which one for travel and everyday use?

I may get banned but I have a different suggestion. I have a CL with Summicron-C and LOVE it and have no reservation about its build or reliability provided it has had the normal maintenance.

If I were going to someplace like India and thinking about what film camera to take. I would put the CL aside as well as any Leica and pick up a brick such as a Vito B with Color Skopar and have the shutter serviced. You can hammer nails with it, the lens is EXCELLENT and more reliable than any Leica. The 40mm lens is fixed and amazing with slide film and color. These with full service should not cost more than maybe $100 with case. An alternative for something more pocketable with almost as good lens is the folding Zeiss Ikonta 35mm. Folded while larger and heavier than say a Minox 35mm or Rollei 35 still will fit in a shirt pocket. These can be had with a rangefinder and again with a service are bulletproof but feel different than the Vito.

Neither of these will attract attention like a Leica with unauthorized "collectors" and while I would second the suggestion of also a Rolleiflex as a 2nd camera, the need to carry a 2nd type of film is against the idea. If not partial to 35mm or a small camera, I would carry a f/3.5 version such as an Automat or a T with the EV levers decoupled. Bay I accessories are fairly plentiful and compared to the other size Bay accessories are quite inexpensive. I have a T and prefer it over the more complex models with the auto 1st frame system that is finicky because newer 120 is thinner than the older. I find the EV lever system far less user friendly than the twin wheel shutters but when decoupled is not any worse than most other cameras.

The other negative I found about the Rollei is it attracts old timers with stories like bees to flowers. Almost every time I use mine in some populated area I meet at least 1 or 2 who bought 1 new, brought 1 back from Germany after the war, dad used one in Nam and the stories go on.
 
Thanks Brian, that's an interesting point. CL and 40mm always has attracted me.

I have this great lenses, 28/2, 35 and 50 1.4 asph, 90AA... but feel bad having too much money invest and if something happen to them... You know that feeling? so CL and 40 feels cheap in comparison, but just in economic terms not in final IQ (of course asph lenses are better but that's not the point here), for take great pictures, do We need the best lenses? Do We ask to people when We go to an exhibition, which equipment have You used?

I think that nowadays the important thing is to be different, apart from image quality, so maybe the less is more.

Now I'm very happy with the XPRO1 system, using it for my photography studies.

Thanks again for posting.

Bruno
 
Recently, I've been reading about fountain pens. You can get some inexpensive ones, and of course they go up to limited edition Leica prices. A lot of the top end pens might be able to lay down a beautiful line of ink, any better than a $500 pen? No. Any better than a $100 pen, possibly. Any better than a $10 pen, probably.

I think the same goes for lenses. The best lenses can likely render a scene "better" than a not-best lens. Noticeably? I thoroughly doubt it.

I had a Summarit f/1.5 a little while ago, really nice lens. Wide open, the technical quality was shocking. Contrast dropped off very noticeably, it became flary and soft. I didn't care because if I wanted sharp I could go down to f/5.6 and it was sharp. Also, it's f/1.5 performance was technically poor, but I kind of liked it.

Now lenses like that in the Leica line up, have character, had that been a FSU lens, then it would be considered crappy.

If you like nice things (I know I do), then keep the lenses, but for technical quality, well, I wouldn't.

Frankly, in film, I think 35mm is great for convenient, small cameras, but if you want quality, you can replace thousands of dollars of Leica gear with a couple hundred dollars of medium format gear and get very noticeably, strikingly, better technical performance.

If technical quality isn't your top goal, then shoot 35mm by all means, but if it it's important, then you can make life easy for yourself by just getting a medium format camera. No bigger than a M6 with lens.
 
Bruno Gracia said:
thanks guys, finally I bought a X1 and M6 and will see with film...
Click to expand...

So there's your traveling kit (I would have kept the M2, but that's just me). The X1 covers the equivalent of 35 focal length, so bring along a wider lens and a 50 or 90 for the M6, and you've got an easy to carry kit that will get you through India. The X1 will also help you conserve film, and each camera backs up the other in case of equipment failure or, God forbid, theft.

BTW, there was an interesting thread on RFF (in the travel forum, I think) on what to take to India. One member here who travels to India frequently posted that he carries two Barnack Leicas w/ wide, normal and tele lenses. The Barnacks are very robust, and you're not out a lot of money if one of them gets stolen. YMMV.
 
thegman said:
Recently, I've been reading about fountain pens. You can get some inexpensive ones, and of course they go up to limited edition Leica prices. A lot of the top end pens might be able to lay down a beautiful line of ink, any better than a $500 pen? No. Any better than a $100 pen, possibly. Any better than a $10 pen, probably.

I think the same goes for lenses. The best lenses can likely render a scene "better" than a not-best lens. Noticeably? I thoroughly doubt it.

I had a Summarit f/1.5 a little while ago, really nice lens. Wide open, the technical quality was shocking. Contrast dropped off very noticeably, it became flary and soft. I didn't care because if I wanted sharp I could go down to f/5.6 and it was sharp. Also, it's f/1.5 performance was technically poor, but I kind of liked it.

Now lenses like that in the Leica line up, have character, had that been a FSU lens, then it would be considered crappy.

If you like nice things (I know I do), then keep the lenses, but for technical quality, well, I wouldn't.

Frankly, in film, I think 35mm is great for convenient, small cameras, but if you want quality, you can replace thousands of dollars of Leica gear with a couple hundred dollars of medium format gear and get very noticeably, strikingly, better technical performance.

If technical quality isn't your top goal, then shoot 35mm by all means, but if it it's important, then you can make life easy for yourself by just getting a medium format camera. No bigger than a M6 with lens.
Click to expand...


This is one of the most interesting comments I've read, which MF with great quality for color and black and white does exists?

CL/40 are still in my mind.
 
Recently, I've been reading about fountain pens. You can get some inexpensive ones, and of course they go up to limited edition Leica prices. A lot of the top end pens might be able to lay down a beautiful line of ink, any better than a $500 pen? No. Any better than a $100 pen, possibly. Any better than a $10 pen, probably.

I think the same goes for lenses. The best lenses can likely render a scene "better" than a not-best lens. Noticeably? I thoroughly doubt it.
Click to expand...

That's a really good comparison. A colleague showed me his Twsbi and I fell for it. The street price is less than £40 but it writes as well as I can manage, which is legible but not caligraphy. Still, I think it looks very nice...

14158569733_04cc8d92d4_b.jpg



As you say, the difference between the "good enough" and the "best" lens is invisible to anyone except those doing really detailed work and they'll be using large format, anyway.
 
Peter_S said:
If you want to stick with 35mm film and like 35mm FOV:
Contax T3 and a T as backup (or one with color, one with b/w film). Never travel with one body only!
Click to expand...
I've been traveling with one body for nearly fifty years, and it has never caused me a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom