If I had it to do over again.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

As an interesting exercise in both loyalty and hindsight, what would you do if you suddenly lost all of your cameras and lenses? While most people on this site have quite an accumulation of gear, how many of you are absolutely certain that you made the right choices during the acquisition process? How many bought items due to slick advertising or the cult like hype for it? Nothing says satisfaction like the desire to do the same thing over again if given the opertunity, (it works for spouses also). Additionally, any hidden doubt will surface when it is time to pull out the plastic for an item that you may not have as much affection for as you thought when you made your initial purchase. I believe that repetition in your responses will be the Leica cream rising to the top, and therefor be useful information for anyone contemplating a purchase. As for me, I would seek out Classic .72 M6's. I need the wider finder to assure that I can see the 35mm frame. I would also replace both of my next to latest model 35 and 50mm 'crons. I need the tab on my 50mm, and the size of the non-ASPH 35 gives it portability that beats the collapsible Elmar. That said, I would not replace any of my 90mm lenses. I simply don't use them. After 10 plus years of using M series Leicas I believe that after 50mm, it is time to grab an SLR IMHO. What would you all do???

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 16, 2000

Answers

Al [didn't you run for president] Smith:

I am probably not the person to answer this question. I doubt that I have the equipment of others who post here. In 35 mm, I have Minolta, Nikon and Leica. Medium format: Mamiya TLR, Universal, Hasselblad, Rollei TLR; 4 x 5, Arca Swiss; 8 x 10, Deardorff. I've always just considered them tools. Each has some function that is better than another for a specific task. I lack emotional attachment to any of them.

Now if you ask which I like when I just want to go out and have fun doing photography. 35mm; my old DSM3; I just like it. Focal lengths, 35 f2, 50f2 and 90 f2.8 [unlike you I love the 90]; longer or shorter than these, or macro, I go with Nikon or Minolta. Medium format: Mamiya TLR; why, I don't know, we just get along. Large format; Deardorff, once again we get along.

Sometimes you just get along with a piece of equipment and sometimes you don't. I must admit that their are situations where I have found the Leica lenses to be too contrasty and have gone with other cameras.

Your question doesn't have meaning for me. You would have to pry my DSM3 from my cold dead hands. So there may be a wee bit of emotional attachment for just one.

Best

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 16, 2000.


First, I would cry. Then, I would scream. Then, I would calm down and be thankful that, even though the hardware is gone, I still have all my photographs. Then, I would immediately by a new M6 and 50/2 Summicron (and look for the one with the tab!). I probably wouldn't ever accumulate as much as I have so far, but that's because my attitude has changed a little bit, not because I have been unhappy with any of my purchases. Well, I did buy the 50/2.8 collapsable a few years ago and I've used it twice. I would eventually get the 35/2 Summicron maybe the 35 'lux ASPH (which I don't have now; been craving it because I've read nothing but raves about it). As for my attitude changing, it's more of a "simplification." I'm shying away from wide and narrow angles of view, and using the normal length as my standard lens. The 50, some B&W film, and my M6 keeps me happy 98% of the time. (The 35, great for capturing more in the frame, but I use it less because it doesn't conform to my perceptions of what a normal lens should be for the 35mm format. Many people consider it their standard, normal lens, but its results plainly show characteristics of wideness at the sides of the frame.)

I'm sure glad, Al, that this doesn't include my enlarger. I simply will never lose it! :-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), June 16, 2000.


Al:

I have actually given your question some thought. If I had to start over from nothing, what would I get. No question: Mamiya TLR. I have a C33 and a C330. They didn't cost that much; so they have been with me everywhere. Sailing on the big salt pond in a small sail boat for weeks; tops of mountains; climbing glaciers; across the desert; and it goes on. Properly used, they are great pieces of equipment. Mine still work as well as the day I bought them.

If I had one system, that would be it. [from the files of a 40 y Leica M user].

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 17, 2000.


Al

I'm a reflexer, but I always like the M-series -despite having had an M3 and finding rangefinder viewing not quite what I like. I think if I lost all my gear I would probably try the M6 classic with 28mm, 50mm cron, 90mm Apo-summicron (or 75mm 'lux), and the 135 Apo-Telyt. Whether I would end up keeping this set up I just don't know. Another "heretical" idea might be to try Canon and their L lenses to see whether I like them - I would save some money this way, but not a huge amount I suspect. If that didn't work I would go back to my trusty R6.2.

I left the Leica R once and regretted the decision, but sometimes you cannot help but wonder.

-- wombat (rsmith@springer-ny.com), June 19, 2000.


An M3 (I like to see a 50mm frame that works--I don't like the current finders, which feel like I'm looking through the back of binoculars), a 28 (the next one, not the current one, if the rumors are true :-), 50 Summicron with or w/o tab, and a fast 85 or 90 (Canon 85/1.5 is my first choice). No 35, since I hardly ever use the one I have. No electronics, except for a honkin' big flash for bouncing off 15-foot ceilings.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.


A IIIf or IIIg, a collapsible 50/3.5, the 15/4.5 Heliar, and one of the better fast 50's for when I could live with more size than the Elmar. I always find myself wishing that the M3 and its attendant Summicrons was smaller.

And throw in a Technika IV with 150 Super Symmar to go with it... :)

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.


I haven't gone over the top with a fixed bayonet to buy Leica (yet!). But I do have a closet full of Nikon gear. I would simplify and get an F3 along with 35 f/1.4 and 105 f/2.5 lenses.

As I get older I recall with fondness the early 70's when all I had was an Olympus OM-1n and the 50 1.8. I had it with me at all times and have dozens of carousels of great Kodachrome shots as proof (somewhere in the local landfill are tens of dozens of my other shots). I'm not comfortable enough or strong enough to conspicuously lug the F5 and a heavy lens around all day.

There is no question that I have made numerous purchases based on the influences of ads or advice. In the 70's it never occured to me that this lens or that camera would allow me to take better pictures. And only rarely did I wish that I had a longer or shorter focal length that the 50.

I was at the library the other day looking at a book on the Pulitzer prize photographs. Every winner was a result of the photographer being at the scene with a camera, not one was a result of equipment. Heck, most of the shots are blurry due to bad focus and/or subject movement.

Having all of my gear taken away, but covered by insurance, would actually be kind of fun. Great question.

-- Tim Kamke (openmri@execpc.com), June 21, 2000.


I was at the library the other day looking at a book on the Pulitzer prize photographs. Every winner was a result of the photographer being at the scene with a camera, not one was a result of equipment. Heck, most of the shots are blurry due to bad focus and/or subject movement.

There's an exhibit of the Pulitzer Prize winning photos in New York City (the book you saw is connected with the exhibit.) Many of the photos were taken with equipment most of the denizens of online forums would sneer at. It's just proof that it is the photographer and not the equipment.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 21, 2000.


No question, I'd replace the Leicaflex SL and 400mm f/6.8 Telyt. I also use the 90mm and 35mm Summicron-R lenses, and like them lots, but I'm not sure the SLR is best for my purposes in these focal lengths. I'd consider an M6TTL .72 but I'd probably end up with the R lenses to keep the number and variety of camera bodies to a minimum. The SL and 400 are essential.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt560@cswebmail.com), June 22, 2000.

I will keep it simple. Probably a 0.85 M6 with 50 'cron lens first and add 90 Elmarit later.

-- Kenny Chiu (Amchiu@worldnet.att.net), June 22, 2000.


I'd get another .72 M6 (non-TTL). I'd replace the current version 50mm f2 Summicron and the 15mm Voigtlander Heliar. The rest of my lenses I'd have to think about. I suspect that the 90mm Elmerit would also get replaced, but I'd probably switch the 35mm Summicron for a 28mm.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), June 25, 2000.

Used M6 (non-ttl), user condition. 50mm Summicron.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 25, 2000.

