Why haven't you bought a Leica yet?
>>2712528
i have a canon. i don't need another camera.
2poor
>>2712528
My E-M1 has much more functionality at a much much lower price.
>>2712541
I didn't know the E-M1 was fullframe.
>>2712548
Kek. Good one sempai
Because I went with Zeiss and traveled instead.
>>2712528
Already have one, and too satisfied with a7 that I can't justify the pricetag for a second one.
because i have pentax. and mamiya. and rollei. and canon.
>>2712528
but I have
>>2712580
It's great. right?
>>2712528
cause im a poorfag with a 550D and EOS 500 for full frame.
>>2712582
its like a gentle kiss every time I press the shutter release.
I got one a year ago and would never go back to a dslr
>>2712590
I'm still a film shooter and been using a M3 for about 4 years now, I picked up a Nikon FM2 the other day, and I was surprised how cumbersome a SLR was. I struggled to finish the roll in the Nikon it was just such a miserable way of shooting.
For my studio film work I shoot either Blad or 4x5. For digital I use a mirrorless because I am used to looking at large ground glass and the screen is like the best ground glass I have ever used.
M6 all the way. Wouldn't mind a black M4 though.
>tfw voigtlander lens on my m6
Not sure whether to get an xpan or a nice Leica lens with my Christmas bonus
I already have a Nikon F100 and a Hasselblad - both are superior tools.
I had a Leica M and the novelty wore off within a month. I wouldn't get one over an A7 series camera. I've met a few photographers that own a Leica and they are just gearbuffs. Not really knowing a whole lot about the art of photography and are very naive. Of course I'm generalising, and I also owned a Leica. But I was smart enough to realise that it does not improve your photos over a Canon, Sony, Nikon, or any camera for that matter. It was a fun camera to use, but like I said, it wore off. I own a Fuji X100T and it is equally as fun and thousands cheaper. It would be the saner choice if you were trying to decide whether or not to get a Leica.
>>2714291
I had a M4-p for a while, it is nice for a second body but gave it up for a IIIf. The IIIf is different enough from my M3 that is not just a second body but also a different type of shooter.
>>2714306
voigtlander makes some very nice lenses, in some cases, they are as good as Leica optically. I prefer my 35 color-skopar over my summaron with colour or if I'm putting it on the GXR but the summaron has way nicer contrast for black and white. To be fair to the Leica though, it is almost 50 years older than the Voigtlander.
>>2714350
>F100 and a Hasselblad
are great cameras and may be superior for your application. I find my FM2 quite cumbersome compared to rangefinders even though it is not much larger.
A SLR is a slower less intuitive way of shooting, that can be good for some situations and bad for others.
One of THESE threads eh?
3 wise men in all fields
>>2714390
Yeah I have the Color-Skopar 35mm and it is really nice but I mainly shoot B&W and I'd like to get a 50mm so I can wear my glasses while shooting
>>2714376
photography isn't an art
I shoot sports.
>>2712607
Hasselblad's are SLRs, dumbass.
>>2714414
Hardly the same workflow wise though, which was his point obviously
ooopsie... too late.
>>2714404
wouldnt contacts be cheaper?
>>2714627
Don't like em
Have an m6, would never get a digital m though. No point to them really in today's market other than stroking the ego's of dusty old men. Film leicas are excellent however. Really your only buying into this system for the glass anyway.
>>2712528
ITS SHIT, THAT'S WHY
Because the vietnam war is over
>>2712528
I just did.
Pretty cool huh?
>>2715238
>>2715239
Profit?
>>2715242
>$
>>2715262
>>2715242
>>2715238
>>2715239
2nd place find
>>2715272
Man, the thrift stores where I am are shit. Though I did get a 55mm Super Tak f/2 for $7 CAD so that's not too bad.
>>2715262
Buy something from savers for $5.99, peel the sticker off, put it on your Leica for Internet points.
Because the entry point is too high. And the best lenses are too expensive.
>>2715302
There is no way I would have bought a leica if it wasn't cheap.
I don't even like rangefinders.
how much do these cost?
under or over $100?
>>2715489
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:05:10 22:29:11 Exposure Time 15 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -9.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1071 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2712528
because Leicas are overpriced meme cameras. The Q is cool, but around +2000$ too expensive. If you waste your money on stupid gear like this, you're an idiot and I hope you die in a hotel fire.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Photo Pos Pro 1.81 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method Unknown Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi White Point Chromaticity 0 Exposure Time 0 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 0 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information Unknown Image Width 0 Image Height 0 Exposure Index 0
>>2717018
I'll start that fire with a bundle of crisp $100 bills, you poorfag.
