chris_chen

I have a Minolta CLE and as you know the camera "previews" for the shooter the approximate shutter speed and when shooting adjusts the shutter speed real-time off the film.

<p>

Does ant other Leica compatable camera function the same way:

<p>

M7

Hexar

Voit.

etc.

Well, Just dropped another M yesterday. It seems like everytime I drop a camera it lands on its top.

<p>

After impact the viewfinder showed two framelines 50 and 90. A push on the preview lever produced an obvious "click" and the 90 lines went away. Infinity focus is fine.

<p>

Now I only have an edge ding for a souvenier.

<p>

Rats!

Jay,

<p>

My friend was proxy for the '59-'61 chrome equip. from the orig.

owner's beneficiaries. They are all near mint; although the M2 less

so, it shows some bright marks, and the 1st ver. 35, 'cron show a

hint of fog (going to Golden Touch w/M4 that needs a shutter curtain

and CLA); chrome 65/90/135 have only slight camera bag/handling

bright marks (near mint glass). The Viso III w/200 1:4.0 is near

mint. The 50 DR has a small front element scratch. The best part,

though, are the numerous accessories: vintage caps for all, filters,

etc.

<p>

Both the diseased 90 TE and the detatched index ring (still have) 135

TE were mint when I bought them more than 12 years ago.

I just spent two evenings (spring) cleaning all the equipment I travel with plus the "new" package of bodies and lenses that I just picked up from a friend who acted as my ebay proxy while I was overseas.

<p>

I posted a comment here weeks ago about how I'd heard, read, and experienced "cheapened" Leica bodies. Now I feel quite the same way about their lenses too. The old chrome ones feel sooo well made mechanically, and look so good with their hand finished quality.

<p>

For instance, comparing what I had or have:

<p>

50 black 'cron (1975) to DR chrome 'cron (1960) and '68 chrome 'lux

<p>

90 black TE (1974) to chrome Elmarit (1961)

<p>

135 black TE (1974) to chrome Elmar (1960)

<p>

35 chrome (1960/1968) 'crons are incomparable!

<p>

The f-stop index ring fell off my 135 TE; the aperture ring turning and indexing on the 90 TE feels plasticky and the rear element has the TE disease (marks not from cleaning); and the 50 'cron finish doesn't wear well. Optically they all perform fine. It's just the chrome ones feel/work/look so much more old-school handcrafted, which I love. The weight adds up quickly substituting brass for aluminium; it's a factor in my own personal preferences when choosing what I bring on-the-road to use, so the blacks go with and the 135's and chromes stay home; they're just too good to sell, though.

I have several older chrome (and black) lenses where the heads detatch from the focusing barrels. I'm assuming this for use on the Viso's (21 SA and 50' black 'cron separate too; don't know why).

<p>

After separating them in order for easy access to the rear element and focusing guts for cleaning, there is some hand engraved (read scratched) numbers on the head referring to the actual focal length of the optics. All the numbers match the number properly engraved on each's focus mount near infinity, except my 50 'cron. I don't have the numbers with me now.

<p>

The focus mount might have been damaged and changed on this lens, where the lens group survives. Will this affect proper focusing? Are mounts matched to the lenses like 'blad magazines? Or, is the engraving just to inform users the true focal length, and if so, of what use is this information?

Following-Up:

<p>

Why would Leica use two different styles of engraving: "Made in

Germany" and "Germany"?

<p>

You all must know that most of the 1st version 'crons were made in

Canada; an e-mail from Lager confirmed this.

Marco,

<p>

When I worked in Thailand (twice - great place/people) I carried

several (4-5) cameras, lenses and film, no problem. Although the

authorities wouldn't let me use my Hassy SWC in the Grand Palace;

too "professional".

I have a 1st version 35 'cron and a 21 SA (among others) and they are personal favorites and fine performers. Why are they so expensive now? I bought mine long ago. I can understand the SA being made in limited numbers, but the 35 surely is the most popular lens for the M. They were also made for several years: '58-'69 and '63-'80, respectively. I'm sure a large percentage must have survived up to today.

<p>

Can they be called "Legendary Lenses"?

Calling All Experts:

<p>

I now own two first version 35, 1:2.0 Summicrons; my question:

<p>

One (1968) is engraved "Made in Germany" and the other (1961) is engraved "Germany". I thought products from that era were usually marked "Made in West Germany" or "West Germany". After unification, of course, the "West" part was deleted.

Thanks for the thorough answer Anon. Two follow-up questions:

<p>

How do we prevent as many problems assoc. w/NiCads?

<p>

How is H2 vented from the battery; are they not sealed?

Can anyone explain the physio-chemical reason(s) to this chemical

engineer for the urban myth of chemical compounds having a memory?

I just picked up my new M3 this past weekend. I previously owned an M3, but because I use the 35mm most often I sold it for an M2/4/6.

<p>

The difference, which I remembered from my last M3 is in the film advance department. My M2/4/6 when wound is rock solid when applying pressure on the advance lever; I lock my thumb behind the lever when I shoot for additional support and because I don't use straps. The M3 lever slips; is this the "clutch" that people often refer to? What is it's function? Why was the design not carried over? Does the single stroke lever slip? Is it true that double-stroke mechanisms are not servicible other than the change to single stroke?

i think leica designs the focusing tab/no tab and rotational

resistance based on focal length; at least i find it true for the

range of lenses i have (21-135). the 21 SA w/tab has the least

resistance, and it gets progressively harder going to the 35 then 50,

etc. i think it's because once focused, if one "bumps" the focus

barrel, the change in focus/OOF is larger the longer the lens is:

<p>

for a 21, when focused at 10 feet and bumped slightly will defocus +/-

only inches, where a 90 it may be +/- feet. so, making the focus

resistance higher the focus becomes more "locked".

Plus: Metered manual, brass cover, shutter improved mechanically

<p>

Minus: Continuous metering, battery dependent (no mechanical back-up)

stuart,

<p>

a new lens should not be hard to turn. i picked up an old 35 'cron,

8-element this past weekend and the focus was STIFF. it went around

smoothly and with the same resistance throughout it's range, but i

don't think it was used much in 35 years and the lube dried out.

some excersize loosenned it up some, but it's still stiff; i kinda

like it.

<p>

theory: my longer lenses tend to be focus stiffer than my wides.

leica designs them this way because smaller movements in the longer

lenses produces larger focus ranges.

Curtains are relatively cheap in the Leica realm. Sherry quoted me

$50 something for one curtain (M4), I can't find the e-mail print at

this moment; $175 labor, $50 something parts (all screws, light

sealing materials, some other stuff). So $275-300 total, includes a

full CLA.

GREAT!!!

<p>

Welcome to the club!

<p>

What viewfinder mag?

<p>

What lens did'ya get?

<p>

Why didn't you wait to see the M7; not that you made a mistake?

I'm sorry, I forgot to answer your question:

<p>

Yes, the Viso will allow macro photography, with the right access.

Nicholas,

<p>

I have a Viso III with accessories if your interested. I've never

used it; it came with the M2 set I bought on ebay. As I travel, it's

way too much for me to lug around. I'd like to play with it, but I

KNOW I would never keep it. A good deal awaits you; keep it out of

my storage unit.

"What's it all about...Alfie?"

<p>

I think we may have the same mental illness: we substitute STUFF for

a relationship or self-esteem. But, I have the money and you don't

seem to. I grew out of it in college; got one Leica, one lens; went

overseas to work; Nikons got stolen out of storage; got more Leica

with the ins. money. I mostly buy good deals now (getting better?),

rather than by perceived need. I didn't have a 50, 1:2.0 for 13

years until I got a good deal on one (<$300).

<p>

Buy film and join a photo club that provides darkroom space. You'll

meet your next princess who has the same hobby as you do. Chics at

cooking clubs are cool too. Don't date one you work with or work

for, though.

Actually, I'm scared of using slide film for its lack of lattitude. What physio-chemical process makes slide film less forgiving? I have never seen an explaination for this, anywhere; it's a rule that everyone just accepts.

<p>

But, in the modern age, print film is getting better and better. Is it a throw-back to the past when most publications insisted on slides?

<p>

I read once that if you like to look at prints, shoot print film. I know one can get prints from slides, and the cost of processing slides is less than getting a whole roll printed at the local drugstore by a high scool drop-out. But, one could go to a pro-lab and get a contact sheet made to weed out the non-keepers.

<p>

So, summing up: am I missing something besides something to do?

<p>

Slides: Better(?) saturation (un-lifelike(?)); tests your technique (only exposure technique(?)); finer grain/higher resolution (maybe?).

<p>

Prints: More lattitude (BIG advantage, no argument); wider avail. and selection (depends on where you are); easier to view/show (no projector/loupe needed).

<p>

BTW, I use print film in my leica, 100%; 1/3 slide in my SWC (loupe not nec.). 8X10 Prints from 6X6 slides equal neg. quality (using 4X loupe to inspect).

<p>

Please tell me why you use slide film.

mike,

<p>

try the postmaster general (post office or internet). They helped

when I bought a new bike mail-order, and the vendor sent me a

repainted (used?) bike.