Not so much a statement but a question ..... Read and find out

It's a drug, man, I'm tellin' ya. You know it's bad for you but ooooooh so nice.

I have an M2 but to be fair I use my Bessa R or CL much much more. In honesty I feel more satisfied when I shoot with these cameras than with the M2. I think it's because the sound of the shutter; it gives me the satisfied feeling of having taken a picture while the soft click of the M2 often makes me wonder whether I tripped the shutter at all. And then there's also the loading and the metering.

I for one am brave enough to say that I prefer my R and CL over my M2.

OK, where's the bomb shelter...?! :p
 
Well I cannot afford owning and driving an Alpine A110, a Karmann Ghia nor even a Mini cooper (the old one... or the new one, for the case it's the same) but in some way I can enjoy the Canon P, 7, Leica CL, the FSUs and even maybe some Leica M without too much financial trouble.

Of course they take pictures, just as all the other cameras around, but also the Alpine will bring you from A to B, just like a humble Corolla. When subjective comes into the equation, then it's impossible to come up with a definite truth.
 
silent!
small!
Beutifull
Light!
All Manual! (so you are the thinker)
No needs of batterys!
Bright Finder!

When I Shoot whit my Digital Rebel on the street the people ask me for what newspaper i work for. But when i used my Rangefinder and I try to shoot people on the street they ask me if the camara realy works! It makes me feel kind of invisible. No one really cares whem im taking photos whit my RF.

sorry about my english
 
I am a bargain basement boy, cameras; Kiev 4a , Zorki 4, Ambi Silette, retina IIIs and my car Vauxhall Victor Vx 4/90 1966
 
"I like using my Leica."
I do.
I also like using my Contax G2.
Ditto for my Mamiya Universal.
For that matter, ibid for my RB67's.
I paid good money hard earned for all of 'em.

What's the question again?

Practical? "Best?" I musta missed something. I could answer into the blackness of the insane "Zenner than thou," but just because English allows such simple sounding questions, it's hardly fair to do so.

I'm shooting a wedding in a couple weeks. I'm going to have my Leica with me for some planned shots.

It's a tool, &c.

I must say, though, for a flame war, thank the maker, this thread is pretty tame.
 
Because name aside ... it is the only camera system that lets you shoot handheld at 1/4 of a second at apertures of 1.0, 1.4, 2 etc, without flash. Try that with a F100. In short it is a near 4-6 stop advantage to most SLRs. And even within rangefinders (as opposed to competing SLRs) it distinguishes itself with the softer cloth shutter, as opposed to the metallic clack of other rangefinders and SLRs.

So it is not all about name. Sure some folks buy it for that reason to be sure. But there are serious photographers, as opposed to camera owners, who use it for those very virtues that other systems can't match, stealth and low-light handholdability.
 
Jarvis said:
Do you think that people who have to make photos for a living take shooting experience into account ?
Click to expand...

Yes. If an occupation is no longer fun, I look for a new one. Most people should feel the same way. Shooting expirence is a big one there. Plus, how you feel when doing a job, is going to directly influence the quality of your work.

Robert Meyers
 
This is a tough one. I haven't read this entire thread but I can only speak for myself. I own a Bessa R2 as well as a Rolleiflex 2.8D and a few other cameras. Why do I own a Rolleiflex when processing the film is more of a hassle, scanning/printing the resulting film is more of a hassle, finding someone to process my non-B&W film is a hassle and it doesn't get used that often? Ehhhh.... because I want one? I really can't think of a logical reason! I just know I put it up for sale last autumn and had multiple people tell me they'd buy it from me within the first 24 hours of posting the ad... at which point I realized I just couldn't force myself to get rid of it and decided to keep it. I enjoy using it for some reason.

The same goes for the Bessa. I'm much more accustomed to my Nikon FE2's focusing. After using my Canon 20D or the Nikon for a while, the Bessa's rangefinder focusing seems clumsy and slow. Lack of AE also slows down the shooting process at times even though that doesn't bother me too much. So why bother? Beats me. I just love shooting with it. Logically, I could sell the Bessa and the two lenses I have for it, buy a mint Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens for the Nikon so I have a 35mm lens again and still be ahead by hundreds of dollars ..... but I won't. I don't really know why. It's like a human relationship where it isn't 100% based on logic but there's emotion or some other variable that comes into play.

