eliot

I'm not sure I get it. There are some nice pictures, but very few (only a handful) that are really unique to that region. Most of them look like they could have been taken anywhere.

Having used many diffferent Ms at one time or another, I can say without hesitation that the M7 is the most functional. Not only is it the fastest to use because of the AE, but the exposure mechanism is the most accurate because the shutter speed selection is nearly (not quite) continuous in AE. The electronically controlled shutter itself is also more accurate than any other M. Given the fact that the M7 is a little bit cheaper than the MP at this time, I would certainly go for the better and more functional camera than a new camera with retro features.

The ability to provide shadow detail is a characteristic of Leica/Leitz lenses that, in my opinion, is at the heart of their imaging characteristics. It is easier to design wide angle lenses with a shorter film to flange distance,, but to my knowledge, there is not a direct relationship between this distance and the shadow detail resolved by a particular lens.

 

Thgere seems to be a misperception that older lenses with lower contrast somehow provide better shadow detail than newer, higher contrast lenses. This is wrong. It is simply that there is spillover of light from the highlight areas into the shadow areas in images made by lower contrast lenses. This gives the effect of "lightening" of the shadows but does NOT provide more detail, if anything it masks shadow detail.

 

High contrast lenses cleanly separate light vs dark and show more and cleaner gradations of shades of gray. Thus blacks appear blacker, which may be the reason some people think these lenses show less shadow detail, when in fact they are really showing more detail and a more accurate representation of the scene.

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but the sign of the devil is three sixes, not six sixes :-). And who knows, the SN could have been altered, or it could be real. Should check with Jim Lager to find out to whom that camera was delivered.

"I think the final price is not indicative of the current market value for this MP"

 

This is incorrect. Most of the bidders on this item were dealers. The second highest bid was $ 30,000 by imoop, a dealer from Germany. That means head expted to be able to seel it for someweher on the order of at least $ 40,000 (otherwise he doesn't bid so hgih). Another dealer bid $ 25,000. Dealers just don't put down so much money unless they expect to be a ble to sell relatively quickly at enough of a profit to make the expense worthwhile.

 

A chrome MP without lens can fetch $ 30,000. This one is black paint (rarer than chrome) and has an original BP lens (50/2 Summicron that sells by itself somewhere in the range of $ 5000). Not to mention the original MP case, which itself is quite rare.

 

MPs were made in tiny numbers, several hundred originally. More chrome made than black paint. They were used heavily. Many were lost or destroyed, and of the remaining, a number were rebuilt or refurbished (often by Leitz), which, even so, lowers the value. To find an original BP camera with lens and case intact and unretouched is quite a rare finding.

Any auto flash that allows a pc connector should work fine. Preferably one that gives you a choice of apertures. The M4 is no problem. However, the M3 has an old style flash plug socket, so you need an adapter for a modern pc connector. These adapters can be found in most camera stores, or on ebay. They usually only cost about $10 or $15 or so. Some M3 cameras already have adapters inserted. It's no big deal.

Peter Arnett? Isn't he the guy who was previously fired by CNN. For making up a story about "operation tailwind" in which US trrops used poison gas in Laos. Story was completely fabricated, no evidence. Sounds like he got what he deserved. This is not a person that you would call an "objective" journalist. He has a long history of hating US military.

|Very good news. I heard four journalists who were in Iraqi jail were released and are in |Jordan. |This includes the two from Newsday.

Chip, you mean "Ellis", not "Eliot". This is my first post on this thread. My guess is that they are being held prisoner by Saddam's goons. I hope they make it out alive.

Jay. What you forget is that the original price of the M7 was $ 2350. That's what I paid last March. Price now higher and going up to $ 2900. The difference is about the price of finder swap, if I wanted to do it. But in my case it would make little or no difference since I don't experience finder flare.

I seem to notice the M4 and earlier cameras (when properly adjusted) have smoother shutter release with a less sharp and less metallic "thud", compared to later (M4-P, M6, M7, which are similar). I think there was a change in the shutter gearing but I don't know if this accounts for the difference. However, I am quite sure I can tell the difference between the early and late shutter mechanisms, there is just a slightly different feel and sound.

"Are all the bp MPs beat to a pulp?"

 

Yes. These cameras were purchased by PJs and other professionals and were heavily used. The only original MPs that you will see in really nice condition are those that have been rebuilt or refurbished.

Ken. I wouldn't sell unless you need the money. You will almost certainly regret it and later buy it back at a loss. It is a unique lens that does things no other lens can do.

Larry, It's probab;y not a good idea to compare two zooms with such differenr ranges. It's much harder to design a 100-400 than an 80-200, of which there are many over the years. In fact, long tele zooms are quite difficult to design with high quality. The Canon may in fact be one of the best of its type, but I'd bet Canon's 80-200 and more recent 70-200 zooms are probably a lot better than their 100-400.

Reinier. Every lens will flare under certain conditions. The example you show shooting into the light isn't particularly bad, IMO. I've seen much worse.

My understanding is that the close focussing limit for RF coupling is 0.7m and that the RF image doesn't change at closer distances. In the past, Leica had lenses that could be focussed down to 0.4 m (eg, 21/4 and 21/3.4 SA), but the RF coupled only to the close focussing limit (0.7m for M2 and the like, 1.0m for M3).

It is a Betriebsk. camera, which is one made for factory use only. It has a special serial number (4 digits rather than 6 or 7). They are uncommon and worth much more than a regular M3. I have seen them sell in the range of 3000-4000 USD. I suppose the price of 14,500 is because it is said to be "never used" and most are well used. However, I think it is greatly overpriced. Even one in really nice condition is not worth that much. Just my opinion.

I'm very sorry to hear about it. I read many of his articles. A good man.

"But for the way you responded it seemed that you responded from previous experience as opposed to the current (IMO) realities."

 

Chip. I did read those articles in your links and a bunch of other articles from the Washington Post. I regularly look at online articles from the Washington Post. It seems to me that they are not content with reporting the news but are actively trying to influence US public opinion against the war by making big deals out of minor setbacks. They actually seem upset that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of the war. I personally think the demonstrators are getting too much coverage. I have seen coverage of them ad nauseum: papers, TV, news services, etc. I'm in the NYC area and all of the TV stations around here are covering them.

 

I remember Spiro Agnew once called the press the "nattering nabobs of negativity". To tell you the truth, I haven't ever heard a better description of the Washington Post.

Harvey,with due respect. Most major media (eg., Wash Post, NYT, ABC, CBS) were clearly anti-war to rabidly anti-war before the war began. Why in the world should I trust them to give fair and honest reports after the war started? The Washington Post is probably the worst of them. Frankly, I have more faith in what the administration and the military says than what I get from any of the above sources. You see people that hated the war and hate Bush now having the opportunity to make every setback (of which there are bound to be a number in a war) into a monumental detail. It is quite a spectacle. I hope the reporting is better in Britain, but I fear not. I should also say that, surprisingly to me, CNN is doing a better job than I expected.

 

But my point is that people who have a certain prejudice going into the war retain that prejudice during the war.

I would want to inspect it before bidding to make sure it's genuine, but I noticed there is a bid of 15K from Lars Netopil, who is an expert. A genuine MP in BP finish with BP lens must be worth at least $ 30,000. It's hard to believe that the seller is offering such an item an says he is not an expert. That doesn't give one confidence. I think people will just try to buy it at a much lower than full retail price.

I don't accept the premise that the media is biased because it is owned by large corporations. The two statments I believe to be correct (ie., the media is biased, and the media is owned by large corporations), but A is not the result of B. I think the media bias is based on their training (most journalism professors are very liberal), and I have seen a study from a few years back indicating that about 87% of reporters were actually Democrats, whereas the rest were Republicans, independents, or unaffiliated. If you think that doesn't lead to bias, you are naive. My guess is that PJs are just about the same. I think that they probably just gravitate toward media outlets that reflect their political point of view rather than being the cause of their political point of view. That's just my opinion.

"Wow guys, nothing like blaming the individual experiencing the problem rather than the camera itself."

 

Yes. Yes. I know the argument. For $ 2500 it ought to be perfect. Well it's not, and even with the flare fix it wouldn't be perfect. 1/50 sync speed and 1/1000 shutter speed? That's not perfect, nor is the absence of a spotmeter. But one thing you do get for your monetary outlay is the right to complain. To post grievances. And that may be more valuable than any flare fix. After all, you can't complain about C/V, too cheap, too much value for money. But you can complain about Leica. So be happy about that. :-)

Tony. Yes, they do turn up from time to time. There are those who don't clean the surface of lenses so you won't find marks. But even these will, in my experience, invariably have some kind of fog or internal element separation. That is, unless they have been professionally cleaned. It's not that common to clean a 50/2 Summar because the lens is so inexpensive.

a terrible post. another mistake, should read "without a camera body"