dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Okay, the long awaited (by me, mostly) shoot out between the CL and M3.
Here's what I had:
a nice M3 with a quite old Soviet J-8 and adapter, metered with a somewhat accurate Weston Euromaster. (If I decide to keep this setup, it goes to QLM for an adjustment.
a Leitz Minolta CL with the stock Rokkor 40/2, just adjusted and cleaned by DAG, with a dead-on spot meter.
At stake: well, which one I keep, but the tests were to compare the 1950s optic with the 1970s, and the ergonomics of both cameras (VF, hand-hold, metering styles, compositional ease, focusing ease, "feel", etc.
First set of images below, from the M3/j-8 combination.
Here's what I had:
a nice M3 with a quite old Soviet J-8 and adapter, metered with a somewhat accurate Weston Euromaster. (If I decide to keep this setup, it goes to QLM for an adjustment.
a Leitz Minolta CL with the stock Rokkor 40/2, just adjusted and cleaned by DAG, with a dead-on spot meter.
At stake: well, which one I keep, but the tests were to compare the 1950s optic with the 1970s, and the ergonomics of both cameras (VF, hand-hold, metering styles, compositional ease, focusing ease, "feel", etc.
First set of images below, from the M3/j-8 combination.
back alley
IMAGES
i know people like the look of the j8 but i just can't see it beating the minolta 40.
mho
joe
mho
joe
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Okay, the house shot was following sunny-16, so the j-8 is stopped down. Not bad. The interior shots are all at about 1/25 f2 or 2.8. The contrast was slightly boosted in Photoshop (but I did a very similar curve treatment on the CL set as well).
I like the M3, a lot. It has a wonderful feel to it. The VF is lovely, and I think I do like the two eyes open method. The j-8 has a focusing throw that seems eternal, especically compared to the Rokkor 40/2's *snap*! So that slowed me down.
Now for the CL/Rokkor images.
I like the M3, a lot. It has a wonderful feel to it. The VF is lovely, and I think I do like the two eyes open method. The j-8 has a focusing throw that seems eternal, especically compared to the Rokkor 40/2's *snap*! So that slowed me down.
Now for the CL/Rokkor images.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
The CL is a fun camera, and very easy to use. I had the long discussion about metering from the other thread on my mind while shooting these, and one thing from that discussion (started by Frank) that struck me as true: when you have TTL meter in front of you, you are tempted to fiddle. With the M3 and handheld I just set it and only remetered if I felt the light change. I trusted the film latitude for the rest.
I'm not expecting the J-8 to beat the Rokkor, that's silly given three decades of optical advancements, the difference in quality in general. But my question is: is the $25 optic acceptable compared to the $200+ optic. Also, how does the focal length feel to me in terms of compisition.
On that note, I felt more comfortable with the 40. The 50 seemed to make me want to back up a little. But I can't sense that difference really in the images. Just took an adjustment.
Who wins? I'm not sure. The Rokkor is better, of course, more contrasty and sharper, though stopped down the Jupiter holds its own.
The M3 wins on the count of fit and finish, ergonomics, the expansive VF and the larger and more constrasty RF spot, and the quietness. And also, the simplicity of hand metering.
The CL wins on being compact and solid. A lot lighter than the M3 and meter together.
Oh, the film: 400 ASA Kodak B&W chromogenic. The CL images were taken wide open (interior) and about f/8 or smaller (outside).
I'm not expecting the J-8 to beat the Rokkor, that's silly given three decades of optical advancements, the difference in quality in general. But my question is: is the $25 optic acceptable compared to the $200+ optic. Also, how does the focal length feel to me in terms of compisition.
On that note, I felt more comfortable with the 40. The 50 seemed to make me want to back up a little. But I can't sense that difference really in the images. Just took an adjustment.
Who wins? I'm not sure. The Rokkor is better, of course, more contrasty and sharper, though stopped down the Jupiter holds its own.
The M3 wins on the count of fit and finish, ergonomics, the expansive VF and the larger and more constrasty RF spot, and the quietness. And also, the simplicity of hand metering.
The CL wins on being compact and solid. A lot lighter than the M3 and meter together.
Oh, the film: 400 ASA Kodak B&W chromogenic. The CL images were taken wide open (interior) and about f/8 or smaller (outside).
Last edited:
kiev4a
Well-known
Just a cursory glace but I don't see a lot of difference in picture quality. With the M3 you always have the option of someday acquiring some Leitz glass, too.
FrankS
Registered User
If you absolutely have to get rid of one camera and one lens (I'd keep both), I'd keep the M3 and the 40mm.
back alley
IMAGES
a hands off opinion - keep the m3 and the rokkor.
i see that as a killer set up.
i also have to step back when using a 50 and just can't seem to set that distance properly in my head. i'm also liking the 28 more than i ever have before. must be more comfortable movin' in closer.
either way, each set up will do great pics so i guess it's a comfort thing now.
joe
i see that as a killer set up.
i also have to step back when using a 50 and just can't seem to set that distance properly in my head. i'm also liking the 28 more than i ever have before. must be more comfortable movin' in closer.
either way, each set up will do great pics so i guess it's a comfort thing now.
joe
N
Nick R.
Guest
Keeping the M3 and the rokkor seems like a no-brainer, and the J8's are so cheap why don't you keep it also and just sell the CL body?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
As a guy who has a 40mm (Bessa-M)....
I too vote for the Rokkor-M and the M3.
