james_elwing

Each camera seems to require a different battery. That's my experience but I'm probably wrong. 300D, 400D, etc. OK, but remember, the older the camera, the older the battery it uses, and replacement Canon battery will not necessarily be much cheaper than for new camera. That said, try to buy something that already has two or more batteries with it. Its more likely that the batteries have shared the work. My 400D batteries are getting a bit tired, but I can get by with charging them a bit more often. The new Rebel type cameras like the 750D or 200D are pretty cheap compared to your 5D IV, and they might complement the 5D. Still it might be irritating if it blew up with a new adaptor. Couldn't you borrow a friends EOS to test adaptors, and if it blows up, appear all wide eyed and innocent:eek::oops: I suppose not...

Hi Greg, I wondered how good the the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 III was. Do you have to use a particular Leica lens code?

It's rarely worth paying out much for cleaning such lenses. If you can get a bit of experience cleaning some yourself, without harming something particularly valuable; benefit. Sometimes it's only one accessible surface affected. Cleaning zooms; my personal horror.....

I understand the CV 12 & 15, and lately a 10mm have all been re-tweaked for digital camera use. I haven't tried them. I use a centre darkened ND filter made for large format on my old CV 12mm and get quite good results, with sometimes a little bit of 'Italian flag' colour distortion each side. The old 15mm CV is a complete loss with M9. It may be OK on B&W? Whatever their shortcomings, each of my 12 & 15 CV lenses seem astoundingly sharp into the corners

What is this 'riddled with fungus, but possibly still usable' ? Sounds like you have made up your mind?

I am sure there were a few other changes, but most related to lenses. There were two similar 5 element f3.5 50mm lenses, Anistagmat and Elmax before the 4 element Elmar, then the 6 element Hektor f2.5. This is on the record; someone will know about other minor changes.

Think you just looking at it from an odd angle. Diaphragm looks fine

Think the barrel is just a bit fatter than that on the Elmar 50, otherwise similar.

Lens coating looks good.

I thought the Russians exported the factory and technicians to start with, thus initial quality control was good. Although the later Kievs have a few minor changes, I can't see how they aren't copies of the pre war Contax II and III. I was told that the British importer of Russian cameras in the 1970's examined each carefully and made corrections to avoid having a high proportion returned through flaws. Of course the post was a Contax IIa, a totally different beast, so we are straying a bit. Pretty camera, but unremarkable for the 1950's?

It is close. Actual framing accuracy would be slightly less than pre-war ltm viewfinder, and the need to press eyeball to viewfinder. M3 frame lines are reasonably accurate. When Leica lenses were made at 1m closest focus, rather than the later .7m , it was easier to make a pan-focus viewfinder frame maybe.

Not quite fair. Admit it's a lump, but there is no ungoggled 135, and it's a full stop faster than most other 135s. The goggled 35s (Summaron 3.5, 2.8, Summicron and summilux) are all pocketable. I would try one on before making my mind up maybe.

Wouldn't a 35 Summaron configured (with specs) for M3 be a bit cheaper than the one you have, which would have been made for M2, and therefore every M thereafter. Maybe you could sell yours and buy one, or somehow do a swap. It's a bit heavier, but at least combines focusing with view, and I think it focuses closer than the 1m that most of those earlier lenses do.

The dehumidifying cabinets work fine, and are quite efficient, but you need to keep the internal RH moderate, say 40-50% if you are storing Leica gear with vulcanite, and I would think, leather. I accidentally left a IIIc in my cabinet set too dry, say around 20% RH. The vulcanite, which had been well attached, shrank and cracked off the body. The cabinet is also useful, if set low, at reconditioning silica gel packets.

Canon lenses seem to hold their age well, glass and chrome. It will have to be made before 1968 I assume. Someone will have lens production and serial number dates.

There were a lot more people using film in 2002 (d'uh), but I think you would find the same people taking those same cameras out a few times a year, as it feels good. I just put a roll of 400 ISO colour through my Leica II 1932 and uncoated nickel Elmar maybe once a year. It's pretty, and small, and makes a nice soft clunk. Fortunately, I can still get 1 hour D&P in Katoomba. I can hardly be bothered putting any newer cameras through the same exercise, particularly as the darkroom has been out of action for about 5 years. I love the look of nickel.

Agree with Arthur. There should be no problem.

In 1979 I bought a small Sharp calculator to help me calculate exposures for close-ups for a 5x4" bellows camera. I still use it because it doesn't get bored and turn itself off in the middle of a calculation interrupted by a phone call. That's very reasonable for a bit of electronics. I am afraid I actually destroyed my oldest digital camera by inadvertently pouring coffee onto it. if the SWC isn't grabbing you, that's what is important. The M8, as an older digital with potential issues, is living dangerously. Sometimes that's good.

More important for us, Is Laika still circling the planet? Is Vanguard 1 still working as well as Laika, or still a live puppy.

Have to look up 1960's? Leitz product catalogue, I guess. With little wear, it must have a missing insert.

My guess is an 8mm movie camera. I would think Super 8 because the standard 8 cases had all sorts of little supports etc. Otherwise, whatever inserts were there for whatever purpose, have been removed (d'uh) I guess it's too small for any of that if only 5" wide, not 5" deep. Is the inside bare and unmarked. Its interesting until explained

All that seems likely. The early Leica II was black with nickel knobs. Hard to tell, but those look like chrome, so conversion may have been later. It looks genuine

Nice collection; great condition. Even the Argus lacks the traditional aluminium corrosion.

Me too, thanks all, sincerely. Again EOS400D, but flash wasn't opening, and error 5 showing. Diagrams showed me where everything was; managed to get it open and cleaned it up, AOK. Might even be worthwhile to try to upgrade original camera software.

Agreed, JDMvW; also a $1 Leica, condition no object.:rolleyes: