mikep1

Sherry typically does not respond promptly to Emails. Call her on the phone and talk to her. But neither is really necessary. If you want her to work on something, just pack it up, send it to her with a note stating the problem/what you want done. She'll send it back completed with a bill. The price will be fair and the work will be superb.

I wouldn't hesitate to send ANY Leica product to Sherry; she is my 1st choice always.

 

My M7 was not in warranty because it was a gray market camera. I purchased it new from Don Chatterton. When it quit working properly about 6 months later, I sent him several emails asking him where I should send it for repair; he never responded. I knew that it was not covered under US warranty and I expected to have to pay for it but I expected some sort of response from him. I would never deal with him again.

 

Re gray market - Sherry told me (loudly and very directly) to NEVER buy gray market Leica. She said, "You WILL have to have them [Leicas] repaired at least once to get them right so you might as well pay the money first and get a three years to do it."

Sent an M7 and a Noctilux to Sherry a little over 2 weeks ago. The

M7 would only work in auto mode. No matter where you set the shutter

speed, it would only function as if set to auto. The Noct had

developed some fungus in the objective lens.

 

I received both items back yesterday. The camera functions perfectly

and the Noct glass looks brand new. With the camera, she returned

the defective part that caused the problem - a small gear with an

electrical contact that was broken.

 

As is typical, she shipped everything back with the bill included -

she did not ask for payment first. She is truly a class act and a

superb technician.

 

She will also talk to you at length on the phone about technical

issues with Leica cameras and lenses.

I have a Luigi half-case for my M7. Everything said about Luigi and what a great person he is to deal with is correct. Everything said about the excellent quality of his cases is correct. However...I no longer use the case because it has to be removed every time you change film. If you shoot a roll every now and then, it's fine and it looks nice. But for "active use" loading/unloading 5-6 rolls over a couple of hours while on the move, I found it to be impractical and I now use the "bare" camera.

I really like my Canon Digital Elph (mine is the S400) but shutter lag is apparent though not horrible. It did a superb job as the digi back-up to my M7 while in Italy/England and you can't beat the size.

 

In fact, one afternoon in Siena we went out and I took only the Elph because I was tired of carrying the M7 + kit (humble apologies to all for my inappropriate behavior).

to Italy and England. I carried a tri-elmar, a 24mmASPH, a 35 summ, a

90 elmarit, and a Noctilux. I shot Provia 100.

 

I offer my thoughts based on shooting 50 rolls of film over the

period. I guess I could summarize in one word...Tri-Elmar. I'll bet

I used this lens for more than 90% of all the shots. I shot a few

with the 90 and a few with the 24, none with the Noctilux. I carried

a table top tripod and so was able to shoot with the Tri indoors or

at night with no trouble bracing the tripod against a wall,

streetlamp, a conveniant table, altar rail, whatever.

Basically, I found I could have carried just the tri on the camera

and the tripod in my pocket. This would have resulted in a much more

conveniant kit.

 

I also found that my lovely Italian half case, though it looks

wonderful, was unfortunately too inconveniant to remain on the

camera; it overly complicates film loading. I took it off the first

day and I do not plan to ever remount it.

 

Obviously, your style of shooting will determine your lens choice but

I found the conveniance of the Tri to be unbeatable as a travel kit.

I sold my M6 to buy an M7. The M6 worked flawlessly from 1986 until 2004 Feb, '04 when I sold it. My (gray market) 6 month-old M7 quit working in the manual mode last month. I asked the friend who bought my M6 if he wanted to sell it back to me. He just laughed. (My 1959 M2 also continues to function perfectly)

 

When I bought it I really liked the M7 but I prefer cameras that keep going, and going, and going...

 

In my view the M6 was reliable. I can't say that for the M7.

Since 100+ year old pocket watches and 200++++ year-old clocks continue to work just fine if periodically serviced/lubricated, there is no reason to believe that a Leica M could not do the same. Obviously, some parts - like a shutter curtain - would not be expected to last that long without replacement but otherwise the mechanicals should be quite capable of going and going and going...

 

At some point, of course, it would eventually wear out but 200 years doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to me.

Nah, I still have the M2, I'll trade it for a Nikon FM2.

Thanks,

 

I tried all the suggestions, including removing the shutter speed dial to have a look and cleaning the contacts on the back but no luck. I suspect it's an internal electronic problem. I'll call Leica NJ tomorrow - it's not in warranty but I'll see what they have to say. I called Sherry Krauter - it was an interesting conversation as they always are. She suggested that the reason Leica offers the 3 year warranty is that you will need it at least once. If you buy a gray market - like me - you will end up paying the money for repair that you saved by not buying the US.

 

The M7 is the first new leica I ever bought. My M6 was nearly 10 years old when I bought it and my M2 was 40! I had Sherry CLA both of them when I bought them and that was that. She told me I was an idiot to buy a new Leica as a gray market. It appears she was right...

My M7 is now refusing to go in manual mode. No matter where I move

the shutter speed dial, the camera stays in the auto mode. I'm

wondering if I'm missing some obvious thing...I've tried various

lenses in case there is some interface issue there but it still

refuses to operate in anything but the auto mode. I also tried

removing the batteries, hoping it would "reset," but no luck there

either. The Auto exposures are still correct so the camera is still

usuable although I don't really trust it now.

 

Has anyone experienced this? Is there some obvious setting or

something I should try?

As part of the "discussion" on my last post (ooo...nice boat) it

occurred to me that some of the photos I see on this site look quite

good; others, and I include mine, do not. I'm referring to the

technical quality, not whether or not the photo is pleasing or

whatever.

 

The process I have been using to get a photo posted is to scan it

into the computer at max resolution on my Nikon LS30 (2700DPI), crop

it if needed, then resize it to a 511 by whatever pixel size as a

JPEG, and then post it. The postings never look very good. Is my

scanner insufficient? Am I doing something wrong in processing the

scan?

 

Also, I have never been able to get a photo to show with the message

even though I have followed the instructions on how to do it.

Someone else noted that they couldn't get one of my JPEGS to do it

either.

 

I don't use Photoshop - preferring PW Pro - but perhaps there is some

issue with the way they save JPEGS. I don't understand why that

would be the case though...PW Pro JPEGS work fine on every other

application or message.

 

Any ideas?

Volker,

 

The photo was, indeed, shot with a Noct; the distance from the stage was probably around 15-20 feet. I'm fairly certain I shot it at f1 because their were no stage lights of any kind, just ambient room light. But I wanted some blur from the dancer's movements so maybe I shot it at a slightly smaller aperture but I doubt it. It was cropped to remove as much of the back wall above the dancer as I could. Your depth of field calculation using the logic you explained for the Noct sounds reasonable but I really believe they were all at f1; perhaps not. I can't remember and I have never been organized enough to take notes while shooting. That could be the reason that, as someone explained, I suck no matter what kind of camera I use!

 

I vow to not use subterfuge in the future. This is an interesting site to say the least...

 

But darn it, I still think that boat picture is a good one!

V,

 

Indeed it was...

 

The Prisoners picture was taken in Vietnam with a Leica M2 in 1968 at Firebase Concord; but the other two were shot with a D100 as Steve so kindly and graciously pointed out. So it appears that one can actually see that digital and film look different!

 

And, I'm sorry to say, the boat isn't mine.

And, I'm not sorry to say, I sold the D100 many months ago.

 

I will admit I'm surprised at the general dislike of both pictures; I think they are pretty good. Oh well, I'll just keep trying.

 

How about this one: shot (Really) with an M7/tri-X/Noctilux at F1<div></div>

Leica M7 Provia 50mm Summicron<div></div>

!<div></div>

Leica M2 Tri-X 50mm Summicron<div></div>

Witch Hunt? What kind of comment is that? It looks typically digital as in taken with a digital CAMERA as opposed to taken with a FILM camera. My comment wasn't meant as a slam on digital at all. I was simply stating that it looked clearly digital to me, in answer to another question about whether it was film or digital.

 

The most obvious "screaming" characteristic is that photo has a depth of field (with a fairly "normal" lens focal length - not wide angle)which would have been impossible with film without a shutter speed that would have been too slow to avoid dramatic movement/camera shake blur. When I got my first digital camera 5 years ago, one of my first "cool things" I liked was the extreme depth of field. I took tons of the "wine glass a foot away/person outside" type. Jamie's shot shares that characteristic.

 

Of course, a full frame digital camera couldn't do it either so, at some point, when there are actually a number of full-framers around and affordable, that characteristic will change from only "digital" to "non-full-frame" digitals. There are other characteristics that digital has that are usually fairly obvious after using film/digital side/by side for 5 years. One includes a general "etching-like" look that digital often has. It just doesn't look like film NOTE!!! this is not a good/bad comment - it is just an observation of a characteristic of the media.

 

The digital/film characteristics are transferred with the scanning process unless the film or digital photo are scanned/shot in a very low quality mode.

 

AGAIN...this is not a slam or whatever against digital at all. The two media simply have different characteristics which are USUALLY fairly apparent once you work with both extensively.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Ref Ray's question...I'll be interested in the answer - it screams "digital" to me. Jamie?

1. Many like the classic "look" - classic because it was a popular "fast" film used by many of the famous names in 35mm.

 

2. It is extremely forgiving in developing. Really sloppy darkroom work in timing, temp, chemical mix, poor fixing, etc. will still produce satisfactory negs. Use the same sloppiness with Tmax, for example, and you'll throw the negs in the trash. Of course, this shouldn't be THE reason to select a film...

 

3. Some people probably like it because TriX and M leicas are about the same age so they they somehow "go together."

 

 

But is REALLY easy to work with and nearly impossible to screw up. It's great for sloppy workers like me!

Zippo Lighter fluid...

 

Which here in the US is sold in big cans in hardware stores as "Naptha" - I don't know if it's called that in the old country. Naptha is a fairly good cleaner for some purposes but not a great one for instrument parts (clocks, watches, and one would suppose...cameras). It tends to not disolve old hardened grease very well. Lots of beginning watchmakers use it because it is inexpensive but they soon migrate to the dedicated cleaners.

Mine did as you described on one occasion when I first got it - I cleaned the DX contacts and the pin contacts on the back flap and it has not repeated. Try that.

I have always understood that "petrol" is another word for "gasoline." If the substance in Karim's question is "gasoline," then I must STRONGLY disagree with the advice given above that petrol is superior to acetone for cleaning. Among several disadvantages, gasoline has additives that leave unwelcome residue on parts. If, however, my understanding of the word "petrol" is incorrect, then I apologise for my ignorance.

 

As I said earlier, there are solvents and rinses especially made for instrument cleaning; they are the best substances to use because they present NO risk to the parts involved.

 

Another "However" ... Some brass parts, depending on their particular alloy composition, can be adversely affected by ammonia so if you are cleaning brass parts - gears, etc. it is probably prudent to use a non-ammoniated cleaner.

Oops, forgot one thing...

 

Acetone is a much better than petrol. BUT be sure you keep it away from any plastic or painted surface. The fumes are pretty bad as well but it's a much "cleaner" formulation than petrol and doesn't leave any significant residue. However if you are talking about cleaning camera parts, you shouldn't use either one. There are all sorts of cleaner/rinser solutions sold for cleaning watch, camera and instrument parts. They should be used because they are designed to clean thoroughly but gently and leave absolutely no residue.

 

L&R is a well-known manufacturer with a complete line of such products.

Karim,

 

Lots of controversy ref lubricants but, as a watchmaker who restores/services antique clocks, pocket watches, and wristwatches, I will offer the following:

 

Synthetic lubricants have replaced "traditional" lubricants in watch manufacturers recommendations - Rolex, Omega, and all others I am aware of specify syn lubricants. Watches (and cameras) require several different grades of lubricant, depending on the requirement in the mechanism. 2-3 different "weights" of oil and 2-3 different greases is fairly common.

 

Synthetic lubes hold up better. They do not thicken and turn to sticky goo as quickly...I have never seen them do so at all although they may given enough time. There are a few people who do not like synthetics but I think it is more from a traditional viewpoint rather than a real issue with synthetics themselves.

 

But when people say "it's traditional," keep in mind that they are not really accurate. lubricants up to the end of the 19th century were animal-based. Then we progressed to mineral-oil based; now to synthetics. No one I know that claims to be traditional suggests going to animal-based oils. Yet these oils were the oils used on watches/clocks until well into the 20th century.

 

So the short answer is, synthetics are better. HOWEVER...the one bad thing about synthetics is not about the oil, it is the fact that many people believe that servicing can be extended almost indefinitely. This is where the problem arises. Oils becomes contaminated by dust, sand, whatever. When that occurs, it becomes like grinding paste. So the "extended" service that syns offer can actually cause a problem. The oil doesn't break down but the lack of periodic service results in more wear because of the contaminates.

 

So, if given a choice of service every 5 years with "natural" oil or every 10 with synthetic, the natural oil cycle would be better for the device in question. But syns pass every known test for a lubricant better than do "natural" oils. They lubricate better and result in less wear.

 

Sorry for the lengthy response...

 

MikeP