>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147819 I'm over 40,000 or 50,000 pictures on on my Digital Rebel XTi (it rolls over at 9,999 and I've lost count) with no problems not caused by my own stupidity (pro tip: put the camera away before eating appetizers with drippy sauce. My control wheel has been a little bit sticky ever since). Tens of thousands of shots is nothing for modern cameras. It's only impressive on film cameras because that many shots would take you a long-ass time to shoot.
(Granted, "tens of thousands" and even "hundreds of thousands" is probably an extraordinarily conservative estimate of the useful lifetime of a Leica. I'm just saying, tens of thousands of exposures isn't as much as it might seem to a filmfag)
>>147797 External light meter is a hassle. I use one (well, a PowerShot A95) when I'm shooting with my TLR.
>>147808 When doing that cost/value calculation, be sure to count in the cost of film in the overall cost of the film camera. Like I said, I've taken over 40,000 shots on my SLR. Even if you assume $1/roll for the film and $1/roll for developing, my $800 SLR is way ahead of the curve.
>>147813 I totally understand the Leica appeal, and hope to some day own one. I'm just saying, in terms of features and sheer convenience, a Leica is beaten by the Canon Sure Shot 80 Tele that I bought for $2.82 with a free roll of film at a thrift store last month. The Sure Shot featured an internal light meter with auto exposure, and auto focus. Oh, and a zoom lens. And a motor drive.
|