Jupiter lens on a Leica? Ugh! Marc, Carl and Ernst are rolling in their graves after you typed this. The only reason to use the archaic Leica M is to use take advantage of the M optics. Other than that there is little reason. Even SLRs these days are as small. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:10:11 -0500, Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 11:56 PM 3/28/05 -0500, Ardeshir Mehta wrote: > >Yes, you are right about a Leica III (I was thinking of getting one =3D2= 0 > >myself on eBay), but they are more properly paired off with =3D20 > >Rolleicords, not Rolleiflexes. > > > >But try getting an M3 or higher - M4, M6, etc. - on eBay for anything = =3D20 > >less than $1,000! I got a Rolleiflex D, equipped f/2.8 Xenotar, in =3D20 > >almost perfect working condition (only the sports viewfinder mirror is = =3D20 > >missing) for US$255 plus shipping. I WISH I could get an M3 that =3D20 > >cheaply - I'd JUMP at the chance! >=20 > Apples to apples, again. >=20 > The IIIc Leica equates to a Rolleiflex Automat in terms of vintage and us= e > at the time they were produced, both being then professional cameras. An= d > a IIIc with its standard Summitar will run about as much as an Automat in > equivalent condition. =3D20 >=20 > In today's market, an M6 equates to a 2.8GX. See which is cheaper in the > used market! >=20 > Your issue about lenses for the M6 is a bit misleading: a solid Jupiter-= 3 > will run around $100 and a Leitz LTM to M adapter will run around $70, so > add $170 (or more, if you wish to use a Leica lens) to the price of the M= 3 > or M4 or M6. >=20 > The M4 does have an inflated price, one that I regard as improperly > inflated, as I find it a weak sister in the Leitz line and a camera which > lives much more on reputation than on performance. The M3 and M6 are > substantially superior cameras. >=20 > Marc >=20 > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D20 > Cha robh b=3DE0s fir gun ghr=3DE0s fir! >=20 >=20 --=20 Peter K =D3=BF=D5=AC