From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Leica, why so high?
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:19:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep28.231519.18024@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh) writes:
>In article <5129@daily-planet.concordia.ca> honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL 
>onna) writes:
>
>  I have always dream about owning a Leica. My first contact with
>  Leica is when a German tourist visiting Lake Toba ( Near Medan
>  Indonesia ) let me hold his Leica M3 .  I was only 15 at the time
>     Now here i am studying in USA saving enought money to start 
>  my hobby again i bought Maxxum 800i and 50mm 1.7 and 5200i flash
>  it cost me alot but not really that much.
>     In my current student status a Leica will means starving my self
>  with diet of one cauliflower a week to save that lump sum of money
>  to buy it.
>


  It seems that many people take a look at leica prices, and
immediately decide that it's out of their reach.  Unfortunately many
people (including my poor self) go ahead and buy $1000 + of
photographic equipment anyway.  If you buy new, Leicas and Leitz
lenses are indeed expensive, but if you are willing to buy used
equipment, there are some relatively inexpensive ways to get your
hands on some Ernst Leitz Wetzlars...

  I too, am a student with little fanancial assets, and had lusted
after a Leica until I found a cheap solution: SCREWMOUNTS!
  
  Leica screwmount cameras are generaly priced according to
collectibility and "mint-ness", not how good and useful each model is.
That means you can often find a nice, working Leica III, IIIa, IIIc or
IIIf BD body for under $200.  Leitz made screwmount cameras until
1960, and continued to make screwmount lenses for quite a while after
that.  That means you can still find some nice lenses.  A 50mm Elmar,
a 35mm Summaron and a 135mm hector lens can each be had for about $100-$150.
The Elmar lens was what originally made Leica lenses so famous - and
they remain remarkably sharp.  If you have $250 to spend, you can
certainly find a working body and lens (It might be easier on the
East Coast than the West, however).  I love my screwmounts.

If you think only SLR's are real cameras there are still ways:

  An excellent R4 or R4s body plus a 50mm summicron lens can be had
for about $650-$700.  The R4 has a reputation of being unreliable, so an 
R3 might even be better, and cheaper (R3 bodies can be had for $300).

  If that's still too expensive, look for a Leicaflex or Leicaflex SL.
These bodies can be had for about $250-$300, but what make them bargains
are the 1-cam and 2-cam lenses you can use.  When Leitz introduced the
Leicaflex, their SLR lenses where "1-cam" lenses.  The Leicaflex SL
requires "2-cam" lenses for TTL full aperture metering.  The R-series
Leica SLR's need "3-cam lenses".  These "cams" are just mechanical
adjustments, not optical.  A 1 or 2-cam lens can be had for hundreds of
dollars less than the same 3-cam'ed lens, but the optical quality is
the same.  A 1-cam 50mm f2 summicron goes for under $100.

  
  The point is, if you are willing to give up the numerous
super-telephotos and wide-angle lenses and settle on a modest lens
set, and perhaps also willing to accept f4 and f2.8 lenses instead of
f2 and f1.4's, then you can certainly afford a Leica if you can afford
the Nikons, Minoltas and Canons.

  Infact, if you are looking for a top-quality manual focus SLR with 
aperture priority AE and SPOT METERING with a 50mm lens, what are your
choices?
  
The Olympus OM4-T,
The Canon F-1n,
A good, used Leica R-3.

  Guess which one is cheaper.  Can someone think of something else?