art_karr

"only thing I miss is DOF preview"

Have a look at the 105. I think it is designated DS or some such thing.

Art

I have an oldy but goody. It is a 39 mm UV from Leica. Screwed

in it reads Leitz on the top and B+W on the bottom. Obviously,

someone screwed-up during a change-over on the line. :)

Art

Yes, I have a B+W UV on all of my lenses for protection. I use

Skylight above 8000 ft elevation for E-6 films. Hope that helps.

Art

To divert from equipment for a bit, I will talk about results. I have

a C330, a C33 and a true prism finder. I have had them for years.

One thing I have noticed is that photographs taken with the prism

finder look a whole lot different than the ones taken with the WLF

[even taken at the same time]. My guess is that it is the

prespective one gets when holding the camera to the eye verses

holding it down on your stomach. Of course this applies to

close-ups and not to distant subjects. :)

Art

I have been using it that way for years. I have forgotten but I think

it calculates to 38 mm. Anyway, it is as accurate as the 35 mm

frames on later models.

Art

I have a cord V [think it is an a but may be a b] that I got used in

the second half of the 60's. I got a good deal because there was

a crack in the screen in one corner. Even so it worked well. In the

late 70's I gave it to a friend who wanted to try MF. He kept it for

15 or so years and then gave it back. He replaced the original

screen with a Maxwell [i think]. It is much brighter and even

brighter than my flex. He was a real stickler for the authenic. He

also gave me a real cord lens cover and hood and a pile of

original filters. :)

Art

Paul:

The full view finder in my M3 covers the angle of view of,

approximately, a 37.5 mm lens [by measurement]. That is as

accurate as my M4 or the M6 that I sold. None of the finder

frames are that exact.

Art

Al:

"Mostly Tri-X in D-76 1:1, occasionally some HP5 Plus in the

same soup. When I can get it I buy Eastman Double-X Negative

(motion picture film) short ends at ten cents a foot and use the

same D-76 1:1. "

You are older than dirt. I know cause I am older than dirt and do

exactly the same thing. I use a D2 that I got used for 150 bucks. It

came with 7 different film holders and all of the condensers [of

course that was a while ago]. Still works with the 50mm f/2.8 El

Nikor. This is spooky. :)

Art

I fly quite a bit. Last week on a flight out of Seattle the crew

requested that we not put heavy items [camera bags were

mentioned] in the overhead bins. [evidently they can shift during

the flight and people open the bins to be greeted with 50 lbs of

camera equipment on their heads. :) They put it in that little

closet thingy they have in front of first class. I don't know if this

will become SOP; first time I had seen it.

Art

One of the original advantages of the square format was the

option of placing a color or density strip to the side that wouldn't

be used in the final print. With Photoshop that is no longer

important.

I still like 6 x 6 anyway. :)

Art

Jeffrey:

I would agree with the above answers. I have shot as cold as

-55F. Biggest problem is to avoid breathing on the finder. Cover

your mouth and nose with a scarf or some such thing. I doubt

you will have those problems there.

Art

It has been a while since I have done this for money. I now do it

for non-profits. I use a digital camera, download the images to

a Mac G4 laptop with a 17 in screen, ask their opinion and make

the changes they want.

What do you do?

Art

Al:

You can go to the nhc site for this information. The last

projections put landfall of the eye just north of Fort Lauderdale.

They project that the cane will spend 24 to 48 h over Florida [it is

slowing down]. Doesn't look good; but of course all of that could

change. There has been an eyewall breakdown; although the

eyewall is about to reform, according to the nhc. Good luck.

Art

I just looked at the manual. The informations is there. If you don't

have one you can download it as a PDF from Mamiya here.

http://www.mamiya.com/customerservice1.asp?id=3&id2=115

Just go to your model of 6 x 7.

Art

Hailu:

As I recall you can fit backs from the Universal onto the RB67. I

think you need both the P and M adaptors. The K-back [4.5 x6, 6 x

6 and 6 x 9] for the Universal is fairly common and not very

expensive.

Note: I haven't done this myself. I suppose you would have to

develop your own finder mask for 6 x 6.

Art

Bill:

Sorry to be late in getting back. I took no offense at your

comments. It was nice of you to reply in that way. You will find

that I am nearly impossible to offend. Say what you think :<)

Art

Bill:

IMO you are totally incorrect. The DS winder is much smoother

than anything else I have used. Placebo my ass. I have been

using these cameras for a half century. Still, you are correct. Any

difference doesn't affect the function.

Anywho, I wish they could make a reliable shutter. :<)

Art

Ron:

The word on the street is that the winding mechanism on the

single stroke is more robust. I have used both. I have kept my DS

which I bought new in 1957. The winding mechanism is much

smoother than any other I have seen. It may not be robust but it

still works. Can't say the same about shutter reliability.

If you are buying an early M3 make sure it was made after they

quit using the glass pressure plate. It is a PIA in dry climates. :<)

Art

Sai:

The single stroke is like most modern cameras. A single

movement of the advance lever advances the film and cocks the

shutter. A double stroke means you have to do it two times. I

have found the later to be much smoother, but if they break they

can only be replaced with a single stroke mechanism.

Art

Simon:

I have used both. The improvement in the finder in the IIIg is

worth the difference. Then again, the LTM's are the reason we

have auxillary finders.

I would suggest the M series. The M3 is good. Unforunately they

are considered the jewel in the Leica ring. Particularly the DS

after elimination of the glass pressure plate. You would be

suprised what a collector offered me for my mint camera, on the

spot while I was standing on the street [i never sell anything, I

use them]. Just about as bad for the M4 [no they can't have

mine]. M4-P would be a good choice. Of course, if you like a

squinty finder, the IIIg would be the best in my experience.

Art

Alstar. Don't know what they are up to now, except selling bags,

keychains and such. Could be Leica. ;<).

As I recall there was a Swiss based company that sold movie

cameras under that name some time ago. Could be that I am

remembering wrong.

Art

"so I'm deciding between the chrome and T* and cf lenses"

I keep reading this distinction on this site. They did make

chrome T* lenses. I have them. Bought them in the first half of

the 70's and they still work fine. :<)

Art

I seriously doubt that Leica cameras will disappear. The name is

worth too much money. After all Volvos, Land Rovers and

Jaguars are now Fords. Saabs are GM. They kept the good

features and had the R & D money to fix the flaws [Jaguars no

longer, spontaneously burst into flames and can be insured].

Much better cars. Hopefully, some company who knows how to

make reliable bodies [e.g., Nikon or Canon] will take over the

line, update the bodies and continue in-house development of

lenses. The only worry is the possible loss of support for the

older cameras.

Art

Roy:

I take it you don't have a lot of experience writing HTML. You can

put in < without the site recognizing it as a link if you know how

but your explanation is probably better without confusing people

and giving a lecture. :<)

Art

"the print looks as sharp as a good enlargement from an 8x10

negative."

Bill, if you can do that, you are a lot better than me. I haven't had a

lot of problems with sharpness from digital files but have had a

lot of problems with exposure latitude.

Art