Desmolicious wrote:
The R9 has such few changes over the 8, it really should have been called the 8.2, or 8S.
It is an incredibly well designed camera apart from one bizarre flaw. It should have had a dedicated on/off switch. Instead it is incorporated into the exposure mode setting dial, so say you like Aperture Priory most, everytime you turn it off and turn it back on you have to spin the dial going passed a bunch of modes until u get to Aperture Priority. Really annoying.
That sounds incredibly silly. How is it that Leica struggles with on/off switches? Why does my M7 (which, at least has the switch in the right spot) take time to boot up? The location of the on/off button on the new SL3 makes no sense to me.
_jim_ wrote:
That sounds incredibly silly. How is it that Leica struggles with on/off switches? Why does my M7 (which, at least has the switch in the right spot) take time to boot up? The location of the on/off button on the new SL3 makes no sense to me.
I don't use that on/off switch (and DAG said not to because Leica's awesome design apparently causes wear on the shutter plunger which can make taking pics balky). But it is weird there is a boot up time - what other camera of that era or before needs time to boot up? My F3 is instantly on. My Minolta XK - two decades older! - is instantly on.
I just leave the power switch on and it is only activated if the shutter is cocked - then a tap springs the meter to life. Like a camera decades older...
Desmolicious wrote:
I don't use that on/off switch (and DAG said not to because Leica's awesome design apparently causes wear on the shutter plunger which can make taking pics balky). But it is weird there is a boot up time - what other camera of that era or before needs time to boot up? My F3 is instantly on. My Minolta XK - two decades older! - is instantly on.
I just leave the power switch on and it is only activated if the shutter is cocked - then a tap springs the meter to life. Like a camera decades older...
I do the same and leave it on all the time and similarly find it strange that a camera from the early aughts can’t turn on instantly. If you read Erwin’s thoughts on the M7, at release, he hails it as a true technological marvel. I mean the Hexar RF beat it to market by two or three years.
I’m probably just salty that my M7 has spent more time in the shop than it has in my hands in the year that I’ve owned it.
_jim_ wrote:
I do the same and leave it on all the time and similarly find it strange that a camera from the early aughts can’t turn on instantly. If you read Erwin’s thoughts on the M7, at release, he hails it as a true technological marvel. I mean the Hexar RF beat it to market by two or three years.
I’m probably just salty that my M7 has spent more time in the shop than it has in my hands in the year that I’ve owned it.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like using my M7 because of that Leica feel and shutter sound. But there are so many ways they could have improved it by offering less! If they got rid of the awful DX reader -both old and new - that would have cured so many of those weird ‘what does the little flashing led mean?’ issues. Even though a $20 p&s has figured out how to make a DX reader work - but hey, Leica!
Anyway, what’s wrong w your M7 and what shop works on it?
FYI also had the Bessa R3a but did not like it. Just felt clanky and the VF was not great. Had the ZM Ikon and it broke - film transport failed. Guess they used the same cheap plastic gears as they did in my Bessa L which failed the same way.
Desmolicious wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I really like using my M7 because of that Leica feel and shutter sound. But there are so many ways they could have improved it by offering less! If they got rid of the awful DX reader -both old and new - that would have cured so many of those weird ‘what does the little flashing led mean?’ issues. Even though a $20 p&s has figured out how to make a DX reader work - but hey, Leica!
Anyway, what’s wrong w your M7 and what shop works on it?
FYI also had the Bessa R3a but did not like it. Just felt clanky and the VF was not great. Had the ZM Ikon and it broke - film transport failed. Guess they used the same cheap plastic gears as they did in my Bessa L which failed the same way....Show more →
Yeah. I hear ya.
I feel lucky that my Zeiss Ikon was bullet proof for 15 years…then I let a friend borrow it. Had to have it serviced twice in six months after that. Things fall apart. But, yeah, there are many details of that camera that I prefer vs the M7:
1. The on/off switch feels better and it turns the camera on instantly.
2. The exposure comp dial is much easier to use.
3. The eye relief/lack of clutter of the finder.
4. The Ikon is light (which is also a con…or should I say a ‘kon’…in its own way).
5. It’s faster/easier to load film.
7. The higher shutter speed.
8. No need to worry about burning a hole in the shutter.
9. It could just be that I’ve used it longer, but the Ikon’s metering pattern makes sense to me and is, therefore, more accurate. The M7 meter loves to underexpose.
That being said, I’ve sadly devolved into becoming a camera fondler…and…The M7 feels much better (much). It also sounds nicer (as you said). The LEDs in the finder are much easier to see.
In theory, I’ll be reunited with my M7 this afternoon. Meeting up with Jadon from Red Dot Repair. He had to retension the shutter curtains. I was starting to experience some capping at higher speeds. Jadon does not prefer to work on M7’s. In fact, last time he worked on mine, he asked that I sell it (he is not optimistic about its long-term viability…especially fueled by Leica’s indifference/hostility toward independent repair people). I told him I would…but dammit, I really like the camera. So, here we are again. I’m sure he’ll remind me that I need to sell it.
bjhurley wrote:
Those are lovely! So I take it this Canon Sonnar doesn't suffer from focus shift, unlike the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5?
Thanks! I am sure that it does. I think that's just the physics of under-corrected spherical aberration dimishing as a lens is stopped down. Maybe, since film is more 3-dimensional than a sensor, focus shift is less apparent. Also, I think the focus shift of the C-Sonnar is more of an issue because it is a very high contrast lens and the plane of focus appears more clearly. Old, lower contrast lenses are inherently a little more fuzzy. At any rate, I don't make any corrections when I'm shooting (like focus on the tip of the nose vs the eyes). I just shoot like normal. Here, at f/2.8 it is crispy sharp.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M5, Canon 50mm f/1.5 Serenar, Kodak T-Max 400, Xtol 1:1
_jim_ wrote:
Also, I think the focus shift of the C-Sonnar is more of an issue because it is a very high contrast lens and the plane of focus appears more clearly. Old, lower contrast lenses are inherently a little more fuzzy.
Good to know, thanks! I confess to being a bit of a Sonnar junkie; I do have the Canon 50/1.4 LTM and love it, but it's not a Sonnar design. In addition to the C-Sonnar and the MS Optics 73/1.5 Sonnetar, I also have the original Sonnar version of the Nikkor 105mm/2.5 LTM, one of my favorite lenses. I've had my eyes on the Nikkor 85/2 LTM Sonnar for a while but didn't realize Canon made this 50/1.5 in a Sonnar design.
