(Cheap) film RF to complement M9

[ferider]

Get yourself a nice used M2. The cheapest of the film Leicas, some say the best, definitely great to enjoy film and as a backup. And the sunny 16 or hand-held meter experience might just add to the fun. Good used M2s are not much more expensive than a new Bessa.

Enjoy !

Roland.

 

[opho.to]

Hi Roger,

Sorry, some of your points have lost me a bit. I'll try and address them - apologies if I get the wrong end of the stick.

How do you imagine that an 18MP image is going to become somehow unacceptable?

I have no idea, but I'm sure that one day it will. Believing that an M9 bought now could still be producing images that are still as much in demand in 2030 makes a huge number of assumptions about parts, file formats, software support, market requirements (e.g. 3D, print obsolete?), etc., as well as things I can't begin to imagine.

What's the difference between serious photography and fun, in a travel context?

Not quite sure what you mean there. Travel photography is fun, but I wouldn't always take the same kit as I play with at home. As an example, I take Polaroids on cheap cameras for fun around my house. The results are terrible. I love them. I wouldn't want to travel with it for a variety of reasons.

I also haven't used film for a long while, so am trying to get back into it gently. An M7 isn't as gentle as I'd like! 😉 (They seem to be more than 'a few hundred', as you suggest, but I could be wrong.) I haven't really travelled with film either, and am slightly intimidated by the prospect.

I was planning on taking an M9 and Nikon DSLR travelling, as I'd have the long end covered by the Nikon, and a backup should either fail. Do you think it would be more sensible to take an M9 and M7 as backup/film alternative? A cheap film RF is to get me used to working with film again - as well as letting me experiment in ways I wouldn't have the time to do while travelling.

I haven't decided on a RF lightly. I have spent a couple of months borrowing a friend's Leica on and off, so I know how much I enjoy using it, and it's limitations as well as its benefits. I too didn't mind the difference in direction between the M9 and a film Leica (M6). (umcelinho, I think the above may well answer your questions too.)

I hope this clears things up a bit. Do you think I'm doing something fundamentally wrong here? 😕

Thanks!

 

[opho.to]

Thanks, Thomas.

If it is just for the love of photography, having no deadline, it being done because you want results that you enjoy

That's the feeling I've been trying to get across.

I like the look of an M2 - not as expensive as I'd imagined (I think the M7 scared me), and not much more than a Bessa. Just have to get used to the thought of no meter. (Time to learn my sunny-16.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

Sorry, some of your points have lost me a bit. I'll try and address them - apologies if I get the wrong end of the stick. . . .

Well, Leica has stated repeatedly that there will 20 years support, which takes us to 2029 for the M9, and as for file formats, etc., old ones have to remain readable or convertible: I don't think many people are going to be willing to write off all their pictures whenever a new format comes out.

Sure, 3D is a possibility, but I'll worry about that when it happens. And even if print becomes obsolete (which i think deeply unlikely), the requirement is going to be for less quality, not more: a Kindle is 600x800 pixels. Double the screen size and the resolution, i.e. 1600x2400 pixels (and you can't really see much more than that) and you're still looking at 4 megapixels: 300 dpi on a page is a lot more resolution than is needed on a screen.

In other words, I think that it's a relatively tiny number of assumptions, and that on my own best guess I expect my M9 to pay for itself/earn its keep/whatever for at least 5 years, more likely 10, and yes, quite possibly 20.

The 'few hundred' referred to getting an M2 or M3 instead of the M7, it's true, but our world pictures diverge widely here: I just don't like playng with refractory old cameras any more, now that I'm getting a bit old and refractory myself.

Personally, yes, I'd go for M7 and M9 rather than two incompatible systems (Nikon and Leica), because the number of good shots I have ever taken with lenses longer than 135mm is modest, but that's me: you may well feel differently.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

I think you were asking two questions in one post, which were related, and there is / was some confusion as to your intent?

I'm reading you want some RF cameras, with cross compatibility, one high quality digital, and one film camera.

As it turns out, there are many answers to the "fun" lens question as many lenses fit lots of "fun" RF film cameras, and the M9, either with or without adapters.

So it remains a bit difficult to craft a concise answer to your OP.

And the FSU crowd has yet to be heard from. ;-) (Former Soviet Union).

Now, the Kardon's were amazing cameras in ltm with coated Kodak lenses ......

It will get sorted.

Regards, John

 

[topoxforddoc]

Have a serious look at a Minolta CLE. It took Leica 20 years to make the M7 and catch up with this camera. I know some people fuss about the electronics, but they're just great cameras. I used my CLE as my kodachrome body, but it's now sitting forlornly on my shelf.

 

[opho.to]

Thanks, Roger - that clarifies things a lot. I think some of your points about the M9 lasting are good ones - it sounds like it could be more long-lived than I had imagined (and hoped), which is only a good thing. I did not know Leica would still replace a cracked sensor in 20 years!

I just don't like playng with refractory old cameras any more, now that I'm getting a bit old and refractory myself.

I'm still sufficiently naive to find the thought appealing, and am hoping the reality will follow.

I am now leaning towards an M2, as I too would prefer to carry just one system (and am assuming a good M2 is sufficiently reliable). I haven't tried a 135 on an M, but the framelines seemed jolly small. If it works for me, though, I might be able to live with it as my only system.

Thanks for your help and understanding with all of this.

Now I need to find a Leica dealer - I've never bought used camera stuff not off ebay before!

 

[JohnTF]

I would say that Roger is correct in recommending the M7 and M9, you can adapt lenses from the 1920's to present, from a variety of sources to either at great economy.

