[euphras]

It´s been a while since we had a camera related thread here in the lounge (2002 IIRC ). Since new forum rules forbid to revive old threads here´s a new one. Preferably older ones but you can also post your newer gear.

A Rolleiflex "double eye" 2,8/80 from the early sixties, still working, still in use on rare occasions.






A Minolta XD-7 from 1978 (in US it´s branded as the XD-11) that was developed in cooperation with Leitz Wetzlar (LEICA). It features both aperture preferred and shutter speed preferred automation. The lens is a 1:1,2 50 mm. You hardly have to use a flash, even inside buildings (saves the day when flashing is prohibited).

[euphras]

No vintage camera enthusiasts over here?!?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Takes wonderful picture too.

[paul w]

yeah, I have a rollei as well , and a 4x5 wisner field camera, as well as a k1000, and two Nikon fm2 bodies, and some lenses.

They just stay in the box these days, while I shoot digital. Maybe one day I'll have my own darkroom again.

[SuvsareRetarded]

What's the deal with that 'double-eye' camera? Stereo images? Or what?

[wdlove]

Those are truly beautiful cameras, thanks for sharing.

[keekeeree]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

What's the deal with that 'double-eye' camera? Stereo images? Or what?

The term I know this camera by is 'twin-lens reflex'. The top lens passes the light through it and off a mirror that reflects the image to a piece of ground glass on top of the camera. The lower lens passes the light through to the film.

You look down on the camera to frame and focus your shot.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Takes wonderful picture too.
[/I

Wow, thats a nice one, seems very old! A gift of your grandpa?

And yes, you view the motiv through the upper lens on a big diffusor screen at the bottom of the light well.



A magnifying glas at the top serves to focus exactly. It takes a while till your´re used to take photos this way

Another interesting side aspect: Most people today don´t realise immediately that you take photos with this thing, so they feel unobserved and act alike.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Cash: isn't that "Leica" the fake you bought a few months ago? It's a cheap Russian FED dressed up with Leica's trade marks. That's a forgery of a classic, not a classic.

Euphras: Your Rollei is beautiful. I've shot with a Rollei before, only the one I played with had the Zeiss Planar lens. Yours has the Schneider lens, which sold for a bit less, though I suspect the quality of the images is no less. I used to live in Bad Kreuznach, and my office was a block away from the Schneider factory. It's interesting shooting with that camera because it is so whisper quiet. None of the clunking and clacking of my Hasselblad. It's even quieter than my Leicas (which aren't fake).

I also have a variation of one of these sitting in my cabinet.



It's a Zeiss Ikon Contessa Nettel from about 1926. Mine is in mint cosmetic condition, but the lens is clouded and the shutter jammed. I also have a packet of unopened 6x9 Ilford glass plates for it, some plate holders, a ground glass screen and hood.

[DeathToWindows]

Depending on your definition of same, I have one classic:

A completely grotty Nikon F Body with Photomic + 50mm F1.4 (in wonderfully good shape).

And then there is my F4, which is nearly as old as me...

[JoshuaZ]

Though I love digital, there is a certain quality and style that only old film camera truly capture. But thats just me being a retro-tech lover.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Cash: isn't that "Leica" the fake you bought a few months ago? It's a cheap Russian FED dressed up with Leica's trade marks. That's a forgery of a classic, not a classic.

Heh. I was wondering if anybody would notice, and I'm guessing the only reason you did was because I posted about this when I bought it. Anywya, you're partially correct. I bought this over 2 years ago, almost more like 3 now. It's a russian copy of a leica IId rangefinder, and from what I can tell it used to be a zorki at some point. As for it being 'classic' or not... well... I suppose that depends on who you ask. Considering the way the camera is made and the way you use it is exactly like the 'real' leica rangefinder, I'd say it's a classic. I mean, this thing was made in the 30s-40s sometime. The only real difference is the shutter speeds and the aperature settings on the lense. I've actually taken the whole thing apart with some jeweler's screwdrivers to clean it.... pretty fun stuff.

Here's more info:

http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/

Personally, I find this camera's history more interesting than a real leica. It still takes incredible pictures, but I didn't have to pay through the nose for it.

PPS: It's actually a REALLY well done copy, not like most of htem. The german lettering is correct, and the only part of the facade that really fails is right next to the viewfinder lense on the front. A real leica has a rectangle shaped piece of metal with a corner missing, and mine has the full metal rectangle. Other than that it's pretty convincing, it's fooled a lot of real camera people.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Euphras: Your Rollei is beautiful. I've shot with a Rollei before, only the one I played with had the Zeiss Planar lens. Yours has the Schneider lens, which sold for a bit less, though I suspect the quality of the images is no less. I used to live in Bad Kreuznach, and my office was a block away from the Schneider factory. It's interesting shooting with that camera because it is so whisper quiet. None of the clunking and clacking of my Hasselblad. It's even quieter than my Leicas (which aren't fake).

I know, but my father decided in his mid-times. In my experience Zeiss is nearly always superior to everything else (except maybe LEICA), but i gathered it mainly using microscopes. But the Xenotar is pretty impressive regarding colour correction and sharpness. The Compur shutter is not sooo quiet in my opinion, but the sound occurs very shortly.

Wouldn´t it be a good idea to post some pics of your Leicas?!?

I also have a variation of one of these sitting in my cabinet.



It's a Zeiss Ikon Contessa Nettel from about 1926. Mine is in mint cosmetic condition, but the lens is clouded and the shutter jammed. I also have a packet of unopened 6x9 Ilford glass plates for it, some plate holders, a ground glass screen and hood.

I have a french bellow camera (Dehel), which was bought by my grandfather during the occupation of Paris, fortunately no clouds/fungi.



works perfectly if you want to gain the effect of older photographies (slight light leaks, etc.)

@ DeathToWindows: So why not post some pics?!? Remember: "You can also post pics of your newer gear". This is a camera thread, only crappy "shoot one film, then dump it" plastic cams shouldn´t appear.

[Sky Captain]

I has an old Voigtlander at home with 4 lenses for it.
I will try to take a few shots of it.
I also have an RB67, RZ67, and ERTSI.

[::maroma::]

[cjrivera]

Nice QuickTake 100. I was gonna take a pic of my Quicktake 200, but I think the wife threw it out without me knowing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by euphras

I know, but my father decided in his mid-times. In my experience Zeiss is nearly always superior to everything else (except maybe LEICA), but i gathered it mainly using microscopes. But the Xenotar is pretty impressive regarding colour correction and sharpness. The Compur shutter is not sooo quiet in my opinion, but the sound occurs very shortly.

Wouldn´t it be a good idea to post some pics of your Leicas?!?

It's not that Zeiss makes better lenses than Schneider. Schneider makes some of the best lenses in the world, including (reputedly) the lenses used in US spy satellites). It's the designs involved in these two examples. The Schneider Xenotar is pretty much the same design as a Zeiss Tessar lens. They are both derivitives of the Cooke triplet design. It's one of the oldest and best designs there is, but it isn't considered quite as good as the Planar. The Zeiss Planar corrects the one major defect of the Tessar design, which is a tendency to have curvature of field. But that isn't a problem that really shows up all that often. In practice, the Tessar/Xenotar is a fine lens.


I could post pictures of my Leicas, but that would mean taking pictures of them, and I haven't the time lately. None of them are all that rare anyway, you could easily look them up with a little googling. What I have is as follows:

Leica M6-TTL (chrome, bought new in 1999).
Leica M4-P (black, made in 1980, bought used in 1986).
Leica 35mm f2 Summicron-M ASPH (black, bought new in 1999).
Leica 50mm F2 Summicron-M (previous barrel, with detachable hood, circa 1980, bought used in 1986).
Leica 90mm F2 Summicron (1968 model with detachable head for Visoflex and with pre-set apertures, black Canadian model, moderately rare, but not valuable 'cos it is big and clunky. Bought used in 1986 with a chrome Leica M4, which I stupidly sold).
15mm Cosina/"Voigtlander" Heliar and viewfinder.

I also have:

Hasselblad 500c/m
Zeiss Planar 80mm T* C
Zeiss Sonnar 150mm T* C
2 Hasselblad A12 backs.
NPC Polaroid back.
Kiev prism (copy of the Hasselblad NC-2.

And:

Novatron 4 head 1000 w/s light set with case.
Quantum Q2 flash and Quantum Turbo battary.
Vivitar 285 flash (bought in 1981!).
Benbo Mark 1 tripod

And:

Omega D2V enlarger with 80mm and 50mm Schneider Componon lenses.

All sitting in a closet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Considering the way the camera is made and the way you use it is exactly like the 'real' leica rangefinder, I'd say it's a classic. I mean, this thing was made in the 30s-40s sometime.

Sorry, but that just isn't true on either count. The Russian copies were never made as well as the originals, and feature simplified designs. The Russians do know how to make good lenses, but most of them are pretty shoddily made. If you have a good example, then you got lucky. But you wouldn't have to be lucky with a Leitz lens. Try a real one sometime and you will see the difference.

Your camera is also a lot newer than you think. They didn't make them in the 30s and 40s. That's when Leica made them. The Soviets started making copies for consumers in the 1950s, as a result of post war reparations. They made that model well into the 1980s to my certain knowledge. They may have been making them into the 1990s.

[kellybelly]

I have, at last count, 54 cameras (soon to be 55; I have a Minolta Autocord on the way). I don't have any photos of them online -- I've been meaning to do that -- but I have a master list on my website here. Many of them are vintage.

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Your camera is also a lot newer than you think. They didn't make them in the 30s and 40s. That's when Leica made them. The Soviets started making copies for consumers in the 1950s, as a result of post war reparations.

Hey you're right. It was probably the 50s, as I'm pretty sure this thing started off life as a Zorki of some sort. But again... who cares? What's cooler, a vintage 50s Zorki? Or a modified Zorki that was made underground illegalliy to look like a leica? They both shoot photos just fine.

As for it being simplified....um... what? The original leica rangefinders featured the same mechanics as the zorki and fed copies, to my knowledge. Sure, the 'feel' might be tighter or have a bit better tolerances, but it's not exactly a totally different concept. They both function the same, and they both take great pictures, except one costs a crapload, another doesn't.

[Tesseract]

Of my two cameras, the only one that might qualify as a "classic" is a Canon AE-1, and that only barely.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by unfairlybanned68

Hey you're right. It was probably the 50s, as I'm pretty sure this thing started off life as a Zorki of some sort. But again... who cares? What's cooler, a vintage 50s Zorki? Or a modified Zorki that was made underground illegalliy to look like a leica? They both shoot photos just fine.

As for it being simplified....um... what? The original leica rangefinders featured the same mechanics as the zorki and fed copies, to my knowledge. Sure, the 'feel' might be tighter or have a bit better tolerances, but it's not exactly a totally different concept. They both function the same, and they both take great pictures, except one costs a crapload, another doesn't.

I said they started making them in the 50s. That doesn't mean yours is that old. Given the life of these cheap cameras the odds are that yours is probably a 1980s Zorki (though it could have been a FED, they have a lot in common). There are a lot of those on the market and they sell for peanuts. I still wouldn't call it a classic. The reason Soviets were buying a bad knock-off of a classic 1930s camera into the 1980s wasn't by choice. It was because of Communism.

The Soviet copies aren't just badly machined mechanical copies. They are considerably simplified. The rangefinder is not as accurate, and the shutter is both not as accurate, and also not as reliable. The gears are not machined brass, they are stamped steel. Back in the 80s, I had a 1936 Leica 111a (bought on a whim). I'm afraid your Zorki or whatever it is most likely won't still be working when it is over 50 years old. They are just not made that well. You have to handle them with care. Leicas are all but indestructible.

However, as forgeries go, these dressed up ones are pretty well done. They do look externally like a real Leica, even if internally they are not. There are a lot of people interested in knowing who exactly it is who is doing the cosmetic machining. Whoever it is has talent.

By the way, you can buy a real Leica screw mount camera for very little, probably little more than you paid for your fake. A 11 or 111 series camera with 50mm 3.5 Elmar goes for about $100 - 500 depending on condition and model.

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I said they started making them in the 50s. That doesn't mean yours is that old. Given the life of these cheap cameras the odds are that yours is probably a 1980s Zorki (though it could have been a FED, they have a lot in common). There are a lot of those on the market and they sell for peanuts. I still wouldn't call it a classic. The reason Soviets were buying a bad knock-off of a classic 1930s camera into the 1980s wasn't by choice. It was because of Communism.

The Soviet copies aren't just badly machined mechanical copies. They are considerably simplified. The rangefinder is not as accurate, and the shutter is both not as accurate, and also not as reliable. The gears are not machined brass, they are stamped steel. Back in the 80s, I had a 1936 Leica 111a (bought on a whim). I'm afraid your Zorki or whatever it is most likely won't still be working when it is over 50 years old. They are just not made that well. You have to handle them with care. Leicas are all but indestructible.

However, as forgeries go, these dressed up ones are pretty well done. They do look externally like a real Leica, even if internally they are not. There are a lot of people interested in knowing who exactly it is who is doing the cosmetic machining. Whoever it is has talent.

By the way, you can buy a real Leica screw mount camera for very little, probably little more than you paid for your fake. A 11 or 111 series camera with 50mm 3.5 Elmar goes for about $100 - 500 depending on condition and model.

Well, opinions are like assholes. Also, I doubt it was an 80s model, there were tons of russian cameras that were much better and had many more options by the 1980s. Go to that alfred's camera page, he has a lot of interesting russian hardware. Tons of stuff made in the 60s and 70s that easily outclass my camera.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by unfairlybanned68

Hey you're right. It was probably the 50s, as I'm pretty sure this thing started off life as a Zorki of some sort. But again... who cares? What's cooler, a vintage 50s Zorki? Or a modified Zorki that was made underground illegalliy to look like a leica? They both shoot photos just fine.

As for it being simplified....um... what? The original leica rangefinders featured the same mechanics as the zorki and fed copies, to my knowledge. Sure, the 'feel' might be tighter or have a bit better tolerances, but it's not exactly a totally different concept. They both function the same, and they both take great pictures, except one costs a crapload, another doesn't.

What Simey said and look also at the lenses. I bet they´re not as good as real leica ones. If you use russian microscopes and compare them with Zeiss or Leitz ones of that time the difference in quality is quite obvious. I guess same goes for camera optics.

Also look at the value the Leicas retain over time. If you get one of these



for maybe 4000 bucks and it´s not badly scuffed and scratched it will sell for nearly the same amount of money in a few years

edit: needed some more pics

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by euphras

for maybe 4000 bucks and it´s not badly scuffed and scratched it will sell for nearly the same amount of money in a few year

But I think spending large amounts of money on cameras is stupid.

[Kodachrome]

anyone else here still shoot Kodachrome film? It is getting very difficult to get processed, but the archival stability is amazing.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by unfairlybanned68

But I think spending large amounts of money on cameras is stupid.

It´s like buying a Porsche. You can also get from A to B in a Volkswagen, but in a Porsche it´s more fun to go. These Rollei and Leica have an incredible amount of mechanical perfection and usability combined with the quality of the optics. If you ever touched one you will be enchanted

[unfairlybanned68]

Originally Posted by euphras

It´s like buying a Porsche. You can also get from A to B in a Volkswagen, but in a Porsche it´s more fun to go. These Rollei and Leica have an incredible amount of mechanical perfection and usability combined with the quality of the optics. If you ever touched one you will be enchanted

Hrm. I'm enchanted with my ripoff, thank ya very much. The optics are great, and the build quality is amazing. The shutter is also very quiet.

[Insurgent]

Originally Posted by Kodachrome

anyone else here still shoot Kodachrome film? It is getting very difficult to get processed, but the archival stability is amazing.

Yeah. Just getting a hold of it can be tricky at times(anything other than 35mm and you're out of luck).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by unfairlybanned68

Well, opinions are like assholes. Also, I doubt it was an 80s model, there were tons of russian cameras that were much better and had many more options by the 1980s. Go to that alfred's camera page, he has a lot of interesting russian hardware. Tons of stuff made in the 60s and 70s that easily outclass my camera.

That's as maybe. They still made Zorkis and Feds well into the 80s. Maybe later, but I got out of the camera selling business in 1988 so I stopped paying attention after that.

The fact they still made them decades after they were obsolete makes my point for me. They didn't keep making them because they were classics. They kept making them because Communism isn't a rational economic system. So they kept making them even when they didn't sell well -- which is why there is such a glut and largely why they are dirt cheap. That, and the fact they weren't made all that well.

[DeathToWindows]

Yep. I shoot some Kodachrome now and then. Costs me $8/roll to get processed.

[Goldfinger]

I've always wanted to have a Leica M. Ah well. I DO have a Leica but is not a real one. It's an AF-C1
http://image.kanshin.jp/img_7/75467/867794171.jpg It's actually a Minolta (IIRC) with a Leica lens bolted on. It's a great camera though (for a point and shoot), the optics are great and the lightmeter is a Minolta lightmeter and you can't go bad with those.

The only old camera I have is a Rolleicord with fungus on the inside . My dad sold his Planar Rolleiflex a few months ago and I'm seriously pissed about that (he did sell it for more than he bought it for). He also has a brownie or two. And he has a working Zeiss Ikon that looks like euphra's Dehel. And a bunch of other like that but they don't work. He still shoots occasionally with the Zeiss Ikon.

[kannnichtverbotenwerden]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's as maybe. They still made Zorkis and Feds well into the 80s. Maybe later, but I got out of the camera selling business in 1988 so I stopped paying attention after that.

The fact they still made them decades after they were obsolete makes my point for me. They didn't keep making them because they were classics. They kept making them because Communism isn't a rational economic system. So they kept making them even when they didn't sell well -- which is why there is such a glut and largely why they are dirt cheap. That, and the fact they weren't made all that well.

They still take marvelous pictures. This one isn't the best, but still:

[euphras]

Originally Posted by kannnichtverbotenwerden

They still take marvelous pictures. This one isn't the best, but still:
[im]*snip*[/img]

Rob, that´s a nice architecural/industrial related photo for sure , but in order to valuate the quality of a given lens you have to take photos of test patterns like this



and magnify it in a darkroom at least to a format of 1-1,5 m.
Then you can judge spheric and chromatic aberrations, the main faults of *notsoperfectdesigned* lenses.

@ Goldfinger: Interesting thing about the Minolta/Leica. I only did know they were cooperating in case of the XD-7

[OreoCookie]

I was using my father's Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK in mint condition (only the leather case is clearly used). All original and first-hand (my father got it in 1963 from my grandfather to take pictures during his year abroad in the States). My parents and I used it until I gave them my old digital camera last year! All my family's baby pictures, etc. have been shot with this camera, although to be honest, it was my mother who used it.

The one on the picture is in a worse shape, though


Here's one shot from the year 2000, shot in bw (I usually used bw in that camera as the light meter was not, ahem, as accurate as that of my Nikon, and bw film is more forgiving.)

[fhoubi]

Grandfather's Brownie, Father's Agfa, both little dusty

[euphras]

Originally Posted by fhoubi

Grandfather's Brownie, Father's Agfa, both little dusty

Uupss, forgot the box that´s sitting around here. Mine is from AGFA and is almost identical with this one:



But the shutter is completely broken which doesn´t matter since the quality of the one lens optic won´t be too good

@ Oreo: Nice shot! Your GF?!?