I've always been a big fan of simple kits, and I've bought a lot of gear over the years to get to the simplicity I now have :-)

Were it all to vanish tomorrow, I'd get: - an M6 .72 and an HM (classic or TTL matters not) - a 28, either the current Elmarit or (preferably) the the rumoured Summicron - a 50, either the 'cron with the tab or the (not yet rumoured) recomputed 'lux - a 90 APO ASPH.

I'd be tempted to replace my F3 along with the 55 Micro and 180/2.8 I'd probably not replace my 35 Summicron ASPH - I prefer the 28. But the 35 Summilux ASPH is tempting for the extra stop.

Basically, I'd replace what I currently have - it's the setup that has satisfied me the most out of all the gear I've owned.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), June 29, 2000.


What rumoured Summicron??

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 29, 2000.

If all my kit were gone today and I had to do it all over again, I'd buy:

Leica M6TTL, Heliar 15, 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2.8, 90/2.8
Rollei 35S or Minox 35GT-E
Minox ECX

That covers about 99% of what I use now. I hardly ever use my 35mm SLRs or Rollei TLRs, I use the Canon ELPH Jr occasionally, I do like the Olympus Pen EE2 and use it once in a while. The Leica kit is excessive, I know, but I'd really like the collapsible 50 and the 21 in addition to what I have now.

Oh yes: I'd add a Nikon Coolpix 990.



-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), July 04, 2000.


I would have MAJOR problems replacing my favorite.! I use daily a M3,purchased new in 67.The 50 Summicron collapsible.I have a M2 (1958) as back-up.Never yet needed. It languishes in a case.I find the 5/6 frames confusing... I`m not a rocket scientist.The meter would be nice but not really required.So if money no object..... M6 or M4-P; 28mm/35mmf2.0/50mmf2.0/90mmf2.0 15mm Voigtlander. No other camera can be used so well and still be a winner. I coompose better and expose better in my SLRs,Pentax and Nikons.The clients prefer their portraits on the Leica....

-- jason gold (jason1155234@webtv.net), August 08, 2000.

Just to update my answer above,

I've just got a 24 Elmarit, and I think I'm in love. So, now the kit would be:

M6, M6HM, 24 Elmarit, 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summicron (tabbed version), 90 APO ASPH.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 31, 2000.


I have a Mamiya C330 and a Leica III. If the boat was sinking and I could grab one of my cameras I'd let the C330 sink and hold onto the Leica as long as I could.

-- David Venatrem (davidv@asda.com), July 08, 2001.

Interesting question and a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have two Aria's and about 9 lenses in the Contax mount. Recently have added an M6 0.58 and a 50 'cron and 35 ASPH 'cron. Both are outstanding, as you are all well aware. I am experiencing the above question, as I am now selling much of the Contax kit to lean more toward Leica.

I would get the 0.58 without hesitation, as it makes Leica wide angle really available to eyeglasses wearers. The lens choice would be the same, unless the 50mm Summilux ASPH was then available, in which case it would replace the 50 'cron (and will when such a lens appears). I would add a second body early. In fact, I wonder now whether my next addition should be an M6 TTL 0.72 (or 0.85) or a 90mm Elmarit? It sure would be nice to carry one body with the 50mm and the other with the 35mm in my Domke F-5XB. After that, probably a Tri-Elmar. Ultimately, my kit would be:

M6 TTL 0.58

M6 TTL 0.72 (or 0.85)

50mm 'cron (or 50mm 'lux ASPH)

35mm 'cron (How sweet it is!)

90mm Elmarit

3E

SF-20

Motor M (as a tempting possibility.)

In SLR, I would (will) keep an Aria, a 28mm/2.8 CZ, a 50mm/1.4 CZ, a 100/2.8 Macro CZ, and a Tokina 100-400/4 zoom when tele-flexibility would be needed.

Cheers!

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), July 08, 2001.


Great question!

I'd definitely replace the M6 TTL 0.58 and 35 Summilux ASPH. I'd be happy with just that.

I'd replace my Nikon D1 with a D1x (which I'm actually about to do) but ditch most of the Nikon lenses and the F100.

Fergus
www.dingoboy.com

-- Fergus Hammond (
fhammond@adobe.com), July 08, 2001.

