Does anybody know why I should or shouldn't go for a leica m.., a konica hexar, or a contax ?
I also fancy a Hasselblad xpan.
I just want to have a rangfinder filled with 3200/1600 asa and 1 35/45 1.4 to get the sillent shots otherwise not possible.
love my live
NIKON is GOLD
NIKKOR is HOLY
#1. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 0Philip Basic MemberMon 09-Sep-02 03:23 PM
>Does anybody know why I should or shouldn't go for a leica
>m.., a konica hexar, or a contax ?
The best reason why you shouldn't is, that with an ISO 3200 film, you wouldn't even see 10 % of the quality of those lenses.
An other reason is that with the combination of a f 1.4 lens and an ISO 3200 film, you'd often have to shoot at 1/16000 or 1/32000 of a second, which is not possible with these (and other) cameras.
#5. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 1quebecnikon Basic MemberFri 24-Jan-03 08:01 PM
Try to find a nice Konica Hexar AF. The lens is fast (35/2) and the camera is silent (even the newest model the Hexar Silver). The Hexars is one of the best cameras ever produced!!
Quebec City, Canada
#2. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 0
You mentioned "silent shots" --
I love Zeiss glass, but I borrowed a friends G2 a while back and don't recall it being particularly quiet - rather noisy if my memerory serves me correctly. Now a Leica on the other hand . . . . .
I agree with Al above about being careful in spending too much until you experience the "rangefinder way". A used M3 or one of the new Voigtlander Bessa's is a less expensive option to start out with. You may want to take a look at the following page for some ideas
I think the best thing is to find a friend who has some equiptment you can borrow. This is what I did and now find myself saving for a rangefinder.
#4. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 3jwb Basic MemberMon 16-Sep-02 10:29 AM
One suggestion -- don't just try it for a day or two. IMO, to begin to get a true sense of whether this is for you or not, you need to live with a rangefinder for a few months.
We look forward to hearing what you decide. Let us know.
#6. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 0gwelland Nikonian since 23rd Apr 2003Wed 23-Apr-03 08:38 AM
I agree Contax G2 is fabulous quality zeiss glass and is an easy to live with system. The only downside is the manual focusing - I'd prefer a real manual focus rather than the electronic dial solution. The camera itself is superb quality and has a definite quality 'weight' to it - everything feels like it is machined from a single billet of metal and there are no polycarbonates anywhere.
If you want a manual focus RF then the Hassleblad XPan or Fuji TX-1 (same thing - a LOT cheaper!!!) is an excellent choice. You'll get both panoramic and 35mm in the same solution. 45 & 90mm lens are excellent value for money. The 30mm costs as much a s the camera but is superb quality. I find that these 3 lenses are enough for my uses - the Contax has a much wider range, including a zoom. The XPan is not great for low light stuff though as the lenses are f4/f5.6.
Leica - I almost went there but the Contax was so much better value. However, it's hard not to like the sheer quality of the cameras, lenses and sharp images. (Contax/XPan just as good though!).
Konica - I haven't had one so I can't comment.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#8. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 6YogiBear Basic MemberWed 23-Apr-03 10:10 PM
I Have had a Contax G2 system with the 28, 35, 45, 90mm lenses and TLA-200 flash and I love it. But the fastest lenses for it are the 45mm F2 and the 35mm f/2 all the others are f2.8 or higher and you can't get any focal lengths greater than 90mm. You will not find any extremely fast f/1.4 lenses for this system. Other than that the zeiss glass is so wonderful. It makes images pop out of the slides and looks almost 3-D. Can't quite say that about all my Nikon lenses. I wear glasses so the G2's AF helps a lot. My old Leica CL is great for setting at hyperfocal distances and just shooting even wide open, but I find it a bit fussy now but the pictures from it are also incredible.
You can easily get the entire G system 28,45,90 and TLA-200 and G2 body for a mere $1500 in Hong Kong. This is more than an M body only without lenses. So that is another variable to consider. Unfortunately the G2 is not very quiet however it is tolerable and still quieter than all my Nikons, FM2, FTN, F100. Not much experience with Hexar - held it in a store, like it as well but couldn't justify 3 range finders to the wife
Hope this helps,
Al, a.k.a. Yogi Bear
#9. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 8Thu 24-Apr-03 05:52 AM
I'm still looking around for a leica m6ttl. And not at all for the ttl. I will probably never use flash, only if the image requires it. its the big button for speed (don't remember the correct word, i'm used to dutch). its much bigger than on any m-camera (except the m7).
I'll use the m6 next to my f100. The nikon will be for color ( and in due time it will be digital) and the leica will be used for black and white. probably with only one lens, a 35/1.4. if I want a close up shot, i'll go close up.
I's just a matter of time, but iff I'll hope hard enough for it, it will come. I'll run in to it some time.
Who doesn't find ebay interesting anymore because he has all the nikon stuff he wants.
NIKON is GOLD
NIKKOR is HOLY
#11. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 9apl007 Registered since 19th Dec 2002Sun 27-Apr-03 11:51 PM
I would never demean my Nikons, but....
I bought an M-6 when they just stopped production.
