tod_hart

It started out as a Leica IIIc, by the way, in 1950.<p>

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmnum.htm">Link.</a>

Within five years no private citizen will be able to make an image with anything other than crayons. Why?

 

1 - Antiterrorist or security concerns will prohibit photographing any buildings, scenery or anything else someone might want to steal, blow up or (mis)use for political or financial gain.

 

2 - No photographs of people will be permitted to avoid offending religious groups of many kinds who oppose making of graven images.

 

3 - All film manufacturers will have ceased production because their business consultants predict the market for film will dry up someday.

 

4 - No digital images will be possible because all computer and bandwidth capacities needed to take or view them will be completely overloaded with the continuing "digital vs film" debate, which will grow exponentially.

 

Come to think of it, crayons might be the most appropriate imaging medium to survive. But then the question will arise, which brand of crayons will give the best the best bokeh?

<i>Sand? with some stones intermixed?</i><p>

Kind of close. An old cement slab that had red and blue paint splatters on it.

Hey, I'll play! Made with an M2 with a 50 Summicron Rigid with no accessories, so you know I was at least 1m away.<div></div>

Pentaxpayer?

Without claiming any expert status, I can only relate what I've seen and held in my own hands. An Aunt had a very late war-time IIIc, with a serial number just over 391,000, which I think would mean it was made in 1944 or 1945. It had no "K" in the serial number, no special engravings and outwardly appeared to be a normal chrome IIIc of war-time/pre-war vintage. But when you removed the lens, there was a white "K" on the shutter curtain. Maybe it was one that was meant for military use but never got into the right batch. Maybe it was one that they just grabbed an available K shutter when they were assembling it.

 

I'd not be surprised that in the immediate post war cameras you might find individual cameras with lots of little oddities as they were trying to resume normal production and due to shortages had to use left over war time parts.

I second Andrew's comments, thank you for posting the link.

 

I can think of lots things written much more than four years ago that are still worth reading or rereading.

First time I saw a photo of an MDa I couldn't help but think, "A Leica for the blind?"

As others have said, the dial on the back is just a reminder. But still useful if you're like I'm getting and don't take a photo for a couple of days and then pick up the camera and try to remember if I've got 100 or 400 loaded.

 

If it's not gummed up inside, it's spring loaded. Press in and turn while holding it in. Then set the pointer to the film speed. The three parts represent Color-daylight balanced film, Color-Tungsten balanced film and B/W film.

 

The distance scale on the lens is more likely to be correct than the rangefinder if it hasn't been checked for awhile. Outdoors with a 35, I wouldn't worry too much about focusing with the RF unless you're closer than about 8 feet, just set the distance scale on the lens with inf. on DOF scale with the aperture you're using and you're ready to shoot quickly.

<i>(ok, there must be some reason to spend megabucks on Leica RF gear).</i><p>

Can't really hold my not-quite-megabucks M2 below 1/15th. Can consistently hold my $35 Yashica Lynx 14e down to 1/4 - sometimes even 1/2! No mirror slap and it's definitely massive.

If yours is rare, it's not alone. Mine is only slightly later in 1965 (1132xxx) and it doesn't have a ST either. Lever rewind and chrome. I'm the second owner. Inherited it from the original owner, along with the sales ticket - $399.50 with chrome 50 Summicron on July 22, 1966.

A group on one of the other forums has a Hong Kong made Halina that's traveling to more places around the world than most Leicas ever will.

I have two issues of this. One is Vol 21, No. 2 from 1968 and one is vol. 21, No. 1 from 1971.

 

They may have had a set number of issues per year at one time when it was offered as a subscription. New Leica camera buyers in the US apparently received this free. But the 1971 issue has no mention of a subscription price and says, "Leica Photography has no set schedule regarding either time or frequency of appearance in a given year. We reserve the right to terminate all free subscriptions at any time, and publish as few or as many issues as we choose in a given year."

</center>We've alot in common. I'm no pro either and generally have used a 50 since that's the way I normally see things. Never have adapted to a 35 either though I've had one for nearly 20 years for an SLR.<p>

 

I just use a 50 unless I can't back up far enough to fit everything I want in the photo in. Then I switch to a 35. I know, not a terribly profound working method, but it fits my needs.

I've made some images with my M2 that seem to just jump off the print, but I wouldn't say I'm necessarily using it at its highest level of perfection.

 

Maybe that's why Holgas are popular among some photographers. Lots easier to come closer to achieving their "true potential". Otherwise you're forced to admit the biggest limiting factor is the user behind the camera.

There is an alignment peg on the back of the finder attachment (at least some of them, maybe all) that needs to be removed before it can be mounted on an M6. It's held on by one screw. It slides over the top plate when the finder is attached to earlier M bodies, but hits the higher top plate of an M6 and won't let the finder mount on the lens.

When many (maybe most) people think of HCB, they think of M Leicas and vice versa. But this evening as I thumbed through a copy of Pantheon Photo Library's HCB something struck me. There's 63 photos. Many are among is best known. Others are less well known. Probably representive of his work over all. Forty-five were made before 1954. Two were made in 1954 and sixteen were made after 1954. Which means he probably made more photos with a SM than an M. So how about a commemorative HCB IIIc?

The closer I look at the photos, the odder these seem.

 

The the first camera has the serial number for a IIIc, and also the shutter speeds of either a IIIc or an early IIIf (30, 40, 60, 100...), but it has the top engraving of a IIIf as Leica/ DBP/ Ernst Leitz/ GMBH/ Wetzlar/ Germany.

 

The second camera has the serial number of a IIIf, and the shutter speeds of a IIIf (25, 50, 75, 100...), but its top engraving looks like Leica/ DRP/ Ernst Leitz/ GMBH/ Wetzlar/ Germany.

 

I think all IIIc cameras had the "DRP" and no "GMBH", while all IIIf cameras had "DBP" and "GMBH".

 

If it's a converted IIIc, they also must have re-engraved it. Or maybe they made a IIIf and used an old, previously unused serial number, or mis-engraved the serial number. If the first 4 were actually a 7, it would have been allocated to a IIIf with a self-timer. But then the shutter speed sequence wouldn't have been consistent.

If not for the serial number on the first one, I'd say they were both IIIf models. The wind knob, flash synch dial and even the self timer are all consistent with a later IIIf. But the serial number is one for a 46/47 IIIc. Could it be either a IIIc which was upgraded or a IIIf that's had its top plate switched with a IIIc.

To confuse the issue, in typical Leica fashion, some M4-2 bodies were retrofitted with an M6 finder to include the 28 and 75 framelines. I personally know of one that had this. Its serial number was just over 1.5 million.

A Canon FTBn was a tough, manual camera, but it like all the mechanical shutter Canons are over 25 years old now and take mercury batteries. Except for the last version of the F1, which would be considerably more cost than a good used K1000.

 

Nikon has more offerings in this class. The FM, FM2 or FM2n are all manual cameras. The Nikkormat FT2 or FT3 are both solid, manual cameras. The FT2 takes older Non-AI lenses. Both take readily available silver oxide batteries or equivalent. Older Nikkormats like the FTN take mercury batteries.

 

But I doubt if you'd find any of these in decent condition for less cost than a K1000.

 

My personal carry-around-in-the-truck camera is a rough looking Olympus OM1 and 50/1.8 Zuiko lens ($51 on eBay) with a dead light meter. I only use it for Tri-X and can usually guess the exposure close enough for most things.

I had a former neighbor who in his early seventies, after his wife died, moved to another city and bought a house with a thirty year mortgage. I'm not sure what his intentions or expectations were. But he had a neat old Exakta Vx that he still used as his only camera. He took it with him when he moved.

<i>Is that prison lingo?</i><p>

 

Even from seriously trying to step around his other posts, one's left with the impression that �[�Z "knows" everything about everything.<p>

 

In the real world, RIF is HR's PC term for reduction in force. For folks working in circumstances of being faced with it, it's a much more prison like experience than worrying about how soon film will or should disappear or whether one particular model of rangefinder has serious finder flare.

It's 127 film. It was also known as vest pocket size and was popular from before WW I until the early 1960's, though it was made for several years after that. It was intended to make eight 1 5/8ths by 2 1/2 inch negatives on a roll, but later cameras made twelve square negatives or even sixteen half frame negatives.

My M2 has two notches on the rangefinder patch to suggest DOF with a 50mm at f/5.6 and f/16. Kind of a neat idea, but I rarely use them. The DOF scale on the lens works better for me.