Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is an old thread but as we are talking about two different things it makes it frustrating to make a clear overall point. One: is the camera not RELIABLE because it is old? Two: is the camera not VIABLE because it is old? In the case of an M3 plenty of people think it would hold up better than what came later. They were made better those days times being what they were. I think they're made fine now but there would seem to be an obvious truth to that. The build and so on of an M3 inspires confidence. (Did HCB have any patience for what came later? Not much i don't think.) Which camera would be most likely to screw up on a shoot: a nicely CLA'd M3? Or an M6 or 5 or 4 or 2? I believe the M3 might get the most votes as the most reliable. It certainly has the best build. Build and not breaking down might not always bee the same. B.D. i think using the Rolleiflex as i don't think yours has a meter in it might make you see what a no brainer piece of cake hand held metering is. In many ways it not only does NOT slow you down it makes you shoot faster and freer and better. Hand held meters are made awfully much more compact and lightweight in the past decade. CPU's and batteries being what they are now. Electronics. They free from needles to get jarred out of whack but can emulate them with rows of led's or lcd's. Some very nice interfaces. I'm fond of Gossen but i like Minolta. Both are standards of the industry. And others. On the style channel (Guilty) I see they are always sticking a Minolta meter in the models face. They must work well. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html