rji2goleez wrote:
I like the way you think . . . Now I just need to get my bank account to listen!
Actually, I was thinking maybe a Minolta CLE. It's a little easier on the wallet.
It's slippery slope!
Now a few pics of the Western Canadian Arctic landscape (or lack thereof) during the transit towards the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. As we progress East, the land becomes much more rocky & interesting.
rji2goleez wrote:
I like the way you think . . . Now I just need to get my bank account to listen!
Actually, I was thinking maybe a Minolta CLE. It's a little easier on the wallet.
I had two ‘perfect condition’ CLEs which failed. So I can’t really recommend them. As you already have a digi M, a film M will be a near seamless and extremely enjoyable experience. An M7 is the closest to an M10/11 but any would do….
I thought about a CLE or a Hexar RF but I am at the point where my negatives have consistent density based off my eye balling exposure. I don't even use my shoe mount meter anymore and if things are dicey I pull out my iPhone app for metering. So why risk an electronic failure?
It has to be a tiny point and shoot for me to want to risk it and it has to be a minimal $ loss... that said I totally respect anyone who does it for the joy. There are a lot dumber things you can toss away money on for the fun of it.
The Hexar RF is the one M mount RF that I had not owned. I love the idea of it, and would like to borrow one for the experience, but the unrepairable horror stories of these ticking time bombs prevents me from owning one.
(I may have laid it on a bit thick there, but these are breaking w no repairs)
Still - the spec of that camera is pretty much what the M7 should have been.
Desmolicious wrote:
I had two ‘perfect condition’ CLEs which failed. So I can’t really recommend them. As you already have a digi M, a film M will be a near seamless and extremely enjoyable experience. An M7 is the closest to an M10/11 but any would do….
There is someone out there identified that can fix CLEs. Don't know anything about how costly. But, point taken on a film M. They're just more pricey than the CLE and I haven't yet decided if this film thing is permanent.
Here's a contact that services CLEs and other Minolta cams. I've seen him referenced as recently as this past year. Maybe you can get your CLEs repaired!
Nielsen Photographic Services
642 Hi Tech Parkway
Oakdale, CA. 95361
209-543-1989
rji2goleez wrote:
I like the way you think . . . Now I just need to get my bank account to listen!
Actually, I was thinking maybe a Minolta CLE. It's a little easier on the wallet.
Another alternative to consider is an LTM camera; I've seen you post photos from a Canon 50/1.4 LTM and if you have any other LTM lenses something like a Canon P or one of the other models from roughly the same period would be a fine choice. And they have no light seals (don't need them!) so you won't have to replace them, which you're almost certain to need to do on the Minolta CLE. The CLE is an M-mount camera, so more versatile in that you can mount your LTM and your M lenses to it.
I have a Leica M2R (that an old friend sold to me for less than a tenth of its market price) and a Canon P, and most times I reach for the Canon first. It's easier to load film, fits better in my hand, it's easy to make deliberate double exposures, and it's beautifully designed. The only drawback is that the rangefinder patch is indistinct compared with the Leica so I find it a little harder to focus sometimes, and the parallax correction on mine is broken; there's a small spring inside that must have busted.
Thanks for some thoughts on film cameras. I admit that an M body is a preferred way to go. While I am not so well versed on the many differences between M series film bodies, I've been lurking around M2, M4 and M4-P with the latter perhaps being most attractive due to 28mm frame lines. The other concern is price point and these models fall within what I am willing to spend at this point in time.
Without trying to hijack this 'image' thread, I would love to hear thoughts on these cameras.
rji2goleez wrote:
Thanks for some thoughts on film cameras. I admit that an M body is a preferred way to go. While I am not so well versed on the many differences between M series film bodies, I've been lurking around M2, M4 and M4-P with the latter perhaps being most attractive due to 28mm frame lines.
The M2 still requires the old cumbersome film-loading procedure (I have the M2R; the R stands for "rapid loading," which was adopted in subsequent models), so you might enjoy the M4 or M4-P more from a usability standpoint. However, rapid loading isn't always so rapid. I was able to load my first roll of film in about 30 seconds, but when things don't go well on the first try it can take a lot longer; my third roll took about 8 attempts and 10 minutes.
I use a brightline viewfinder for my 28mm lens but it would of course be more convenient to have built-in 28mm framelines.
I think the M4-P hits the sweet spot when it comes to meterless Leica film cameras with a good selection of framelines.
I’m not sure if the quick load/rapid load in the super rare M2r is the same as the open tulip type in the M4 onwards. I can load film in the tulip style in just a few seconds following Leica’s super simple instructions which are basically the pictogram on the inside of the base plate.
Anyway, if you want an M w 28mm frame lines you are looking at M4-P, MP, M6, M7, M-A.
Desmolicious wrote:
I’m not sure if the quick load/rapid load in the super rare M2r is the same as the open tulip type in the M4 onwards. I can load film in the tulip style in just a few seconds following Leica’s super simple instructions which are basically the pictogram on the inside of the base plate.
Yep, it's the same tulip design. Sometimes it takes me seconds, sometimes many minutes. The film doesn't always engage properly and I have to retry multiple times. I'm not the only one; many people have reported similar frustrations with the tulip...I've only shot five rolls with my M2R though; we'll see if it's better after I've shot 40 or 50. Maybe it's just inexperience.
I follow the procedure as shown in this video. Just tried with another roll and it only took two attempts this time. The first time it appeared to engage, then the film stopped advancing when I cocked the shutter so I had to rewind the film and start over.
