Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Camera for travel. M3 or IIIG?
From: photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Wed Feb 18 11:22:25 2009
References: <200902181533.n1IFXSuS005961@server1.waverley.reid.org> <48FF4851-762F-4743-90DA-DC43C3D6D784@optonline.net>

Actually, I think this is very good advice. I used a CL as my main  
camera in 2003-4 when I was travelling between Amsterdam and Seville  
every week. The 40mm Summicron was indeed excellent, and combined with  
a 21mm Color Skopar made a great, light kit.

I shot most of my Seville gallery with this outfit 
(www.frozenlight.eu/fotosevilla) 
.

Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com

Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog



On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

> Trade both the M3 and the IIIG and get a CL with a 2 lens kit. Use  
> the extra money to upgrade your travel to first class. I know the CL  
> don't get much respect on the LUG but I have used the CL as my  
> travel camera since its purchase in 1973 and it has never let me  
> down. The 40 mm Summicron is one of Leica's best small lenses. When  
> I bought the camera, I couldn't afford the 90 mm lens so I  
> substituted a f3.5 100 mm Canon with a LTM to M adapter. A wise  
> choice since it is regarded as one of the sharpest short telephotos  
> ever made. Besides the field of view exactly matches the 90 mm frame  
> line in the finder. True to the camera's contemporary advertizing,  
> the two lens kit covers 90% of all travel shooting situations.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I love the IIIc and IIIf cameras and I own two  
> M3s. They have the sensuous feel of fine machines and will probably  
> survive the next meteor impact. But the CL is a better and more  
> convenient camera for travel. The back comes off so film loading is  
> a snap. The camera has a built in spot exposure meter. The  
> viewfinder is crystal clear. The camera and both lenses weigh less  
> than an M3. The CL has accompanied me to India, Wales, Alaska, the  
> Canadian Rockies, the Virgin Islands and the untamed wilds of New  
> York City. It has never missed an exposure.
>
> For information on the CL see this Cameraquest article:
>
> http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm
>
> Larry Z
>
>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 Nathan Wajsman <photo@frozenlight.eu>wrote:
>>> (to G Medina)
>>> Without question the M3, painted or not. No matter how smooth etc.  
>>> the
>>> IIIg is, any M body is much more functional than any SM body.
>>
>>> I do suspect that you will miss something wider than a 50mm, though.
>> ===========================================================
>> Maybe he's like me. A 50 is generally my wide lens.  On my return  
>> from my first
>> trip to Britain, I tallied my lens usage, and it was the 50mm for  
>> over 60% of
>> my pictures; next came the 100mm, then the 300, with a 21mm least  
>> utilized.
>>
>> You're right about the M3 over the IIIg, but I still can't help  
>> lusting for one (a IIIg)
>> - the finder is set up for my two favorite focal lengths, 50 and  
>> 90, and it's smaller
>> than an M.
>>
>> Alan Magayne-Roshak, Senior Photographer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin) ([Leica] Re: Camera for travel. M3 or IIIG?)