chris_chen4

I use a 40mm M-Rokkor w/my M3 all the time--the 40mm view is

approximately the same as entire view provided by the M3 finder

(including the area outside the 50mm frameline).

Max:

<p>

I don't have an M6, but my experience w/other TTL-metering cameras

tells me that your manual is essentially correct. As John Chan noted,

light meters are *not* uniformly sensitive across the color spectrum.

You should always experiment w/your filters to ensure that you're

compensating correctly--as Tim Franklin's experience suggests, you may

want to check your readings even w/the lighter filters despite what

the manual states. This is 1 area where I find it easier to use a

camera without a TTL meter (e.g., M3/M2/M4) because you can just

manually dial in the correct compensation factor on your

handheld/clip-on meter.

I would 2nd Lucien's recommendation re: the Billingham Hadley inserts.

Although obviously designed to fit inside the Billinghams, they work

great w/all sorts of briefcases, travel bags, etc. If you do decide

to get a Billingham bag, it's much, much cheaper to order them direct

from a dealer in the UK (e.g., Robert White) than it is to purchase

them here in the U.S.

How about the Nikkor LTM & Canon RF 85/2's, 100/3.5's, &

105/2.5's? All excellent lenses & should cost way below $500.

Pat:

<p>

The authori of the letter was probably Marc James Small, a noted

authority on all things Zeiss--it's true, HCB used Zeiss lenses,

which were superior to Leitz products of the time.

<p>

--------

Refering to Sait's comment about the relevance of the

HCB/Zeiss thread: I remember reading a letter written to

"Camera Shopper" magazine a few years ago from a man who

was with the foreign press corps with HCB during portions of

WW2. I believe his name was Mr. Smalls. He recalled that HCB

prefered the Leica cameras but that the Leitz lenses of that era

were too slow and too soft. He therefore had a Zeiss 50/1.5

Opton adapted to fit his Leica screw-mount. Mr. Smalls also

recalled that the most common greeting among the European

press corps was "Cheers". I have often wondered if others on

this forum had heard this story, too, since "Cheers" is such a

common parting comment here. Anyway, it was a cute story

because Mr. Smalls provided an intimate look into a period of

photo history that has been often eulogized and romanticized.

Cheers, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), March 17, 2002.

I have both kinds & while the MRCs are supposed to be better @

preventing stray reflections, I haven't been able to see any

difference in my negatives (maybe I just don't take enough photos in

challenging lighting conditions, e.g., into the sun).

Here in the U.S., it's taken me as little as 1 or 2 weeks to get my

passport materials & another week for a rebate check.

Someone just asked a similar question on the <a

href="http://www.topica.com/lists/leica/read?">LEG</a>. The

sources listed by Stefan are a good start to understanding how

filters work, but my advice is to start w/a light yellow or light green

to darken skies a bit & yet avoid messing up skin tones too

much (red & orange can make "white" folks look a little ghostly).

Also, a suspicion of mine was recently confirmed that @ least

some of the Ilford B&W films (e.g., HP5+) are more red sensitive

than the Kodak & Fuji emulsions--meaning less of a need for

filters.

"Predatory, aggressive"?! At least we're not actually annexing

nations to our "empire" like the British & other European powers

in their heyday.

Huh? The fact is that China has chosen to pursue an export-driven

development strategy & the U.S. is China's largest export market,

whether China likes it or not. As protectionist as the U.S. can be

(as shown by the recent steel dispute), no other country is as willing

to buy Chinese products, which means U.S. consumers are doing more

than their share in increasing the buying power of Chinese consumers.

<p>

As per China being a potential nuclear target of the U.S., get real!

Do you really think that China doesn't have the U.S. programmed into

its ICBMs (along w/India, Russia, & Japan)?

<p>

-------------

<p>

It seems that the next major hurdle for Bush is the escalating

political/economic tension between the USA and China. China will

become the next major powerhouse; of that I am sure. However, they

seem to want NOTHING to do with the States. And who can blame them?

Why do you need a trade partner who will sell you goods if they won't

give your consumer base any buying power? Just recently a document was

"leaked" from the White House stating that there were several

countries that they would consider nuking and China was one of them.

Coincidence or a ploy to get enough world attention to kickstart talks

with China?

I asked this question on the Topica RF list a while ago, & Stephen

Gandy opined that it was already a gigantic pain for Nikon to bring

back the S3 (they had to grab old factory hands out of retirement to

teach current workers the old-fashioned manufacturing techniques,

start up a special production line, etc.), so that reproducing the SP

would have been too much.

<p>

---

<p>

I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP?

A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the

japanese IRS)?

This is an old thread & I've already argued w/Bill Mitchell about

Leica v. Contax build quality/engineering, etc. on another thread (I

voiced the opinion that, far from having "dodgy shutters &

mechanicals," the Contax was superior to the TM Leica on all counts),

so I'll limit this posting to voicing my opinion re: the Contax/Nikon

RF lens mount issue. I'm probably the only 1 who feels this way, but I

disagree w/Carlin, et al. & believe that the Contax/Nikon RF mount is

actually more intuitive & ergonomically comfortable than the Leica M

mount. By that I mean that I've found it much easier, w/the

Contax/Nikon hanging on a shoulder/neck strap & lens facing away from

me (which is the way I usually carry a camera), to unlatch the lens

w/my left hand & then use my right hand to rotate the lens clockwise &

remove it (I'm right-handed, BTW) than use the opposite hands for each

task, which I'm forced to do w/the M cameras. To me, changing a lens

on the M's is easier only if the camera lens is facing towards me

(viewfinder up)--only then can I use my left hand to unlatch the lens

& my right hand to rotate the lens counter-clockwise & remove it.

I've also used Leica thread mount cameras (Canon P) & disagree that

the Contax/Nikon RF mount is comparably slow--I think it's

significantly faster--but maybe I just don't have as much practice

w/the LTM. Bottom line: if I could afford 1, the S3 Millenium (or

original) would be a fine shooter, but, like Alex pointed out, I

wouldn't hold my breath waiting for new lenses from Nikon!

Nothing wrong w/your lens choice so long as it matches your shooting

style & locale. When traveling, I like to bring a simple 2 lens

combo, most often a 35/40/50 + a 85/90/100, w/about 25% of my shots

being made using the longer focal length. If I know I'll be shooting

mostly indoors, I'll go w/a 21/28/35 + 50 or just a 35/40/50. My

favorite "super-light" outfit is an M3 w/40/2 M-Rokkor & the black &

chrome or all-black Canon RF 100/3.5.

That's really a question for the photo.net administrators, but I don't

think you can limit viewing to specific audiences--for public viewing,

it's either on or off.

It's basic HTML--go to "Older Messages," click on

"Administration," & click on the 6th topic from the bottom!

In response to Greg Mason's advice re: his Contax IIIa--I would

disagree to the extent that I've found the Zeiss Ikon Contaxes, pre or

post-WWII, to be far superior to "LTM standards" (w/the possible

exception of the IIIg) in features & usability (e.g., combined RF/VF,

single non-rotating shutter speed dial, self-timer, etc.). As to the

lenses, the general consensus is that Zeiss glass, w/superior designs

& coatings, handily beat its Leitz competition until the mid 1950s,

when the field started to even out.

Lutz Konermann sells an accessory for the M's that would fix your problem:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.konermann.net/slide.html">http://www.konermann.net/slide.html</a>

As others have pointed out, it's less of a lubrication issue than the

fact that there's fit & finish variation between the different models

(& examples w/in models) of the M cameras--it's inevitable w/any

mechanical device. My M3 has a much tighter lens mount than my M2.

Using petroleum jelly or whatever may help some, but it's really

nothing to worry about (unless you also notice some focus problems).

The selenium cells can be replaced & the meter fixed. I don't

know any places in the UK, but here in the States, Quality

Light-Metric in Hollywood California (323-467-2265) does

excellent work.

Only you can say how much you need the extra speed (check the

archives for extensive discussions of other point of comparison).

You can accomplish a lot w/f/2, but, as Tom Bryant points out,

when you need that extra stop, you need it. Also, in my

experience w/street prices, the 35 'lux is *not* $1000 more than

the 35 'cron, more like a "mere" $600 (although I lucked out &

only paid $275 more).

David:

<p>

I know about Chrome, but after tax, the cost is closer to $12 &

Nat'l Geographic charges close to $14 (also incl. tax). Also,

neither of them are open late during the week (7pm for Chrome

& 6pm for Nat'l Geo) or on weekends (Chrome closes @ 2 on

Saturdays & Nat'l Geo isn't open @ all).