jerry_pfile1

George,

Sold the digital?

Sounds like Phi Beta Kappa material to me.

Jerry

George!,

You're not going to make her wait till she graduates to give her a lens to go with it are you?

Best,

Jerry

Paul,

My desire for one rates a 10, but I think I'll wait a year or two for the "nits" to be addressed.

That and my disposible income always has to be a higher number than that of my desire.

Best,

Jerry

Jordan,

What might be even more interesting is to hop on the Nikon forum and ask the same question, putting Nikon in the "x" postion and Leica in the "y" slot.

I'd be floored if 5% of the Nikon owners had a Leica also. That's even more important info for Leica to know. (But I suspect they already do).

Last year when the winners of the "Family of Man" winners were posted, I did an excel spreadsheet on the breakdown of bodies and lenses used by the winners. Was surprised at the range of Leica equipment used. E-mail me off-forum if you want a copy.

Best,

Jerry

Best

Kelly,

I think Rich Pinto at Photo Village had one or two of the 35's listed a few months back.

I remember that old outfit well. IIIf BD serial # 585 something or another. Originally owned by a local pastor who had sent the body away through us to ELNY for a CLA. When it came back he decided to trade up to an M and those lenses were his also.

I remember the 50 as a great lens, and have a DR version from 60' today still. The 85 was heavy as you state. What I remember about it was that it was a little soft wide open, flared, and that it had a bubble in the front element! Probably 2mm in size. Never noticed any effect on pics though. That and the center of the DOF scale would not line up at 12 o'clock when mounted on the body, wheras the 50 Summicron stopped exactly at 12.

Toyed with the idea of picking up each of these late LTMs and hunting for a nice IIIg but the lenses coupled with a Leitz 35 finder would have run me close to 4 grand so thought better of it. Sure wish I had that original kit though.

Best,

Jerry

Vikram,

Yes, there was a rigid 50mm Summicron LTM made in the late 50's. Only about 1200 of them though.

I bought it used with a IIIf, and LTM Nikon 85mm f/2 (w/Leitz finder)from the family business while I was in HS. In the 60's loaned it to a friend who was going to Nam, serving in the "Riverines". His patrol boat was shot out from under him in the Delta and my kit became a casualty of war.

Thirty years later I found out how rare the lens is. I've often wondered if the VC who got it ever found out.

Best,

Jerry

X=9 M2/3/4/6(2),IIIa,CL,Mini, Digilux Zoom

Y=0

Z=6 Rollei 3.5F, Mamyia C220 Pro, Minox III, Olympus XA, Polaroid 110A, Kodak Brownie 2a.

Oddly enough, as I look at the list, this is close to the order of their frequency of use. Except the last two. Never had the 110 converted to Polaroid pack film, and has anybody out there got any 116 film?

Best,

Jerry

As much as I admire the craftmanship and constuction philosophy of the older Ms (simply put, they are adjustable where the later Ms are "fixable"), my advice would be to buy one of the M6 series.

Why? The biggest bugaboo on the older M2/3 bodies is the susceptibility to VF "decementing". They are at least 32-3 years old, decementing is not uncommom and is in part a function of age, and it is expensive to fix.

Besides, prices for the newer ones tend to be lower, especially when Mint condition is compared. Priced a Mint M3 w/box and papers lately?

Best,

Jerry

Skip,

I beleive the M2/3 winder level is available from Leica (and an easy awap). Don't know if you can get it in black chrome though.

Re the frame preview lever, not sure enough room exists for more than three positions.

Best,

Jerry

Lucien,

It may be in the catagory of "urban legend" but while they "officially" don't have any M2/3 top covers left, they in fact have some.

Understand they will only use them however in the rare instance that they may damage the original while the body is undergoing repairs in their shop. And then only if the customer demands it.

Best,

Jerry

Will there always be film? Nope. Nothing lasts forever, except perhaps in museums.

Will I see the end of it? I'm 60, so I don't think so. But were I in my 20's or 30's, I wouldn't be so sure. Like all of us, I don't know when though.

Just how will it fade away? It will become increasingly more expensive, demand will lessen accordingly, and the process will accellerate to its inevitable conclusion.

Do I like that? Nope. Unfortunately though (or perhaps fortunately), I'm not running the world.

Once film is gone, will digital imaging reign forever? Nope. It probably will last longer than film though. Then something else will come along that no one today can even imagine.

In some ways, realizing that change is constant is comforting. Otherwise we might have still been capturing images using our fingers in the dirt in front of the cave.

Best,

Jerry

Can only echo the above regarding the 40mm Summicron/Rokker.

If the topic of what is the most "under-rated" Leitz M mount lens ever comes up, the 40 is the clear winner.

Best,

Jerry

I doubt if anyone looks at the results of Michaelangelos' or Rembrandts' work and ponders what chisels or brushes they used. I'm sure they used whatever combination of availability and affordability they had at the time.

The prime contributor to great reproductions of life and the world is in the mind, eyes, and hand of their creator.

The fact that most of the posters on this board feel they have the best tools is fine, but not the ultimate cause of any results they may or may not attain.

Best,

Jerry

Phil,

Move to MI and save a bundle. 4x6 color prints form electronic media are only $0.32 each at the local Meijers.

Jerry

Steve,

Erwins testimonial relative to 0.58 brightness was also mentioned when the thread subject ran a couple weeks ago.

In both cases there was only the "Erwin says so" comment accompanying it, so I remain skeptical as to whether the low mag is in fact a "more efficient transmitter" of light. Erwin usually (and very well and completely I might add)is thorough and tests to the Nth degree. Was there accompanying data that yielded the 1/2 stop differential?

Lacking that I suspect that any percieved brightness increase is a function of the increased VF area of the low mag, which would take in a greater amount of the area from which the reflected light originated.

In this case the sky or overhead lighting in interiors. I hear you on the eyeglass wearer comment though.

Best,

Jerry

Johnson,

First of all, I did not inquire about the 0.58 vs. 0.85 patch brightness situation. I do not have an 0.58 to compare my 0.85 with nor do I think I'll bother Leica NJ or Solms for awhile. As I indicated the information provided was the product of several mailings and I think they may have been getting a little tired of me. There is a local Leica day this weekend and I'll look at an 0.58 if available.

I confess to giving the "Readers Digest" version of the information supplied. Their first response was short and to the point, alluding to the fact that the full answer to the question was "very complicated" and a really full explanation would be difficult in simple e-mails.

What they did explain (although in as novice terms as they could) was that the optics involved were in no way basic, and in designing VFs of different mags, it was necessary for them to avoid any brightness difference where possible. A full explanation as to what they did was not offered, but they alluded to glass used, coatings, optic designs, and grinding techniques. In short, they have designed and produced, not only with a different end magnification, but with an end equivelant brightness across the magnifications.

I thought as much when the thread was initially posted. As the have been at it awhile (beginning with microscopes where the effect would be the toughest to overcome) I suspect they do what they have to do.

I to initially had a problem with the 2nd or "gray wall" argument. It was simple (seductively so) and appeared to be the ultimate "pat" answer. Perhaps too pat I felt. I turned over the problem several times and actually formed the "expose the sky" analogy in between e-mails before they offered it in the next one. After all, a lens and camera is a VF also.

The fallacy of wall argument is that it presumes that the light reflected off of any scene (and the sky itself is reflected light) is cumulative in nature. The fact is it is not. Rather it is an average of what is seen, even if that value is the same throughout the scene, as with a gray card or the clear sky, or that of a typical photo with an average range of values. In the case of the sky, again provided that the light source is not in the view, as with the sun.

You raise an interesting point relative to macro exposures and the effect on times necessary for proper exposures. I suspect two things are at play here. They being the reciprocity curve for the different emulsions and the loss of light values that take place when the distance between where the light passes through the lens and the film plane increases as reproduction ratios increase.

Perhaps someone can step in with additional info that can expand on what happens here in macro photography.

Best,

Jerry

This subject was originally raised in a thread of about two weeks

ago, which has subsequently went South ofover the horizon of my task

bar. I open it because additional information has been collected

that should shed additional light on the question.

And that question was whether or not M VFs of lower magnification do

more readily transmit light than their higher magnification

counterparts. Several respondents to the thread indicated their

feelings that their lower mag finders were, in fact, brighter.

A theory was advanced that this was due to the fact that, their view

incorporating a wider field, they collected a greater number of

footcandles, and hence were brighter. An analogy was drawn by

another poster with that of binoculars, wherein given the front

eyepiece being equal amongst all varieties, the higher the mag, the

lower the amount transmitted and dimmer the view.

As I have bodies at 0.72, 0.85, and 0.91 magnification, and have not

noticed this effect, I was somewhat more than curious as to whether

this was fact. After the thread was gone to archives, I was able to

collect some information regarding it.

First the analogy with binoculers. In their catalog, Leica-The

Program it is addressed. They have developed an objective

measurement called the "Twilight Factor" to compare various

magnifications. Given a common front element size, say their 42mm or

50mm Trinovids, one can see that light transmission capabilities rise

(albeit slightly) as magnification increases. An indication that

disputes the analogies premise that higher magnification equalling

dimmer view as simply "Basic Optics".

The theory was also advanced that when a VF was of lower magnitude

than another, it "saw more footcandles" and transmitted that value,

appearing brighter. Were one to have an evenly illuminated "gray

wall", the lower mag finder would transmit the higher total.

I had a problem with that conclusion, although no coherent rebuttal

to a condition that several testified as existing. With that I

contacted Leica NJ and Solms with the question. Following is the

summary of several 3 way e-mails:

1.) The difference between the light transmitting capabilities of

the current VF line up is described as "inconsequential, with any

discernable differences a product of the condition (read cleanlness)

of the optics".

2.) To the "gray wall" theory the response went like this. "In a

view with a common/constant reflectance (e.g. gray card/wall) the VF

does not read the sum of the footcandles seen, rather the value or

brightness of that reflected light". They offered a real world

comparison. Point your metered M to the sky only (not at the light

source of the sun) with lenses of varying focal lengths. You'll find

the exposure is the same. In other words, the same intensity of

light is transmitted, not the "sum" of the footcandles in the area

seen. Obviously.

3.) The last exchange carried the opinion of those who obviously

truly feel that their lower mag VFs are brighter. In this case the

reply was not that they are correct, but a very valid reason why they

feel this to be the case. Whether shooting interiors or exteriors,

the wider the field of view of lower mag VFs generally incorporates a

greater portion of the main sources of the light source. As in

overhead lighting in interior shots, or the sky in exteriors. Hence

the conclusion that lower mags are brighter is a subtle and

subconcious one, rather than an optical characteristic of the

different VFs.

Makes sense to me.

Best,

Jerry

I can add little to what Eliot had to say extoling the virtues of these lenses. I am fortunate to have two of them, one w/M3 eyes and one w/o the eyes, for 42 and 37 years respectively.

Other than each succeeding version appearing to have slightly more contrast than the last there is little optically that I have been able to see. Only with the current ASPH is a difference discernable to my eye, and that is relative to sharpness. When Kodachrome is loaded though, these older Summicrons are always the wide lens mounted. I truly think they were made for each other.

Unfortunately the collectors descended upon them a decade or two back which tends to keep many of them from the use for which they were intended. That is somewhat of a shame.

Jerry

Patrick,

I would echo the thought of trying to secure at least a 35mm lens.

I was at the birth of our only daughters first child last year, an I can assure you that that space is tight. I wished that I had brought my 24. Perhaps some net participant in the area may kindly loan you something wider.

I'll try to post a photo from that event. I've tried to post photos earlier a couple of times and screwed it up (this new fangled technology sometimes eludes us old folk). If unsuccessful I'll e-mail you off line.

Best,

Jerry

Ssshhh Michael. Just trying to suck him in till the jaws are fully clamped.

Jerry

James,

Repeat after me. There are no stupid Leica questions!

Welcome to the club. Reason and sanity are not requirements of membership.

Best,

Jerry

Sal,

So be it, although in a marketing driven world, there's a lot to be said for trading in part on your heritage.

I doubt that Rolex would drop their gold crown and "oyster perpetual logo from their watches even though I understand their watches aren't quite what they used to be. Hmmm.

Best,

Jerry

Gerald,

The time to engrave the script Leica is definitly of some value, but inconsequential in this day of CNC machining. Extrapolate a second or so over the next million bodies or 15-20 years at their past production rates.

The problem is that the designs copyright (including the "width" of the lettering used from the Leitz days) is not owned by Leica Camera AG. They stopped engraving when they went to zinc tops, coincident with the time they were no longer E. Leitz GMBH. Zinc doesn't engrave well at all.

With the advent of brass top covers on the recent commemoratives apparantly they have paid whomever owns it an unknown amount for its use.

Personally I wish they could buy it back outright. In a world of change there should be some constants.

Best,

Jerry

Ray,

As Richard said above, nothing, unless the shooter thinks self-esteem will enhance his/her images.

Suspect the need for rebates, at least in part, are due to the fact that it was born in 2000 as a non-identical twin with the Millennium Black Paint edition. The retro styled Millennium, with M1,2,3 style wind and rewind levers, "Auf-Zu" base plate, and limited to 2000 produced appears to have relagated rge LHSA to step-child status. It appears to have blown away the LHSA. At least that's what the rebates would indicate.

Although born at the same time, it had a different Father in the LHSA. They commissioned its conception, and attempted to sell it to the membership with a sales pitch that included it would be sold exclusively to them only.

Opinion varies as to whether Leica over produced the issue, or that the LHSA under sold it. Probably only the pricipals know for sure and perhaps even only Leica knows. At any rate, the the LHSA buyers "stayed away in droves" as they say, and todays rebates result.

Coupled with that recently has been the M7 introduction, depleting the available pennies of many leicaphiles, and the sure knowledge that near on the horizon is a 50th anniversery M. You'll probably be able to get one in each finish, consectutively numbered for Oh, say 10 grand or so. They'll be limited and gone in a flash.

After the dust subsides from that I'd predict that everyday M7s in black paint will probably be a catalog item. They'd be foolish not to as the demand is there and I think they see that now.

I have mixed emotions on the whole subject of "commemoratives". One of the side benefits of using a Leica is not only the results but tje use itself. Pretty as they may be, it seems a shame to deny them their reason for being.

Then again they are undoubtedly a high margin item that allows the company to keep going though. Thats more important in my view.

Best,

Jerry

Frank,

Actually the used Focuslides are quite cheap, especially as far as Leitz/Leica products are concerned. Mostly in the $50-75 range. This is undoubtedly due to demand for them, which is low.

Today I suspect that the following reasons cause that low demand:

1.) Not really a popular collector piece.

2.) Unusable for focusing at infinity unless you have a lens that the head detatches and the proper attachments and/or extension tubes.

3.) They were produced mainly to assist in making copies or close-up type shooting.

4.) They are heavy along with being unwieldy! Couldn't concieve of using one today w/o a tripod. Don't have one now but did almost 40 years ago. They must weigh 4-5 pounds. On the plus side that equates $10-15 per pound at todays prices. On a per pound basis, probably the cheapest Leitz product available.

5.) Simply better ways today to accomplish that for which they were produced.

However Jack(?) mentioned something they made that may serve exactly your wish. Didn't quite sound like a Focuslide but could have been.

Perhaps someone out there with Lagers latest book on "Accessories", reputed to be the endall reference book on these matters, can step in and set us all straight.

Best,

Jerry