I need your help and opinion !!

[sandy.]

<p>Kai,

<P>Thanks for the sample picture. It is close if it was a little darker, but I know that can be ajusted. I guess what I should say is, "What I want is something fuzzy, but still sharp enough to see the details." No ! A soft filter is EXACTLY NOT what I want nor meant :-)

[jonathan_reynolds]

Sandy, very generous of you, but regrettably I'm plenty old enough. However I'm not rich enough to experiment with many different lenses. There have been some valiant attempts posted recently on PN (e.g. Anthony Brookes) to compare different lenses, but the results are frankly confusing, perhaps because of the small web images. Surely there is someone out there who has sufficient experience of different lenses and is sufficiently able with words to describe (subjectively) the subtle characteristics of each?

 

It strikes me that we can't have a lens with the sharpness rubbed down (as it were), and all those nice subtle tonal qualities, without also accepting the propensity to flare shown in Kai's sample picture. Even with a current Summicron 50, I get driven wild by flare. For me, that is NOT what I want to achieve.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>I am always surprised when on this Leica forum a question about which Leica to get is answered by someone saying get a Bessa or a Canon or a Nikon or a whatsoever. It reminds me of my master at school who would give us a cuff round the ear and say "Silly boy - READ THE QUESTION"</em></p><p>I'm delighted to say that I'm seldom reminded of my "masters" at school, even though they'd had to forswear ear-boxing rather before my time.</p><p>When answering a question here, I assume that the questioner is not a slave to brand names. True, there'd be little point in answering most questions about F-mount Nikon equipment with suggestions for Canon lenses; but the Leica thread mount allows us to use Leitz, Nikkor, Canon, Pentax, Zeiss and other lenses on Leitz, Cosina, Canon and other bodies.</p>

[les_lammers]

Sandy,

 

The old lenses are quite 'good' but you should be aware that an appropriate hood is required to tame flare. They are sharp but designed so that the central image is sharper than the corners at wide to moderate apertures. They are cheap enough to 'buy and try'

and then sell what does not work for you. There is no substitute for seeing a print 'in hand'. Much better than the web. I got a very nice uncoated Summar from KEH with very clean glass for $100. I liked it enough to spring for a mint- coated Summar for $250. Both IMO are keepers. Check the auction site too. I just 'won' a Valoy II enlarger and it is on the way.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7595401322&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

 

It appears that it includes a red scale Elmar and the lens alone is worth the price. I do plan to use the enlarger.

 

Don't obsess. Get an old 50 and an adapter, try it on you M. Think of this as a 'starter kit'. As Steve Gandy sez, the lenses were 'good enough for Eisenstadt and W. Eugene Smith. Have fun, nuff said.

 

Les

[jkelly04]

Sandy, you could ease into it by buying one 50mm LTM lens and adaptor for your M bodies. Try it and see how you like it. If you achieve satisfactory results, there is no need to acquire an LTM body.

[les_lammers]

*Here is another dumb question : If I don't cut off the film leader, would it not load at all? Would it jam for sure?*

 

Possibly. The leader should be trimmed. If you Google it you will find

info with pics on how to trim the leader. It is not rocket science.

[djl251]

Hi Sandy:

 

I have used the IIIc and the Canon 7 extensively as well as their respective lenses (Canon

50/1.4, 50/0.95,85/1.8,100/2,135/3.5 and 35/2 and the Leica Summitar 50/2). The

Canon is nice because it has a meter and is easier to load. Unfortunately, mine is in a box

and in pieces; it just didn't have the build quality.

 

The Leica IIIc is built like a tank. Today's user would call the camera fussy. Those of us

that are used to fast foods and microwave popcorn and auto-everything cameras would

not enjoy the little knobs and dials of the IIIc. But in its day, the IIIc provided its user with

a fine tactile array of knurled knobs, levers, dials and sliding controls that would shame a

Fisher-Price playset.

 

As far as the lenses go, the Summitar 50/2 has the most pleasing image quality of any of

the screw mount lenses that I have tried. It's most unique quality is its ability to render

the 3-d character to the image plane (obvioulsy it's only 2-d).

 

The camera and its collapsible lens is easily pocketable - the IIIc is less high than the M3

and significantly more compact. You can take it with you all the time.

 

Some assorted pluses and minuses- The iiic view finder is pretty bad if you are used to an

M3 - M7. You can get a nice External brightline finder (SBOOI 50mm finder, SBLOO

35mm finder). These will really improve you visual experience, and you will have one

more mechanical gizmo the play with. It's really amazing how they project those white

framelines into thin air.

 

Also - with the lack of an exposure meter, it will be necessary to engage the human brain,

learn "sunny 16" , learn some exposure rules, develop a sixth sence for exposure. That's

not all that bad.

 

The IIIc has a little quirk - the frame separation is too small - meaning that your pictures

are too close together the fit some scanner film holders and are difficult to cut between if

you are developing your own film. Guess they wanted to save film.

 

So Sandy - I think you would be happy with the IIIc and you choice of screw mount lenses.

Someone will say that the brightline finders are "absurdly expensive" What do they know -

it's your money. Hey - good talking to you!

[john_boyle3]

Rather than jumping on your horse and riding off in all directions try analyzing your situation a bit further. If the end result is a photo like a Monet painting several of the comments above would work.

 

If you want the old-lens effect with the build quality of a Leica the red dial IIIf (s/n over 615,000) is the way to go. With the exception of the viewfinder and flash sync these cameras had all of the refinements of the s/m cameras. They're not hard to use and you can find a manual through Google. Gerry Smith at Kindermann Canada can repair these and I'm sure that DAG and Sherry as well as others mentioned in the archives are good as well. Al's suggestion to use the older lenses with an adapter also makes sense if the image on the negative or slide is the determining factor.

 

In the final analysis, Sandy, only you can decide if you're just looking for a new toy, an expansion of your Leica collection, or a tool to produce a certain "dreamy" effect in your photos. Good luck with whatever you decide. Keep us posted.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>The Canon is nice because it has a meter and is easier to load. Unfortunately, mine is in a box and in pieces; it just didn't have the build quality.</em></p><p>Right. Moreover, the meter (if working at all) is probably a bit fiddly to use. But the earlier Canons do have the build quality (except perhaps for design flaws in the finder of the 6.)</p><p>However, you don't need a new body.</p>

[35mmdelux]

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy,

 

Zeiss Softar. Problem solved.

[Rob F.]

Hi, Sandy!

 

As I read your question, you would not only like the dreaminess of the older lenses, but also the compactness of the thread-mount bodies. Of course, the finder on those is only for the 50mm. Other lenses require an accessory finder, making the camera not so compact. You had a question about which model is better. Yes the IIIc is better than the IIIb. The IIIc was the first to have a die-cast body and a one-piece top cover. It's built better. The IIId is just a IIIc with a self-timer. The IIIf has flash sync, which it doesn't sound like you are looking for. IIIc prices are much better than IIIf prices. The IIIg has a much nicer finder, with frames for 50mm and 90mm lenses (both are present all the time). But the IIIg also has a collector-inflated price tag, and is larger and not so compact.

 

You don't have to guess exposure with a Barnack. You can carry a little meter in your pocket or in a case on the neck strap, or in the accessory shoe. If shooting Tri-X, that will be quite good enough. If you make it a point to always guess the exposure before you take a reading, in a month you will seldom need a meter anyhow.

 

It sounds to me like you would like a IIIc with an old Summar.

 

Welcome back!

[Rob F.]

To everyone else: Please don't chastize people, whether Photo.net Heros or not, for asking a basic question. No one knows everything. I have a few basic questions from time to time myself. Getting jumped on make the forum not a safe place to admit that one doesn't know everything. Please help make the forum a safe place, by being non-judgmental.

[nzdavid]

Well, I have just bought one of those super sharp lenses because it's what I need for most

shots. But I also have a rigid Summicron - still very sharp - and an old IIIa and Summar,

which has produced pleasing softer looking shots. So it really is a case of horses for

courses. Why not get a top condition III (a,b,f or g) plus a top condition Elmar, Summar or

Summitar? Check out https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm, www.leicashop.at,

www.photovillage.com

[sandy.]

each other instead<P><i>Rob F., mar 22, 2006; 12:24 p.m.</i>

<BR> Thank you so much Robert for spending your precious time to read my questions, then try to decipher what my scrible-crubles are trying to say. I really appreciate your effort. You are a very sensitive person; these days, hard to find. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

<P><I>Rob F. mar 22, 2006; 12:27 p.m.</i>

<br>Again, I thank you for stand up for to speak for me and you. If we could stop snipings and each other instead of trying to help , this will be the most treasured forum ever because with our combined knowledge, no one person or volumes of books can came come close to what we know. I applaud you for your gallant effort.

<P>Lastly, I have to congratulate myself for having so many friends here, even after my long "disenchanted" abscense. All the answers and informations to my questions are thoughtful and intelligent. Now you are making my life difficult again....now I have to make a decision.

<P>Cheers<br>Sandy

<P>Back on to questions again : Is todays film thicker or thinner? If it is thicker, would it make it jam more. When it did, how do you rescue it? To do this on the M is easy, but the LTM IIIG?

[peter_evans4]

Sandy, I hope I haven't come off as sniping. That certainly wasn't the intention.

 

I can't answer your latest question. Still. . . .

 

I saw an acquaintance's IIb (or something like that; prewar, anyway) the other day. It certainly is compact, distinctly more compact than (say) a bottom-loading Canon, which from a distance looks about the same. He uses it all the time; despite being ancient, it's tough enough. However, he uses a 50mm viewfinder with it much (all?) of the time. This of course adds little to its weight, but a significant amount to its height; plus one might worry about it becoming unstuck while in a bag. He doesn't; I would; in your place I'd keep using your M; in your place he probably wouldn't. You have to make these decisions yourself.

[nee_sung]

One more thing, which I hope would be useful.

 

When using a 35mm, if you don't want to put a viewer on top, just remember that the width of the image is twice the distance from your camera.

 

So if your camera is (say) 6ft from the subject, then the width covered by the 35mm lens is about 12ft. From that you can quickly guess the height, since it's 2/3 of the width.

 

You don't really need to know the exact distance to get the coverage. Just trust your eyes.

 

A useful tip that I picked up from LFI many years ago.