Am afraid I am becoming. as Roger said, less interested in using older cameras, though they remain a fascination to me, and I own most of the Leica examples and a great number of other old and newer cameras, when it comes down to putting a lens on a subject I want to capture it would be an M7 for film, M9 for digital, and more modern glass for quality, older ones for effect perhaps.

I think you will also want a 12mm CV to go with either.

I drive the MG much less than the Cadillac.
Still, I am jealous of my friend's acquisition of that beautiful WWII Signal Corps Kardon --

I assume you noticed that the M9's price has dropped, probably since this thread began, so an M7 and M9 together are what I would consider reasonable for serious use.




Regards, John

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks, Roger - that clarifies things a lot. I think some of your points about the M9 lasting are good ones - it sounds like it could be more long-lived than I had imagined (and hoped), which is only a good thing. I did not know Leica would still replace a cracked sensor in 20 years!



I'm still sufficiently naive to find the thought appealing, and am hoping the reality will follow.

I am now leaning towards an M2, as I too would prefer to carry just one system (and am assuming a good M2 is sufficiently reliable). I haven't tried a 135 on an M, but the framelines seemed jolly small. If it works for me, though, I might be able to live with it as my only system.

Thanks for your help and understanding with all of this.

Now I need to find a Leica dealer - I've never bought used camera stuff not off ebay before!

You are more than welcome. The only 135 I use is the 135/2.8 'spectacles' version: huge and heavy by RF standards, not too bad by SLR standards. Because it magnifies the 90 frame, I find it a lot easier to use. There are threads about it on the forum here.

As for reliability, I've had one M-series (an M2) jam in 35 years or so...

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

>>>>I am now leaning towards an M2, as I too would prefer to carry just one system (and am assuming a good M2 is sufficiently reliable). I haven't tried a 135 on an M, but the framelines seemed jolly small. If it works for me, though, I might be able to live with it as my only system.


>>>>Now I need to find a Leica dealer - I've never bought used camera stuff not off ebay before![/QUOTE]

I think it helps to have a magnifier to see the frame lines of the 135, or find a Leica 135 Aux finder.

As much as I love the M2, for 35mm film shooting I pick up the M7, if you want to save money, (I do not think this is the real theme here), am not sure you can easily find a "user" M7, but any marks and missing boxes on Leica equipment of any vintage lowers your out of pocket.

You can check all the usual places, but www.igorcamera.com is one of them, and I know Igor will quickly accept something back if you do not like it, though you pay the shipping. I think he has an M2 User in great shape for a low price, someone engraved some ID on the back of the top plate, so no collector value. You can send him a note concerning what you are looking for.

And RFF has had some great deals, but they go very fast. Perhaps a WTB ad?

Good hunting,

Regards, John

 

[rogerzilla]

My eyes aren't what they were, but I find even a 90mm quite hard to focus on the M2. It's easy on the M3.

 

[johannielscom]

Dear opho.to,

I guess your initial post just gave the impression that you did not 'have your act together' when it came to RF's.

Occasionally that does happen here (read regularly) and responses can be a bit fierce as a result.

Anyway, since your posting started in this thread, welcome to the forum! No matter what you choose, we like seeing your future RF shots!

 

[Gid]

I can't understand why this has got so heated. Your question seemed quite reasonable to me - you're going to spend a shed load of money on a top end camera and lenses and you just want something cheap and film for fun. What's the problem?

As someone has already mentioned, you could look at some of the Russian offereings - google FSU cameras. You can pick up a camera and a couple of lenses for very little money (but variable quality). Early bessas can be had for your budget, with built in meters and you can put Russian (FSU) lenses, Canon lenses etc on them. Canon P or 7 RFs are also an option for your budget.

Have fun.

 

[JohnTF]

I can't understand why this has got so heated. Your question seemed quite reasonable to me - you're going to spend a shed load of money on a top end camera and lenses and you just want something cheap and film for fun. What's the problem?

As someone has already mentioned, you could look at some of the Russian offereings - google FSU cameras. You can pick up a camera and a couple of lenses for very little money (but variable quality). Early bessas can be had for your budget, with built in meters and you can put Russian (FSU) lenses, Canon lenses etc on them. Canon P or 7 RFs are also an option for your budget.

Have fun.

Zorki 4 at the last auction, In Columbus, $10, Yashica fixed 1.8, at the show, $10.

Olympus Clam Shells, 2 for $2. If Igor gets fed up with his broken RF inventory, you might buy them by the pound. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[ampguy]

I'd consider one of those Canon 7's in the classifieds now. Basically an M7 with easier film loading, and uses LTM lenses (only).

 

[Denton]

Bessa;M3>M6>M9

Bessa;M3>M6>M9

Since the original question was a cheap film RF, I' have or have had the M3, M6, Bessa R2A and M9. My favorite camera to actual TAKE an image is the Bessa R2a because of it's big bright viewfinder and it's great framelines, light weight, swing door filmloading and I don't worry too much about leaving it behind.

My favorite camera for workflow is the M9.

For me, bright, light and tight (money) can't be beat. Probably heresy.

Denton

 

[segedi]

I'd go with a Bessa and probably an R4A. Mostly because, well I have one and it fits the bill for 21, 25, 28 and 35mm lenses nicely. And it's the camera that I'll take with me when I don't care of it gets pinched. It's small, light and a really nice value. It's different than my M7 and MP. Not as robust, not as quiet, but it takes pictures pretty darn well!

The other side is resale. Even if bought new you won't lose 50% on it like you will with the Leica line. And with a 21 or 25mm CV it's ready for travel. Super light, super small and a real gem.