[OreoCookie]

@euphras: my ex gf actually, we've been together for 4.5 years, though. The fuzz is dust from the bad scan, though It was taken in Passau near the dome on a sunny summer day, nice memories

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by euphras

and magnify it in a darkroom at least to a format of 1-1,5 m.
Then you can judge spheric and chromatic aberrations, the main faults of *notsoperfectdesigned* lenses.

I don't see the point. Do you normally do that with all your photos too? If not, then why would that matter? If it takes nice pictures, it takes nice pictures. >shrug<

[euphras]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

I don't see the point. Do you normally do that with all your photos too? If not, then why would that matter? If it takes nice pictures, it takes nice pictures. >shrug<

Duuh. If we talk LEICA or ROLLEI we talk perfection! These things are made to serve professionals and in print business/graphic design sometimes big photos must be processed (think of cinema placards and so on). That´s the reason why middle format cams like Hasselblad or Rollei are still in use.

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by euphras

Duuh. If we talk LEICA or ROLLEI we talk perfection! These things are made to serve professionals and in print business/graphic design sometimes big photos must be processed (think of cinema placards and so on). That´s the reason why middle format cams like Hasselblad or Rollei are still in use.

Seems to me if you're going to be blowing photos up to 1.5 meters you'd use a medium format camera, not a 35mm one.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

Seems to me if you're going to be blowing photos up to 1.5 meters you'd use a medium format camera, not a 35mm one.

Look at that - the kid's never heard of slides and slide projectors! Aww, how cute.

Next, he'll lecture us on CDs as the origin of recorded music!

[Eug Wanker]

I use my Canon 20D almost exclusively now though. It was an instant classic.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

Seems to me if you're going to be blowing photos up to 1.5 meters you'd use a medium format camera, not a 35mm one.

Sorry Rob, my Rolleiflex IS 6x6 cm

[OreoCookie]

The Nikon FM2 has always been a dream of mine, but it was too pricey back then (I was still in High School).

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by analogika

Look at that - the kid's never heard of slides and slide projectors! Aww, how cute.

Next, he'll lecture us on CDs as the origin of recorded music!

I've heard of them, yes. But will I ever use slides? No. Slides are for dorks stuck in the 80s dude. Will most people who have a 35mm leica rangefinder II ever use slides? Doubtful at best. Your argument doesn't stand. I said that it takes nice pictures. I've proven that. Then you post some gobbly gook about taking pictures of some weird thing designed to show flaws in the lense when you blow the picture up over 5 ft tall and ..... yeah. Who the hell does that? Surely everyone who has a 'perfect' lense uses a slide projector, so what is the point of that? Seems to me if it takes good pictures it's good enough 95% of the time.

PS: I have a big vinyl collection. Sucka.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

I've heard of them, yes. But will I ever use slides? No. Slides are for dorks stuck in the 80s dude. Will most people who have a 35mm leica rangefinder II ever use slides? Doubtful at best. Your argument doesn't stand. I said that it takes nice pictures. I've proven that. Then you post some gobbly gook about taking pictures of some weird thing designed to show flaws in the lense when you blow the picture up over 5 ft tall and ..... yeah. Who the hell does that? Surely everyone who has a 'perfect' lense uses a slide projector, so what is the point of that? Seems to me if it takes good pictures it's good enough 95% of the time.

PS: I have a big vinyl collection. Sucka.

I'm a Leica rangefinder user who used to be quite active on the Leica Users Group, which is the largest online Leica community. I can tell you that most Leica users shoot slides or black and white. Most, in fact shoot both. Very few will admit to using color negatives for anything serious. The consensus is that color negatives and prints are a waste of the extra quality offered by a Leica. And of course, Leica users will tell you proudly that they aren't stuck in the 80s. We are stuck in the 50s. The current generation M7 is basically a 1954 Leica M3.

Today, slide users tend to fall into one of two categories. Perfectionists, and professionals. Leica users also tend to be perfectionists or professionals. Or both, of course.

But anyway, whatever you do, don't open up a copy of National Geographic (or any other national magazine for that matter). It's full of beautiful color photographs taken on slide film -- often with Leicas.

