[rollei_list] Re: Surprised
- From: Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:10:11 -0500
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 =20
>myself on eBay), but they are more properly paired off with =20
>Rolleicords, not Rolleiflexes.
>
>But try getting an M3 or higher - M4, M6, etc. - on eBay for anything =20
>less than $1,000! I got a Rolleiflex D, equipped f/2.8 Xenotar, in =20
>almost perfect working condition (only the sports viewfinder mirror is =20
>missing) for US$255 plus shipping. I WISH I could get an M3 that =20
>cheaply - I'd JUMP at the chance!
Apples to apples, again.
The IIIc Leica equates to a Rolleiflex Automat in terms of vintage and use
at the time they were produced, both being then professional cameras. And
a IIIc with its standard Summitar will run about as much as an Automat in
equivalent condition. =20
In today's market, an M6 equates to a 2.8GX. See which is cheaper in the
used market!
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 M3
or M4 or M6.
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.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Cha robh b=E0s fir gun ghr=E0s fir!
Other related posts:
