Sparrow
Veteran
Thanks for sharing that, really cheered me up (irony smiley),rover said:
Forgive the newbieness, please
- Thread starter jwinst
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 2K
jwinst
Member
I appreciate the sagely financial warnings, but I mentioned that more as a joke. Ive got a few bucks tucked away, and I hoping that come christmas the $$ from returning rediculous sweaters and whatnot could put me in that glory land of leica usage.
And I know the canonet is like the geo metro to the leica/voigt porshe/ferarri. Ill be so blown away at first, I wont know what to do. But hey, to get into the RF game for only 25usd!!!
My thoughts are leaning towards If Im already going to spend near 1000usd for the r2a + 40/1.4, would i really be cheating myself out of a couple hundred more for an M body with the same glass?
And truth be told, Im assuming that all the main factors(image quality, ease of operation, etc) are going to be drastically improved regardless of my choice. Its shutter noise Im most concerned with as the tiebreaker. Im sure Ill be happy with an M, but how do say the bessa r2a or a CL compare? For a comparison, Lets do a scale of 1-10. Call the canonet a 1 and my f3hp a 10 and with the mirror up a 6-7ish. I know thats a bit arbitrary, sorry.
As far as other costs, I get student discounts on film and paper, free access to darkroom + chemicals for another year or so, and back home in Chicago where Ill likely end up after graduation Ill have access to a darkroom, but have to go splits on chemicals.
I work for a newspaper at school, so for now Ive got all their goodies(1d's & mark II's and a cornucopia of L glass) to play with so Im in no rush.
And I know the canonet is like the geo metro to the leica/voigt porshe/ferarri. Ill be so blown away at first, I wont know what to do. But hey, to get into the RF game for only 25usd!!!
My thoughts are leaning towards If Im already going to spend near 1000usd for the r2a + 40/1.4, would i really be cheating myself out of a couple hundred more for an M body with the same glass?
And truth be told, Im assuming that all the main factors(image quality, ease of operation, etc) are going to be drastically improved regardless of my choice. Its shutter noise Im most concerned with as the tiebreaker. Im sure Ill be happy with an M, but how do say the bessa r2a or a CL compare? For a comparison, Lets do a scale of 1-10. Call the canonet a 1 and my f3hp a 10 and with the mirror up a 6-7ish. I know thats a bit arbitrary, sorry.
As far as other costs, I get student discounts on film and paper, free access to darkroom + chemicals for another year or so, and back home in Chicago where Ill likely end up after graduation Ill have access to a darkroom, but have to go splits on chemicals.
I work for a newspaper at school, so for now Ive got all their goodies(1d's & mark II's and a cornucopia of L glass) to play with so Im in no rush.
Crasis
Well-known
Well broke student, yeah, so he probably shouldn't even be thinking about a Leica. Let's face it though, what is he going to spend it on? There's too much to spend it on out there 🙂
Anyways, my only beef with telling someone that they're ok with the canonet is that it actually is inferior. You can take a great photo with every camera, sure, and you can take ****ty ones with good cameras. My biggest regret is that one of my favorite rolls of film that I've ever taken, was taken with a 70s compact rangefinder. It had been CLA'd twice, rangefinder readjusted, everything as good as it could be. EVERY single shot was out of focus because the damned thing was too small and cheap to have the rangefinder accurately adjusted.
I do not miss a single shot now. If it's out of focus, it's my fault. If a photo isn't sharp, it's my fault. Subtle qualities about the image with nothing to do with composition and the moment, are all my fault now. I think that's a great and wonderful feeling. I don't like being off focus and I never am anymore.
Sure, an out of focus image can be great, and nothing has to be tack sharp to be a good photograph, but wouldn't you rather have had it that way? It's strange, almost apologetic, saying that flaws are ok. I blame it on Holga.
No really, I do blame it on Holgas. A generation of people who think that flawed images with light leaks, massive vignetting and blur out the wazoo is a good thing. In fact, if you're not in the Holga club, they won't even talk to you 😉
*sigh*
Also, 18 Canonets? Do you have to cycle through them every month to make sure you're keeping the shutters exercised? If not, I suggest you start or your shutter speeds are going to be off 😉
Anyways, my only beef with telling someone that they're ok with the canonet is that it actually is inferior. You can take a great photo with every camera, sure, and you can take ****ty ones with good cameras. My biggest regret is that one of my favorite rolls of film that I've ever taken, was taken with a 70s compact rangefinder. It had been CLA'd twice, rangefinder readjusted, everything as good as it could be. EVERY single shot was out of focus because the damned thing was too small and cheap to have the rangefinder accurately adjusted.
I do not miss a single shot now. If it's out of focus, it's my fault. If a photo isn't sharp, it's my fault. Subtle qualities about the image with nothing to do with composition and the moment, are all my fault now. I think that's a great and wonderful feeling. I don't like being off focus and I never am anymore.
Sure, an out of focus image can be great, and nothing has to be tack sharp to be a good photograph, but wouldn't you rather have had it that way? It's strange, almost apologetic, saying that flaws are ok. I blame it on Holga.
No really, I do blame it on Holgas. A generation of people who think that flawed images with light leaks, massive vignetting and blur out the wazoo is a good thing. In fact, if you're not in the Holga club, they won't even talk to you 😉
*sigh*
Also, 18 Canonets? Do you have to cycle through them every month to make sure you're keeping the shutters exercised? If not, I suggest you start or your shutter speeds are going to be off 😉
Goodyear
Happy-snap ninja
I can be both voices, one on either shoulder 🙂
A middle of the road alternative would be a used Bessa R. You can pick them up pretty cheap by now, they open up the whole world of (used or new) LTM lenses, and they are good. The VF/RF is stupendously good.
I had one of them as my first RF, and loved it. Two years later, my dad loves it as I have been sucked into the darkside - an M2 and an M6, both thanks to good deals that came along when I could make the most of them.
But the Bessa is great. And I still use the LTM lenses I got for it.
A middle of the road alternative would be a used Bessa R. You can pick them up pretty cheap by now, they open up the whole world of (used or new) LTM lenses, and they are good. The VF/RF is stupendously good.
I had one of them as my first RF, and loved it. Two years later, my dad loves it as I have been sucked into the darkside - an M2 and an M6, both thanks to good deals that came along when I could make the most of them.
But the Bessa is great. And I still use the LTM lenses I got for it.
Crasis
Well-known
jwinst said:
The Bessa RxA is.. loud. adayoncedawned already described it. Lets put the Leica at 2.5-3, and the Bessa sits at 6-7. Not close to the louder SLRs but .. essentially an SLR with the mirror up. There's only a metal shutter. The new RxMs are supposed to be softer but I don't know by how much.
I was actually going to give a thumbs up to the RxA with the 40 Nokton, but if shutter sound is such a big deal to you then you may want to look at older meterless M bodies as they'll cost the same as an RxM.
Shutter noise,
Canonet 1
Leica 4
Bessa 6.5
SLR 10
Spring Break? Lots of good photo ops, and other ops on Spring Break.
Canonet 1
Leica 4
Bessa 6.5
SLR 10
Spring Break? Lots of good photo ops, and other ops on Spring Break.
venchka
Veteran
Ah, the old shutter noise question. Well, it just so happens that I've been using my Dad's Konica 1 with a leaf shutter alongside my M5 & Canon EF recently. I must admit that the EF mirror slam-shutter open-shutter closed-mirror slam startled me at first after several rolls with the M5. Conversely, the leaf shutter in the Konica 1 is so quiet and so smooth that I sometimes wonder if it's gone off or not. Which brings us to the M5. "Perfect," says I. Just loud enough to let you know something happened. Quiet enough that a friend at dinner didn't know his picture had been taken. More importantly, the tone is lower on the scale. Whisper "snick" softly and you'll know what I mean.
Crasis, perhaps my success with the Canonet 2.8 can be traced to it's zone focusing, leaf shutter & spot on auto-exposure system. Attributes which can come in very handy sometimes.
Crasis, perhaps my success with the Canonet 2.8 can be traced to it's zone focusing, leaf shutter & spot on auto-exposure system. Attributes which can come in very handy sometimes.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Crasis said:
I have no problems focusing my GIII QL17, even wide open @ f1.7 and I'm sure many here who also own Canonet's don't either.
