Leica LTM LTM RFs & Olympus SLRs

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
R

ruben

Guest
The following was re-edited by me after back alley remarks

First let me acknowledge I am absolutely ignorant of the M world, therefore I may ask and stress quite stupid things, and relay for comparizon to the Olympus OM slrs, which I do know in detail. Kindly take it as a pedagogycal challenge and patiently explain me the most basic things I do not know. I am serious.

Let say I buy a good autoexposure M USED camera, around the 500~600 dollars, perhaps the Hexar RF, which in my newbie view may be parallel in the LTM world to what an used Olympus 4Ti is in the SLR world (not the same functions, but perhaps similar status for similar minded photographer, which is me).

Now with Zuiko glass I can have most of their best performes, at the used market, by an average of 150 dollars. What should I go after in M world, for a parallel performance?

I do know that on one hand there are the Soviet lenses. On the other hand there are the newer Cosina glasses selling new for a reasonable price of $ 400 (new). About used Leica lenses it seems they are far beyond my budget. But what is there in the middle at the used market to build a kit of 4 or 5 lenses (28~135) with a similar price quality and functionality to the Zuikos for OM? Or perhaps Cosina Voigtlander glass is being sold at the used market at half their price new?

Could you help ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there are no ltm autoexposure cameras.
leica thread mount cameras are screw mount.
the hexar is an m mount camera.
m mount is a bayonet mount.
 
back alley said:
there are no ltm autoexposure cameras.
leica thread mount cameras are screw mount.
the hexar is an m mount camera.
m mount is a bayonet mount.
Click to expand...

Then could you follow my questions within the M mount planet ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could use your OM lenses on an M body using an OM-M adapter(Novoflex and I think CameraQuest has something too). It becomes a bit fiddly - the adapter has a focus ring that works with the rangefinder, then you match what that ring says on to your lens.
Possibly a cheaper way to cross over. Depends on how much the adapter costs.
 
Ruben: The only thing I will say is that "Now with Zuiko glass I can have most of their best performes, at the used market, by an average of 150 dollars" is a bit optimistic, as Roland alluded. The best performers are the 50/2 macro, 35/2, 90/2, 21/2, plus the shifts and the 8 and 16. None of those can be had for anywhere near $150USD. The 100/2.8 (which is arguably just as good/useful as the 100/2) can be had in that range, but even the 21/3.5 goes for well over $150 unless you're lucky. The 50/3.5 macro can be had in the $150 range if you're patient. The 28s (except for the scarce f2) can easily be had for much less than $150, and the 35/2.8 is lovely and cheap. But if I could have the 35/2, I would.
 
Oh, and I prefer having both: RFs and OMs. I find the OMs to be the most RF-like when it comes to composing and focusing. Naturally, for some applications they are superior.
 
For auto exposure M-mount cameras, there's the Konica Hexar RF and Minolta CLE, and the current Voigtlander R2a and R3a, the new Zeiss Ikon, and the pricy Leica M7... The Minolta was born and retired in the 1980s but is still desirable. I got mine new in 1982 and it's still a favorite. I have not used or even handled the others, so cannot compare. But from experiences shared by others, I'd not hesitate getting any of them. So it does boil down to a matter of price, and that's always better for used gear.

Even used Leica M-mount lenses can be reasonable in cost, though perhaps not in the $150 range! Konica's Hexanons are fine but also go for somewhat high prices. The 40mm Rokkor from the CLE is legendary for quality and modest cost, a mulit-coated improvement over the CL's 40 Summicron, itself a quality bargain. Of the above cameras, only the R3a besides the CLE have 40mm framelines, though the 35 frames can be used on the others.

The Voigtlander line of lenses has gotten steadily better over the few years they've been out, each new model with better build quality, but they're all excellent optically I think. This would be a good brand in which to find fine optics at a bargain. The screw-mount models can be easily adapted to the M-bayonet body, and I just count the cost of the adaptor in with the lens along with the hood, and a UV filter if you like.

Happy shopping, and then happy snapping! :)
 
Ruben,

You are hard pressed to find an automatic new for a bit more from CameraQuest (a new R2a or R3a. While you might find a used Konica, you might have problems with parts in the next few years as Konica/Minolta is out of the camera business. Triple the money to around $1400 and you can get a new ZI. From everyone I have read, a definite step up in quality from Bessa, close to a Leica (from what I’ve read).

I have an R for my oldest son, 2 Ts and 3 Ls now and am very happy with the Bessa line. They do not have the same quality as my Leicas, but they are good users and I can replace them in a few years when they die.

From the lens side, you are hard pressed to do better than CV for the price. Their offerings in the telephoto side is MIA (IMHO), but you can find great old Nikkors to fill the gap. There are lots of interesting LTM lenses that you run into from time to time that are fun to try.

You might want to look at RF for wide and your OM for telephoto? I’m bouncing around finding a great 180mm lens now as there are times that the RF world just does not cut it. I was going after a 600mm, but figured that a great 180 and a tele-converter would be more versatile and almost as small.

