Double honors for the LEICA M7

[Red Dawn]

Double honors for the LEICA M7

This just in. Source: Leica Camera Newsletter

The classic LEICA M7 rangefinder system camera has
been distinguished twice in the selection of the European
photo products of the year 2002/2003. Not only has the
trade press association EISA (European Imaging and
Sound Association) voted the camera "European
Professional Camera of the Year 2002-2003", but the
LEICA M7 has also won the TIPA AWARD 2002/2003 as
the "Best Prestige Camera" of the Technical Imaging Press Association (TIPA). The presentation of the EISA AWARD for 2002/2003 to the LEICA M7 will take place during the international 'photokina' picture fair on 24th September 2002 in Cologne.

Further information on the LEICA M7 at:
http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m7/index_e.html

 

[Kit]

Eh, time to upgrade...... :rbounce:

 

[ckiang]

Another piece of overpriced German crap. :devil: :rbounce:

It's amazing why Leica took so long to come up with something with Aperture Priority when Nikon already had something like that back in 1976 (Nikon FE). ;p

Regards
CK

 

[Kit]

Wooohooooo!!!!!!:rbounce: :rbounce: :rbounce:

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Kit
Wooohooooo!!!!!!:rbounce: :rbounce: :rbounce:

Actually hor, I think there are earlier AE cameras, but that's the oldest I can think of for now. ;p

Regards
CK

 

[Jed]

I think "Best Prestige Camera" sums it up quite nicely. Although one of those gold plated limited edition anniversary or whatever Hassies wouldn't go amiss either.

 

[tsdh]

a nice piece of collector's camera.

 

[Keltzar]

There are many perspectives to Leica.

Not a well known fact, but Leica *can* be affordable. In the form of the older Leica R cameras and lenses. A full kit costs little more or the same as one of your whizz-bang Canon EOS systems.

I use for assignments my EOS gear with its complement of L-lenses, but I use my Leica R gear when I shoot for myself. I just like the way the features are understated (ancient?) .

The use of Leica by younger generations of people , besides collectors, can be nicely summed up by this guy:
... Gen X Leica Slacker!


http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Keltzar
Not a well known fact, but Leica *can* be affordable.

I wonder why it isn't well known? For some reason, the real status symbols happen to be the R8 and M6 and now M7, I wonder why...

In the form of the older Leica R cameras and lenses. A full kit costs little more or the same as one of your whizz-bang Canon EOS systems.

Yes, but you have to start comparing apples with apples instead of durians. Remember that you are comparing [1] ancient (your word) products with modern products [2] products which provide a very very basic (the newer Leica stuff maybe only one "very", but they cost the moon) feature spec, versus products that have all the whizz-bang (your word) features. Now, these are two separate and distinct points, not one point stretched into two. As in, for an old model Leica R, it would still cost a lot more than an old model EOS.

But, am I knocking your use of Leica? Nope, it's your money you spend it as you see fit. But I'm just not agreeing with your logic here of Leica being cheap.

 

[Keltzar]

hello!

Your reasoning is expected

Here's what I paid:

R4 - S$500

Summicron 35/2 - $650 (ok, this one is more expensive, but not ridiculous)

Summicron 90/2 - S$600

Elmarit 180/2.8 - S$300

I used the funds I got from selling my Pentax MX with a few lenses to fund it. Ironically, it is some of the Pentax K-mount
OEM lenses which are now rising in price. The K85/1.8 I sold now costs more than the Summicron 90/2 I got.

Performance? No complaints. Other than the fact its not mechanical, and does not go to 1/4000 (which for me, I don't use. Your mileage may vary) ... it's not too different feature-wise.

.... it is still expensive in many quarters, but if you look around carefully, there are good buys to be had. The reason is simple. Thanks to digital, prices have come down dramatically. Thanks to the later ROM lenses, the older 3-cam lenses are now lots cheaper. Folks asking a lot of money for some of this gear are not selling them because not many people use the system, and because there is a perception it is expensive. Hence when the supply exceeds demand, prices come down.

And I believe it will continue to fall.

I respect your views. But let's agree that it's not the gear that counts, but the photos made with it

 

[erwinx]

Originally posted by Keltzar
hello!

Your reasoning is expected

Here's what I paid:

R4 - S$500

Summicron 35/2 - $650 (ok, this one is more expensive, but not ridiculous)

Summicron 90/2 - S$600

Elmarit 180/2.8 - S$300

Wah, can just buy an L lens with that

 

[Keltzar]

ONE L-lens!
How about a camera to go with it

But seriously, I think many of the L-lenses these days are over-rated. It's become a marketing thing.

Many of the new lenses use various types of cheaper hybrid fluorite glass instead of the big hunks of fluorite crystal that
Canon used to use , thanks to cost.

Just 5-7 years ago I almost never read any major complaints about the Canon L-lenses... but these days, I see maybe one a month on some forum or the other.

For that matter, look at some of the other brands like sigma. The zoom seems to have everything - APO, Aspherical etc. etc.
But the reality is aspherical lenses are useful for focal lengths 35mm and wider, and APO only useful for lenses about 200mm and longer. In-between, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
This refers to 135 format.

It's the same thing as the multicoating debate.
Some folks want to multicoat their old Tessar-design lenses.

Multicoating was invented to cope with multiple reflections off many complex internal glass optic designs, and is a major contributor to the success of the zoom lens. But in a simple prime-lens design of say, 3-4 elements or less e.g. Tessar, single coating is quite adequate. In the old days before multicoating lens designers tried to reduce internal reflections by not using so much glass i.e. glass surfaces.

Anyway, that's my ramble for the day ... if it interests anyone at all.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Keltzar
R4 - S$500
Summicron 35/2 - $650 (ok, this one is more expensive, but not ridiculous)
Summicron 90/2 - S$600
Elmarit 180/2.8 - S$300

May I ask some question to you:
- Can I get at those price quite easily, or it is once in a lifetime?
(if you don't mind, can show me where to get it?)
- Could you tell me what is the advantage of Leica lenses as compared to, lets say, equivalent Nikkor lenses?

Sorry for that off-topic questions, but your post is very interesting for me.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Keltzar
your reasoning is expected

As, I suppose, is yours. Now remember what I said about apples with apples and not durians or mangos. Comparisons here are with Nikon gear not Canon since I'm more familiar with them, but as I'm sure you'll agree those two manufacturers by and large price about the same.

R4 - S$500

Good price, admittedly, but you could pick up a second hand, erm, say, F70 for that price. In fact, a second hand F80 if you can find one. Which is current generation (not behind the R8 and R6.2), as well as having far more features.

Summicron 35/2 - $650 (ok, this one is more expensive, but not ridiculous)

Yes. it is expensive. A new Nikkor 35/2 can be had for $400. With autofocus, D chip and all.

Summicron 90/2 - S$600

Again, a new 85/1.8 can be had for that amount. With autofocus, D chip and all. And a third stop faster. In fact, I paid S$450 for my second hand 85/1.4 Nikkor... a whole stop faster and a lot more glass.

Elmarit 180/2.8 - S$300

Now this, I agree with you is a great price. Considering it retails at $6000 new, quite how you found one at $300, I have no idea, but the bottom line is, surely the price you got for it is out of the ordinary, and not something that should be used as a general rule. What odds someone else finding one at this price. All very well for proclaiming your luck or your dogged skill at sniffing out a deal, but not very good at staking your claim I'm afraid.

Seeing as you've been going on about all that for ONE L lens... well, I can buy a couple of very very good systems for the price of ONE Elmarit 180/2.8...

Other than the fact its not mechanical, and does not go to 1/4000 (which for me, I don't use. Your mileage may vary) ... it's not too different feature-wise.

That's not the point. The point is not whether you use something or not, the point is whether you get it or not. At least, in this case. Yes, certainly there's nothing wrong with not having something you don't use. But what I'm saying is, with the Leica, you get feature A and B for your money. With a Japanese brand, you get A and B as well as D, E and F through to Z. For the same money if not less (see above). How you figure it's not too different is beyond me, just compare your R4 with a second hand F80 for example.

.... it is still expensive in many quarters, but if you look around carefully, there are good buys to be had.

Certainly, but that goes for anything, including Japanese kit.

I respect your views. But let's agree that it's not the gear that counts, but the photos made with it

Certainly.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Keltzar
Just 5-7 years ago I almost never read any major complaints about the Canon L-lenses... but these days, I see maybe one a month on some forum or the other.

Just 5-7 years ago the Internet wasn't that big, there weren't that many forums, and there weren't that many people on forums. Just because you didn't hear anything didn't mean it wasn't happening.

 

[YSLee]

Originally posted by Jed


Just 5-7 years ago the Internet wasn't that big, there weren't that many forums, and there weren't that many people on forums. Just because you didn't hear anything didn't mean it wasn't happening.

And that there aren't as many whiners and moaners who shouldn't be near a camera, let alone using it.

 

[Jed]

Right, I've just discovered that as opposed to a $400 35/2 Nikon, you could pay S$3500 for a Leica one new. That's right, I haven't accidentally included an extra zero. Yes, that is the one with ROM contacts, granted, but then, I'm sure the AF-D 35/2 also has the Nikon equivalent of ROM contacts.

Like I said, if you want to use Leica, fair play to you. But saying that it is not any more expensive than Nikon or Canon or other Japanese kit? Sorry.

 

[Jed]

Oh and I was just talking to a Clubsnap member on ICQ and recalled an AF-D Nikkor 35/2 that went for S$100 on eBay about a week or two back. So there you go.

I didn't think of this originally because like I said, you can't take odd instances to make your claim. In which case I can build up a Nikon outfit of such lenses and cameras at such discounts for the price of one of your bargain lenses. Well, not the 180/2.8 anyway.

 

[mike p]

As a current Leica user, yes user, I can attest to one thing. These cameras are like on other. Precise, quiet, small, unabtrusive, and wonderful you use. I did not break my bankbook, hell I have no bankbook! You can get good deals if you are smart about it. M2, M3s are reasonable compared to the M7s. Old world craftmanship for sure. Lenses can be difficult, but not impossible. Summicron 50mm from the 60s, 70s are 300-500 bucks. Summaron 35s are a little more. 90s are somewhere there as well. Again, my cameras are for use, not shelves. Its personal choice. I have Nikons, I have used Canons (which I dislike). all personal taste. A camera is only a tool, and the way you use the tool is important. If you are a carpenter and your hammer felt bad in your hands, you would replace it right? Bottom line is the results, a wonderful image to feel good about (make money?), or a nicely made deck. Njoy

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by mike p
As a current Leica user, yes user, I can attest to one thing. These cameras are like on other. Precise, quiet, small, unabtrusive, and wonderful you use. I did not break my bankbook, hell I have no bankbook! You can get good deals if you are smart about it. M2, M3s are reasonable compared to the M7s. Old world craftmanship for sure. Lenses can be difficult, but not impossible. Summicron 50mm from the 60s, 70s are 300-500 bucks. Summaron 35s are a little more. 90s are somewhere there as well. Again, my cameras are for use, not shelves. Its personal choice. I have Nikons, I have used Canons (which I dislike). all personal taste. A camera is only a tool, and the way you use the tool is important. If you are a carpenter and your hammer felt bad in your hands, you would replace it right? Bottom line is the results, a wonderful image to feel good about (make money?), or a nicely made deck. Njoy

mike, do u happen to be the same Mike Pobega on the photo.net Leica forum??