss seemingly designed the Contax with the arrogant belief that the rangefinder would never go out of spec, so when it inevitably does, it's an utter nightmare to fix. Leitz designed the Leica II and the M3 understanding that the rangefinder would need adjustment from time to time, and made the adjustment mechanisms easy to access as a result. That's carried through all the way to the modern day (unless something's changed on the M11 that I'm not aware of).

The M10 and M11 have the same rangefinder as the 240. It was redesigned at that point - the rangefinder in the M8 and M9 is the one from the new MP. The newest one from the 240 onwards stays in adjustment better.

I send my gear off because I find that the lenses go out of spec about the same as the camera, and they are very much harder to adjust.

I agree on the Contax rangefinders.

 

[JeffS7444]

Hi, thanks for your responses! Another thing I've read is about calibration: according to the author, a Leica M rangefinder needs regular calibration when it is moved a lot. So there is a good chance that when one focuses, the real photo is out of focus.

I've recalibrated my share of rangefinders, but I wouldn't suggest doing this routinely, lest you cause needless wear and tear on the assembly! The darned things are sensitive to shock and temperature changes, and perhaps the ideal solution would be to build the whole thing out of a composite material (can achieve great thermal expansion characteristics with composite materials), but folks hate the notion of changing from metal to plastic. 😉 So what I do is this: I calibrate at a middling temperature that I'm likely to encounter much of the time, apply low-strength thread locking compound to the adjustment screws, and call it good.

 

[Coldkennels]

I send my gear off because I find that the lenses go out of spec about the same as the camera, and they are very much harder to adjust.

Having adjusted a couple of lenses: can confirm the latter.

I've not had a lot go out of spec, though. My 1938 Summar is still ticking over, still as accurate as it ever was. I suspect as lens construction became more complicated, this became a much bigger problem - much more to come loose or get knocked about.

The absolute worst I saw was a Canon 50/1.8 LTM. Don't have the before-and-after pics on this laptop but it was noticeably out. Couldn't see any evidence of butchery in it so there's every chance it left the factory like that.