james_elwing

This is like brain surgery.

Anyhow you sound happy, davecaz, :)

When I went to technical college, they gave us Pentax Spotmatics and 400 ASA B&W film. None of us understood what we were doing but were taking reasonably exposed film within 30 minutes. I didn't do much with photography for another 10 years but was sort of prepared. These new cameras are very similar as long as you don't let students use program settings, which make them feel stupid. Program settings are for when you are intoxicated, then just fine, or when you are actually stupid. It's good someone is thinking about their needs, however.

My adaptor doesn't have any ID. The lens position sits well back into the bellows. Other adaptors are identified by engraved numbering, so I assume it came with the bellows as standard. My best guess from my references is that it is UOOYN = 16590N , but I have little confidence that this is right as any illustrations don't look right. Someone please help this sexgun?

Stolen from another Leica post ' so I found the Tamron with a Leica R adapter with it on EBay. Have any of you ever shot that Tamron lens on a Leica R camera body?' This is a reminder that relatively cheap Tamron lenses could be fitted via the appropriate 'Leicaflex' adaptor. Adaptall or Adaptall 2? Don't think you can use 'Leica R' adaptor. Good if you can't afford exotic Leica zooms.

I understand its not total % loss, but lots of light bouncing around inside killing off contrast.

Summicron you want, f2. None of them collapse. Collapsible lenses were for Leica rangefinder cameras. Otherwise all 2 or 3 cam lenses will be ok. 2 cam made for SL is probably cheaper. Avoid 1 cam Summicron made for original Leicaflex. Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong

Gary, whatever you go for will be fine. Generally speaking, most kids do not perceive an obstacle with this sort of stuff.

If they are switching between cameras, it's best to only have to show them once, surely. The functional difference between their predecessors T6i & T6s were minimal as far as I could see. I went from Pentax Spotmatic and Rollei film SLR's to digital EOS, so the Xti layout without top lcd's was sort of familiar. Those who used film EOS probably gravitate to top lcd controls. Do kids learn how to shoot film any more, and if so, with what? You could ask them what they think. I would, and then I'd probably regret it.

Excellent, Richard, thank you.

Why don't you care about the meter? The SL35 is like a frail but handsome Pentax Spotmatic. The metering transmission rod bends easily but can be straightened easily. The metering cell, well that's just a CDS cell. It's worth fixing; nice camera. Someone will know. Good luck

Coating reduces air/glass reflection by 4%-9% depending on glass refractive index, most on the lower side. The Dagor was 6 elements cemented into two groups, as were a few Berthiot lenses, so only 4 glass/air surfaces, but all slow around f6-f7 So was the Beryl. They would have lost little light in transmission. I can't find any with more elements. A fair number of Petzval cine lenses were also in two groups. The Sonnars f2 & 1.5 were in three groups = 6 glass/air surfaces while the Leitz Xenon f1.5 had 5 groups,= 10 and the Summar f2 had 4 groups = 8 air surfaces, so whatever other qualities there were, the Sonnars were more punchy, more like coated lenses before coating turned up at the end of the 1930's. My understanding is that slow-ish lenses like Tessars and Elmars, also with 6 glass/air surfaces, with reflections around 4%. That's why, uncoated, they still behave quite well with film. Sorry, just got a bit carried away......

You have a valid point, Richard. Might have belonged to one of those British Moseley fascists. Maybe it's a sterling silver inlay done in a London Jewellers, around 1939. But probably not. Where's the silver mark?

Well, whoever buys it can do a bit of dig dig infill infill with black stuff, or put it with their luger collection. Yes it's a bit pathetic, and probably carried out by some bright spark with an eye for a few extra bucks with no insight into into his or her actions

Maybe that was just enough difference to allow Leitz to avoid paying royalties to Zeiss. The patent design expired in the early 1920's, but Zeiss retained the name 'Tessar'. I think the early Leitz designs of 'Anistigmat' and 'Elmax' with 5 elements were originally designed to get around those patents.

I don't believe they would be better, unless of course the f1.5 is somehow more durable, which again I don't believe, or has been better cared for because it would have been more expensive, which is logical. I think coating would have been introduced for each version at the same time. I have a pre war rigid Sonnar f2 on Contax I that is clear as a bell. I would also be interested if someone could account for this perception.

camera Leica Standard 1940, lens 1954. Can't see any coating remaining on front element of lens. Cameras were made in chrome like this 1933 until 1948, according to Rogliati

Yes it looks very clean. At that price it would have to have been the original lens. It's an Anastigmat not a later Elmar. At that price, the Russians are probably pulling out their hack saws and zorkis to get a piece of the action. I hope they put it in a dry safe.

Well the camera apparently has no exotic markings, and is in good external condition. It may have something unusual if it's wartime, like a red shutter curtain, but otherwise, looks pretty ordinary. Looks like late 1930's.

Of course the lens is post 1946, but it's obviously an ID marking, so may be an indication of where it joined the body. I think USAF, or any government organisation might have put ID on the body somewhere. Interesting, thanks. Lens and camera look genuine.

2 lenses aren't enough to rule out rangefinder adjustment. I am having trouble focusing M9 with my 70 year old eyes, have taken pics with all lenses and am pretty sure it's the RF, so, I guess calibrate that first. M3 used to take a lot more punishment without such issues.

Looks OK, but this is not a market

Hey, there's mould spores everywhere; relax. Kept dry, they slowly die off, but there's plenty in the air already. Now the old Pentaxes SV etc had rubberised silk, and often went hard, but the Spotmatics and later seem eminently durable. The K1000 is really just a Spotmatic with a bayonet (well, sort of). I think they must have used a modern artificial rubber on those later curtains. The ST801 is also a late camera, so it's probably OK too.

Everything affects something. Vinegar softens and glutenises some proteins. Do we know what the shutter fabric is made of? Probably not. Main thing is that it doesn't leave a lot of residue when it's dried off, and the proteins seem to settle down. If the shutter was natural rubber on fabric, I probably would avoid using anything but a little water on a Q tip, but its a 70's camera, so that's less likely. Have you tried just a bit of warm water as above? I don't think it's likely to contaminate your lenses.

Dave's thread seems sensible. It could also be a bit of corroded aluminium, if there's a lot in the body, or something left over from previous cleaning. A bit of isopropyl alcohol or dilute ammonia or vinegar on a damp Q tip would likely make it look better; otherwise, if it works, it works; doesn't look like mould to me....