I had an older Leica, and always felt I never
should have sold it.
Other than the strange loading, there is something
very special about working with lenses and a camera
that's essentially hand made.....and of course,
the Leitz lenses just sing..
In the Hills by the Finger Lakes...:)
" A velvet hand, a hawk's eye -
these we should all have." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
#12. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 9Louie Basic MemberTue 29-Apr-03 09:39 AM
> if I want a close up shot, i'll go close up.
don't forget the minimum focusing distance is .7 meters, and with a 35mm you'll still far from what i'd call a close up shot.
i'm looking out for a 90mm for close up protraits for my m6 ... or maybe i'll just buy a used fm2 and the legendary 105mm f/2.5 ..
i've used both the hexar af and rf and they're both very fine cameras !! the af is almost silent and as fast as an af-s lens with excelent optical quality. the only drawback is that it locks the focus and exposure when you press the shutter release and overriding the exposure is not very quick when using two small push buttons.
i borowed this camera from a friend before i bought the m6 to see if a rangefinder would fit me, or was it the other way around ??? and i can't tell the difference from the photos taken with it and with the m6 and the 35mm f/2 asph. the lens on the hexar, also a 35mm f/2, is indeed a very fine lens which some say is based on the design of the pre-asph leica model. but this could be just a myth, along with many others around the m system ....
the hexar rf is a very good camera as well, but i found the .60x viewfinder magnification a bit too wide for me, i got the m6 with the .72x finder, and i didn't want so much electronics in a camera, that was one of the reasons i was tired of my nikon...
in the end i chose the m6 but some of the reasons for doing so were quite subjective ... i haven't regreted my choice, and hope i can use it for many years to come ....
ps: you mean the "shutter speed dial", yes, on the ttl it's larger and maybe easyer to use ... but "they" also say it's dificult to load film in an m camera, which after a few rolls of film becomes second nature ... or is this another myth ?? ....
#14. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 0
A lot of this thread is technical, so I thought I'd add a more emotional side to the discussion.I'm another who votes for Leica, and man you have no idea how many times I nearly crossed lines to go with a Leica R, then planning to shoot with an M for street work. I had the opportunity maybe a year ago on a railroad shooting op to work an R6 I think it was and the results blew me away, there was just something about that camera that reminded me of how I use to shoot with my old K1000, not that I am trying to compare the two, but there was always something about the results with it that I could never match with any of my AF Pentax, or Minolta, and for that matter my Nikons including my F4 and F5. Often times it would sadden me to think and see better shots I've done a decade earlier with a K1000, than with a new F5. It was actually these sorts of feeling a few years back which lead me to going to Nikon with an N2020 (there was a period of time for a few years where I had a Nikon FM on extended loan from my paper, but I'm talking about my AF gear here!) Now with 4 Nikons and more Nikkors I can shake a stick at and still feel that my photography is again in chaos. This makes going to the Leica M very tempting more. (My eyesight makes MF all but impossible though)
It all comes down to not just which camera feels right, but also which camera will do the best for your photography. Often times you will hear people say, "It's not the camera, it's the photographer. with a reply that many like to use, The only people who say that is people who can't afford it. (I use a a slightly modifed version) but the truth is, neither are correct statements. A camera is like any tool, ship, or even a woman, there are an endless combination of cameras, lenses flash, etc, but there will only really truely ever be just one for you. The best, or worst gear ever made with the best or worst photog in world is irreevent if you and the gear are not in synch. It does not tkae days, weeks, months, but years to discover whether what you shoot was right for you. Best of luck on your search.
Aaron J. Heiner
Team Coast Guard Photographer
US Department of Homeland Security
#15. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 14Tue 20-May-03 09:21 AM
That was, honestly, a good reply.
And you are so right.
Every camera has it's own way of working. and working with an old manual camera just makes me think harder about how I should oparate it and this makes me think harder about the pictures too.
good stuff to think about.
But about youre eyesight, the fastest autofocus is an aperture of about 8 or 11 and a distance set on 3.5 or 5 meter.
NIKON is GOLD
NIKKOR is HOLY
#16. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 15moonfleet8 Registered since 20th Jan 2003Tue 20-May-03 12:16 PM
I used a rangefinder in the 1970's. Not a Leica though. However, I really didn't see what's special about a rangefinder. I mean, other than the shutter not being as noisy, you give up a lot by not seeing through the lens, and you don't gain much in return. If you're thinking about Leica because of the shooting philosophy, are you sure a nice FM3a wouldn't do as well? You can have pretty much the same photographic philosophy with an FM3a, and it's a beautiful piece of machinery too. Except for shooting in a crowded theatre maybe, there isn't much you can do with a rangefinder that you can't with a classic manual focus SLR (whether that's a brand new FM3a, or a used FM2, Pentax, etc.).
I considered buying a Contax G1 a couple of months ago, but I ended up with an FM3a. If you can't have multiple cameras just for the fun of it, an SLR is so much more versatile.
#18. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 17moonfleet8 Registered since 20th Jan 2003Tue 17-Jun-03 05:09 PM
I know how you feel, I think anyway.
I once had a Konica Auto S3 when these were current, and I've missed it since the day I sold it something like 25 years ago.
I also keep thinking I would like to have a Contax G autofocus "rangefinder". I always feel so conspicuous with the Nikon, which seems so big in comparison (the body size isn't that different, but with the lens it is).
The Nation's Capital
#19. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 18jetswin Registered since 02nd Mar 2002Mon 23-Jun-03 11:59 PM
Well, I finally submitted to the temptation... I waived in a Leica MP with a Summilux 50/1.4 the other day! I have never shot with a Rangefinder, but it is different, and that's a good thing.
An expensive jump, but I figured what the **** you only live once, and I am really enjoying photography right now, when I can fit it into my ridiculous schedule.
The camera feels like no other camera I have held before, ( does that make me a fondler? ) anyway, I plan on using it as extensively as possible over the next couple of weeks.
My wife just shakes her head, but I guess it could have been worse!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#20. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 19Tue 24-Jun-03 09:49 AM
glue it to your hand, use it for at least a roll a day and don't worry about scratches ( unless you plan selling it to me after not liking it).
It's a camera, not some jewel. Leica's are their to use, not to look at. however they are very beautiful.
Good luck with it, and happy shootin'
NIKON is GOLD
NIKKOR is HOLY
#21. "RE: leica konica contax hasselblad" | In response to Reply # 20jetswin Registered since 02nd Mar 2002Wed 25-Jun-03 10:20 PM
Well two rolls passed, one developed,....this is one sweeet camera! The shots I took were more or less test shots, not snapshots, but not much more. It is a completely different look, particuarly indoors without flash. This camera is not going to be a wallflower!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#22. "I use Leica Ms" | In response to Reply # 0
How do you shoot now? I would think that if you are clicking away with a FM2 and a single prime lens, then the Leica would not offer as big of a learning curve, other than the rangefinder versus SLR thing. If you are locked into auto-focus, auto-exposure and are less comfortable being able to "see" light and make instant choices, then the Leica M can be quite a shock at first. Even the new M7 is pretty Spartan when compared to say the FM3a.
I use Leica M cameras and simple prime lenses. I think that the Nikkors I use are fairly well matched in the middle apertures, but when shot wide-open, the Leica glass has some characteristics that can make the images jump ahead of the Nikon. It may or may not be something that can be quantified (Leica lenses often do poorly on standard lens tests), but there is a difference that can be seen when viewing a finely printed B&W image, of viewing slides.
If you shoot fast film and get it developed in a 1 hour photo, then any advantage might be lost.
As to your question, my choice of the Leica was based on a couple of things... one of them being the extremely short lag time between pressing the shutter release and the shutter actually firing. Unlike the SLR, it is just about instantaneous on the Leica M (no wait for a mirror, no wait for an aperture to close, no wait for a focus conformation). The one complaint that I have read on the Leica sites I am a member of about the Contax G series is that the lag is a bit longer than the Leica, and in the dynamic types of shooting that rangefinder cameras excel at, shutter lag is very important. The optics are said to be very good from the Contax, but the body keeps the two systems on different paths.
There are MANY people on my Leica sites that buy a Leica and find that the rangefinder system is not for them. It is an expensive exercise if this happens to you. I, like many Leica users started into the system by buying an old used body and lens (in my case a 1955 M3 with a 50mm lens). Once I found that I did like this type of camera, I bought up and after 5 bodies of various ages, I culminated on the M6 with all new glass (35mm, 50mm and 90mm). I got back every penny I spent on my used gear, and even made a profit on my M4 which I sold in Japan.
Leica (or more accurately rangefinder) photography either hits you or it doesn't. I love it and have many times left my Nikons at home on extended trips. As I have said above, some can't embrace the rangefinder and go back to SLRs very quickly. Unless you just have way too much money... be careful!
My old M4... shot with another Leica and 90mm lens.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
#7. "RE: I use Leica Ms" | In response to Reply # 22archivue Registered since 26th Mar 2002Wed 23-Apr-03 10:35 AM
Wow! This is the most straightforward comment I've been seing for some times on the M series... (I'm an ex-user)
You are very true on all points. Your comment should be "nailed" over all Leica M's shops.
The shutter lag (difference between shooting an albatross with it's wings up and having a picture with it's wings down) is the very reason one should choose the M series. Also maybe the fact that you take pictures with the two eyes open (M4-P).
I had to go back to SRLs because a big part of my work as an architect is also to take photos of models and/or drawings and in those times I couldn't afford two systems...
Maybe also because I don't have the third hand to change films quickly..
The nearest device was the FM2n...
About silence... I did a test with some Leica M's friends comparing to the Nikonos V, the Nikonos was more silent. (nobody ever made that test, eh, eh !)
Thanks again for that very sage comment...
#10. "RE: I use Leica Ms" | In response to Reply # 7jrp Charter MemberThu 24-Apr-03 11:25 AM
Thanks for reminding us. Yes the Nikonos is almost soundless!
And it works very well on land with either of the amphibious lenses, the 35mm f/2.5 &/or 80mm f/4
Have a great time :-)
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade.
Check our workshops at the Nikonians Academy and the Nikonians Photo Pro Shop