Why do you favour Leica M R Digital or P&S

G

Guest

Sal, to the best of my information Yashica owns Contax. Therefore, it is not the same thing. I disapprove the partnership with Panasonic because of the all plastic, zero ergonomics product - digilux that is - they came up with. It just degrades Leica's name. So, it's not that i disapprove Leica's efforts in finding a presence in the digital age with a sound partner having the know-how Leica misses. On the other hand, Leica R series never reached the precision today's Contax, Nikon and other outfits attained. It most probably owes to Leica's inaction to produce autofocus lenses. However, Contax AX solved this problem in the body and still uses manual Carl Zeiss T lenses in AF fashion. Shame on Minolta! You shouldn't take my words to mean that Leica R series cameras are bad. No, my point is they are behind Contax and Nikon in electronics. If lens quality is the issue then Contax uses Carl Zeiss which is as good as Leica. Best regards.
 
G

Guest

Sal and Murat,

it is even more complicated with the names. The name "Contax" and the copyright is owned by Zeiss. Zeiss began a cooperation with Yashica in the 70ies. Then Yashica was bought from Kyocera, but the cooperation between Yashica and Zeiss and the aggreement on using the name "Contax" was not touched.

Yashica has had always his own product line, but was using the same mount for the Yashica lenses and the Zeiss (for Contax) lenses, the so called C/Y mount (C= Contax, Y= Yashica).

Kyocera is a huge company and of course they can afford more experiments then Leica. Yashica/Kyocera is focussing more on the digital side and P&S. Contax is the more serious amateur/professional line.

I agree that on the SLR-line, Contax has advantages compared to Leica R. The fact that Contax changed for the new AF-line the mount (called N-mount) is actually nothing to worry about. Many people forget that other manufactuerers did that already more then a decade ago (Minolta, Canon) and some are doing this softly right now (Nikon).

When Canon and Minolta did this, it was the same pain for the users at that time as it is now for the Contax users. But it had to be done and we will all come over it. At least it is better then stucking with a limited system for the high standard we expect from the new Contax developments in the digital area.

Dirk
 
G

Guest

Dear Murat,

I would like to agree with your remark "If lens quality is the issue then Contax uses Carl Zeiss which is as good as Leica".

My impression of modern Zeiss lenses is that they are of varying quality. Some are excellent and others average. One of the attractions of Leica, even with lenses originating elsewhere, is the uniformity and consistency of image quality. I have sold all my modern Zeiss lenses, as to my eye they lack the subtly (smoothness) Leica. Over the years I have tried less expensive variants however never found a range of lenses which compares with Leica.

Before you conclude the comparison take the latest 1:1,4/50mm reflex lenses and compare !

Best wishes,

Justin Scott
 
G

Guest

The Leica lenses of the last one or two decades are simply unparalleled. If you see the results from a recent 280mm APO Leica lens, you will see that it is worth the name 'Leica'. The latest teles, the Modulars, are both unique in their flexibility, and at the pinnacle of imaging perfection. And, the latest zooms, the 80-200 and the 105-280 APO are simply amazing. Granted, they are exceedingly expensive, but they are better than the primes of most manufacturers, Zeiss and Canon included.

Of course, this is all subjective! Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon, even my old Zuikos - they can all make fantastic pictures if you point them at the right subjects and get the setting right. Personally, I find the Leica SLR cameras to be very fine, though I do agree that the early Minolta collaborations (R3-R7) were not the most inspired bodies around. The R8 (and R9, I presume) are something else altogether, as are the Leicaflex SL and SL2 bodies of old.

Don't be dissin' the Leica SLRs, man, they rock! :) That said, I love my Leica rangefinder even more...
 
G

Guest

I'm enjoying my Leica C1 and I also have a Samsung 35-145 p&s with a Schneider lens. The pictures are far and away sharper, crisper with brighter colors than what I use to take with my Nikon FTN .I am focusing on (excuse the pun) composing the picture and telling the camera what to do to get a correct picture. Photography is becoming exciting to me now.
I would like some feedback on what others have done to graduate from these smaller cameras on to larger SLRs or to larger format cameras.
Thanks for this posting.
Tforc
 
G

Guest

Hello everybody,
I own an old M3 with a collapsible 5omm lens. I also own a Minizoom. While simple to handle and it has good exposure it's plastic junk. I also have a Leicaflex SL. I do mainly wildlife and landscape photography . I use an Elmarit 2.8/180 and a 2/35 Summicron. I have also used a novoflex 400mm. I would like to change to a motor drive and an apperture programe. Would you change the Leicaflex for an R-E? Or which R-series is good? I would have to have the 180mm (wonderful) adapted to the R system- is it worth it? Which affordable 400mm- 500mm lens do you recomend ?
 
G

Guest

Jurgen, The R-E would be a good choice. However, just about any R camera from the R4 thru R9 would be good too. The R4 had some initial problems, but I think most of them are solved. You could also trade you SL for a SL-Mot or SL2-Mot, but the camera would be very heavy and not as convient as the later R camera.
Good Luck & Happy Snaps
 
G

Guest

Question: I have a Contax N1 with the 24-85mm lens, its a very good camera but lately I have been thinking to trade it for Leica gear, because of their superior optics quality reputation (I know Zeiss makes great lenses too, but I have have read mixed comments about the N lenses). So I wanted to ask you for your opinion if I should do the switch from Contax to Leica.
 
G

Guest

I have a new Leica I haven't used yet.I also have a Contax N1 with the 24-85 lens. The pictures with the Contax and that lens are absolutely razor sharp. IF the Leica is better I'm gonna be REALLY impressed. I like my N1 for Big Lenses, the Contax G2 for a small camera..and think I'm going to love the M6. Remember that this is a Leica group and you're asking which is a better camera!!
Colorado Jeff
 
G

Guest

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


According to photodo some of the Contax lenses are better than some of the Leica lenses, however some of the lenses appear to be consumer grade lenses. I would recommend you rent a Leica of your choice with a range of lenses. The primes are sharper than the zooms, in addition the rangefinder lenses are sharper than the R lenses.

Now the advantage of the Leica lenses especially the rangefinder set is the ability to shoot wide open without any hesitation (the only exception is the Noctilux 1.0).

Best of Luck Gerry
 
G

Guest

Paul,

this thread is supposed to compare different Leica System to each other, not Contax vs. Leica etc.

But to give you some hint, it will not help you in your decision if you compare a SLR with a rangefinder camera. These 2 are made for different purposes. In the case of the Contax N24-85 it is even more extreme, since it is big and has a zoom range of 24-85 which will be never offered for a rangefinder, not even for a Leica R.

For further informations and comparisons you can look also at our sistersite
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, where posted a comment also over the N24-85 vs. the Leica M 90/2.8 (not fair, but interesting).

Dirk
 
G

Guest

I do mainly wildlife photography with a Leicaflex + 2,8/180 mm Elmarit and a Novoflex 400mm. I want to buy a long Telephoto Leica lens.The Novoflex fast focus is fantastic has Leitz got anything similar? There are somme lenses on offer all Teleyt 6,3/800 6,8/560 5,6/560 4,8/350. They seem to have different focussing methods and are very different in price. What is the difference between the 6,8 and 5,6 besides the f-stop?

Lastly is the Angeneieux 2,8/ 45-90 a great lens, better than the Leitz?
Thanks for your comments
 
G

Guest

I agree with the sentiments of the very first writer in this thread completely.
On the matter of speed in use, I would argue that the fastest camera is a manual camera.
The reason is that everything can be preset. It is the focussing delay in auto-focussing that actually slows down the chip-hungry fotog.
When there is a critical photo to take I use the M because it has a better viewfinder and everything can be preset.
Having said that the Minilux Summarit gives superb negs. If only it would focus instantly.
 

mckin

New Member
I do most of my work ( landscapes, urban scenes) with a m6ttl and 35 and 90 Summicrons. However, it's not always convenient to swithch lens mid shoot, and I do worry that the removal/remouting of the lenses will prematurely wear the mounts, on both the camera and the lenses. I've thought of two options: but a second body, ie a used M6 or maybe an M7, and leave one lense attached to each, or alternatively, trade my current gear towards and R8, and get the 35 - 70 zoom. Any thoughts? I'm a beginner, so all replies appreciated. Thanks Bill
 
D

david40

> Prematurely wear the mounts? Don't think so. Leicas are built to withstand thousands of lens changes. Even cameras from the 50s show little wear in this regard - and that is despite the roughshod treatment they often get in the hands of pros. More likely to be a source of bother is the nuisance factor of having to change lenses at all, which can be compensated for by assuring yourself that prime lenses are still faster, and probably perform better, than zooms. Also, many of the finest Leica photographers created truly memorable photographs by using only one lens, generally a 50. OTOH, zooms are undeniably handy, and if you opted for that choice, the 28-70 would be more useful than the 35-70.
 
C

Craig24

William

If you manage to wear out the mount on and M camera or lens you are to be congatulated. I've been using an M3 (1959) and Lenses made in the 1950s and 60s for about 20 years now. And I mean USING.

All of it was user quality when I purchased it so the system has done more than its fair share of work before I got my disresectful hands on it. I hope to have at least 30 or more years left in me yet and I intend to take my M3 to the grave. Hopefully some fine being will take over were I leave off and get an other 50+ years good use.

I often use two or three bodies simultaniously for more fluid shoots and the approach is a tried and tested winner. I haven't tried it yet (got one on order) but the lens carrier M (order # 14 404) that mounts to the bottom of the camera, I expect could be a handy device. Also don't forget the TriElmar, apparently a great little M lens.

I suspect if you trade the M6 for a R8 or 9 (as nice as they are) I suspect you may regret it. But I'm biased.

Hope this helps craig
 

colorado_jeff

Well-Known Member
I just got my first pictures back from my M6 ttl. I also have a Contax N1, as well as a Contax G2 and a Canon EOS. The sharpness of the M6 pictures was absolutely astonishing.. much sharper than the Contax by a significant amount.
I am impressed.
 

mckin

New Member
David and Craig - thanks. YOurs are helpful perspectives. I think what I may do is try to acquire another m6ttl, perhaps a .85, an leave the 90 Cron permanently attached. This shuold alleviate the hassle factor of changing lenses, and give my failing eyes an additional boost.

Thanks again. Phreak, I'll contact you offline, as you suggested.

Bill
 
F

fastfashn

Must be something wrong with your particular Contax... You sure you didn't mistake a digital Canon G2 for a 35mm Contax G2?

-Dana

"Posted by Jeff Roberts on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 6:42 am:

I just got my first pictures back from my M6 ttl. I also have a Contax N1, as well as a Contax G2 and a Canon EOS. The sharpness of the M6 pictures was absolutely astonishing.. much sharper than the Contax by a significant amount. I am impressed."
 
Top