[MightyWinnebago]

I shoot black and white with it. Haven't tried color yet. Might be fun to try. As for national geographic... how would you konw it's slide film, or why would they bother using leicas? They aren't blowing the photo's up 9 ft tall, it's quite small.

See, the problem I see with owning a real leica is their intrinsic value. Seems like you'd want to baby it, polish it, treat it like losers treat their ipods. Whatever. This is what I like about owning a russian camera:

http://jay.fedka.com/

I like the "use it til it breaks then fix it yourself with simple tools and don't worry about much because you can fix anything in it anyways" attitude. Not the "well MY camera has an optically perfect lense see you can tell if I blow my slide film up 20' tall see how pretty it is I spent more than it takes to cure someone with cancer on my vintage leica it's lovely and HEY BE CAREFUL!" attitude. Whatever. I like taking pictures with it. Glad you like yours.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

I shoot black and white with it. Haven't tried color yet. Might be fun to try. As for national geographic... how would you konw it's slide film, or why would they bother using leicas? They aren't blowing the photo's up 9 ft tall, it's quite small.

See, the problem I see with owning a real leica is their intrinsic value. Seems like you'd want to baby it, polish it, treat it like losers treat their ipods. Whatever. This is what I like about owning a russian camera:

http://jay.fedka.com/

I like the "use it til it breaks then fix it yourself with simple tools and don't worry about much because you can fix anything in it anyways" attitude. Not the "well MY camera has an optically perfect lense see you can tell if I blow my slide film up 20' tall see how pretty it is I spent more than it takes to cure someone with cancer on my vintage leica it's lovely and HEY BE CAREFUL!" attitude. Whatever. I like taking pictures with it. Glad you like yours.

From National Geographic's FAQ page:

What types of cameras do they use?

It’s up to the photographers, and their most popular choices are Canon and Nikon 35mm SLRs and the Leica M6 range finder.

National Geographic

Like a lot of people, you seem to think that the only reason to choose a certain camera is sharpness. In reality, the sharpness of modern lenses (in terms of line pairs per millimeter) doesn't vary a great deal. However, Leica lenses do appear to be sharper, because they have somewhat higher edge contrast than many cheaper lenses -- especially when shot wide open. Cheaper lenses are decidedly inferior unless stopped down a couple of stops. Leica lenses are fully usable wide open. In fact, many Leica users try to shoot wide open in search of an elusive quality called Bokeh. In addition, they tend to be more flare-resistant, which means you can take pictures successfully into the sun when you couldn't with a cheaper lens. That's the case even with the very high aperture lenses, including the legendary 50mm f1 Leica Noctilux

In addition, there is the question of build quality. You don't have to baby a Leica, because they are built like a proverbial tank. The bodies and lens barrels are built out of zinc and brass and occasionally titanium. That is extremely durable, but expensive. If you make your living with a camera, that is important.

There are other considerations too. The shutter and rangefinder are extremely accurate, but also extremely reliable. That's important to anyone who earns their living with a camera. Leicas are also very quiet and because they are rangefinders, you can take pictures in lower light at slower shutter speeds, without the need for flash. That's one of the reasons documentary photographers like them. Another is their small size. Some people do collect them, and those people (who generally aren't really photographers) baby their toys. But working photographers buy Leicas as tools.

Here is an example of how this all comes together. The photographer is a friend of mine. In fact, I taught him how to take pictures, although he is now far better than I ever was or ever will be.



Notice a few things. It's taken in Iraq, so reliability is vital. It's taken in low light and without flash. It's also taken with lights shining into the lens, but there is no flare. It's a quintessentially Leica shot. And that is indeed what Jason uses.

Here is his homepage: http://www.conflictpics.co.uk/index.htm

[analogika]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

Slides are for dorks stuck in the 80s dude.

vs.

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

PS: I have a big vinyl collection. Sucka.

Is this the part where I get to chide you for being a complete idiot?

love,

-chris.

P.S.: Like I didn't KNOW you have a DJ turntable and some vinyl. You've seen me in the turntable threads. You're ego's just too big to let it pass, eh?

Sucka.