I've grown accustomed to having a 40mm as a "second" normal lens.. the 50mm collapsible is now my normal lens, only because it's so.. *ahem*.. beautiful..
Cheers
Dave
I too vote for the Rokkor-M and the M3.
I've grown accustomed to having a 40mm as a "second" normal lens.. the 50mm collapsible is now my normal lens, only because it's so.. *ahem*.. beautiful..
Cheers
Dave
sockeyed
Well-known
I love 40mm as a focal length - to me, it's so natural. I have a CV Nokton 40/1.4, not the Rokkor, though. It's a lovely lens too.
Yeah, keep the M3 and the Rokkor, sell the CL body with or without the J-8 (including it probably won't increase the resale value much). Consider picking up an Industar-61 if you want to try another 50mm. At $10-15, they're amazing. Ergonomics aren't great, but the glass renders lovely images.
(lucky you, having the opportunity to make such choices).
Yeah, keep the M3 and the Rokkor, sell the CL body with or without the J-8 (including it probably won't increase the resale value much). Consider picking up an Industar-61 if you want to try another 50mm. At $10-15, they're amazing. Ergonomics aren't great, but the glass renders lovely images.
(lucky you, having the opportunity to make such choices).
I don't see this as a comparison at all. There are so many different factors....I mean, in any way how can you compare a CL and M3, forget the optics, they are just different cameras.... You have to keep everything unless you simply like one better than the other. Isn't that the only thing that counts anyway?
If you must sell one, sell the CL body. I have used the 40mm F2 Summicron on the M3, and just use the whole viewfinder frame.
Why do you have to sell one anywhay? They really complement each other. I keep the M3 and CL in the same carrying case to save a lens change.
Why do you have to sell one anywhay? They really complement each other. I keep the M3 and CL in the same carrying case to save a lens change.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Finances dictate I only keep one, and I'm still looking for the one camera that will make me the happiest. Then film will die with that camera in my hands, and I can say I finished out the end of an era with a truly excellent tool.
It's only a comparison because I set it up that way. In fact, it's apples and oranges. Just not sure which I want to eat! And the optics was just a chance to try out two pieces of glass I had at the moment. I also have a Summicron collapsible 50 on its way to DAG to see if he can unfreeze the aperture. I'll test that one when it gets back.
It's only a comparison because I set it up that way. In fact, it's apples and oranges. Just not sure which I want to eat! And the optics was just a chance to try out two pieces of glass I had at the moment. I also have a Summicron collapsible 50 on its way to DAG to see if he can unfreeze the aperture. I'll test that one when it gets back.
Summi in the house too.... oh, this is easy, dump the CL.
Yeah, that gets my vote.
If I have to pick one camera to load my last roll of film in, it will be the Black Nikon SP with the 10.5cm F2.5 on it. The Second to last roll will go into the M3 DS with the Summarit mounted. Third to last into the Canon 7 with the 50mm F0.95. Fourth to the last into the S4 with the 5cm F1.4. Fifth to the last into the F2AS with the 55mm F1.2. I'll have to think about the 6th to last to the Hundredth to last.
If I have to pick one camera to load my last roll of film in, it will be the Black Nikon SP with the 10.5cm F2.5 on it. The Second to last roll will go into the M3 DS with the Summarit mounted. Third to last into the Canon 7 with the 50mm F0.95. Fourth to the last into the S4 with the 5cm F1.4. Fifth to the last into the F2AS with the 55mm F1.2. I'll have to think about the 6th to last to the Hundredth to last.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Brian,
That's a great death montage sequence, I can even hear the overblown choral music a la "The Mission" or "Glory". You've thought that out!
That's a great death montage sequence, I can even hear the overblown choral music a la "The Mission" or "Glory". You've thought that out!
ywenz
Veteran
what is so special about the rokkor image? To me the j8 looks much sharper. Am I seeing what you' all are seeng?
back alley
IMAGES
it's harder to tell from a low res web image.
the magic is in the prints.
the magic is in the prints.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Ywenz,
Well, a lot of people I suspect are seeing their own experiences with the Rokkor. The full rolls I shot with each do indicate that the Rokkor is sharper wide open than the J-8. Stopped down there is less of a difference, but still slightly noticable. The Rokkor is more constrasty for sure--but contrast is something PS gives abundantly if need be. I'm pretty impressed with the J-8, and won't be selling that no matter what. I do think I favor the 40mm focal length.
However, the higher contrast Rokkor images as they were printed by the store appear cooler and more clinical. The J-8 images appear "warmer" if that's possible. But sometimes I want warm, and sometimes cool. Here I am talking myself into keeping both!
Well, a lot of people I suspect are seeing their own experiences with the Rokkor. The full rolls I shot with each do indicate that the Rokkor is sharper wide open than the J-8. Stopped down there is less of a difference, but still slightly noticable. The Rokkor is more constrasty for sure--but contrast is something PS gives abundantly if need be. I'm pretty impressed with the J-8, and won't be selling that no matter what. I do think I favor the 40mm focal length.
However, the higher contrast Rokkor images as they were printed by the store appear cooler and more clinical. The J-8 images appear "warmer" if that's possible. But sometimes I want warm, and sometimes cool. Here I am talking myself into keeping both!
I will agree with that! I've sent memebers 5x7 prints to start to see a comparison between two lenses. The 40mm F2 Summicron is very sharp; I'm sure that is true of the Rokkor. Jupiter-8's can turn out great prints, and others are "fuzzy". I had a Helios-103 that was pretty amazing. I will be reworking my Jupiter-3; the focus was WAY off.