If you want to carry one system, you might look at 15/4.5, 25/4, 40/1.4, 105/2.5. All CV except for the 105, go Nikkor. You could replace the 40 with a 50/1.5, but it is much bigger. There are great 135s (Nikkor 3.5 black, but hard to find, 135/2.8 is fun, but you need a T to focus her close up in side) and some real dogs (IMHO, many Russian telephotos).

B2 (;->
 
Hah, more Oly geeks ! Join the club :)

I still have my OM set laying around, though it's not much in use at the moment. I find it's the perfect holiday camera: very reliable and lots of flexibility, particularly the OM-3(T)/4(T) bodies with the spot meter. My carry-everywhere kit is an OM-4T with 28/2.8-50/1.4-90/2, which is smaller than some DSLR bodies these days.

Many people call the OM system RF-like, but I wonder why, except for the size. With my limited experience, I regard RF as rather a different way of working. I remember somebody describing elsewhere in this forum that he found is SLR pictures too formal. I have taken many good people shots with my SLR, but somehow, the distance seems smaller when using an RF. I don't know if it's the mirror black-out that breaks the connection with the rest of the planet, or the fact that people don't look upon my Zorki as being this evil eye staring at them, rather, a charming artifact of old times (like you're less likely to get mad at an old lady when she bumps into you in the street, than when a thug does the same).

I haven't really traveled with an RF yet, too new in RF still. I've dreamt of an M body (or ZI) with non-ASPH Summilux 35&75 combo because of their adorable look, particularly the bokeh. But looking at them now, they look huge. I'm getting so used to a Zorki+I-22 or Summaron that I can tuck into a coat pocket or hang from my Gordy wrist strap. I don't know what I'll take on the next trip, but if it would involve safaris like Roland's, I would go for my OM system. It looks like it will be a lots-of-people-event, though, if so I'll probably take an RF. Perfectly complementary :)


Peter.
 
I wonder... if you put the Zuiko 28mm on your OM, and Voigtlander 28mm auxilliary finder in the accessory shoe, and just went with that for framing, and scale focus... how the results would differ from doing the same with an RF body and lens. :)
 
In the Bessa forum, there's a thread about the VC finders, and they find that the 28mm finder lines actually represent 35mm when focusing a few meters away. VC seems to be overly conservative, or they seem to think that photo processors chop of 10% on each side of a print (which mine sometimes seems to do).

I might be getting a 35mm VF, so I could try using my OM that way. It would feel weird at first, that's for sure :) And the OM lenses don't collapse, though the 40mm pancake would be cool. It would definitely feel more RF-like than, say, an F5 body *lug*lug*pulls cart behind him*


Peter.
 
Hi folks,
I truly thank you for the lot of info and good will you have poured in this thread. I will have to digest it by bits. But really thanks for the fine grain detail. I gladly accept that the $150 for the best Zuiko performers is uncorrect. I meant it in the broad sense.

Now I would like to ad 3 factors that need to be aded according to the thread up to now:

a) The only reason I have to fiddle with RFs is silent shutter (conspicuity) and no mirror vibration (lower shutter speeds for interiors). This perhaps puts aside the Bessas, which Gandy describes as a "quiet Slr like an OM1". I do not know if the Hexars are really quieter, I suppose they are.

b) Since some 3 or 4 years ago I started to assembe a highly efficient Kiev system, which I improved its performance furtherly by home arrangements. My Kiev optics match the Zuikos.
But the Kievs have for me 3 endemic problems: 1) no autoexposure alternative 2) no winding handle 3) impossible way to focus while the camera is in portrait position as you must obstruct one of the two windows to rotate the lens. All these means no possibility of fast manipulation. Obviously fast shots are only a part of what you shoot, but this part is missing.

c) What do you think about the relatively low priced Contax G system ? Here my suspiction relates to the stated low performance to manual focus it, when needed, although some say there is no need at all to manual foucus it. And, I am in doubt as well regarding whether its shutter noise may be low as with my oiled Kiev.

Hard life !
Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, interiors. So we're talking about concentrating on the wide end of the spectrum. Not being an expert, I would say frameline choice, frameline visibility and rangefinder patch contrast/visibitlity would be important factors. Along with shutter noise, of course.
 
There is a distinctly different shooting style associated with RF cameras, based on the always bright and sharp viewfinder and seeing around the outside of the lens's field of view. The Kiev suffers in comparison to modern RFs in this regard, with the same "tunnel vision" one experiences with SLRs such as the OM. And so does the modern Contax G, which has a zooming viewfinder giving a rather SLR-like experience, a rather small viewfinder too though it does remain sharp and bright at all times. Modest current pricing and exquisite lenses make it attractive. There are little buzzy noises from the AF and motor wind, maybe imagine a typical modern SLR minus the mirror slap.

The Contax G is a dead-end system. I'm just going to enjoy mine as long as practical. Certainly true too it's a very different experience from, say, a Leica M. Going with the M-mount is more main-stream and versatile, with a growing number of brands and options and price ranges. Something to expand into.
 