I could also use the Nikon in any situation where I could use the Bessa. I realize everyone states one big advantage to rangefinders vs. SLRs is that rangefinders are so compact. I don't know if they're comparing a Bessa to a big Nikon F5 or what but I find that idea to be totally false. Proof?

medium.jpg

medium.jpg


Height, depth and width.. almost identical. Both have similar 50mm lenses attached (M-Hexanon 50mm f/2 vs. Nikon 50mm f/1.8) so the comparison is fair. I still find myself using the Bessa R2 often enough though. :)

This is also why I either laugh or get frustrated when people make statements like "Cameras like the Canon 20D or Nikon D70 are almost too small for my hands. I wish they were bigger like the Canon 1-series or Nikon F-series!" ... What in the WORLD are they talking about?? How many people complained the FM2N, FE2, AE-1, OM2 or other film cameras were too small? They're sure a LOT smaller than current DSLRs that people whine about. I thought that was an advantage at some point...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have an M series Leica, only an older IIIa, which does _nothing_ outstandingly better than most of my other cameras, yet it's one of my favourites. As others have mentioned, there's a real sense of history with this camera and it adds to the whole experience. Simply put, it's got personality.
 
I traded a IIIf against a Contax TVS because it suits me better.
I used a M with a 35 'lux for one day at Photokina 2002 and fell in love with it, but it's out of my range.

When it comes to traveling with a camera or staying at home with a camera, traveling wins :)

And looking at my pictures from 25 years I like my Rollei 35TE pics from the early 80s better than the overstyled SLR pics.
Looking at the pictures from last years Cuba visit compared to those from the Domenican Republic in 2001 I think I improved more than my equipment :)

A very small bag with the G2 or the TVS in my jeans pocket allowed me to shoot where I'd never taken my Canon D60 or the Contax SLRs

All in all, I like my cameras. Be it the Zorki 4 or Kiev 4 when I want to slow down and get a taste of the old times, the Contax TVS as a take everywhere, the G2 when I want well exposed slides or available darkness photography with delta3200 and last but not least the Canon D60 for everything where I can carry it.
I havent't used my Contax SLRs much since I have the Canon D60 and the TVS replaced the Rollei 35TE.

At the moment I don't miss much, a dSLR with a better viewfinder would be nice, the Epson R-D1 is on my wishlist but I wait for a digital Zeiss Ikon.

Until then I save my pennies for next years journey to the carnaval in Salvador de Bahia, my current equipment will serve me well for some time.
 
I've used several cameras in my time, Canon rangefinder, Canon SLR's, Rollei, Contax III, Contax G2 and finally found one that I really love to use ..an M6. I just feels right in my large hands. It's confortable! It's simple! It does what I want it to do, when I want to do it! It's cumbersome to load, they're expensive, but damn, they hold their value like nothing else! Do you need a better reason?

Zoltan
 
I'm still in recovery. In 1985 I bought, from Oak Park Camera, an M3 w/ summicron 50/2.0 for something like $800. It was the same year that Minolta released the Maxxum 7000 Auto Focus cameras. I was seduced by the Maxxum's ease of use and didn't realize at all what I was giving up (sold the M3 to get a couple of bodies and a lens or two) until two years ago. I was going through boxes of prints - you know what's coming - and each time I ran across a Leica print there was a noticeable quality about the image the others lacked. Especially in gray scale with B&W prints, and in skn tones with color prints.

Which is why I'm back into RF cameras. My Bessa R will accept LTM (not that there's a thing wrong with the cv lenses) so I've got access now to those older Leica lenses. As I recall, the M3 had a fluidity about it that I've never encountered in another camera: Winding on, focusing, shutter release. But there's no really free lunch. Film changing was, for someone who'd spent 20 years with Spotmatics, a bizarre experience. I kept wondering why they made it that way.

Well, I've got a FED-2 coming. Maybe I'll achieve enlightenment.

Ted
 
[Todd[/QUOTE]

"Why Leica? Because My M3 can smash your Contax "G" into tiny bits and still keep shooting!"-Todd.Hanz RFF member.

Todd[/QUOTE]

Todd, please don't use your M3 this way, it will most probably damage the rangefinder. Use a speed graphic instead. It's made to handle that kind of abuse.
 
Last edited:
[Todd[/QUOTE]

"Why Leica? Because My M3 can smash your Contax "G" into tiny bits and still keep shooting!"-Todd.Hanz RFF member.

Todd[/QUOTE]

yes .... most definately a very good argument, personally if ever I would ever feel the urge towards this sort of activity I would purchase a $0,99 hammer, with this tool aligned with the G2 I could smash any camera into smithereens and keep on shooting with my G2. Got to think things through better Todd .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom