Leica owners are just showing off!

[JohnTF]

The Kodak Signet Series were American made cameras. It was in the $100 price range, as expensive as the contemporary Kodak Retina Auto III. The Auto III is better made. However, the Signet 80 has some interesting features such as the "Spool-less" take up chamber, double-stroke thumb wind, and quick-release bayonet mount. I find the latter to be well thought out. The viewfinder is 1x, and accurate. The lenses are "okay". I've thought of hacking some better lenses onto the mount.

Brian, am pretty sure they were more than that, I recall we paid more. The lens mount had some sort of release and then the lens pulled out as I recall, I think they had three lenses. I may have a manual somewhere if you are without, just don't hold your breath. ;-)

The Signet 50 had no RF, and a blazing fast 2.8 lens, plus linked aperture and shutter speed, with EV numbers on top, so if you wanted to know the f stop and speed, you had to turn the camera over.

Still, you learn distances, and it was my first camera that could be adjusted.

The viewfinder was very clear, and said "wind" when the film was not advanced.

As these were made in the 60's, looking back, you could easily have bought a used S2 Nikon or Leica SM, and Kodak always seemed to make stuff that matched nothing else, and did not have a long production run, both of which made them difficult to service.

I did pick up some S2 Nikons for $125, sold them, and had seller's remorse, so I replaced them in the 70's for not much more.

+1 on your shot BTW.

Regards, John

ps- found a link on Camerapedia on it: http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Signet_80

Interesting it was the last interchangeable lens US 35mm camera, was $130.

 

[lngu81]

At last someone spoke my mind. However If I'm on the other end of spectrum, there is no doubt that I will purchase Leicas, why? because I have the money and Leica is pinnacle of craftsmanship. Obviously I will be very proud to own a Leica or rather obnoxiously believing that my wallet is fatter than the rest, since majority can't afford the Leica price tags.

 

[Quercus]

I haven't read all the post on the thread so I may end up say what others have said but hey does it matter. Most people who enjoy the process of taking photographs probably enjoy using what ever camera they use. I ahve an affection for voigtlander and late rollei 35mm slrs including the sl35e. I use both a rollei 2000 and 3003 (now and again) when they came out I was a lot younger and could never have afforded one. But times change. When I look back it was not that they were expensive and cult'ish' that I liked about them it was that they intrigued me. The sl35e even more so the last germany slr but actually not.

30 ish years later and having gone through me supers and mx's (still the worlds two greatest cameras - and why not) and aperiod of not really having time to take photos I now use a ZI all the time and came back to photography with a Bessa R2. The Bessa is still unbelievable (what a great camera) the ZI is so easy to use both do what I want. have I ever considered a Leica - not really, but not because they are not great cameras but because I have just never ever actually wanted one. never really could see haw it fitted with me - I had no excitement. But then I get the most excitement using a 3003. Heavy noisy and actually awkward to use other than in waist level and then there are batteries oh Rollei and batteries.

What I get from the Rollei is just fun, plain and simple fun - not frivolous fun but enjyment and interest. It lights a spark that even the Bessa or ZI do not quite do. Do I use it often - no - it is not a practical camera. Both the Bessa and ZI are and more so my now out off date istD (the me super never really went out of date the mx certainly has never).

I guess it may be the same for people who actually like using a leica - they are not perfect cameras. The have things that would drive me wild even without the price tag - film loading for instance. But they are beautifully made, should last for ever and maybe link back to a different artisan time. but I bet people that use them rather than just collect them get a real joy from using a leica.

So do I not use a yashica/contax instead of a rollei because of a snobbery - no. Just there is no spark using a contax that i don't get with a K-mount pentax. would I get more of spark with an M7 instead of a zi - no. The ZI and Bessa both do what I want and I enjoy them. Is there any camera that gives me the spark that a Rollei 3003 does - well sorry people but to me I never understand why nobody else "gets it"

So leica photographers just carry on using and enjoying a camera that works for you. If you don't get a spark maybe you do need to try something else - nothing wrong with that.

Now lenses and glass that is a different matter

 

[dee]

I think it's quite simple really - those who accuse , have serious inferiority complexes and have to sneer at someone .
Leicas are exquisite objects in their own right , add the history of a camera made in 1932 or 1933 , or the Wallace Heaton sticker on my 1947 ' 60th Birthday ' camera and the awe is electric and irresistable .
However , my mint Mika-mouse [ ex Moscow Photo - Mika ] Leica pretender attracted the most admiration when used on holiday !
I just love that , as these are the most denigrated cameras in the USSR mythology
and mine works exquiaitely !
dee

 

[literiter]

I like stick pens, I like typewriters, I like stick shifts (and clutches), I like pencils, I like light meters, I like wood stoves (especially in the morning) , I like well water, I like leather shoes.

I like Leica M2s, I like Leica IIIfs. My Wife tells me my M2 is a babe magnet. I like my wife too!

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I like stick pens, I like typewriters, I like stick shifts (and clutches), I like pencils, I like light meters, I like wood stoves (especially in the morning) , I like well water, I like leather shoes.

I like Leica M2s, I like Leica IIIfs. My Wife tells me my M2 is a babe magnet. I like my wife too!

.... How do you like your eggs in a morning?

 

[Soeren]

To whom? Who is going to be impressed by "I own a....'?

Most people don't even know what a Leica is. Of those who do, relatively few care, or realize how much new ones cost. Very few can tell an old one from a new one. If you're rich enough that a Leica is a plaything, you're not going to be impressed, even if you do know and care.

Do they buy it to impress people at their local camera clubs? How many even belong to a local camera club? If they do, how many care what the others think? Or would spend thousands just to impress them?

Maybe you can pretend to show off on line, but as most people hide behind pseudonyms, they could just as easily lie. And who would care anyway?

Of course there are lots of really incompetent Leica photographers. And incompetent Nikon and Zorkii and Canon and Yashica photographers. And? Being able to afford a Leica doesn't automatically make someone a bad photographer, any more than it makes them a good one.

So who are the intended targets of these smug rich bar stewards who want to boast about their Leicas? Whom do they hope to impress? The more I think about it, the more this puzzles me. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not sure they exist, at least in significant numbers. But I am sure that surprisingly many people think they exist. Why?

Cheers,

R.

Well I have never owned a leica, a Rolleiflex, A Hasselblad or a Linhof. Still I have been aproached by people asking is that a (insert brand) my father ( or other relative) used to have one like that or by people who have read about those cameras on the web, when out shooting a Yashica 124, a canonet QL17 or the Bronica SQA-i. I think most people interested in photography and many others do recognize a Leica or a Rolleiflex from the common DSLR and know a little about what they stand for.
Best regards

 

[Jim-st]

To whom? Who is going to be impressed by "I own a....'?

Most people don't even know what a Leica is. Of those who do, relatively few care, or realize how much new ones cost. Very few can tell an old one from a new one. If you're rich enough that a Leica is a plaything, you're not going to be impressed, even if you do know and care.

So where will your Super Elmar be safer - or your M or here?

http://leicarumors.com/2010/06/23/leica-adapter-for-e-mount-sony-nex-again.aspx/


Which camera will be the better thief-magnet, I wonder?