"How Low Can You Go?"

Hello,

 

I like to put my camera piggyback on my telescope and take widefield

shots of constellations and parts of the night sky. I know

rangefinders aren't the best for this type of photography but I'd

like to put my leica lenses through their paces and see how they

compare to my SLR lenses.

 

Problem is, I only have a Hexar RF. Leaving the shutter open 10-50

minutes at a time costs lots of money in batteries.

 

Here's the challenge. I want a camera body that has the following

features.

 

Leica M mount.

Ability to accurately focus at infinity. (That's where the stars are)

Ability to wind film and be light tight.

Ability to operate with cable release on Bulb.

Tripod socket.

 

Now the hard part. Has to be less than $100 US. (Shipping not

included.)

 

Is there such a creature out there?

 

Part B of the challenge is to find such a camera for the lowest price

possible. (Calculus needed here. Heroic winner solves equation as

camera price approaches Lim 0.)

 

Winner to get copies of pictures I take using aforementioned camera

on my Takahashi Mount.

 

So here's the deal. I promise to purchase the least expensive body

(under $100) possible that will accept my lenses and demonstrate it's

ability to take astrophoto's--weather willing.

 

Your assistance in helping me with this endeavor is appreciated.

Maybe a user condition MD?

Dan,

 

Thanks for the reply. I have no idea what an MD is or where to look for one.

I expect an MD will run at least $300 to $400. (FYI, an MD was a scientific Leica body desinged for use with the Visoflex (for microphotography and astrophotography) that had no viewfinder, as it wasn't needed due to the Viso.

 

How about a Voigtlander Bessa L with an LTM to M adapter? I think this would come in at around the $200 mark or slightly less on the used market. The camera can probably be had for $150, but the darn LTM to M converters are nearly $50...

 

There are also the Russian Leica LTM copies at $50 or $60. But the "light-tight" requirement probably lets them out, as does the infinity focus -- they can achieve it, you just can't confirm where it actually is!

 

Cheers,

The MD and the similar MDa and MD-2 are Leica rangefinder bodies without the rangefinder! They were made for use with the Visoflex or with other optical or medical instruments where the user would be focussing via some other means. If all you need is infinity focus, you can indeed use a MD. Sadly, they are somewhat rare and cost much more than $100.

Get yourself a beat up old Leica or Minolta CL - one where the meter does not work. You don't even care if the RF works, as long as the shutter works. The CLs frequently experience meter failure so you might be able to get a bargin condition body for not much more than you're looking to spend.

Well, given that you insist on the Leica mount choice, you've already been given all the realistic choices: A Bessa-L plus an LTM adapter, figure $80-100 for the Bessa body Ex+ or better 2nd hand), and $40-50 for the adapter. Those are auction site prices. Or a Bessa-T, which allows you to forgo the LTM adapter, figure $250 or so on an auction site for a Ex+ or better (I got a brand new grey market one from Delta International for $275).

 

Or a beat up Leica or Leitz Minolta CL - I just sold one on the famous auction site that would have fit the bill perfectly: great cosmetics, but a flaky meter and an RF that needed re-silvering. That sold for $200.

 

But, here's the real catch: This is a COMPLETELY SILLY endeavor. Because the advantages of Leica lenses WILL NOT show up in Astro Photography. Wide field Astrophotography is basically a black and white, no mid-tones, no-bokeh application. There will be NOTHING to recommend your Leica optics compared to generic SLR lenses having decent resolution and good correction for distortion. NONE of the things that really are the raison d'etre for Leica lenses i.e. superb tonal rendition and bokeh, mean a darn thing in this particular application. What you should do, is get yourself a Pentax Spotmatic, or Minolta SRT-101, with MLU and a broken lightmeter for well under $50. You could even get yourself a very respectable wideangle and a normal lens for a Pentax screw-mount or Minolta MF body for under your $100 budget. And these setups would be AT LEAST as good as any Leica for the same application, probably much better. Trying to use Leicas for this purpose is about as big a mis-fit for an application as I can imagine.

Thanks for the responses so far. The fun part of these goofy posts is sometimes you actually learn something. (i.e. Leica MD)

 

I see those Russian/Ukranian cameras at auction on ...bay but don't know if any of these will accept M lenses. They seem to go for around $20. Do you suppose any of the inexpensive "leica copy" camera's would work?

A new Bessa L is $100 but cannot use M lenses. The LTM to M adapter would be useless on this camera. (AFAIK, there is no such thing as an M to LTM adapter, although a lens hacker might be able to jury rig something).

 

When you find this magical M mount camera for $100, please tell everyone where you got it. ;-)

Why don't you get an electronics whiz to create some way to run your Hexar on an alternative power source (e.g., lantern battery, house current, etc.)? Got an engineer buddy? I assume you belong to some astrophotography groups--ask them how to do this and someone will probably take up the charge (no pun intended).

Doug,

 

I have all I need for piggyback widefield astrophoto's. I use a Konica T3 and I have Hexanon 24, 40, 55, and 135mm lenses. The more wide open lenses, the 40 f1.8 and the 55mm 1.4 need to be stopped down a stop or two for best results. There is quite a bit of peripheral star distortion unless you use them at f2.0-2.8. (I previously owned a SRT101 and 55mm Rokkor that worked great.)

 

I'm curious as to the quality of star images in using my Summicron ASPH 35mm f2.0 at f2.0. Same with my Leica 50 f2.0 and 90 f2.8 How will the stars appear at the periphery? I have made several shots with my Hexar RF in my back yard, but I overlook downtown and there is way to much light pollution for long exposure shots. (Too much sky fogging in my images) All I have done so far is waste batteries. There is no question that battery operated camera's are not the best for astrophoto's.

 

Frankly, I like using color film. I find it fascinating to see the blue and red color in the individual stars. This is most evident when making star trails.

 

Anyway, this endeavor is silly and frivolous, and a different way for me to enjoy photography. I live in Idaho. One thing we have plenty of is dark skies. You just have to drive a bit get away from the cities. And I'm curious if the "quality" of my leica lenses is discernable wide open compared to the shots I get with my SLR lenses.

 

The challenge of getting the crapiest body possible to mate with the best lenses made to photography one of the most difficult of subjects (the stars)is appealing to me. I sure don't expect to put the Hubble out of business.

The Russian "Leica" cameras all take screw mount lenses. The Bessa L and R cameras also can't be adapted to take M lenses. The Bessa T and R2 will take M mount like your Hexar optics. You might luck into an elderly Leica M2 or M3 body with a delaminated rangefinder prism. You won't see much besides black through the viewfinder, but it transports film and has a shutter that doesn't need batteries. I used an M2 in that condition for years on a Visoflex IIS.

Several cents worth of opinion since I am into astronomy big time (AstroPhysics, TEC etc.)

 

If you are planning on using older Leica lenses wide open, the results will be disappointing, I can think of two M leses that will produce impressive results, that is, if your mount is perfectly polar aligned and you use something like an ST4 for autoguiding your Tak mount, the two lenses are the new 90 Summicron set at 2.8 and the new 135 apo Telyt wide open, even more desirable for astrophotography is the 180/2.0 and 180/2.8's for the R Leicas.

You will also need to consider the film reciprocity issues, generally for astrophtography, color or b&w, the film need be hypered in foaming gas, but I suppose that you are familiar with all these issues.

The infinity setting on most telephoto lenses do no coincide, and or, are not accurate enough when it comes to astrphotography, generally speaking it is desirable to have a camera that allows the back to be opened, a simple knife edge test using a bright star will help you determine the exact infinity point.

Beat up cameras are waste of money IMHO.

There are lots of interestiong objets to try your luck, start with Orion nebula, or better yet locate some bright nebulas/galaxies from a star chart, and of course, good luck to you.

 

Thanks,

Vahe

>There will be NOTHING to recommend your Leica optics compared to generic SLR lenses having decent resolution and good correction for distortion. NONE of the things that really are the raison d'etre for Leica lenses i.e. superb tonal rendition and bokeh, mean a darn thing in this particular application.<

 

What about absence of flare, absence of coma and absence of chromatic aberrations? Seems to me these could be VERY good reasons to try this with Leica glass...

 

>A new Bessa L is $100 but cannot use M lenses. The LTM to M adapter would be useless on this camera.<

 

Uhhh... Duhhhhh! What was I thinking... It of course only works the other way around!

 

Thus, it seems like Garvey's suggestion for added power to the Hexar you already have is the winning solution -- certainly this could be done for less than $100, and you probably already have power at your equatorial mount...

 

Cheers,

A Leica M lens flange grafted to a cheap 20 dollars Russian LTM body. The flange would have to be mounted 1mm up; the differnce between LTM and M . Ths hardest part would be locating a good M mount body flange.Getting the infinity focus could be also by experiment. use a 0.8mm shim; and rotate the 50mm lens to read 5 meters. Shoot several infinity objects; and have the lens at 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6 Meters..Use the setting with best focus by test.

<I>The hardest part would be locating a good M mount body flange.</I><P>

 

David, I have such a flange. I bought it used for $30. I think you could make better use of it. I believe, though, that you would rather have to make it go 1 mm *into* a LTM mount body for correct infinity alignment (somebody correct me, if I'm wrong). But here's more good news: You can get a pro, all-metal film cassette for repro work with a cable release (just "bulb") shutter for $50 from a mail order house in Germany. They advertise it explicitly for do-it-yourself camera constructions. So, with these two items put together at the right distance I guess you're there. Add $20 for shipment - and voilà! Contact me if interested.

With all the problems that the R series has had, I wonder if they might do well to make an MD version of the M7 and reinstate the Visoflex. The rangefinder part must surely be a very costly part of the camera, and it could be done without for certain applications. Also, it would be a good platform for superwide lenses with aux. viewfinder.

 

As for all stars being at infinity-- I'm not so sure. My 7x42B Trinovids need to be refocused as I change from star to star. Supposedly, binoculars are good for star gazing, but a dot, magnified 7 times is still a dot!

 

It looks as though Leica dropped the 77mm Televid in favor of the 62mm. The latter is a lot more compact, but the former has to be a lot brighter.

I don't think that there is a god solution except renting an M3 or

M6.....

What you need is to search for a beater M2 or M3 with a decemented rangefinder and/or a bad shutter (or a beater M1, MD, MDa or MD2, or CL with a bad shutter)which is uneconomical for the owner to fix and are willing to sell it cheap. You don't really need a shutter, just use the lenscap.

Look into a nice cheap Olympus OM SLR. I think I saw an OM-1N recently on the auction block for about 75 bucks.

Lutz is correct; the M mount flange is 1mm closer to the film; I goofed! This means one would have to sink the M mount flange into the token cheap Russian LTM clone body. The Russians never made a M mount clone.<BR><BR>Using a semi broken Leica M; CL; or Bessa R as mentioned above would be the easiest ticket; If one does want to become "machinist man" and butcher a bunch of "valuable!" russian camera Bodies. The oldest FED cameras are light; and the later ones heavy.<BR><BR>I have been piggy backing cameras on my 6" edmund reflector since the 1960's. The balance of the system has to be correct; ie weights are added to balance the telescope. The clock drive requires you to also guide on a star; with an eyepiece reticle. The polar axis needs to be true; or your stars will revolve slightly about your guide star. For super accurate work; be carefull; sometimes the camera will move slightly with respect to the telescope. This happened to me when using a 400mm F6.3; a long lens. <BR><BR>In the late 1960's the cheapest used slr bodies were exaktas. We would write Olden; Wallstreet, Cambridge; Seymours Exakta etc; and ask what the cheapest Exaktas they had that only had to work on BULB; and transport film. These gems sometimes would be bought for 10 to 15 dollars. The Tessar lens I used made fine astro shots. I then used a 135mm F2.8 Vivitar T4 mount on an Exakta body with sucess.<BR><BR>The best lens to make the brightest stars appear big on slides; was a so so 3 element Domiplan 50mm F2.8; a 3 element lens. Slides using GAF 500 slide film; and the Domiplan made GREAT slides for teaching the constellations. The 4 corner stars of Orion; and the 3 belt stars would be LARGER in diameter that the other stars; and thus easy for beginners to see the pattern of the constellation. The bright stars were large; because the large abberations present with the Domiplan wide open. <BR><BR>I would contact the "todays good guys" KEH,B&H,K&B, and the others; and let them know what you need. ie M camera body type; that only has to work with Bulb. Some of them will have junkers with botched rangefinders; or bad high speeds etc. I got many responses with my 1960's requests. If you try the Russian camera modification route; remember most use 3/8" tripod sockets; some made for export later had 1/4" sockets. Adapters are available at larger camera stores for a dollar or two each. <BR><BR>In photographing stars; the buildup of sky fogg due to lights; thin clouds' etc is determined by the F number only. The ability to record a nebula is also determined by the f number only. The ability to record a dim star is determined by the aperture size only (diameter of lens opening; ie 50mm f2 is 25mm) . Edmunds Sam Browns booklets from the 1960's are still available today; and cover this matter.

Opps; I meant a Bessa R2

All stars ARE at infinity, even with the largest optical telescopes available.

Re <i>"As for all stars being at infinity-- I'm not so sure. My 7x42B Trinovids need to be refocused as I change from star to star. Supposedly, binoculars are good for star gazing, but a dot, magnified 7 times is still a dot! "</i><BR><BR>The residual chromatic abberation with many objective lenses may have to be refocused very slightly; when switching viewing between different color stars. A simple achromat is only corrected at two wavelengths; an APO lens three.<BR><BR>The stars are at infinity; but the focal length varies with wavelength by a small amount; and may require refocusing; at least for visual usage.

David; I would not get carried away with the search for a cheap M body until you try placing a camera on your telescope ; as the guide scope. I assume you have not done this yet; but could be totally wrong. My first piggybacked camera was a Kodak Vigilant 620; with a 105mm F4.5 lens; and tri-x film. I shot a guided exposure of Sagitarius; with exposures of 2; 5; 8; 15 minutes. The 15 minute one hand guiding errors; the 8 minute one was the best. Later I used a Konica Auto S2; with a 45mm F1.8 lens; and also a Exakta Vx500b with a 50mm F2.8 Domiplan. ( the one that gave giant stars!) Even later I used Nikon lenses; and also my 135mm F2.8 Vivitar. <BR><BR>One needs dark skys to record nebulae very well. M31 Andromeda is about 2 degees across; if one has desert dark skies; but may be only 1/2 to 1/3 degree in the city. <BR><BR>Most all my rigs have required manual correction; this gets old; and cold too. During one 2 hour exposure a german shepherd sneaked up behind me and scared the crap out of me and ruined a guided shot. Slow films usually work better for long exposures; in an obseratory we used 103af in 35mm format and plates.