Leica M2: What to look for while inspecting?

I suggest you simply leave it be. Those PC adapters are getting as hard to find as the original white PC covers.

 

However, DAG has them for $8.00 + shipping.

Thanks a lot Bill. Does anyone know of a supplier of these white flash port covers in Europe ?

Check eBay. They show up there periodically.

While reading some of the contributions to this thread, I would like to add that using a camera case can give a Leica a lot of protection against casual bumps and falls. My two M4 as well as M3 bought in late 1960s are still in great shape because although bumps and drops have happened, a case prevented damage. My Hasselblad tumbled from the back seat of my Jeep onto concrete floor, but no damage because camera was in Hasselblad Never ready case. Avoid soft cases. Dropped my wife’s brand new M5 in soft case onto marble floor at JFK and broke film counter.

While reading some of the contributions to this thread, I would like to add that using a camera case can give a Leica a lot of protection against casual bumps and falls. My two M4 as well as M3 bought in late 1960s are still in great shape because although bumps and drops have happened, a case prevented damage. My Hasselblad tumbled from the back seat of my Jeep onto concrete floor, but no damage because camera was in Hasselblad Never ready case. Avoid soft cases. Dropped my wife’s brand new M5 in soft case onto marble floor at JFK and broke film counter.

Thanks Robert. I actually purchased a used Artisan soft half case and a Leica strap for my M2 ! The camera came with the original hard case which I will use when travelling but it's so bulky to carry round for everyday use. I understand that is a risk and I'd be gutted if I damage the camera. Have you found a less bulky case for the M ?

One of the things that makes me love certain cameras is that they can be slung over your shoulder and off you go. It's why I rarely reach for my Rolleiflex which when safe in it's case is like carrying a brick round town.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to myself or if there are others sharing this cave. What I like about this Lecia is that once the initial thrill of owning

such a beautifully designed camera with a ton of history wears off, there it sits. Mocking you. Challenging you to make do with its simplicity. To become intimate with it. To start an old fashioned relationship.

 

If rock and roll is three chords and the truth Leica is two settings, focus and the truth. I've tried to take on that challenge. As usual I was lazy and stupid. I should

have noted down the settings I used on the first (and second) film. I will try to do so on the third. It's clear that this is the only way to get to know this camera, to master it.

 

So here are some examples with an Elmar 50.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by jimnorwood

Ok some things I find frustrating.

• A number of shots have been ruined because I extended the lens but forgot to lock it. Now I tend to extend, lock and leave it extended until the end of the day.
  
• Viewfinder does seem to steam up quite a bit more than other cameras I've handled.
  
• Focus. I'm getting more used to it but I can't say I'm at the point I can snap into focus quicker than my Nikon FE2.
  
• Sometimes the erotic looking film advance arm catches on clothes as it extends from the top of the camera.
  

Postive

• Just a pleasure to use.
  
• Leica +3 dioptrine viewfinder lens. Works a treat. I see the widescreen viewfinder. My only worry is that it will fall out.
  
• Weighs less than my FE2. Easy to sling over your shoulder and carry all day.
  

Now of course I wish to take advantage of the the 35mm viewfinder and would welcome your thoughts / recommendations for fellas of limited funds such as myself.

 

I'd like to be able to take photos inside and in low light situations so I've narrowed down my search to

• Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 Nokton VM II
  
• Carl Zeiss Biogon C 35mm 2.8
  

I'm tending towards the Voigtlander but am happy to hear your opinions.

Edited November 5, 2021 by jimnorwood

... I'd like to be able to take photos inside and in low light situations so I've narrowed down my search to

* Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 Nokton VM II

* Carl Zeiss Biogon C 35mm 2.8

I'm tending towards the Voigtlander but am happy to hear your opinions.

The 50mm Elmar-M is a wonderful lens (as your pictures demonstrate); its design is simple and it's plenty sharp. The faster 35mm Nokton f/1.4 II would be a great compliment (but I strongly suggest you get the MC version). I don't see how the 35mm Biogon C f/2.8 fits your criteria.

 

The M2 has always been my favorite film M.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Bill Blackwell Images

I have the first version of the Voigtlander 35/1.4 SC - basically same as the current version but allegedly with more focus shift.

It is a very classic lens design, purposefully made to give results like the Leica lenses of the 50's-60's. That means that they will give you gulps of character which you may or may not like. Make sure to search for examples before buying.

If you embrace the classic nature of the lens, it makes sense to choose the SC version.

 

Below: VC 35mm/1.4 SC (version 1) wide open, notice the distorted lights along the periferi.

 

Below: VC 35mm/1.4 SC (version 1) at f1.4 or 2.0, notice how the highlights bleeds over the iron bars to the right.

 

Below: VC 35mm/1.4 SC (version 1) at 5.6.

 

Below is the voigtlander 35/1.4 SC (v.1) with lens hood mounted on an M2 to the right.

Dear All

 

I am really enjoying my M2 and received a Voigtlander Norton 35mm 1.4 MC for Xmas. My first film was a recently purchased Kodak Tri X. I use a Polaris light meter which I had set to iso 400.

 

I wanted to ask your opinion. My daughters (who also shoot 35mm film) love the results and there are some classic shots. I know Tri X can be grainy but this seems to be extremely grainy. Is this normal or did I do something wrong or is this perhaps a development problem ?

 

This was a misty morning

 

 

overcast

 

sunset

This is an example of the problem that I see. Very grainy and focus is not at all sharp

 

This was taken inside using light from a lamp at 1.4 or 2.8. The image seems sharper. I like it but am surprised by the grain

 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by jimnorwood

Dear All

 

I am really enjoying my M2 and received a Voigtlander Norton 35mm 1.4 MC for Xmas. My first film was a recently purchased Kodak Tri X. I use a Polaris light meter which I had set to iso 400.

 

I wanted to ask your opinion. My daughters (who also shoot 35mm film) love the results and there are some classic shots. I know Tri X can be grainy but this seems to be extremely grainy. Is this normal or did I do something wrong or is this perhaps a development problem ?

 

This was a misty morning

 

[ATTACH=full]1414006[/ATTACH]

 

overcast

[ATTACH=full]1414007[/ATTACH]

 

sunset

[ATTACH=full]1414008[/ATTACH]

This is an example of the problem that I see. Very grainy and focus is not at all sharp

[ATTACH=full]1414009[/ATTACH]

 

This was taken inside using light from a lamp at 1.4 or 2.8. The image seems sharper. I like it but am surprised by the grain

 

[ATTACH=full]1414010[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1414011[/ATTACH]

Looks like 'good old' Tri-X to me. The choice of developer will have an effect, but this, to me, is what Tri-X is.

It does look grainy to me--I've posted a number of shots made with Contax cameras over the last several years, all of them made with Tri-X developed in HC 110 dilution B and they look less grainy than the ones you posted. What developer did you use?

Hi Jim - glad to hear you're enjoying your M2. Tri-X is and always has been on the grainy side, regardless of the developer or technique. Call it a blessing or a curse, depending on how you incorporate it. Do note, however, that it won't disappear. It used to be that grain haters used Tri-X's "brother", Plus-X, but that is no longer available. There are low grain films available on the market, some work better with special developers than others. I suggest you look over some of Rick Drawbridge's posts for the films and developer combinations he very effectively uses to achieve both sharpness and excellent tonality. As you have probably discovered by now, this is a journey toward an infinately distant destination. Enjoy the journey.

Hi Jim - glad to hear you're enjoying your M2. Tri-X is and always has been on the grainy side, regardless of the developer or technique. Call it a blessing or a curse, depending on how you incorporate it. Do note, however, that it won't disappear. It used to be that grain haters used Tri-X's "brother", Plus-X, but that is no longer available. There are low grain films available on the market, some work better with special developers than others. I suggest you look over some of Rick Drawbridge's posts for the films and developer combinations he very effectively uses to achieve both sharpness and excellent tonality. As you have probably discovered by now, this is a journey toward an infinately distant destination. Enjoy the journey.

Thanks to all who took the time to reply. I have developing my own black and white films on my New Years resolution list but this film was developed by a lab. I just wanted to check that I or the lab hadn’t done anything wrong and I judge from the answers this is just the way Tri X is. Am I right that Tri X is more suited to overcast and window lighting than bright sunshine ?

 

It’s funny in a way because going through old films I picked out two I really liked because of the grain and contrast. Those photos were shot with Fuji 1600 PR. I was frustrated that there didn’t seem to be equivalent films available now. Tri X though is even more extreme !

 

Anyway to end on a positive note here are some shots included which I’m really happy with. Generally I’m really enjoying the simplicity of the M2. My daughter handed me my trusty FE2 to take a shot and it suddenly seemed complicated ! I’m still not convinced the rangefinder focus is easier and those focusing tabs definitely aren’t. I still sometimes take shots with the cap on. Despite this minor niggles I’m inspired to work more with this camera.

 

Learning how to use the camera and a Rolleiflex 3.5 F really helped my through a difficult year so thanks for all the tips.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by jimnorwood

.

Thanks to all who took the time to reply. I have developing my own black and white films on my New Years resolution list but this film was developed by a lab. I just wanted to check that I or the lab hadn’t done anything wrong and I judge from the answers this is just the way Tri X is. Am I right that Tri X is more suited to overcast and window lighting than bright sunshine ?

 

It’s funny in a way because going through old films I picked out two I really liked because of the grain and contrast. Those photos were shot with Fuji 1600 PR. I was frustrated that there didn’t seem to be equivalent films available now. Tri X though is even more extreme !

 

Anyway to end on a positive note here are some shots included which I’m really happy with. Generally I’m really enjoying the simplicity of the M2. My daughter handed me my trusty FE2 to take a shot and it suddenly seemed complicated. I’m still not convinced the rangefinder focus is easier and those focusing tabs definitely aren’t. I still sometimes rake shots with the cap on. Despite this minor niggles I’m inspired to work more with this camera.

 

[ATTACH=full]1414050[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1414055[/ATTACH]

I would check with your lab as to how they developed your film. Many years ago I was traveling and was curious to see some results from Panatomic X which was ASA 32 and virtually grainless if processed competently. The grain was prominent in 4x6 prints, and much worse in 8x10. Nobody else has developed my B&W film since that experience. Tri-X for me is my everyday film--it works well in bright sunlight and dimmer light as well. When processed properly grain shouldn't be that bad nor should the contrast. For my work I am happy to have a slightly faster shutter speed or a smaller f/stop than slower film would allow, but YMMV.

It does look grainy to me--I've posted a number of shots made with Contax cameras over the last several years, all of them made with Tri-X developed in HC 110 dilution B and they look less grainy than the ones you posted. What developer did you use?

I asked the lab and they replied that the film was developed in Rodinal and that the film was significantly overexposed which caused the grain.

I asked the lab and they replied that the film was developed in Rodinal and that the film was significantly overexposed which caused the grain.

I use a Polaris light meter in incident mode. The camera has recently been serviced so should be fine. Previous colour rolls were ok. The Rolleiflex 400 black and white film that is shot at the same time using the same meter turned out fine. So I’m a bit confused as to what went wrong.

Edited January 10, 2022 by jimnorwood

I asked the lab and they replied that the film was developed in Rodinal and that the film was significantly overexposed which caused the grain.

Rodinal has some interesting properties and devoted users, but it has never been known for fine grain.