Steve M.
Veteran
I just bought a Leicaflex SL w/ R 50 2.0 Summicron from a fellow forum member (Thanks Sam) and the IQ is really good. Trouble is, I also have a Kodak Retina w/ Ekter 50 3.5 lens that is as good in IQ. The Retina, I paid too much for ($165 w/ shipping, but killer lens), and the Leicaflex kit was $400 (camera has some issues but is usable, and that Summicron is the real deal).
It's a real apples and orange comparison, since the Retina is relatively tiny and light, while the Leicaflex is big and heavy. One's a rangefinder, one's a SLR. What makes this difficult is that the Ektar consistently take great shots, while the Summicron usually takes very good shots, but at distances from 3' to maybe 15', it has a much more pronounced 3-D effect than the other 75% of the time, and is really sharp. I really don't want to start up a collection of cameras, so if I'm not going to shoot something most all of the time, I don't need it.
Which would be a better keeper for daily out-and-about shooting and the occasional portrait or close up shots? Here's 2 from the Ektar, followed by 2 from the Leicaflex.
It's a real apples and orange comparison, since the Retina is relatively tiny and light, while the Leicaflex is big and heavy. One's a rangefinder, one's a SLR. What makes this difficult is that the Ektar consistently take great shots, while the Summicron usually takes very good shots, but at distances from 3' to maybe 15', it has a much more pronounced 3-D effect than the other 75% of the time, and is really sharp. I really don't want to start up a collection of cameras, so if I'm not going to shoot something most all of the time, I don't need it.
Which would be a better keeper for daily out-and-about shooting and the occasional portrait or close up shots? Here's 2 from the Ektar, followed by 2 from the Leicaflex.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Which is better?
Whichever you prefer that day.
Do you need the money?
If not, why not keep both? (A true RFF answer.)
Cheers,
R.
Whichever you prefer that day.
Do you need the money?
If not, why not keep both? (A true RFF answer.)
Cheers,
R.
bfffer
Established
since this is a rangefinder forum, I will vote for retina.
What film and processing? Wonderful photos.
I am a keep both guy by the way.
I am a keep both guy by the way.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Long term, if that matters to you, the Leicaflex is more reliable and more readily repairable. The SL is one of the all-time great cameras.
But if you don't want to carry the weight, none of the above matters.
But if you don't want to carry the weight, none of the above matters.
Steve M.
Veteran
The film was $1 a roll C-41 B&W from ebay (gotta buy 50 or 70 rolls to get a good price) and the processing and scans were from Walgreens. I've compared their scans to a good film scanner, and a film scanner will pull a lot more detail out and give me much bigger files, but for testing I like to use Walgreens because lately they're been consistent and pretty good. It's neat to just drop off my film, and 1 hr and $10 later I pick up my developed negs and scans on a CD. I really, really dislike scanning.
Yes, keeping them both would be one solution, but I can't justify it. It's not the money, it's having more cameras than I would use regularly. For me, that makes no sense. The shutter speeds just go off after too much down time, and with any camera I'm not using regularly, it takes me a roll or two before I get re familiar w/ it again, especially in the Retinas case. Retinas are tricky, left hand focusers.
I'm leaning toward keeping the Retina. The Ektar's great IQ (who knew?), it's lower initial cost, and the much smaller weight and size factors make it hard to beat. I have a cheap Minolta X-7A for times when I absolutely need an SLR. The Minolta lens is no Summicron, but it's good enough for those occasional times I'll need one. I'm still floored by how well the little Retina takes photos. Never in a million years thought it would be up to the IQ of an R Summicron lens, but it's very, very close. In fact it may be sharper, while the Leica has a little more "thereness", for lack of a better word, in the photos.
Yes, keeping them both would be one solution, but I can't justify it. It's not the money, it's having more cameras than I would use regularly. For me, that makes no sense. The shutter speeds just go off after too much down time, and with any camera I'm not using regularly, it takes me a roll or two before I get re familiar w/ it again, especially in the Retinas case. Retinas are tricky, left hand focusers.
I'm leaning toward keeping the Retina. The Ektar's great IQ (who knew?), it's lower initial cost, and the much smaller weight and size factors make it hard to beat. I have a cheap Minolta X-7A for times when I absolutely need an SLR. The Minolta lens is no Summicron, but it's good enough for those occasional times I'll need one. I'm still floored by how well the little Retina takes photos. Never in a million years thought it would be up to the IQ of an R Summicron lens, but it's very, very close. In fact it may be sharper, while the Leica has a little more "thereness", for lack of a better word, in the photos.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Steve,
Sorry, another stock RFF answer:
Shoot more.
If the money doesn't matter, why stick with an inferior camera because "I have a cheap Minolta X-7A for times when I absolutely need an SLR."
Are you still thinking in terms of your financial circumstances as a student, rather than today? We all do it, failing to realize that "Me, today" isn't "Me, then."
Though some of us started out as hippies and are now aging hippies, with some things changed, and others not...
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
I suspected it was a C41 film. I do really like the way these images came out.
segedi
RFicianado
Sell the Minolta.