Trius said:
OK, interiors. So we're talking about concentrating on the wide end of the spectrum. Not being an expert, I would say frameline choice, frameline visibility and rangefinder patch contrast/visibitlity would be important factors. Along with shutter noise, of course.
Click to expand...

Sorry Trius I have not been clear enough. Interiors shooting but not shooting of interiors. Shooting people at work, home, illuminated streets, buses, etc. Therefore not the wide end but 28~135.
Thank you for your kind will,
Ruben
 
Doug said:
There is a distinctly different shooting style associated with RF cameras, based on the always bright and sharp viewfinder and seeing around the outside of the lens's field of view. .
Click to expand...

Dear Doug,
With all due respect, I am serious and not sarcastic nor cynic, not only I do not mind about seeing around the frame line, but it rather confuses me (from my fixed lens Rfs) and certainly I do not like the idea of framing a portrait using a frameline about a quarter of the viewfinder. Like in the case of noise for Slrs, here we are touching the limitating side of Rfs. I am aware I am testing the nerves of many people here, but thats' my opinion.


Doug said:
The Contax G is a dead-end system. I'm just going to enjoy mine as long as practical.Certainly true too it's a very different experience from, say, a Leica M. Going with the M-mount is more main-stream and versatile, with a growing number of brands and options and price ranges. Something to expand into.
Click to expand...

I would rather like to avoid expanding beyond a pair of bodies and 3 or 4 lenses. I am already expanded to death with OM, Mamy TLR, Kiev, and a dozen of non system cameras. I think I rather need to shrink.

What do you think ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruben, sorry for suggesting so many unsatisfactory answers. I hope you are happy with your gear and make many good photos. :)
 
Hi Ruben,

I'm replying through your response to Doug, I guess because there are some interesting thoughts/ideas here.

You are quite right about the limitations of framelines in an RF. Not using the entire veiwfinder is the big difference with an SLR. I think that is why I like the idea of fixed lens RFs. You only have one set of framelines, so your only option is to move closer or further from the subject. But you still use the entire viewfinder/framelines, and that really is the same as an SLR. I think that is one reason HCB used a 50mm as his only(?) lens.

If you have overbuilt your OM lineup, why not do some serious appraisal of what is really essential, sell the rest and invest it in an RF kit that is lean and essential. I'd start with a 35, but then we have the issue of framelines vs. full viewfinder. Hmmm.

ruben said:
Dear Doug,
With all due respect, I am serious and not sarcastic nor cynic, not only I do not mind about seeing around the frame line, but it rather confuses me (from my fixed lens Rfs) and certainly I do not like the idea of framing a portrait using a frameline about a quarter of the viewfinder. Like in the case of noise for Slrs, here we are touching the limitating side of Rfs. I am aware I am testing the nerves of many people here, but thats' my opinion.




I would rather like to avoid expanding beyond a pair of bodies and 3 or 4 lenses. I am already expanded to death with OM, Mamy TLR, Kiev, and a dozen of non system cameras. I think I rather need to shrink.

What do you think ?

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
 
Doug said:
Ruben, sorry for suggesting so many unsatisfactory answers. I hope you are happy with your gear and make many good photos. :)
Click to expand...

My good friend Doug,
Not only I find no reason for you to feel sorry, but in fact I feel very grateful to you and all other friends at this thread that, like you, have put their best will and patience in helping me clarify my questions.
Some times I am clear minded and some times not. When not, like now, I seem to be going forwards and backwards and draging with me the patience of others.

So I will try to summ up the issue as viewed from my point so far.
a) The situation of the advanced OM user trying to build a rangefinder setup, is not as easy as vice-versa. Well, after all during the OM epoch, Olympus made its best pieces of equipment, enjoying not only the massive production, but the genious of Maitani, who seem to have been a Leica admirer and added some kind of Leica fragance to his designs. Today in terms of price/value there is no parallel between between OM slrs and rangefinders. The OM user will have to open his wallet wide angle, if he seeks similar satisfaction.

b) In my specific case, regardless of the price issue, I am not trying to get rid from my extensive OM system (24~500 + AF + multi spot bodies + macro + film duplication + etc) to cross over to RF land.
I am rather looking to complement that system with a small RF setup. The only thing RF is to ad me is better conspicuity and sharpness, due to almost silent shutter.

c) But if I am looking after "almost silent shutter", I am entering expensive RF gear, unless I go to the Soviet contaxes. I entered this path some years ago and today I can say the following: Optically I can match the Zuikos. Mechanically the Kievs are beasts to last. With a small digital meter besides, and the right Kiev gear you are a small superpower on the arena. BUT camera manipulation is inherently SLOW.

d) Now, how war photographers managed to manipulate their contaxes fast ? Very simple deduction: shoot with it at least two rolls per day, and within few months you will be shooting faster than the most motorized camera at the hands of a non-pro like me. Here is the real source of my conflict I discover as I am writing these very lines.

Therefore I leave it open, either I manage to adapt my wishes to my surroundings and progress with Kievs slow slow, or I'll explode some day and open my wallet wide.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom