[rollei_list] Re: Jupiter Optics from Mr. Zeiss???
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:06:30 -0800
Peter,
Include the lens, bitte!
2.5 vs. 1.5 is hardly a TAD, it is 2/3 more!
BTW, WTF is this =20 that appears in some
messages of yours? Can you or your server
suppress this annoying artifact?
Can someone who knows more about
computers than you or me, address this topic?
Jerry
"Peter K." wrote:
> Jerry,=20
>
> The Pentax *ist 35mm SLR is shorter in length (4.8 v 5.3), equally as
> tall, but a tad thicker at 2.5 v. 1.5. Then again it also has a built
> in motor, can rewind itself, has faster sync speeds and shutter
> speeds, has automated flash, and most importantly, you will not cry if
> you drop it. ;-)
>
> Peter K
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:15:36 -0800, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wro=
> te:
> > Peter,
> >=20
> > Marc and I may take exception to your comment re: Jupiter
> > lenses. I don't own any but I have tried a few and they are
> > superb!
> >=20
> > BTW, which FULL FRAME SLRs are smaller than M Leicas?
> > Include a normal lens with your choices. They gotta be 35mm
> > cameras with 50mm lenses. Remember, the Olympus Pen is
> > half frame,
> >=20
> > I await your selections.
> >=20
> > Jerry
> >=20
> >=20
> > "Peter K." wrote:
> >=20
> > > 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 =
> =3D3D2=3D
> > > 0
> > > > >myself on eBay), but they are more properly paired off with =3D3D20
> > > > >Rolleicords, not Rolleiflexes.
> > > > >
> > > > >But try getting an M3 or higher - M4, M6, etc. - on eBay for anythin=
> g =3D
> > > =3D3D20
> > > > >less than $1,000! I got a Rolleiflex D, equipped f/2.8 Xenotar, in =
> =3D3D20
> > > > >almost perfect working condition (only the sports viewfinder mirror =
> is =3D
> > > =3D3D20
> > > > >missing) for US$255 plus shipping. I WISH I could get an M3 that =3D=
> 3D20
> > > > >cheaply - I'd JUMP at the chance!
> > > >=3D20
> > > > Apples to apples, again.
> > > >=3D20
> > > > The IIIc Leica equates to a Rolleiflex Automat in terms of vintage an=
> d us=3D
> > > e
> > > > at the time they were produced, both being then professional cameras.=
> An=3D
> > > d
> > > > a IIIc with its standard Summitar will run about as much as an Automa=
> t in
> > > > equivalent condition. =3D3D20
> > > >=3D20
> > > > In today's market, an M6 equates to a 2.8GX. See which is cheaper in=
> the
> > > > used market!
> > > >=3D20
> > > > Your issue about lenses for the M6 is a bit misleading: a solid Jupi=
> ter-=3D
> > > 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 t=
> he M=3D
> > > 3
> > > > or M4 or M6.
> > > >=3D20
> > > > 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 w=
> hich
> > > > lives much more on reputation than on performance. The M3 and M6 are
> > > > substantially superior cameras.
> > > >=3D20
> > > > Marc
> > > >=3D20
> > > > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D3D20
> > > > Cha robh b=3D3DE0s fir gun ghr=3D3DE0s fir!
> > > >=3D20
> > > >=3D20
> > >
> > > --=3D20
> > > Peter K
> > > =3DD3=3DBF=3DD5=3DAC
> >=20
> >=20
>
> --=20
> Peter K
> =D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