Excellent question, really makes you re-evaluate and focus on essentials. I,d probably replace my two M6 0.72 non ttl,s along with my 50 f2 & 35f2 Asph. I,d also replace my R6.2 along with a 90 or 100 (90 Apo Asph in R mount would be nice). Lastly my 500cm Hasselblad with 60f3.5 & 100f3.5 lenses and Minolta spotmeter to be sure. This kit covers 90% of the travel work i do with the minimum amount of fuss and maximum usability.

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), July 08, 2001.

If I had to start over, I'd love to buy an M6 .085 and a 50/2 (with tab). I recently sold a small Contax Aria system to purchase the 50/2 (MIB)and I love the photos that have resulted. This would also assume the insurance company paid me enough to replace the gear I currently have (an M-4P and six lenses). And while I like the idea of an internal meter, I could also be talked into buying an M3(DS) instead of the M6. In fact, I hope to eventually buy one. As for the lens, the 50 is what I take most of my photos with and probably couldn't live without. Yes, I'd like a 90/2.8 and a 40/2 to round things out, but I find I rarely use them and when I need them, I'm not carrying them.

-- Eric Platt (ericplatt@aol.com), July 09, 2001.

I would go for any .72 M body, M6 classic, M4P, M4 or M2; for a lens 35 Žlux asph, or 35/2 pre asph, and that would be it for the first year.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

Great article but being the skeptical person (good advice given in the article) that I am, this guy uses t400cn, filters the water in what i guess would be his humple hotel room an then does a c41 processing thing. Something is wrong here who the hell does there own c41 processing in the middle of a war zone? either the film or the self water filtering processing thing is bullshit.

-- Robert W Boyer (rboyer@mindspring.com), August 02, 2001.

???????????

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 03, 2001.

I currently own four cameras: an Olympus E-10, a Pentax 645, an Elan 7, and an M3. I could survive with only the Elan...but I'd have to get a bunch of decent prime lenses for it. I lived with an EOS-1v and 7 primes for over a year and found little need for anything else-- until I got the digital bug. Then I longed for some real b&w character, hence the Pentax and the M3.

As much as I love the Leica, it would rather difficult for me to do all my projects with it only.

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 03, 2001.


an M3 and 50 cron. Possibly with 35 lux asph. TILL i DIE.

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 04, 2002.

Al, I'll run you for president. (1) you have always made great answers, and if that weren't enough (don't know who it wouldn't be enough for), then (2) you have always made great questions as well.

Sooo, in answer to your question, yes, I am absolutely certain that I have always made the right choices during the acquisition process. (a) I have always made so many choices and then worked them all out by reading everything here (in this forum) and elsewhere, (b) I have asked dozens of questions everywhere, (c) I have rented or tried things out in the stores and in Solms at the free-test-checkout once a year, and (d) I have -- as often explained -- even traded in something (at the store I bought it in) for something else, e.g. one lens for the other.

You probably think that's all a lot of work on my part, but (i) I needed it, (ii) it always worked, and (iii) I'm happy I did it.

Long live the Leica.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 04, 2002.


Having been married three times I have to say whatever I have acquired over time seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course hindsight is 20 20. It is an evolutionary process. The owner of Pardee's Camera in Sacramento says we only rent Leica equipment because it holds its value so well. The last couple of years I have been upgrading and selling off a piece here and there as it was replaced. At this point I think maybe I'll eventually get rid of an M2 or 3 and replace it with another 6. The lenses I might upgrade to if money is not a problem are: 28 summicron, 21 aspheric (replace 28 elmarit and 21 pre although both these lenses are sooo satisfying). And maybe look at the 24 and the Tri-Elmar. Maybe the R21 4.0 or R19. Extremely happy with everything I have right now though and don't feel any urgency to upgrade. Have a couple of things going going gone on ebay this week to clean out the drawers and lighten the load (couple of pre appheric summicrons, first 8 element and last version late from Solms that I actually hope nobody buys and a 3rd vers 28. Need to pay for the new to me 35 aspheric lux. Better to keep taking pictures with the ones I have. Good luck!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 04, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