The ultimate Sin!! Leica sale

back alley said:
i wonder how many offers jorge has received?

joe
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that the "kit" is too large and diverse to do well as a package deal. It comprises one person's particular interest in RF photography. Definitely at the highest-end.

But would anyone else assemble such a kit? Besides the obvious "split" b/w film and digital bodies - there are various iterations of very similar focal length lenses.

Truly a nice collection - but "collections" are unique assembleges of their owner's idiosyncracies. I'm not one, for example who would want to have a 21, a 24 and a 28.

I imagine Jorge doesn't want to deal with the hassle of individual item sales - but he may have no choice.
 
Last edited:
No serious users of RF gear for photography purposes will buy Jorge's kit. There are simply way too many focal lenghts. I mean seriously, what is the difference btween a 21mm 24mm 28mm? He might have better luck selling it to a Leica dealer or collector but I don't know how good his asking price is..
 
Don't listen to any of this crap about why Cannon is sooo great or why Nikon is soo great. And espesially don't listen to anyone trying to sell you into buying a certain camera. It's all propaganda. Only you can decide. Take a hard look into both systems and if your feeling good about some of the others, look at them to. I personally like the Panosonic Lumix L1. You may have other interests. Canon has leaned more towards lenses than Nikon and thus their selection and quality is better than any Nikkor out their, save a few, but there are always third party manufacturers. I love Sigma espesially. On the other hand, Nikon seems to know what they are doing with their bodies as opposed to Canon. As I've stated before, each maker has their own strengths and weaknesses. Just don't take any crap from other users trying to persuade you to get a certain brand, or even worse than a certain camera.
 
sigma4ever said:
Don't listen to any of this crap about why Cannon is sooo great or why Nikon is soo great. And espesially don't listen to anyone trying to sell you into buying a certain camera.
Click to expand...


... and then you started share your own crap about those brands and which is better and why. T'was a funny read.
 
sigma4ever said:
Don't listen to any of this crap about why Cannon is sooo great or why Nikon is soo great. And espesially don't listen to anyone trying to sell you into buying a certain camera. It's all propaganda. Only you can decide. Take a hard look into both systems and if your feeling good about some of the others, look at them to. I personally like the Panosonic Lumix L1. You may have other interests. Canon has leaned more towards lenses than Nikon and thus their selection and quality is better than any Nikkor out their, save a few, but there are always third party manufacturers. I love Sigma espesially. On the other hand, Nikon seems to know what they are doing with their bodies as opposed to Canon. As I've stated before, each maker has their own strengths and weaknesses. Just don't take any crap from other users trying to persuade you to get a certain brand, or even worse than a certain camera.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this "CRAP"? Sigma? Nikon bodies vs Canon? Lumix? Come on!
 
No matter what initial subject was, given enough time, every photography discussion degenerates into Nikon vs. Canon debate 🙂
 
varjag said:
No matter what initial subject was, given enough time, every photography discussion degenerates into Nikon vs. Canon debate 🙂
Click to expand...

and don't forget film verses digital ... 😀
 
XP2 Super: "Which of the lenses that Jorge is selling isn't 'world class'?? Lens quality is not the point at all..."

Perhaps you didn't read my post as it relates to the thread. I never suggested that any of Jorge's lenses were not "world class." You're missing the point. My characterization of (certain) Canon lenses as world class was relative to Jorge's interest in getting into a Nikon system. The Canon recommendation was made in the context of Jorge wanting an SLR. No need to defend your precious Leica brand. I also own the 35 and 50mm Summilux-ASPH, and clearly named them as the best lenses "on the planet," or something to that effect. No need to have a hissy-fit.

And, to others - no this was never meant to be a Canon VERSUS Nikon hi-jacking. Sorry if it turned out that way. I also use an F100 - i don' t have any brand loyalties.
 
LeicaM3 said:
Agree with the above statement.

I will test the Canon 35/1.4 L, 50/1.2 L, 85/1.4 L and consider to move to Canon if the results are reasonable. The ergonomics of Nikon DSLRs are fine, but the lenses continue to disappoint, except for a few lenses. I was hoping for the Zeiss T lenses, but the test results look suboptimal. The small sensor also does not convince and with their series of DX lenses they are committed to it. Unless they pull a Canon and make a bunch of lenses incompatible with their new system.😀


One more thing Jorge, silver or black? 😛



Andreas
Click to expand...


LeicaM3:

There's nothing wrong with Nikon or their lenses and the same is true of Canon. I've owned and used both profesionally for many years. It's certainly not true that Canon doesn't make great wides. They don't have a very good 20 but the 24 1.4L & 35 1.4L are the tops. Nikons 20 2.8 isn't a bad lens and the 24 2.8 is spectacular. It's one of the finest anywhere. I still use my F, F2 and FTN Nikkormat with only a hand full of lenses, 24 2.8 50 micro and 105 2.5. In my professional experience the 24 2.8, 50 micro, 105 2.5 and 180 2.8 are as fine as money can buy. I went so far as to buy an adapter to use them on my canon 1DsII. I enlarged the images on the screen to over 70 inches and confirmed my feelings that they are stellar performers. They held up resolution wise with my newest L series canon glass with less chromatic aberations but slightly less contrast. I would'nt change systems over a couple of lenses because they're so close you won't see the difference unless you're enlarging to huge prints. In my opinion the only reason to change is if you really want the full frame sensor.

The only reason I swithched a few years back from Nikon to Canon digital was because of sensor size and Nikons NPS repair service was really slipping. I went to canon, a $40,000 move and have not regretted it. I also like Canons philosophy on creating raw files and the design of the file itself. You might not understand this unless you've shot a lot of canon and Nikon digital raw files. There's a difference in how the camera executes the file and how it's biased to the over or under side and how it responds in processing. It's my personal preference and thats all. Both work fine and give excellent final results. There are advantages to a smaller sensor in some cases and for some shooters the larger sensor is the way to go. For most folks it's only a personal choice not a performance thing.

Just don't go chasing a system over this lens is better than that lens because both are superb. Where you gain with one system you'll loose with another system.
 
Thank goodness I never jumped onto the M8 bandwagon. Sailor Ted and Jorge are both selling their kits after catching M8 fever. Bad sign!
 
kshapero said:
So what is a lowly Bessa user to do?
Click to expand...

I know it's a worry isn't it? I mean how did Don McCullin manage to carve out a career with a bagful of Nikon junk? Perhaps I must have an eye problem because when I've been to his exhibitions the stuff looked pretty good to me.:angel:
 
Toby said:
I know it's a worry isn't it? I mean how did Don McCullin manage to carve out a career with a bagful of Nikon junk? Perhaps I must have an eye problem because when I've been to his exhibitions the stuff looked pretty good to me.:angel:
Click to expand...

yeah, I always wondered about those guys, using "junky" cameras, but still being the best. It must something to do with THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S EYE!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom