New Leica M Shooters: About the Transition?

Its a 65mm 3.5 Elmar and a bellows. Not sure what the official name is...Anybody out there know. I know that it works. I might be willing to sell it if anyone is interested. (PM me)

I think it's pretty old.
 
Did you think through the Film vs. Digital bit when you went to Leica? or do I take it from this old piece of equipment you'd already done the Leica film M...? For me, the alternatives are to keep pushing on Sony and upgrade from a Sony A7II to Sony A7RII, or to pick up something different like a Leica M Monochrom, M2 or one day, M-262. A film Leica would be easier on the budget (?)...
 
I lost my darkroom and darkroom access some years back and after working with the MM for my personal work the ability to go from 320 ISO to 3200 ISO from one frame to the next with insanely good large prints from 6400 ISO it was a no brainer for me. A true rangefinder works for me and the way I work. I tried Fuji and Sony and I bought Leica M.

If I had all the $$$ I spent over the decades buying equipment when I was just settling I could have bought the stuff I really needed many times over. For me the original MM will be my camera for my personal work and pro work when it requires B&W until it dies and I can no longer get it repaired,. No reason to upgrade. I feel that way on the color side with the M 262.
 
I worked out a deal to swap a bunch of my Nikon outfit for an M7 and some glass without ever seeing one in person. After shooting with the G system I decided to just go for it with the M. I've not shot a 35mm SLR since and not missed it. I find the M much easier to focus, and find the lenses much better.
 
roscoetuff said:
....A film Leica would be easier on the budget (?)...
Click to expand...

Color or bw? Color film pricing, processing is something for low frame count shooter. Ten rolls per year. To get few negatives printed in real lab (just a few of them are available). It is next to paintings experience.

BW film is obtainable in bulks, cheap to develop at home, doesn't require super-scanner and low ISO, 400 at box speed bw film scans are very printable with pigment inkjets. Darkroom equipment is obtainable for free or next to free. If paper size is kept at 5x7 it isn't very expensive.

Cheapest used M9 which is closest and less expensive digital M to 135 film is about 2500 USD. Which is 1500-1800$ difference from possible to find 500$ film M plus around 200$ for scanner.

If I take as many frames with film M as I want on bw film it is 200$ (four 30.5 bulks) for film and around 50$ for chemicals.

I have bw inkjet prints and darkroom prints. InkJet prints are much more easy to do. Wet prints are closer to the art. With darkroom, I could print randomly, maintenance free. With inkjet to keep printing at lower cost, I need to use CISS and print at least twice a week.

With little darkroom enlarger (easy to find free or next to free) I could print up to 11x14. Bulbs lasts for long time and not expensive.
With compact inkjet I could print 8.5x11 and if it goes caput it is about 150$ for new printer and CISS.

Time saving is significant with digital M. With M9 experience is very close to fllm M cameras. No difference in focusing, framing. Cameras feels very identical.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Its a 65mm 3.5 Elmar and a bellows. Not sure what the official name is...Anybody out there know. I know that it works. I might be willing to sell it if anyone is interested. (PM me)

I think it's pretty old.
Click to expand...

I think it is a Visoflex III with bellows - quite a contraption!
 
airfrogusmc said:
Yes it is quite the contraption but it works really well and I think you might be right about the name THANKS....
Click to expand...

The visoflex III also supports some long lenses which are pretty strong and quite nice, from the 60s, you probably know. I nearly went the whole way in, as it's not too expensive.
Bartender knows them:

I would love one of these for my M9:
Leica_90mm_Macro-Elmar_03975294_Horizontaltn.jpg


When I first started drooling over these, they were well over 3k, now I seem them under 2K at times......so dangerous....please stop me. ;)

Those gogs so dainty compared to my Elmarit 135m which is the ugliest M lens:

DSC00925 by unoh7, on Flickr
But despite WW2 Heavy tank styling, they work and that is my favorite 135 overall. They are cheap.

Allen, you make the FLE look easy as 28cron. Really it's a bit more tricky I have lately learned. That ZM is more forgiving, I guess. :)
 
airfrogusmc said:
Thanks for the link WOW....

What do your think the bellows, chimney and 65 Elmar might fetch?

What is that a 90?
Click to expand...

Probably a few hundred at most for the Visioflex and bellows (the complete Elmar is worth more, of course) - they saw a temporary resurgence in popularity on the digital RF Ms back before there were other better through the lens options for the lenses. I think some will disagree but it has largely been reduced to a mere curiosity today, IMO. (At least for digital)
 
gdi said:
Probably a few hundred at most for the Visioflex and bellows (the complete Elmar is worth more, of course) - they saw a temporary resurgence in popularity on the digital RF Ms back before there were other better through the lens options for the lenses. I think some will disagree but it has largely been reduced to a mere curiosity today, IMO. (At least for digital)
Click to expand...

Thanks....
 
gdi said:
Probably a few hundred at most for the Visioflex and bellows (the complete Elmar is worth more, of course) - they saw a temporary resurgence in popularity on the digital RF Ms back before there were other better through the lens options for the lenses. I think some will disagree but it has largely been reduced to a mere curiosity today, IMO. (At least for digital)
Click to expand...

So would $400 for the lens and the Visoflex be a good price?
 
This was a great thread, and I came back here after a few days. Thanks to everyone for their help. There's a lot more here than I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top