tim_franklin

I paid about ﾣ600 for mine (#901321) last year from a London dealer. Not mint, as there's

a little bit of rubbing at the front of the top plate. Mint- might have added ﾣ100-150 to

that price.

My usual estimate for a private sale would be about 60-80% of a store price - though

obviously factor in the cost of the CLA you'll need. As you'd be buying from a friend,

neither of you will want to feel 'ripped off' by the deal.

I don't think so Steve. I no longer have any Canon gear, so doubtless someone will correct

if I remember things wrong.

In manual exposure, the shutter speed and aperture are controlled separately by the two

dials on the camera (ie, the normal one in front of the release, and the big dial on the

back). In Av mode, the aperture selection is controlled from the first of those two (or by

the rear dial using custom settings), and the shutter speed is adjusted automatically

according to the changes in set aperture.

With a Leica lens mounted (or any other lens fitted via an adapter), closing the lens down

from its own aperture ring acts in just the same way as altering it on the Canon body - the

shutter speed will change automatically to compensate. Manual mode is similar, except for

having to change the shutter speed yourself.

How exactly are you adjusting the aperture when the Leica glass is mounted?

You need to set the aperture on your Canon body to its widest value (either f/1 or f/0

depending on the model) and do all aperture changes on the lens. I initially has metering

problems with a Contax lens on the 1Ds I previously owned until I remembered about the

above.

>are they really claiming a software antialias filter in the DMR?

Not one I've heard of; a moire filter, yes (is that the same thing under an assumed name?)

>Peace on earth and good will toward men

On a OT note, isn't the correct translation of that passage, "Peace on Earth to men of good

will", rather than the above?

I agree completely with the post complaining about PC trivialising important concerns by

amplifying relatively petty issues into Everest-like proportions.

Definitely the film! :)

How about a first type 28mm Elmarit, with Finder (as used by Larry Burrows on one of his

M3s I believe).

That's a beautiful outfit though Afzal. Thanks.

Hmm, I'd generally go along with Jan, except for those occasions where a longer focal

length is necessary - something like either a 90mm or 75mm (according to personal

preference) rounds the kit out very nicely. It might not be used much, but when you don't

have it to hand, you will miss it somewhere along the line.

These aren't vast SLR lenses we're talking about, so unless your space is extraordinarily

restricted, it sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face to limit yourself to just

one focal length.

On the single occasion when I used my M3 with a Leica Meter in the shoe, I wanted to use

the 24mm for a shot. I found it a doddle to simply use the separate viewfinder to get an

idea of the framing, put the VF back in my pocket then aim the camera - using its

viewfinder - at the centre of what I'd framed up previously. The shot came out absolutely

fine.

As for the meter, I admit to finding it a PITA, and have just used a normal handheld ever

since with that camera.

>If I do get a Summicron I would lose a whole stop compared to the other lenses in my

choice which would be critical for my night-time photography, especially since I shoot

nearly everything with my favorite color film which is Fujichrome Astia 100F.

>Rob F. wrote:

Since you need a faster lens than f/2, it sounds like the DR is out. I think I would go for

the Nokton, just because of the many favorable reports and value for the money. It has an

established track record.

>Braden Barclay wrote:

I would agree with Rob in that the Nokton is going to be your best bet for the money, and

probably the most available. If you'd really rather get a Leica lens then go for the

Summicron Rigid and just bump your film speed up a stop.

>John Layton wrote:

I cannot add much to the above, except a word of caution: if you like to work in close,

you'll be doing lots of fiddling around with lenses that focus in closer than the M-3 - as

the lens cam loses contact with the camera's cam follower at close range.

I agree with those who say use a faster film for your night time work. When I did a night-

flight on the London Eye, using a 35mm 'lux asph and the late Fuji MS100/1000 (rated at

EI 200) I was down to around 1/15th at f/1.4 or below at some points, so you will

definitely require faster than ISO 100.

On John's comments I agree to an extent. The M3 can however focus the 50mm 'cron DR

right down to its closest focus distance - well mine can at least (both camera and lens

dating from 1957), so its still worth considering IMHO.

On balance the VC Nokton is probably the best option for now. If you want to consider

renting a 50mm/1.4 for the New Year, then it might be an option at Classic Camera (I'm

not sure if this lens is on the list of items, but check it out)

>I know he uses a Leica, as an image of him with a Leica null-series rangefinder appears

in the January '03 issue of Leica World.

Indeed. A couple of years ago, I helped out putting stamps on postcards advertising an

event at a well-known UK Leica dealer, and Clapton's name was on one of the cards I did.

