chris_chen

I guess Leica parts are similar to car parts. Have you ever priced

out a car by its individual parts?

Andrew,

<p>

I love your site. But the question is about the body shell, not the

top or bottom plate.

Sorry, I tried hitting the stop button to make corrections; I see

they went through anyway. Please Delete Tony; it lokks awful.

I've never seen this asked before:

<p>

What metal are the body shells made of?

<p>

I want to say aluminium, as it wears to silver where the bottom plate is removed 100's of times. It could be magnesium too, I guess.

<p>

I took a graduate level corrosion course years back, but don't use it much, hence the ignorance. If the body shell material, as a result of normal wear or maintenance, comes into metal-to-metal contact with zinc or brass top and/or plates how much of a galvanic current is going to be generated? And if this area gets moist from the environment, which will corrode faster (sacrificial anode).

I to have a redundant 50 'cron and DR (Summarit in storage - too

soft). The 50 (no tab) was <$300, a no-brainer; the DR came in a kit

w/something else I wanted. Guess which is coming along w/me: the

DR. The lenses have a similar profile, but the DR weighs much more.

It's true, the eyes are only used for 0.5 m to 1.0 m, but its fun to

play with - get closer. The build quality? Guess.

<p>

I also have a Viso II w/65, 1:3.5 (scalpel sharp), and 200 1:4.0

(also fun, when I stop traveling). These don't come with me.

Tom,

<p>

Prices are definitely lower for such marred items: somewhat less than

the cost of a new top plate from Leica ($400, is it still

possible?). I care less-and-less about cosmetics than I used to

(except glass). I figure that it'll be a long time before I sell

anything. So, I recently picked up an M3 where a number was

scratched on the body inside the bottom plate. The camera had a 2001

CLA and recovering by DAG w/receipt for $480 (!). I figure the body

cost me <$200.

<p>

I have a near mint M4 with a stylized signature engraved in the back

of the top plate that I picked up for $1100 w/Summarit. So, as is

often said: use the equip.; they're just tools; don't collect...

Yeah,

<p>

I saw that one. He must have dropped the M, as I can't quite stop

doing myself. Finally put a strap on my M6, others still strapless.

I asked Leica for two spare parts: vulcanite for a back door ($10), and a rubber eyepiece ($70). Is the eyepiece mount made of gold? I guess the magnifier is more resonable at: $225-70 = $155. Does the magnifier come with a rubber eyepiece; if not, $225+70 = $295!!!

<p>

BTW, bought the vinyl and some sync terminal plugs ($2.60).

Blake,

<p>

Go home tonight, take the equip. out, write down each model (M3,

Summicron...), write down each serial no., and note each item's cond.

as you would when you buy a used a Harley (Leica

shoppers/owners/users are picky like Harly people). I have a friend

who has a Harley and he told me to be careful of the rivets in my

jeans when mounting the bike; "you might scratch the paint", sheeesh.

Thanks Eliot,

<p>

Actually, it's not a user lens. I bought the lens years ago and the

glass was perfect; the barrel still shows minor wear, as I don't use

it much (but when I do...). The marks appeared quite suddenly and

appear to be gradually worsening, between field engineering

assignments when the lens was placed in a large toolbox in a climate

controlled storage unit. The issue is how much better would it

perform clean, if it is even possible, and if anyone has experience

with a repair.

<p>

BTW, where/what is lij?

I have a diseased one. The pic's come out fine, but who knows, they

may be better w/o the etching, as some of the posts report better

performance after a lens CLA.

<p>

Question is: Is the etching, or whatever it really is, repairable?

<p>

Has any repair shop have THE solution?

<p>

Does it cost BIG bucks?

Oh, the SWC bag is approx:

<p>

10" L

<p>

6" H

<p>

5" D

<p>

And FAST.

<p>

I even get to rest my left arm on it for comfort and bag protection.

Not to diss you as I think bag solutions are needed. I already have

the perfect bag system - used the last five years. Unfortunately,

Eagle Creek doesn't make them any more (?), at least I haven't seen

it in a while; I'm on a constant look-out for bags for other stuff.

<p>

If anyone wants a detailed descrip. please request. It's a small

double zipper top (one zipper, two handles) black bag that hold my

SWC and one M4 body w/21 SA lens on one side (lens facing out) of a

velco'd divider, adjusted at a tilt to allow fast camera removal.

The other side sits the SWC (lens facing the back of the M). I grab

the A12 back, lift, and tilt to remove camera; lens goes in first,

tilt back down into bag.

<p>

It has two (originally one) adjustable, curved and padded, removable

nylon straps; one over the shoulder, one around waist.

<p>

Has several well integrated small zippered pouches that, when not

used, does not add any profile to the bag.

<p>

My M6 w/35 goes into another SMALL strapped bag.

<p>

My hand held meter goes either in my back pocket or into the SWC bag

in the top flap.

<p>

If I'm alone, the 90TE, if brought, goes into a bag off my belt.

<p>

If my Sig. other is with she gets to be my assistant, carrying TE,

table-top 'pod, assisting with lens and filter changes, etc. my

third "bag" 8^).

<p>

For transport, I use the M-Classic, old-style. Then, it goes into a

backpack for camo. It's a bit of a pain after 9/11, though, but it's

easier to carry.

I have a hood and it's engraved with several lens models from 35 to 50 of varying aperatures. If the hood blocks stray light from a 50, how effective would it be on a 35? I suspect not much, but better than nothing. I use a Hassy 50 (E67) on my SWC w/no problem.

<p>

I read on this forum that some use the same hood for 35 through 135 if the front mount is same E39. I guess these people use the hood more for protection than light blocking (true?).

Here I thought Leica owners/users and A$$HOLE$ would have mutually

exclusive personalities. I'm surprised that KR could even spell

Leica.

Mitch,

<p>

Back to your orig. question: If the glass is clear to the naked eye

and the barrel not too rough, $400 is a good price. The only other M

lenses in that range are the ones built for the CL/CLE, and as

everyone knows, they're not "proper" M lenses; they're orphans built

for a different type body; no matter what anyone states about

compatability. All being equal, I'd get the 2.8 @ $400, or 2.0 @

$475 way before I get the 28 Minolta or 40 @ $300 $600. These "old"

lenses are sturdy mechanically and produce special images.

<p>

Jump on it. I guarantee you WILL NOT lose money.

<p>

I'm a bit lazy, and this hasn't come up here recently:

<p>

I know bugeyed lenses will work on the M3, but they must also work on

the other M's and bring up the 50 frame lines. How accurate are the

bugeyes compared to a non-bugeyed lens of same focal length? As I

said: I'm still tempted, it's a beautiful lens, and I will not lose

money either.

Since the M7 top plate is brass, I don't know if it's possible to

anodize it black or if Leica ever made flat black chrome over brass.

It must be painted black (?).

Mitch,

<p>

I saw a M- bugeyed 'cron at Jefferson Camera in St. Louis last

weekend (tempted given cond., but already have two w/o eyes). BTW,

Bob F. and Andy P. the 'lux in question for $475 is actually a

black 'cron. Thanks Bob F.

my fat thumb hit the touch pad.

<p>

...low light. Therefore, Leica builds in more precision than most of

us will ever need/use/push the envelope.

I'm not talking about the cam (roller) in the body, but its ground counterpart on the lens. Are these hand finished; matched to that particular lens' focal lenght? Does Leica actually place each individual lens in a jig to check focal length to 0.1 mm and machine the cam to match? If they do, I'm glad they show so much care. What other "cookie-cutter" company does this hand fitting.

<p>

My chrome lenses separate. I guess they test the heads, scratch the true length on the inner barrel, tell the person engraving tthe mounts of the number, which he/she engraves/cleans/paints/dries, then the head gets screwed to its match mount.

<p>

I ask this because when I test focus one lens on something, defocus and refocus, I seldom match the original point as marked on the barrel. It happens when I compare different lenses too; they show slightly different distances. Don't flame me; my rangefinders are fine: one M3 CLA w/DAG, M4 w/Krauter, infinity lines up. I've only had blurry results with the 90 TE wide open, up close, low light

Ralph,

<p>

I actually think it's my company's firewall.

I don't know much about luggage, I own Hartman; I just wanted to see

three Chris Chens in a row. ;*)

Thanks Michael,

<p>

I'll have to try that with my 21 SA, if I can find that bloody rear

cap!

I get and Love National Geographic Magazine.

<p>

Has anyone noticed that the majority of the published photos are taken with wide or superwide angle lenses regardless of subject (except, of course, lions)?

<p>

It kind-of made me gravitate toward wide angle lenses in my kit.