jean_.

Both lenses are good, the rest remains on what kind of pictures you're after. Personally, I'd

prefer the Hektor's smaller DOF to separate the subject from the background.

 

Depending on what level your experience is, I'd skip the flash and reflector part and stick to

natural lighting. Fiddling with flash and reflectors can be a show-stopper and annoy the

model if you don't have the routine, and if you're not a pro that HAS to shoot on that day at

that location, it's better to look for a less contrasty light.

I've sent my M6 to solms, which is of course because I live in germany ;-) It's quite expensive,

and they forgot to tighten the screw that holds the shutter speed dial - a bit annoying, but

whrever people are at work errors happen. They were kind enough to mail me the screws and

another small part for free, two repair shops refused to even sell me these.

 

In your place i'd drive to them, just for convenience. Solms is to far away for me to drive, but

I was tempted.

Cool project! It's time to place bets who has the first digital M. I've experimented with

kodak's DSC 420 sensor and several webcams, but in the end just have not enough time

and - I admit - knowledge to come up with something usable as a camera, but in eqach

case it was a lot of fun.

 

For snobbery, it would be fun to burn some $$$ and frankenstein a DMR on a M body! In

the end I'm wondering why there still is no alternative to DSLR and digicams. Sony's R1 is a

modest step in that direction, but it can't be that hard to make a high-end digital camera

that is not spoiled with that retro-I-am-a-pro-therefore-SLR approach. To me, a DSLR is

like the early cars. Albeit having a motor, but still designed as if they were to be pulled by

horses.

The silence is one of the many myths about the M. Only compared with a SLR it can be

considered quiet. The shutter is clearly audible, and in a quiet environment will never go

unnoticed.

 

BTW - you'd have to limit yourself to just one picture. As soon as you advance the film all

illusions of silence will disappear.. If silence matters, a leaf shutter is noticeably quieter, but

still there is the film advance.

*lol* sorry to spoil the political correctness, but butt-ugly babies.. I've seen a lot of them, pitied the parents, and then joined the general praising "oh, soooooo cute, oh are you lucky" ;-)

 

that's life. Fortunately all of them looked fine later, and some ended up quite good-looking.

The challenge is not to press down the arm, and to keep the scredriver absolutely vertical. And the screwdriver has to fit the screw as much as possible, a good idea is to file a bigger one down until it fits exactly.

 

Instead of using a screwdriver, I used a "bit" (that's what it's called in germany, I hope it's clear what I'm talking about) and turned it with a wrench. That way I could control the turning exactly, without pressing down the arm. Best target for infinity adjustment is the moon, do not use anything that's just a mile away.

 

I checked my new adjusted camera, and now it's 1cm off at 90cm, and no measurable (for me, at least) deviation at 3m and 5m - so for me, that's fine. Took me 15min to do it, and 15 min to "invent" the wrench/bit combo.

Repair class, yes. I learn step by step to take care of my stuff, like RF adjusting and light sealing. It's just to annoying to send of the camera for weeks when there is really nothing difficult to do that would require a special training..

Max, I am to lazy to look it up, but somehow remember those kodak dslrs costing an arm and a leg when they were launched - way above $3500.

Heck, always these impractical replies to such questions.. for one thing this forum is really not a good source of information, and that's everything that comes even close to DIY. Some people touch their cameras not just for fondling, but like to take it apart and have a look at the guts. Sometimes it ends with a plastic bag full of parts, sometimes a lot of fun and a perfectly working camera.

5 is like out of a nightmare. Great photos, thanks for sharing!

Ok, so it's not just me who remembers those pics ;-) Never mind, they're very good photos. How did you do the circular motion blur in 2 and 5? It looks great, and makes me feel like watching a (horror) movie.

Have you tried to use a lab? I stopped printing myself, instead I process the image in photoshop and then either upload it or walk to the next photo store when I'm shopping. Just like in the old days, I get photos (real photos on real photopaper) back a few days later. Quality is excellent, and it's dirt cheap compared to any inkjet print.

I'm having a déjà vu, I somehow feel that I've seen these (or very similar ones) some years ago in this forum.

Funny, looks like a picture from the 30s. I also have a Hektor which I use from time to time, but it doesn't produce such a pronounced "vintage" look, maybe becaus it's a coated version.

Vuk, the links (or the site) don't work, all I get is a "connection refused" error, as with your last post.

The main difference is the built-in sharpening, many times oversharpening of digital photots. It gives the pictures an incredible "pop" at first sight, but at second sight you see there actually are few details. The third one is a good example of oversharpening. We get used to it over the time, until we judge non-sharpened pictures as being muddy.

It is very durable and rugged, kept in a dry fishtank it should survive for at least 100 years.

 

Other than that, since it's not sealed, there is no special protection against anything that could damage the delicate interiors. But of course it's made reasonably to survive normal use, no parts will fall of or break just from daily use. But preotect it from dust and moisture.

 

Being battery independant however can be very convenient, a dslr does not forgive if you forget the charger. Neither does the leica if you forget film, but i think it's still easy to get some in the most parts of this planet.

I don't know, for me it doesn't really matter.

 

a) When I bring the camera I keep regretting the weight and bulk instead of having fun (my cellphone already bothers me), when I hike I regeret the weight and bulk, and the fact that I'm constanltly ruining the fun for the others every time I take a photo and need more then 5 seconds to do so, on the job I regret it since it adds to the laptop or whatever else I need. And I rarely take photos when I have the camera.

 

b) If I leave it at home, great photo opportunities just jump at me from all sides, making me want to rush back anf grab the camera, and I keep regretting to have left it.

 

OK, conclusion is easy: regrets are equal in both cases, option b) has less weight and bulk. So I take the camera only when I decide to take photos, and if I don't carry the camera I don't torment myself anymore for missed photos, but enjoy whatever I'm doing instead.

Again we know why it is so hard to find a used leica ;-)

 

So what use is a camera when you simply don't dare to carry it outside your home, I said to myself. Consequntly, I dragged the leica all over europe. (I know from many threads that many americans fear the old continent, apparently believing that we still have bandits lurking in the black forest, wainting for the innocent tourist to walk by - but the standard worry is to leave expensive stuff back in hotel rooms or to carry the stuff always around).

 

I hate to admit, but I managed to spoil many travels with worries about that damned camera and it's lenses, while my fellows have had a good time. Got many nice pics, but in the end on vacation I prefer not schlepping equipment and the occasional snap can be done with any camera. I also hate the choice of lenses, since I have always the wrong one mounted. Before you ask, no, it wasn't the 135 Hektor.

 

As absurd as it is, but I second the idea of bringing a cheap camera. Vacation is meant to be fun, not griefing about possible loss of equipment. For peace of mind, you could take a zorki - still a rangefinder ;-)

seems like a good idea to make some $$ out of the many used leicas out there. And leica without any doubt has the ressources to handle these cameras. I'd add more and more options to such a program, leveraging from the folks that buy a old camera cheap and then start to "upgrade" to the camera they want.

 

The day they start to offer replacement black painted brass parts for M6, leica will have a cash cow for years to milk.

 

This is a good move from the company, and shows that they started to have a look at their customers and users.

not sure about the expired film being responsible. I used and use many expired b/w films, including tri-x, and have not noticed anything unusual. Perhaps it was stored in a "extreme" environment? Like inside a car, or lying in the sun since 2003?

Have you been living under a rock, dear leica fellows? Digital backs have been in the evolution of digital cameras the first step towards a high quality digital camera. Do a search at ebay for the kodak dcs 410 and 420, and enjoy the time travel back to the early 90s. The were designed to work with nikon slrs (no idea which one) and sell for under $100 these days. I was always tempted to get one and frankenstein it with my leica.. Huw might give it a try? Would be fun for sure!

 

Not full frame, unfortunately.. and neither in the leicavit form factor! But I think that a few years from now, probably even sooner, you can get all components cheaply at your local radioshack, and build your own camera.

Czech republic. Everybody moves to czech republic these days. With unemployment in germany skyrocketing, many people seriously start to worry how big this country really is, just to see if there is any limit in this process of sucking up work like a sponge. A civilized country in central europe, where apparently people happily work for free, and are highly educated! One of these days the first germans will go across the border trying to sneak some work illegaly at a czech construction site, hoping to get a hot meal as a payment.

It costed me a fortune, and I spent a lot of time tormenting myself before getting (a used) one. As such, it was a trophy.

 

It is now covered with dents, the zinc shines through, it has seen many places, banged into many tables and has fallen on many floors across europe. Hence, a tool.

 

It sees les and less use today, I won't sell it because I somehow don't want to part with the camera, and of course the resale value is a joke these days, and won't improve in the next 25 years.

 

A photographer who loves taking pictures, i'm afraid, would likely chose different tools than a leica, so I'm sure leica is spot on with their basic market.

These G cameras are a completely different thing, so I don't know if it really makes sense to see them as a replacement for M, Bessas, or similar rangefinders. Well, all are cameras and are not slr, and have excellent optics - and that's where the similarities end. I'd give it a try first before making a purchase.