That's my claim to fame - Ha!!

Nice Roger. That last one looks as if it could be the work of Banksy - http://

www.banksy.co.uk/

Roger,

Many thanks - looking forward to it too.

Roger,

Is your test of the ZI to appear in print at some point? If so, where (in the UK press I hope).

Regards.

From Laney's "Leica Collectors Guide"

On the original MP - he says "An early M3 was adapted for Alfred Einstein and engraved

"MPE". Two were made for Alfred Eisenstaedt, the second of which was engraved M3E-1.

Four were made in black finish for David Douglas Duncan and engraved M3D-1, M3D-2,

M3D-3 and M3D-4.

The gears in the MP were of hardened steel rather than brass. This was to withstand the

action of the Leicavit wind-on, and made the 'feel' slightly harsher.

Laney also notes that "some MP cameras were returned to the factory and acquired M3

accoutrements such as depth of field indicators, self-timers and round strap lugs."

On the MP2, he says:

"The Leica MP2 was a modified M2 (not a revised MP as the name might suggest) that

never went into regular production. Two batches of MP2s are recorded in factory records,

Nos.935,001-935,512 in 1958 and Nos.952,001-952,015 in 1959 - 527 cameras in all.

Most of these were ordinary M2s fitted with a Leicavit base and were clearly a successor to

the MP. Most professionals would have preferred the M2 finder with its 35mm frame to the

M3 finder of the MP. This was one of the reasons that the M2 finder became the basis of

all future M viewfinder cameras. These cameras did not carry 'MP2' engraving, only 'M2'.

The genuine MP2, engraved as such, is equipped with electrical circuitry for the Wetzlar

experimental motorwind. Two specimens in black are known, from the small batch

Nos.935,501-935,511, as well as the 1959 batch listed above, all in chrome. In some

cases the shutter was released from a button on the front of the motor, in others from the

camera. Rogliatti (1985) says these motorised cameras were actually made in 1962 and

1963."

I'm similar to Roger above, in that my most used lens by a long way is the 35mm

Summilux (pre-asph). A few years ago the 21mm would have been second, then the

50mm and the 90mm bringing up the rear. At present I don't have a 21mm, having

foolishly sold my 3.4 Super-Angulon a few months back (or a 90mm for that matter), but

in any case the 50mm has assumed greater importance recently.

John Spiers wrote:

>I would say that by far the most well known current M user is Tom Stoddart. His work is

amazing. I think as far as 35mm work goes he uses nothing but M bodies.

Indeed. One of the photographers I most admire. I think Tom also has an R6 with a 60mm

macro lens in addition to his M bodies.

While on this subject, there's also Ian Berry, Jonathan Eastland (both also use Nikon), Tom

Wood to name a few more.

Yep, I use the same legs as Arthur (the Gitzo 1128), though with the large Leitz Ball Head.

For my M bodies, SL2 with 60mm Macro, & Rollei TLR its just the business, and not

burdensome at all.

For the occasions when even that's too much, the Leitz Table-top tripod with the same

head fits the bill.

Agree with the others. I also have Sternfeld's "American Prospects" (and recently picked up

a copy of his "Stranger Passing" reduced at the Photographer's Gallery, but that's another

story). The comparison between this and Shore's work is a decent one; likewise Martin Parr

- though for the full Shore/Parr effect I recommend the recently republished (in a much

expanded form) "American Surfaces".

David Goldblatt's "Intersections" is well worth a look too IMVHO, and I keep meaning to

check out Mitch Epstein's "Recreation".

Thanks Derek,

I'm looking forward to seeing this beast (soon hopefully)

Just for the record, and as a comparison with the pre-asph 'lux, here's a shot I took with

the 35mm 'lux asph. Details as far as I can remember them were approx f/2 at 1/15th;

film was the late Fuji MS 100/1000 rated at EI 200

http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/7749.html

Currently I'm using the pre-aspheric again.

I'd settle for a shutter release on a metered camera that had the feel of that on the

Voigtlander Bessa R3a - that fires with a gentle squeeze (like my M3) rather than needing

a conscious press like my MP does.

"The Somnambulist" is perhaps the classic Gibson book, but as said hard to find now (and

expensive if you do). Not in my library sadly.

I do have a German published book called "Light Years", which is pretty decent IMHO.

Digital: easier for "nothing" shots you wouldn't want to waste film on, or absolutely have to

have 'yesterday' (though personally I admit to disliking digital for its clinical character - its

like the difference between CD (a consumer item you feel little for) and vinyl (something to

treasure).

Film: because its just great.