luuca
Well-known
I would buy 2 Leica M2.
Cheap (for a Leica), simple, reliable, robust, best rangefinder experience, perfect for 35mm, 1 frame per time in the viewfinder so no distractions.
Ok, there isn't the 28mm frame but you can use the whole viewfinder for it.
The viewfinder isbrighter from serial number 960.601
Cheap (for a Leica), simple, reliable, robust, best rangefinder experience, perfect for 35mm, 1 frame per time in the viewfinder so no distractions.
Ok, there isn't the 28mm frame but you can use the whole viewfinder for it.
The viewfinder isbrighter from serial number 960.601
Viewfinder brightness is really dependent on individual cameras and how well they were cared for during their existence, or how poorly. And of course any services they had over the years.
There isn’t a way to divide by serial number at this point since these cameras are all six decades old.
There isn’t a way to divide by serial number at this point since these cameras are all six decades old.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have no problems whatever with whether you like to read marketing pap and accept it as truth. I do have a problem when marketing pap is presented as truth—it obscures information about the reality of products. And to make marketing pap a part of the decision as to whether or not to buy something is just not a credible way to evaluate a product, to me.
If you want to discuss the quality of the marketing pap and its relationship to the reality of the cameras, great. Open a thread on that subject, and explore the notion in detail, objectively. Is this the right thread for that discussion? I personally don't think so, but feel free to go on if that's your required meme. It's quite all right to disagree, and it's similarly all right to state so.
I read product specifications and examine/use the products to test them against the specifications, and ultimately to make photographs. I am always checking to see whether the published specifications meet the expectations that I have engendered from them. I report on the data I acquire by doing so. I never look at marketing pap (aka: advertising copy) ... I'm totally uninterested in how a company is trying to sell something or appeal to some notion that I will buy something because they deem it "special." It's their job to try to sell things, it's my job to look at the things and see whether they meet my desires/needs as tools with which to work on Photography.
I read "Brandwashed" about a decade ago. It's a decent effort, and his arguments support my intent to not look at and accept marketing pap as reality. Better to look at and evaluate the products rather than the pap.
G
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Let's be real, even though they are still very good cameras, Leica's have become a classic example of a Veblen good, much like a Rolex watch. With the introduction of the Pixii as an actual digital alternative, perhaps the Seiko equivalent, it's even more obvious. This is not inherently a bad thing - indeed it is a Good thing as it has kept Leica in business. But they are an expensive luxury good now, not a working reporter's camera like the various mainstream mirror-less or DSLR from Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sony/etc.
I'd not care to be without either my Leica OR my Pentax K-3 these days but they fill very different niches.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I bought and tested the Pixii about two-three years ago now as I thought it might actually be a decent alternative to the Leica M. While it worked reasonably well, it didn't really work well enough for me to keep (was fully of a lot of curious bugs and glitches, a couple of serious haptics issues), and it did inspire me with the notion that the M Monochrom camera (that I'd wanted a half a dozen years before and gave up trying to get my hands on) was really worth the effort. So I returned the Pixii and ordered the M10 Monochrom ... which has been my 'standard camera' ever since.
I hope that the Pixii folks have improved their camera, and that the latest FF format Pixii is even better than the APS-C models. But I'm quite happy with what I have at present and will not be going that way for the foreseeable future.
G
I hope that the Pixii folks have improved their camera, and that the latest FF format Pixii is even better than the APS-C models. But I'm quite happy with what I have at present and will not be going that way for the foreseeable future.
G
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Leica M. Really the best choice, IMHO, Leica screwmounts as a distant second. Nikon S as a third option (fewer lenses out there). I don't know how you go this route without spending some cash. The good news is that these cameras are durable AF and hold their value pretty well. So buy from someplace like KEH or another place that has a good return policy.
The Bessas were Ok -- I have a couple -- but an order of magnitude less durable than the OG rangefinders. They were a great way to get into RF photography, but not as robust as Leicas (and a fraction of the cost).
Don't listen to the naysayers. M2's and M3's are 75 year old machines. The screwmounts are older. But they are all mechanical and can be kept working. The shutter springs are so undertensioned that they just keep going. Handheld light meters are plentiful and incident light readings can cover a lot (a lot) of situations.
It is hard to save up that kind of cash. But I think this is a buy-once, cry-once situation. You buy a Canonet with a fixed lens 28, or an old Yashica with a 35, you will just be dealing with a less robust, less capable camera.
The Bessas were Ok -- I have a couple -- but an order of magnitude less durable than the OG rangefinders. They were a great way to get into RF photography, but not as robust as Leicas (and a fraction of the cost).
Don't listen to the naysayers. M2's and M3's are 75 year old machines. The screwmounts are older. But they are all mechanical and can be kept working. The shutter springs are so undertensioned that they just keep going. Handheld light meters are plentiful and incident light readings can cover a lot (a lot) of situations.
It is hard to save up that kind of cash. But I think this is a buy-once, cry-once situation. You buy a Canonet with a fixed lens 28, or an old Yashica with a 35, you will just be dealing with a less robust, less capable camera.
mlzplayer
Member
I think this is a good assessment. Personally, I think a lot of LTM stuff isn't that bad (canon cameras, for example), so I'm going to spend some time drawing up two setups before I make a final decision. Then I can start selling and saving.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I'm going to say this because despite what Godfrey might squeal, I have repeatedly gotten better bang for buck and reliability out of Canon LTM bodies than out of both LTM and M film Leica bodies. I have used the BEST maintenance available - DAG - so there is no difference in that respect. A Canon body, you preferred LTM lens, and a hand held meter will do EVERYTHING you want for a fraction of the price that a Leica will command. And if it needs repairs, it will still be cheaper to be repaired.
That's reality. Leica's nice.
Canon is when you want to get stuff done in the real world without having to worry about it.
I'd suggest the Canon P, a 35/1.8, a 50/1.4 & a 100/3,5 for a serious kit that will do everything a film rangefinder can do. If you want a 28? Get a Canon 28/3.5 (it's better than the 2.8. seriously) with the finder included.
Add a Seconic 308 and you're set.
That's reality. Leica's nice.
Canon is when you want to get stuff done in the real world without having to worry about it.
I'd suggest the Canon P, a 35/1.8, a 50/1.4 & a 100/3,5 for a serious kit that will do everything a film rangefinder can do. If you want a 28? Get a Canon 28/3.5 (it's better than the 2.8. seriously) with the finder included.
Add a Seconic 308 and you're set.
JeffS7444
Well-known
The OP raised an important point about whether Leica's higher price bought higher quality, and in my meandering way, I've sought to answer it. The concise version is "Sometimes yes, sometimes, well...". And for me, the brand has not been an end-game sort of purchase, so much as another nice consumer choice.
Not sure where I implied that branding campaigns represented the literal truth: Of course they don't (please don't paint me with such a broad brush, G.). But their narrative can be fascinating in it's own right. And had you read Lindstrom's work more recently, you might have recalled the study which found that folks who had been influenced often had no inkling that their purchase decisions were anything but their own. And in this regard, I expect that I'm pretty average, despite wanting to believe that I'm the one calling the shots.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
...meanwhile, I've yet to find a Canon RF I didn't want to throw at the nearest wall.
The early ones are incredibly smooth (the latter ones not so much), but dear god, they're horrible to use.
For instance, on the rare occasion that I load up my Canon IIIa, I have to use an external finder no matter what lens I want to use; the rear eyepiece for the one on the camera is ridiculously small.
If someone wanted to go for an off-brand screwmount, I'd recommend Nicca or Leotax long before I recommended Canons to anyone; the changes made to the Barnack design on a late Nicca or Leotax are genuine improvements, not just change for the sake of being different.
And now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to duck behind the aforementioned wall before the hate mail starts raining in!
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Eh, we have different tastes. I expected the hate mail from Godfrey! LOL! I personally love Canons. YMWV
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Honestly, I suspect half of my frustration with the early ones is that I wear glasses (it's also one of the reasons I don't much like Ms - I struggle to even see the entire 35mm frameline a lot of the time), and the later ones feel more like cheap SLRs with a rangefinder jerry-rigged into them to me (the Canon 7 - which I own! - has been the subject of many rants over the years. Damn thing drives me nuts, but an old friend gave it me, so in the collection it stays).
That's the real problem with threads like this: as much as we can talk about specs and as good as things may look on paper, if they do not "spark joy" when you're using them, they're just not the right tool for the job - at least not for your job.
That's the real problem with threads like this: as much as we can talk about specs and as good as things may look on paper, if they do not "spark joy" when you're using them, they're just not the right tool for the job - at least not for your job.
mlzplayer
Member
I also hate the IVSB, but the L1, P and 7 aren't that bad. The only thing which annoys me is fat fingering the prism, which I manage to do with impressive consistency.
