Why not a Leica M9

Chris Knapton

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
15
Location
Nottinghamshire, UK
curious...

Does anyone happen to remember the cost of a Leica M3 when sold brand new in the 50s?[/QUOTE]

I bought my M2 and M3 secondhand in the 60s, dollar was nearly 3 to the UK pound and I paid £125 for the M2 and £100 for an immaculate M3 - both of which I have today, but don't often use. Today I was testing the 14-140 lens @ 50mm compared with my 1958 50mm Summicron, screw thread converted to M mount, on my GH1 - and the old Leica lens was softer contrast but higher resolution, which surprised me. Nothing quite feels like a Leica, although my Nikon F2 is close.
 

BrianK

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
309
Location
Lansing MI
Camera is just a tool, and I can't see an M9 being enough of a more productive tool to justify the price.
I kinda agree when you add lens cost its quite a bit for an M9, but I dont agree its just a tool, for me its a fun hobby so that makes prices more elastic than if it was just a wrench I need to get a job done. I had a 40D for that.

BK
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
I ended up ordering a Leica M9 today- only after selling off some vintage film gear and lenses to cover the price. 7 cameras and a dozen lenses. It's nice to know that you can get your money back out of these things, pretty much priced everything to break even. The scary part is that I did not make much of a dent into the "collection". Getting a 50/0.95 would mean too many trips to the post office for a 1/3 stop improvement over the 50/1.1 Nokton...
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom