You have $3000, what would you buy?

[rfaspen]

Oh, a Goldberg SA with goggles? Those are uncommon! Wonder if they'd negotiate a sale of that lens....they could still attempt to sell the remainder as a "package" (which is usually a terrible idea as a seller).

 

[Mackinaw]

Oh, a Goldberg SA with goggles? Those are uncommon! Wonder if they'd negotiate a sale of that lens....they could still attempt to sell the remainder as a "package" (which is usually a terrible idea as a seller).

I may ask if he’ll separate his package. I live in a rural area and I doubt he’ll get many takers for classic Leica gear, especially at the price he’s asking. And I haven’t seen any of this stuff so for all I know, the lenses are full of fungus. His pictures look nice though.

Jim B.

 

[rfaspen]

I may be wrong about the lens being a Goldberg creation (could be a Tom A. contraption), but those goggled 21SA are not at all common. I saw one for sale a few years ago...that's it. Someone around here can probably provide more info.

Good luck! It would be a nice lens to have... Sure hope there's no fungus!

 

[David Hughes]

An interesting question, muse, whatever is why was this thread put in the Leica General Discussion range...

Regards, David

 

[raid]

It was put here because such discussions have consistently been of interest to many RFF members. If you would do a study on RFF threads, you would see a high concentration of the threads was about such a topic.

 

[David Hughes]

It was put here because such discussions have consistently been of interest to many RFF members. If you would do a study on RFF threads, you would see a high concentration of the threads was about such a topic.

Hi,

I was thinking it was a biased (towards Leica) sample and wondering what the response would have been in (say) the P&S threads. As it is Leica came out on top but I still wonder.

Having said that, I can't think of neural thread except "off topic" perhaps.

Regards, David

 

[ptpdprinter]

It is biased toward Leica because it is a poll and the choices are among various Leica products or unspecified "other".

 

[Michael Markey]

I went for other cameras although I`ve just picked up an A7R2 and don`t feel the need for any other bodies .... maybe a longer Canon lens 300 or so.

Also had it in mind to "upgrade" the 90 Elmarit for an APO but the reality is I`m just fine at present.

 

[back alley]

I went for other cameras although I`ve just picked up an A7R2 and don`t feel the need for any other bodies .... maybe a longer Canon lens 300 or so.

Also had it in mind to "upgrade" the 90 Elmarit for an APO but the reality is I`m just fine at present.

what 300 are you looking for?

 

[Godfrey]

I'd be curious to know, David, what camera you bought three expensive lenses for that you can no longer get a body to suit them.

This thread is primarily about Leica cameras, however. Leica digital cameras (SL, M, CL, TL) can be fitted and used with Leica lenses from the entire range of Leica thread mount, M, and R cameras going back to the 1930s. My lens kit includes a couple of lenses from the fifties and sixties, lots from the seventies and eighties; the other two or three are current production. They work the same way as they always did. Leica has been very proactive about preserving their users' lens kit usability.

Your vitriol about anything digital is well noted so I'm not going to waste any time trying to convince you of anything to the contrary. But I have to say that many people (myself included) have had the exact opposite of your experiences with respect to the cost and support problems in dealing with mechanical film cameras vs digital cameras. My lovely old film cameras have cost me a bundle to keep working ... and aside from the well known sensor problem that motivated me to update from the M9 to the M-P 240 five years ago, none of my digital cameras have required any service at all.

 

[Michael Markey]

what 300 are you looking for?

Well not really actively looking.
I use the ubiquitous 70-200/2.8 IS L at present but there are times when a 300 reach would be useful .. so either the three or the 100 -300
It depends how much of that type of shooting I intend to do in the future
I'm not sure at the moment.

 

[back alley]

Well not really actively looking.
I use the ubiquitous 70-200/2.8 IS L at present but there are times when a 300 reach would be useful .. so either the three or the 100 -300
It depends how much of that type of shooting I intend to do in the future
I'm not sure at the moment.

i think i have one at home, i have a bag full of canon film gear...i'll take a look...

 

[Michael Markey]

But I have to say that many people (myself included) have had the exact opposite of your experiences with respect to the cost and support problems in dealing with mechanical film cameras vs digital cameras. My lovely old film cameras have cost me a bundle to keep working ... and aside from the well known sensor problem that motivated me to update from the M9 to the M-P 240 five years ago, none of my digital cameras have required any service at all.

That's been my experience too
A few old film camera have bit the dust but the digitals just keep on ticking
Only one has let me down and that got left in the rain ... my fault

 

[ptpdprinter]

Cameras and lenses are incredibly reliable. The only problems I have had with a camera or lens - film or digital - in 45 years were 1) in 2012, the door latch on my 30 year old Olympus OM4 broke. Cost to repair, including a CLA, was $60; 2) in 2014, the focus lever on my 60 year old Minolta Autocord became stiff. Cost to repair, including a CLA, was $130. I've never had a problem with a lens.

 

[Bill Clark]

With the money, I would make/buy investments that pay dividends. The younger you are the better as time is on your side to have the money compound.

Buying stuff usually is a way to lose money.

 

[David Hughes]

I'd be curious to know, David, what camera you bought three expensive lenses for that you can no longer get a body to suit them.

This thread is primarily about Leica cameras, however. Leica digital cameras (SL, M, CL, TL) can be fitted and used with Leica lenses from the entire range of Leica thread mount, M, and R cameras going back to the 1930s. My lens kit includes a couple of lenses from the fifties and sixties, lots from the seventies and eighties; the other two or three are current production. They work the same way as they always did. Leica has been very proactive about preserving their users' lens kit usability.

Your vitriol about anything digital is well noted so I'm not going to waste any time trying to convince you of anything to the contrary. But I have to say that many people (myself included) have had the exact opposite of your experiences with respect to the cost and support problems in dealing with mechanical film cameras vs digital cameras. My lovely old film cameras have cost me a bundle to keep working ... and aside from the well known sensor problem that motivated me to update from the M9 to the M-P 240 five years ago, none of my digital cameras have required any service at all.

Hi,

I don't mention the make of lens or body because the internet, imo, exaggerates poor experiences.

I agree with you about Leica lenses but I have had four digital Leicas over the years; I am not the only person to have had troubles with the Digilux 2 sensor but it was covered by the guarantee and went back to Solms for 2 or 3 months and was returned in 2007. Despite this I have continually praised the design and last used it a week or so ago.

Would you believe that my M9 also went back to Germany for a new sensor? But it did and I'm not the only one to report this. Again I'm still using the M9 and using a wide range of lenses in it dating back to the 30's. It's great to have a camera I can use straight out of the box...

From time to time I have had little choice but to return digital cameras and lenses for repairs and they are expensive repairs. Worse still, they failed when a lot younger than any of my film cameras. I don't regard film cameras as old as my CL or M2, when they needed a complete check and overhaul, as poorly made.

OTOH, I have had to scrap several all electronic film cameras because no one would touch them when they failed. So I think electronics are what I have poor experiences of not digital cameras.

So I don't don't think it is "vitriol" but just plain, simple reporting of the facts. Isn't that what forums are for?

Regards, David

 

[Kent]

Perhaps a LensBaby Velvet 85 and another nice holiday for my family. 😉

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,

I don't mention the make of lens or body because the internet, imo, exaggerates poor experiences.

I agree with you about Leica lenses but I have had four digital Leicas over the years; I am not the only person to have had troubles with the Digilux 2 sensor but it was covered by the guarantee and went back to Solms for 2 or 3 months and was returned in 2007. Despite this I have continually praised the design and last used it a week or so ago.

Would you believe that my M9 also went back to Germany for a new sensor? But it did and I'm not the only one to report this. Again I'm still using the M9 and using a wide range of lenses in it dating back to the 30's. It's great to have a camera I can use straight out of the box...

From time to time I have had little choice but to return digital cameras and lenses for repairs and they are expensive repairs. Worse still, they failed when a lot younger than any of my film cameras. I don't regard film cameras as old as my CL or M2, when they needed a complete check and overhaul, as poorly made.

OTOH, I have had to scrap several all electronic film cameras because no one would touch them when they failed. So I think electronics are what I have poor experiences of not digital cameras.

So I don't don't think it is "vitriol" but just plain, simple reporting of the facts. Isn't that what forums are for?

Regards, David

If it was "just plain, simple reporting of the facts", David, what you just posted above would have been in your first post. Instead you went the "I'm shocked, shocked to hear that so many people would invest money into digital cameras" route ... which is a lot closer to vitriol than it to any kind of factual reportage.

"Electronics in cameras, regardless of film or digital, have shown that they increased accuracy of operation, even longevity in some cases. But they have also shown that repairs are more difficult due to parts availability and expertise of service technicians." That's a factual statement.

The fact that the Digilux 2 sensor had a problematic run (a Sony problem) is well known. Nowhere did I imply that my film cameras that have required service to keep them running right were poorly made; frankly, at this date, any "poorly made film camera" I pass over or just junk when it fails ... they're not worth spending more money on. But the fact is that these lovely film cameras cost money to service and keep running properly, unless you don't care whether the shutter speeds are accurate or whether the self timer works, etc. I do.

A bit less vitriol and a bit more objectivity would be welcomed. I suspect that the camera system that you descry as no longer being made is the Olympus FourThirds SLRs ... that's the only new all-digital system that has been aged out of current production by the new generation of mirrorless bodies. Of course, the superb Zuiko Digital lenses designed for it were quite expensive in the high grade and super high grade models, but Olympus has provided mount adapters and bodies that work with them very very nicely: the E-M1 and E-M1 II operate my ZD11-22/2.8-3.5, ZD50-200/2.8-3.5, and ZD50/2 Macro very very well: better than my (now ancient) E-1 body does, in fact. Regardless, my E-1 is still going strong despite its extreme age (for a digital camera designed at the beginning of the digital time) and also despite that Olympus has pulled down the curtain on overhaul and repair: the parts are simply too old and not worth stocking any more. I sent it in for a final CLA and tune-up six months before they closed the service, it cost me a flat rate of $250 and came back a new camera in every respect. For a October 2003 camera that's turned tens of thousands of exposures, that I paid $299 for, I think that's pretty darn good. The BLM-5 batteries released with the E-5 model work beautifully in it and give it an additional 75% of shooting time per charge, and the latest raw conversion software from Adobe, Iridient, and others, nets utterly usable exposures even at ISO 3200 ... never possible with the original raw converters in my experience.

As I said, my camera experience is the exact opposite of yours. I choose not to cast judgement on film cameras as "dead" or otherwise disparage them for their cost... I like my film cameras very much. They simply seem to cost me more than I get in use out of them these days where my digital cameras keep on going and producing lovely results, sometimes even better results than they were capable of a decade ago. I'd rather simplify my photographic workflow and go all digital, with the exceptions of my Polaroid and 6x6 SWC obsession, because that will let me concentrate more on the photography and less on what camera needs what repair or service.

G

 

[ptpdprinter]

I'd rather simplify my photographic workflow and go all digital, with the exceptions of my Polaroid and 6x6 SWC obsession, because that will let me concentrate more on the photography and less on what camera needs what repair or service.

Simplifying is key. The fewer cameras you have, the less you need to worry about which need service or repair.

 

[x-ray]

With the money, I would make/buy investments that pay dividends. The younger you are the better as time is on your side to have the money compound.

Buying stuff usually is a way to lose money.

Fully agree. I said I'd buy more Visa stock and make money on their purchases.