james_elwing

It's a traditional Russian fake Leica, with the shielded cable release, rangefinder and viewfinder windows of the Russian copies from which it is made, along with their version of the vulcanite imitation leather covering used by Leica. It is a rough copy of the 1932 Leica II. All Leica collectors need at least one of these

I agree with Ed. In my opinion, the easiest darkroom or clean storage improvement is a light industrial air filter (with induction motor) on a 24 hour timer to give 20 minute bursts of filtration a few times per day and night. At least that way, you enter a relatively clean environment before you do anything else. I have clear polyester (Mylar/Melinex) rolls that have been effectively 'dust free' for 7 years or so, and nothing in the store ever requires dusting. When I had a darkroom, I made sure the filter would not whip up air currents while the darkroom was in use, and used an extraction fan & filtered drying cabinet. I knew a lens repair technician who previously had significant dust issues and swore by this kind of filtration.

It looks like a wartime (WW2) 3C from 1941. It may have originally had a red/black shutter, or it may still have one. The marking on the back indicates that it would have belonged to the German Air Force. It has obviously been used after the war if the later 1949 design(?) Summaron made in 1958 was actually part of the kit. The EL No. is very different from the conventional serial No. which indicates 1941 I think the difference is tied up with the military designation. It looks like an original Leica to me.

24-105 has a good reputation, as JDM says. Maybe older big range lenses are expected to be a bit down in quality, or have distortions you don't want to know about, so they don't attract critical evaluation as much . EF lenses for film cameras also included 38-76, 35-70, 28-80, 28-90. You shouldn't have to pay more than $10 for one of these plus a film camera like EOS 3000 at a garage sale. I would have thought a 50 f1.8, as suggested, being fast and cheap, might also be good for testing

Marcus, let me get this right; with the disabilities of Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar; ("With one eye and one arm gone west,she ran like the devil and she grabbed the rest." George Formby) , you mixed metaphorically put together a working AK-47 from the damaged remains of 5 lying on the ground, in 10 seconds, and thus saved the platoon.

I have run the 400d / RebelXTi for 10 years with two interchangeable batteries, each of which still functions. It has been satisfactory, reliable and af focus simple and accurate. Obviously the manual focus is an issue, but I didn't twig about magnification for some time because the viewfinder was bright enough. Yes, par for the course. I use Leicas, so it weighs nix but 'miniscule', no; just reasonable size. An FF Canon with a big zoom is the size and weight of 2 house bricks; scary and dangerous.

My old 400D has a pentamirror with different on focusing screen layout but the same degree of viewfinder brightness and image magnification as the SL1 and my new 750D. I have found each of these easy to use and bright enough for framing on autofocus, but unsatisfactory with manual focus, particularly when taking at full aperture, or using catadioptric / mirror lenses. I get focus wrong all the time. With the later SL1/100D and 750D cameras, focusing is OK in live view, but not something I'm used to. I guess I will get used to it, but I appreciate your problem.. You could see if a pentaprisn EOS APS C like the 80D should be brighter, and Canon makes appropriate 1.2x viewfinder enlargers, and there are some independent wider viewfinder enlargers. Bit more expensive and I'm not sure how useful a 1.2x enlargement would be.

Do what I do; keep them all; buy more, but divide them into two boxes, those I might use, and those I might use :-)

That's a lot lighter. At the same time, Leicas got heavier: 400g+ for the pre war IIIa, 600g- for the 1954 M3

That's very interesting, Ross. It is important to hold a coalition together at such a time and Patton having stepped on so many toes was seen by many as a dangerous radical. I think I learned at school that many unsavoury agreements regarding how the war should end were made at Yalta, and I guess that wouldn't have happened if Patton had ripped up the turf and got to Berlin earlier. I think the Russians were after a fair slice of revenge, as well as real estate.

I was surprised it was 20g heavier than a Leica M3. I always thought it was a lot lighter. Peer Gynt casually took the oath of the trolls; something like, "A troll is to himself enough..." You have been around longer than I have, so, cheers.....

With a specially light camera like the 100D/SL1 you need to work out which of your lenses are going to hang off the camera and which are the centre of weight themselves, It's a brilliant little camera; my wife has one. You must have bought it for its weight or size? Maybe you need to divide function into light kit / full kit? I don't like carrying weight without purpose any more. Otherwise, Mark has the right idea.

I assume that's an 18-55 lens? Its a pity there are so few camera shops around with a junk box. Half the hard cases in such a box would fit just fine.

Your 50 is clearly faster than the 40, but a lot of those 50's are not all that durable, and not perhaps as optically good. The 40 is a good lens, and small. You wouldn't get anything for the 50; put it in a dry box, or make a gift of it. I'd keep the 85 for a bit of speed and out of focus stuff. I don't know it, but if "it's a lovely lens" you would be losing a viable option. What would you get for the 300?

I have one of those with goggles. I call it a 35mm f2.5 or 2.8 for lens detection on the M9. It behaves very well as far as vignetting is concerned.

I get 601g for Contax 2 body complete with film take up reel but without film or lens. With f2 Sonnar 50mm, that was 763g. Contax 1 body as above was 566g, but looks heavier 'cos it's black.

I shot an arrow into the air; it fell to earth I knew not where Let us know if you get a response

As above, but fit an older 15mm Voigtlander 4.5 without rf cam. You won't have to worry about RF accuracy...

Just to keep this thread alive, I might mention that I tend to agree with Gus. I, foolishly had my Summicron front surface polished maybe 30 years ago, on advice from my lens person, as the coating was embarrassingly damaged. While I couldn't bring myself to fit a UV filter, blame aesthetics & hubris, I have taken reasonable care since then. If I had a clean coated copy, I would, even then, have protected it. My second wife had used a pocket handkerchief to clean her Summarit 1.5, and I saw that as a worry.

The filter you have will tend to allow a period pop on lens cap to fall off. To me the only advantage of actually using a 1950s /60s Leitz filter is that it is lumpy enough to stop the Leitz metal lens cap falling off. It's a lens with soft coating and soft glass at the front. Any decent 39mm coated filter should serve to protect.

What Steve says, and load onto a usb stick.

Open CR2 files with canon software, then save them all as tiffs without alteration.

The 90mm Elmar-C was made for the Leica CL and L/M CLE. It is an excellent smallish and lightish lens. I can't imagine you could do much better. I am sure I payed under $300 AUD, but some ebay prices are bizarre.

My Xti/ 400D is now 10 years old. While it is still in good order, I would like access to the larger 24 megapixel sensor, and am also looking at these two cameras. Because I find the Xti layout very satisfactory, I gravitate towards the T6i /750D, which has a similar layout; perhaps only through inertia, but I have never felt comfortable with lcd controls on the top cover. So no real reason...... I understand that the two cameras are similar in function, so it doesn't make a lot of difference.

I don't quite understand. The Pentax ME Super had manual and aperture preferred automation. It's quite possible to use either of those settings exclusively on an EOS600D, adjusting ISO as required. There is not even a need to use anything but auto white balance for your jpegs, although white balance setting is just common sense. Any other settings can be left on default settings as long as you want. Choosing to shoot in jpeg/raw or raw alone would inevitably mean using photoshop or similar, which sounds like a can of worms you may not want to deal with. The 400D & 100D I have been using are each a little less sophisticated than the 600D, but basic controls are pretty much the same. At that level, I find them both very easy to use, particularly shooting jpegs on aperture priority.