giles_poilu

Thanks Steve, I will give it a go - pity I may have to junk all my XP2 stock!

Well, I had a really close look at the film and the scratches begin just after the piece of tape attached for processing - if it was the camera it should have been scratched on the two wasted loading frames also I guess?

 

There is also a small bunch of small scratches around this area perhaps suggesting ham-fisted processing - other films have been ok with this camera so I guess it must be the processing.

 

How does TCN400 compare to XP2 Super in other respects?

I have used XP2 for many years and it really is my preferred B&W film

but having just received another roll back with scratches all along

the film I am getting mad.

 

I really do not think it is the fault of my M2 in this case, how do I

know if it is the camera or the processors? The scratch seems a

consistent line all through the film from an inch or two past the

leader.

 

I have had XP2 processed in many labs including central London Pro

labs and all have managed to scratch films - is XP2 especially prone

with it's thin base and would Kodak's equivalent chromogenic film

offer a solution?

Let an expert do it for you, see here:

 

www.cameraleather.com/leica_m/preview.htm

Hello, it certainly looks like a Leica copy as such like a Shanghai or Fed etc but no listing in HPR's 'Leica Copies'.

 

It is in the 'Blue Book': circa 1954, 35mm RFR camera, Luminor Anastigmat 45mm, F3.5 lens, 1/10 - 1/300 sec, Made in Japan.

 

Value is given around $150, this is probably out of touch - most Leica copies passing through Christies in London are very collectable and fetching high prices now.

I have had this on two M4-P's and seen it in other M6's. Seems to be a fogging of the inside of the front viewfinder window. Only remedy was dismantling and cleaning. In my experience in direct comparison to non-fogged examples th image was less bright and clear.

But where's the self-timer?

 

:)

Why too good to be true? Just seems like any normal black paint TTL Leica offered by a private seller. A private seller would not offer a warranty and the reserve has not been met so we don't know if it is worryingly cheap!

 

Have you asked if the pictures are of the actual camera for sale - they look like Leica corporate pics to me. Regarding the serial number, for some reason some people seem paranoid about giving these out - maybe someone would claim it was their camera and was stolen?

 

The note about the box etc seems perfectly feasable and his feedback is fine. As ever with any transaction, Ebay or not, there is a risk - IMO ebay prices can reach those of regular, established, warranty issuing high street dealers and even go beyond.

I have to agree with much of what you say...but my gripe and that of some others I think, is that Leica trade an awful lot on their history and exemplary QC standard of their production...unfourtunately the QC standard they boast of left the company many years ago. There are simply too many stories of poor assembly, bad adjustments, mal-functioning electrics, 'dusty' glass etc. These problems in my experience are never found in cameras costing 1/10 of an M.

 

And dumping the all mechanical M is a very regrettable decision.

 

"I don't want my Leica gear made in China for cost reasons"

 

Presumably as opposed to Germany? - most of it is MADE in Portugal...not that there is anything wrong with Portugal or China, but the people assembling Leica's today are not comparable to the skilled craftsmen who *built* them 30 or 40 years ago be they German, Portuguese, Chinese (one day?) or whatever.

 

Most M enthusiasts here seem to love Leica for the glass, I don't - I love the bodies - I do not really believe Leica glass is any better than the best of the rest but many Leica users seem to have to get all emotional about it for some reason.

 

And the shutters are not silent - I wish they would stop suggesting all SLR's still sound like Nikon F's.

 

But apart from that, yes, the M is still the best out there but if, say Canon wanted to enter the market with their R&D and technology to provide a proper alternative to the M then that would be something worth seeing - an EOS 1 M sized RF...?

Steve, congratulations - just a thought is it picture distortion or is that lens pointing in a different direction to the film plane?

"The technique you describe will get out-of-focus pictures in addition to potentially poorly exposed."<p>Sorry John but it will not and I have to disagree! Incident readings are far more accurate, the light at home should not be constantly changing and zone focussing is perfectly capable of producing correctly focussed pictures. If <u>you</u> can follow a moving child, simultaneously altering the light setting AND altering the focus (very difficult with a RF for an erratically moving subject) AND get well composed pictures you are a much better photographer than most of us!

 

It's the same concept as fast street photography and has worked for years. People did manage to take pictures before in-camera meters came along - there is a reason most pro's own an external meter. With a bit of thought your photos will be perfectly exposed and focussed.<p>There is no reason why an F100 (or any other AF SLR) should produce better results, AF can have just the same problems keeping focus as a RF and will limit your composition.

What rot! Take one incident reading, zone focus and snap away. I suppose with an M6 as they run around you will be matching up those little arrows and changing settings every time they move a few feet?

Quote from sales blurb:<p>

 

"As collectors´ items, the cameras have special serial numbers ranging from 001/999 to 999/999 and are delivered in a <b>valuable wooden box.</b> Also included is a <b>certificate signed by Hans-Peter Cohn, c. e. o. of Leica Camera AG, and Ralf Coenen, c. o. o. of Leica Camera AG.</b>"<p>

 

Well, that box and certificate sure sound impressive!

An often asked question - my answer is to go for the most tecnically advanced, highly specced SLR available. Generally a mid to high range Canon (my choice) or Nikon. Leica make the very best rangefinder cameras but I am afraid the big two have them licked when it comes to SLR's.

 

If you want an SLR for those situations when an M is lacking then surely super quick AF with tracking, accurate AE, 5 frames/sec + autowind, an enormous range of superb lenses (inc image stabilization), a huge range of macro and flash accessories etc, etc is better than a very manual R9 with a very limited MF spec, poor distribution and back-up and tiny secondhand market.

Forget base lengths and give it a go - even with the best accuracy the depth of field for the 50 at 1m and F1.5 wide open is a few mm - it is very difficult to get portraits accuratly focussed - I sold my Nokton for this reason and bought the 2.5 - small as a (3rd/4th version) 35 Summicron and comes with a better focus tab than any Leica lens.

 

As others say just use faster film, any grain disadvantages etc are negligable and far less obvious in typical low light shots - I believe in fact they add to the feel of this type of image.

Sheldon, I have always preferred the older non-metered bodies and would love an M4. I finally bought an M6 last month and sold it after one week - I just could not get on with the fiddly in-camera meter after years of incidence meter use. Without viewfinder info of shutter speed etc it is just too slow and fiddly and distracting.

 

If you also prefer working with an external meter don't waste money on the M6, it will not feel anything like the M2.

 

A good chrome M4 should be less than an M6 (certainly in the UK) and with both needing a CLA the M4, IMO, will give you a better value purchase, in terms of quality, prestige joy of ownership and long term value.

 

I would like an M4 but it would have to be black, for that reason I am sticking with my M4-P, I have a really nice example that was a giveaway price and is 100% reliable and beautifully put together. It does not feel exactly like an M2 but far more so than an M6 does.

 

As I have decided to (hopefully) keep it for life it is currently with Dan Goldberg being modified. An M5 delayed action is being fitted, the 75 and 135 frames being removed, an M2/3 style wind lever fitted and the camera CLA'd. This should give me my ideal Leica.

 

As an aside I am expecting my first child in April and concur with your spending thoughts!

Robert, I just bought one last Friday. All I can comment on so far is the handling etc...and this is superb. It is very solidly built and really compact, almost exactly the same size as my 3rd version Summicron 35 - it is actaully smaller, especially with the hood on compared to the 35's metal vented number. The focus tab is brilliant and the filter size is 39mm, so I have one filter size for my 25 (Vgt), 35 and 50.

 

I just put the first films through it yesterday - hopefully the optics will equal the mechanics - the short throw tabbed focussing is a dream.

 

I bought it (from R. White) for much the same reasons as you - compactness, tab etc but the speed for me (2.5) is fast enough and the price as ever with VC is a giveaway.

 

I had a 1.5 for a short time but it was really too bulky and I had some problems focussing wide open (4mm DoF at 1m) so the bulk and speed was wasted on me - ISO 400 is my standard speed film.

I have to agree with the others - as the guilty party who has offered for sale the Digisix (my first FS post on this forum - and sucessfully sold already - thanks!) - surely items of specific interest to Leica owners should be allowed?

 

I think if we start seeing 10 roll bundles of dodgy film, sunset filters and lens tissues then fair enough but handheld meters, Voigtlander lenses and Rapidwinders etc are a different story and used by mainly Leica specific (meters excepted) shooters.

 

Have to agree with the back-patting though...far more preferable to have all the fighting and moaning...

<i>Did Leica QC get phased out after the glory days of Wetzler?</i><p>Well, if not phased out certainly drastically reduced. Three or four highly experienced employees checking every camera costs a lot of money.<p>A reputation for quality manufacturing like Leitz enjoys (enjoyed?) is very expensive to create - they should be more careful they do not throw it away.

Hmmm, here is the <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1946623663&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAS:UK:3"> sold one...</a>

I have to disagree with the TTL fans here, I am not a fan of M6's and have <a href="http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004LoJ"> just sold mine</a> but if there is any <u>standard</u> M6 that will be worth more in the years to come it will be the true "classic" - the original Wetzler made M6 (more so than the later Solms models). The TTL with it's battery dependant flash operation, wrong way shutter dial and larger size was a step backwards IMO.

Jack, sorry to see you go. FWIW and IMHO after coming back to this forum after a lay off it seems sadly declined compared to the old "Greenspun" days of a year ago - just seems far less lively and with fewer contributions.

 

Happy Christmas to all.

Have you looked at <a href="http://www.quickreleaseplate.com/">this?</a>

My perfect Leica is very simple: Just remake the M4 in black paint <i>almost</i> exactly as it was but remove the 135 frame and re-instate the M2/3 all metal wind lever. Perhaps bring back the M2 style external counter - a joy to use. Oh, and I always did sort of like the symetrical look of the M2/3 pull-up rewind lever as opposed to the slanted M4 type.<p>Having just bought an M6 after many years of using non-metered M's it has confirmed to me that it really is much easier to use an external meter and suits my style of working far more - IMO the self-timer is far more use than the meter.

Looks like I screwed up the HTML in the title - sorry!