frank_horn

<p>I can't post a picture, but the Kodak Bantam Special was no slouch. Ditto the Kodak Signet 35.</p>

<p>GOOD NEWS! It is not the camera. I used up my last roll of Kodacolor 800 and another roll of Fuji 400. I shot 5 frames on each roll and had Wal*Mart develop them. No light leak at all.<br>

I am going to tell Walgreens mgr that something is wrong with his machine or the operator. Both Walgreens and Warmart hire minimum wage people who find it difficult to chew gum and walk at the same time. <br>

Thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>John--<br>

Good idea. I will do that as soon as possible. If that is the problem, I'll save a lot on the CLA.<br>

BTW- What is a CLA going for nowadays?<br>

Also BTW-- Walgreens said that there is still enough 35mm film processing to justify keeping their machine, but when it goes, they WILL NOT repair the machine and film processing will be history at that store. They told me that the bulk of film processing there is from disposable cameras. People shooting with 35mm reloadable cameras are from another era.<br>

Also, there are no sprocket hole imprints in the photos.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur--<br>

That is what I did. If I try another roll, it will be the third roll. Wal-Mart also processes film and I am going to try another type of film and take it to Wal-Mart. If I still am having light leaks, I will have to get a CLA. These M4-Ps are getting old now, and this one has taken a lickin' and come up tickin' for a very long time.</p>

<p>Bought this camera in late 1980s. It had just been back to Leica for CLA. It has worked perfectly up till recently.<br>

* Last two rolls of Kodacolor 800 had these characteristics---<br>

1) The first 5 frames had orange splashes on photos. Worst is the first frame; gets better by fifth frame, then no light splashes for the rest of the roll.<br>

2) I did nothing differently in loading camera or removing film. Done in subdued light.<br>

3) I use the 50mm Elmar-M. It is never removed.<br>

It is developed and printed by machine at Walgreens. If it were the camera's fault, would not there be a light leak on every frame, not just the first five?<br>

Posting photos would help, but it is beyond my learning curve!</p>

<p>It is in the news and can be <em>googled.</em></p><p>Please post to existing thread at http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00ZPBA?unified_p=1</p>

<p>I always use a filter over the lens for protection. An 81B (B+W) works for me for daylight scenes, much the same as tan sunglass lenses that I always wear. I particularly like Portra 800 and use both the 81B and neutral density 4x. Erwin might see degradation, but I can see any. Also, it gets my ISO meter reading down to 160. Handy in the bright Arizona sun. Take off the filters and you have the added sensitivity of ISO 800.</p>

<p>Bob-<br>

For as old as it is, it sure looks to be in good condition. Did you listen to all the shutter speeds? I can't recall if these were focal plane or between-the-lens shutters. But they were nipping at the heels of Leica, as far as quality.<br>

The person whom I would ask would be the man who runs <em>Photogtraphy on Bald Mountain.</em> He specializes in old relics of bygone eras and can make it work like new. The question is: How much $$$?</p>

<p>Gus-<br>

I always thought Leica should have remade the IIIG in bayonet mount. They suppossedly did make a few.<br>

I would have much rather see the IIIG than the Model O, which they did remake.</p>

<p>My idea for a filter case would be--<br>

Same materials as filter case shown above. It would be around the same size as the top of your camera bag. It would have several recesses for filters and a slide over of the same material that the outer case shown above (Neoprene?) It would hold several filters individually. They would be easily accessed.<br>

You could easily see which filter you needed. <br>

Filters need a better way of attaching than screw-on. They made bayonet lenses long ago; how about bayonet filters? Easy on and off.<br>

Lutz-- are you out there???</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd send it back. You might ask the seller for the cost of a CLA rebated, but I doubt he'd agree to that. The right to a refund in a fair time should be a <em>given; </em>satisfaction guaranteed. <br>

When buying this kind of equipment, I just factor the cost of a CLA into the price. As mentioned above, shooting a roll thru it might tell you something. If you send it back and <em>do not </em>get your money back, you then would have picture proof that it was defective.<br>

Welcome to the <em>Age of the Ripoff!</em></p>

<p>I had the same problem. Bought the M4-P body, used. Was looking for a good Summicron when I found a like-new 50mm Elmar-M. I've gotten some terrific pictures with the Elmar-M.<br>

So, I'd say, whatever you find first and have the $$$ for. The Summicron, all things being equal, is worth around 25-30% more than the Elmar-M and the 'lux is worth more than the 'cron. I think the Summicron is more contrasty than the Elmar-M, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. The 'cron and 'lux have more aperture blades than the Elmar-M, so it is easier to finely set.<br>

There are to be had some Zeiss 40mm Sonnars in Leica mounts and I would not hesitate to pick up one of these, if the price is right. These are f2.8s. I had the Rollei 35S with one of these and it is a very sharp lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My problem with the whole thing is not so much what the thing is made of, but that they now want to sell us pot metal, plastic and cardboard, etc., at the price of machined steel or brass. They made their reputation with a certain level of quality vs. price, and now want to slip substandard products off as the real deal. <br>

Washing machines and dryers are so full of plastic now that the Maytag Man has to be called back from his deathbed. Welcome to the 21st Century.<br>

Great post, Gus!</p>

 

<p>When the American railroads wanted people to <em>ditch</em> passenger service, they simply caused trains to be horribly late, cold, hot, and the whole experience miserable. Not that the traveling public necessarily <em>wanted</em> to stop riding the trains, just that someone up there<em> wanted them to.</em><br>

Could digital be something like that? </p>

<p>Josiah-<br>

I also shoot with the 50mm Elmar-M. I once had the 50mm Summicron (1969-79). Both are excellent lenses, but there is a slight difference. It would be nice to see a side-by-side comparison with photos like these.</p>

<p>Note that it can be stopped down to f22. Most of today's 50mm lenses only go to f16.<br>

That old time precision!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Around 1959-1960, I was stationed with the U S Army in Vicenza Italy. I was 17 or 18 and shooting with a like-new Kodak Retina IIC. A salesman from Switzerland hung out around the craft shop, which had a darkroom for cameraa hobbyists. He showed me a brand new black Canon Model P with f1.2 lens. I just had to have one and the salesman took my Retina IIC as a downpayment on another Canon Model P, which he was to deliver within a month. When the salesman did not show up with the Model P, I reported it to the Military Police. I had my new Canon Model P very shortly and took shot much black & white with it. Ultimately, that salesman vanished with downpayments from several Army personnel. I must have been one of his first rip-off attempts, and he supplied me with a camera to keep things quiet while he loaded up with downpayments from other GIs.<br>

The Canon Model P was very much like a Leica. I remember the huge f1.2 screw mount lens, which I never used below f2.8. A very nice viewfinder and the steel focal plane shutter that made more noise than my later Leicas. But the enlargements I printed in the photo lab were very sharp and crisp. I can't remember when, or for what I traded it.</p>

 

<p>A 36-exp roll of Kodak Portra from B&H was $7.50 a year ago. It now is $9.50! If you want to get people out of film-- just raise the price!</p>

<p>Until a few months ago, you could get Kodak and Fuji 135 film at the local Wal*Mart. Now, it is Fuji only. Could it get to where you have to buy film from B&H, etc?</p>

<p><em>The Argus C-3 ("The Brick") is what got me into 35mm. An adult counselor at a camp I once attended showed me photos from the C-3. I was using a Kodak Starflash 127. I asked him why his pictures were so much better (contrast and exposure). He explained the separate pieces of glass in the lens that handled the light much better than the single piece of glass in my Kodak Starflash. Then he showed me the diaphram that measured incoming light. He showed me the hand held light meter.</em><br>

<em>I soon had a GE selenium meter for $5 and a Kodak Pony 135</em><br>

<em>Now as for the last Kodachrome--- I live in the Arizona back country and for around 6 mo., Wal*Mart has stopped offering Kodacolor in any speed. I now have to use Fujicolor, which does not have the vibrant color of Kodacolor. I like the 800-ISO Kodacolor and it looks like that also is gone and can not be ordered from B&H, etc. (I shoot with an M4-P)</em></p>

<p>Michael-<br>

Yes, that "Holy S--T" reaction is exactly what I had when I first looked through the APO-Televid! I wonder if the collapse of the Euro has brought down the price, which was about $4000?</p>

<p>Saw the latest APO-Televids at the NRA Convention in Phoenix AZ last year. 25-50 power 85mm objective.<br>

Tack sharp. Wondering if someone out there has one. Can you view planets well?</p>

<p>I have wondered what it might cost to have one of the old, uncoated lenses coated. Then do a thorough check to see what the effect was.</p>

<p>I owned a Rollei 35S. Due to its very light weight, I had the camera with me more often than my Leica. The scale focusing was no problem and of all the pictures I took with this camera, I probably only missed two shots due to forgetting to focus. All pictures were sharp, even at f2.8. The lens was excellent (40mm Sonnar)<br>

When I bought it, the camera looked mint, but the meter did not work. I had a Gossen Multi-Pro, so the camera meter was easily done without. What I really liked was the between-the-lens shutter, which allowed easy flash fill-in.<br>

I took the camera to work with me quite a bit, which meant it was in the camera bag, riding on the floor of my truck. Lots of vibration. After around three years, the camera just self-destructed. The lens would not collapse and the shutter would not cock. It could have been repaired, but I just picked up a Leica M4-P. I think Leica should make a camera like the Rollei 35S, with 28mm lens, but the days of the film camera is pretty much past.</p>

<p>Quite adequate!</p>