My crazy dream is to have the Eugene Smith setup:
*Four* Canon L1s. My best guess it that the lenses are a 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8, and a 135mm f/3.5. Note the Canonflex 1 (I think?) with a ridiculous lens in the back. Cameras came and went from him, but man, this is a cool rig!
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I always take my glasses off and adjust for the lack.
Again, YMWV.
Again, YMWV.
JeffS7444
Well-known
That appears to be a Canon VI-L in the photo, not a P. Intriguing design, because when used with the correct shoe-mounted finders, you get automatic parallax correction. I'd be tempted, but ugh, despite selling or donating a bunch during the pandemic, I still got a bunch, including a Nikon SP and a Canon P, but that's another story.
⬆️⬆️This.
There are so many ways to skin this cat. Some are happy with Beetles, some must have the 911.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As I have said repeatedly,, I have NO personal experience with any Canon RF camera. I have no idea why you should say I might squeal about your statement.Eh, we have different tastes. I expected the hate mail from Godfrey! LOL! I personally love Canons. YMWV
The only Canon camera I ever owned was a Canon 10D DSLR... late in my game, about 2003 (I'd been shooting since 1965..). I bought that along with 28, 50, and 100 mm lenses. It was a good camera, the lenses were very good quality. To my eye, they had no real character ("entertaining flaws"), they just worked. I sold that system and bought the Pentax DSLR kit due to a proffered business relationship with Pentax USA, which worked well for a couple of years and was reasonably lucrative. And then I bought the Olympus E-1 and a few lenses and liked it much more; and then supplemented that with the E-M1 body. Still have that system, still use it occasionally. Had a couple of Panasonics along the way, then went back to my Nikons and Leicas.
My high school photography friend bought Canon gear way back when because it was the best he could afford. He still has all of it, has made a lot of very nice photos over the year. But 10 years ago, I gave him a Nikon F Photomic FTn that someone had given me because he always liked the one I had in high school, and I already had one that someone else had given me and I'd refurbished. He hasn't touched the Canon kit since, he loves that Nikon F.
Canon RF gear ... I don't see much of it around. It's findable, of course, and the prices are decent. Since I've never touched any of it, I have no idea what the bodies are like, but Canon lenses have been good. Eh? You like it, fine by me.
The first Leica cameras I bought and used personally were a pair of IIc and IIf bodies with Elmar 35 and 50 mm lenses that the sales guy at Olden Camera in Manhattan handed to me for $100 in 1969. "Nobody wants old junk like this any more..." was his justification for the price. I had my first Nikon F at the time, but I made many photos with them because they were small and handy. One of them fell out of my hands and was dashed to pieces on the pyramid in Mexico when I tripped way up the tourist path, about 1979. The other got flung into the Pacific Ocean when I and my tech buddy were trying to fix a bad antenna connection on the C130 we were doing data capture work for NASA in 1985 ... it was in my bag so I could photograph what had happened to the connection and how we fixed it, but the plane lurched in some turbulence and the camera was flung from my hands and fell through the netting. That old junk had served me well, wish I still had it. ...
But you like Canon RF stuff. Great. Now go make photos and show everyone why you like it.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This is a lovely little RF kit:
Kodak Retina IIc - standard with Schneider 50mm f/2.8, optional 35mm f/4 or f/5.6, 80mm f/4, and an accessory finder with the 35 and 80 frames.
Kodak Retina IIc w standard 50mm f/2.8 lens
Kodak Retina IIc w 80 and 35 lenses
The Chair by the Church - Santa Clara 2021
Kodak Retina IIc + Schneider 50mm f/2.8
ISO 80 @ f/5.6 @ 1/250
This exact kit cost me $125 total and makes beautiful photographs. So if the prices of Leica, Nikon, or Canon RFs are a bit daunting, there are other options.
G
Kodak Retina IIc - standard with Schneider 50mm f/2.8, optional 35mm f/4 or f/5.6, 80mm f/4, and an accessory finder with the 35 and 80 frames.
Kodak Retina IIc w standard 50mm f/2.8 lens
Kodak Retina IIc w 80 and 35 lenses
The Chair by the Church - Santa Clara 2021
Kodak Retina IIc + Schneider 50mm f/2.8
ISO 80 @ f/5.6 @ 1/250
This exact kit cost me $125 total and makes beautiful photographs. So if the prices of Leica, Nikon, or Canon RFs are a bit daunting, there are other options.
G