jim_a

<p>Many years ago Don Goldberg (DAG) fixed the flare issue on my M6. My M6 now never flares.</p>

<p>Abe, hope this makes you feel better about your "high shutter count" M8. An acquaintance has an M8.2 he purchased new in 2008. As of January 2016 when I last spoke with him, his M8.2 was still in action with 103,708 shutter activations. Of course, YMMV...<br> Either a Zeiss 35/2.8, 35/2 would be good options to consider. A VC 35/2.5 would also be a lens to consider. It's tiny, which is a plus and minus, and inexpensive but still well built. I find the aperture fiddly to change on this lens. </p>

<p>Ok, Jamie. I somewhat ashamedly report I fixed my finder in 5 minutes. Figuring I had nothing to lose, once I look out the two screws holding the top and bottom together, the eyepiece lifts out. Over time the lens simply rotated in the slot. Here's a look inside the finder:<br /> <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-25-20.02.53.jpg"><img src="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-25-20.02.53-300x225.jpg" alt="2016-10-25-20-02-53" width="300" height="225" /></a><br /> Click the above image for a large version. Thanks for spurring me on.</p>

<p>Jamie,<br> It may look like the lines are tiny when you have your eye up to the finder with a lot of wasted space to the outsides, but when you look through it the lines are at the edges of what you can see.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have the 21 VC viewfinder. At some point the mask lines have tilted. Have not looked into what it would take to fix this.<br> <img src="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VC-21mmfinder-239x300.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1254" /> </p>

<p>I believe it has to show the issue before Leica will replace. Don't have to be the original owner and probably 3-4 month if it needs a new sensor. Stephen's advice is a sound.</p> <p><a href="https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2014/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors">https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2014/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-153341.html">http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-153341.html</a></p>

<p>You will find the M finders up to the M4-2 more accurate. M4-P onward they shank them. In the digital world, Leica went back to 2M optimized frame lines in the M240 series. Shooting a 50 again on those bodies is nice. I could never wrap my head around the 50 frame lines on my M6.</p>

<p>Julie,<br> Lighting and a tripod matter more than crop or ff.</p>

<p>See this link too on his site: <a href="http://macfilos.com/search?q=IIIG&f_collectionId=51b3521ae4b02def90493af1">Leica IIIG search</a></p>

<p>Touch base with Mike Evans at <a href="http://macfilos.com/">http://macfilos.com/</a>. He lives in London. As a keen photographer he is very involved in the Leica world and enjoys close relations with Leica UK.</p>

<p>Scotch Magic Tape. It will lift that print right off.</p>

<p>On the digital side Leica switched back to frame lines optimized for 2 meter with the 240/262 series. I find my M262 as good as the frame lines in my M2. The M9 series used the same 1 meter optimized frame lines found in the later film M's. It's now enjoyable to shoot a 50mm the 262. I could never get myself to visualize all the extra image that appeared on my M6 or M9 with the 50.</p>

<p>Hi Barry,</p> <p>A friend and I are renting an X-Pro2 for a few days next week. I was going to get the M adapter too. Any tips/thoughts on using your M glass on the X-Pro2?</p>

<p>A rangefinder camera is a specific tool. It’s great for some things (documentary) and terrible for other photo applications (sports, wildlife…). Wide angle to normal focal length lenses are the rangefinder’s strength.</p> <p>When we talk rangefinders the discussion centers around Leica simply because Leica occupies 95% of the thought and user space. Yes, they are expensive. No, they don’t take photos that are technically better than a $400 Canon Rebel.</p> <p>Most people think the lenses are the reason to use a Leica rangefinder. That is a side benefit. In the mid-1980’s I purchased my first Leica, an M2, paired with a new 35mm Summicron. Those first 11×14’s I made in the darkroom stunned me with their contrast and corner-to-corner sharpness compared to the images from my Nikkor 35/2. There’s lot of great glass out there. I also use Voightlander and Zeiss lenses. I’m currently using a Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon-C. It’s technically the best 35 I’ve used, even compared to my Leica 35/2 ASPH. Leica lenses are built to last forever. The Zeiss and Voightlanders may not be as well built, but they can be just as good optically and cost a LOT less.</p> <p>Rangefinder photography at its core is about seeing though the rangefinder’s viewfinder window.</p> <p>Famed National Geographic photographer <a href="http://www.williamalbertallard.com/" target="_blank">William Albert Allard</a> said it best in his book “The Photographic Essay.”</p> <blockquote> <p>“With an SLR, you are looking at your subject through the optic; you are literally seeing what the picture is going to look like. You have a device that will show you your depth of field, the area that will or will not be in critical focus. This is particularly true for me, because I’m often shooting at the maximum aperture of the lens, the aperture you actually view through. This helps you see how areas of color are affected. It can tell you if that blue has a hard edge, or if it’s somewhat soft and blended into something else.”</p> <p>“When you look through a rangefinder, though, everything is sharp. The rangefinder window is by and large a focusing and framing device that lets you pick a part of the subject you want to be in critical focus. The only real way you can tell how the rest of the picture is going to look is by experience, or maybe a quick look at the depth-of-field scale on the lens itself. I think the rangefinder frees you up in a certain way. You are probably going to work a little looser in a structural sense, because everything is clean, clear and sharp. When I look through an SLR, I think I’m a little bit more aware of compositional elements, of the structure of the image. With a rangefinder camera, I’m seeing certain spatial relationships.”</p> </blockquote> <p>My first M2 and 35 Summicron was the only camera I used for a <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/images/categories.php?cat_id=2" target="_blank">project in a documentary photo class in college</a>. Seeing though the rangefinder window freed me in the way Allard describes. Leica M’s have been cameras I’ve enjoyed using ever since. For the kind of photography I enjoy they are a wonderful tool.</p>

<p>The frame lines in the M240/262 series is optimized for 2 meters, and 1 meter in the M9 series. You will find the 2 meter frame lines much more accurate unless you are photographing close up. I am able to easily nail focus with a 50/1.4 wide open with my M262. I was using my Leica M2-R today and noticed the RF on the 262 is superior. It's a great unit and with good eyes you should have no problems. I also had and M-E and the RF unit in it is just as good as the 262. Leica supposedly put a screw back into the rangefinder 24X series that was not in the M9, which is the basis for Leica's claim the RF units are more robust. </p>