Sorry you had so much trouble with yours.
jwinst
Member
Andy Aitken said:
Thats not a bad way to go perhaps. The CL is definitely in my range of $$.
And by DIY modification, Do you mean just being aware that its a bit tighter than the 35 lines, or is there actually a modification to equipment?
Crasis
Well-known
Kin Lau said:
Well I guess it depends what you're shooting as well. I can focus a GIII QL17 perfectlly @ f1.7, given time. How much time? I need about 3 seconds to be assured of perfect focus.
That's 2.5 seconds too slow unfortunately 🙂
Crasis
Well-known
jwinst said:
I believe that all 40mm lenses bring up the 50mm framelines on a regular M camera. The modification he is talking about is to shorten the little bit which triggers the in camera 'automatic' frameline selector so that it brings up the 35mm lines.
Apparently it's not a difficult DIY job to do, and with the price of the summicron 40.. it's not that much of a risk.. I guess. I'd be too chicken to try 😉
jwinst
Member
Kin Lau said:
Usually It works great, but as I said, Low light or low contrast stuff takes an extra second or two. But the RF is spot on, when I get it right Its sharp as a tac. Maybe mines just dark though. Wanna trade? I painted the baseplate, top body plate and door metal black so its extra ninja.
- - - - - - - -
And to the 40somethings out there: Dont worry about potential misuse of money by this woefully imature and ungrateful college student. I grew out of parental allowance long ago. While paying your own way through college is just about financially impossible in this day, im riding a few scholarships and making what I can. The money Im willing to spend on this is earned and saved with a bit of gift money come christmas. Besides, Ill use the hell out of a good RF before i end up selling it for a minivan.
Ive also got some other odds and ends cameras and whatnot which I can sell to the ebay masses. If I end up with a leica theyll be collecting dust forever on anyways. Probably keep the canonet for rainy days, or shooting partys or something where it could get beer or youth all over it.
jwinst
Member
Crasis said:
haha, yea. Seriously how would you ever hope to capture a moment at such a sluggish rate.
Im joking, I dont even try to be that quick. Im more of the prefocus and wait type shooter when the light is low.
Andy Aitken
Registered Loser
"And by DIY modification, Do you mean just being aware that its a bit tighter than the 35 lines, or is there actually a modification to equipment?"
Yep. You just file a tiny bit off one of the bayonet flanges and the 40mm lens then triggers the 35mm framelines on any Leica body. Now the framelines on all the post 1980 Leicas are a bit undersized so the framing using the 40mm lens with 35mm frames on an M4-p, M6, M6TTL, M7, MP and probably M8 will be very close. The mod doesn't even effect the framing on the CL as the 40mm lines are fixed.
Apparently most CL's are a little louder than Leica M bodies however my battered old early CL is much quieter than my, and other, M's and CL's. Go figure.
I was happy with my CL for about 18 years before I felt I "needed" an M4. I think they are pretty good value for money at the moment too. They can have some problems with the metering and you need to get around the battery issue so do read up on those things before you take the plunge.
Yep. You just file a tiny bit off one of the bayonet flanges and the 40mm lens then triggers the 35mm framelines on any Leica body. Now the framelines on all the post 1980 Leicas are a bit undersized so the framing using the 40mm lens with 35mm frames on an M4-p, M6, M6TTL, M7, MP and probably M8 will be very close. The mod doesn't even effect the framing on the CL as the 40mm lines are fixed.
Apparently most CL's are a little louder than Leica M bodies however my battered old early CL is much quieter than my, and other, M's and CL's. Go figure.
I was happy with my CL for about 18 years before I felt I "needed" an M4. I think they are pretty good value for money at the moment too. They can have some problems with the metering and you need to get around the battery issue so do read up on those things before you take the plunge.
peter_n
Veteran
Welcome to the forum jwinst! I use both Leicas and Canonet and I would say the major diffferences are the viewfinder and fixed/interchangeable lenses. I think the Canonet is a tremendous street cam but it's versatility is hobbled by the fixed lens. They do seem to vary in quality a bit (unlike most Leica stuff) but if you get a good lens it's very good! Shutter is quieter on the Canonet. I use 2 Leica M bodies but I'm also using the Canonet beside them as that 40mm lens is excellent...
