New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leica-fi? - Page 2

post #16 of 26

Leica-mount Fi maybe?  I use a CV Bessa R2 & Bessa L w CV 25mm/f4, here is a small project shot w the Bess R2 & CV 35mm/f2.5:

http://www.pbase.com/eldenfoto/aldeburgh

(was shooting with the Nikon FM2 this afternoon as well).

post #17 of 26

Nice to find other leica users.

 

I'm using a M6 TTL 0.85 with a Summicron 40mm.

I'm planning to buy the hexanon 50mm next.

Not enough money for the 50 summicron although i want the summilux.

post #18 of 26

I wish the world was still "film" for many reasons but shooting the M6 with T-Max 3200 at night with the 35 f1.4 Aspheric is definitely one of the special reasons.

 

You folks have my appreciation...the Leica is just something "other."

 

Like shooting a Heckler and Koch 91 or the big Rollei cams I had (6008, late 50's TLR)...the sheer utility/craftsmanship just hits this amazing balance-point of goodness.

 

@ wudai-e:  For those of you looking at the Nautilux 50mm f1.0, though- I really preferred the 35mm f1.4.

 

The Nautilux was just SO MUCH glass and upset the balance to me.  It was <heavy> and I dig <wider> on Leica anyway...

 

Still can't get rid of my Nikon F5 or N90s or FE2- though I gave the F100 to someone in Japan who is USING it.

 

(Would have used that F5 for decades...frown.gif

Reply
post #19 of 26

Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread.  I have an M2, and M4, and an M5 which supplemented a Hasselblad 500C which were all replaced by a Nikon F3 which was replaced by a Canon A2.  I don't really do too much with photography anymore and I just use a little Sony P&S but one day I'll buy myself a full frame EOS digital.

post #20 of 26

i want a tlr too but 120 film is just a pain a$$ for me.

post #21 of 26

 It's slow to use 120 but square-format positives are beautiful and the size gives you huge scans on Imacon Scanners...though there's lots of spotting to be done and scanning well is a slow process.

 

(Will have to see how much used Imacons are now for scanning from archival negatives...)

 

 

Reply
post #22 of 26

I was never a fan of the 6x6 format of the 500C.  I could never get comfortably composing inside a square frame vs. the rectangle of 35mm.


 

post #23 of 26

i agree that the 6x6 images look beautiful but i just wish they were more user friendly like 35mm.

and also i like to get more bang for the buck with 36-38 images over 12-16...haha.

post #24 of 26

^True it can be better to have more "ammo" per roll so I shot a lot of 220 with the Rollei 6008 and the Mamiya 6X45, but if doing different cross-process or using several different Black and White rolls (Ilford XP100/Agfa APX400/Kodak Tri-X)...then shorter rolls could facilitate less expense and more rolls can also be processed differently.  (Pushing extra time in development for extra contrast or especially different amounts of pushing for cross-processing C-41 to slide film which is the hard way to do it).  Miss the craft of all of that!

 

Hey, I'm just happy you are still shooting film and enjoying the art of the whole experience.  

 

(Sorry, Leica Guys for going far off-topic on you.  I'll save further comments for a "Save the Film" thread.)

Reply
post #25 of 26

I think about that a lot recently though.

Especially being a college student, it would be a lot cheaper to shoot digital (which i do as well).

But the M8 and the M9 are just so damn expensive...I thought the M8 would go down a lot more in price by now.

post #26 of 26

I'm on the same boat, I wish that I could shoot more film, but it's expensive. I save a lot by processing at home, but film is not cheap (specially 120). I'm happy with my RB67 and D7000, but one day I'll get a leica!

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home