john dorfman

There's a cool picture in a recent book of photos by Clemens Kalischer showing HCB

in NYC in 1946 using a Leica with a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8. It's a Contax-mount lens

with a screw-mount adapter ring. In the "Instant Decisif" image posted above, which

was taken by George Hoyningen-Huene, he's got a 35/3.5 Elmar, and in another I've

seen from the same day's shoot, there's a 73/1.9 Hektor on a shelf in back of him. I

have also seen pictures of HCB using a Summar (not the collapsible Summicron

shown above) on an M camera, with a black VIDOM finder. Imagine perferring a

VIDOM to the built-in M finder! There are also pictures of him using a Leica CL.

Clearly, Cartier-Bresson was a bit of a fondler, in his own way! Leicas were talismanic

for him.

Thanks, Bill. That's a pretty reasonable price. Huw, I think I'll leave the splashing

around of acid to you! I know I would come to grief.

Huw, thanks again! You are a seemingly bottomless well of knowledge and

experience. Maybe I can get instant gratification by just holding an ordinary orange

screw-in filter for a lens over the window so it doesn't cover the other window.

I must say, there's something I really like about that Leica II. I had used only postwar

screwmounts before that, and I feel as if the II is quieter and smoother and its little

windows less prone to haze. Also the smaller size is perceptible and satisfying.

Actually, mine started life as a model I way back in '28. It's a beautiful camera, and it

sort of pains me to put anything but a matching nickel-finish lens on it, but

unfortunately, nickel lenses that aren't scratched up are too rare for me to find or

afford. Currently I'm hunting for a coated Elmar 50/3.5 to put on it. Of course it will

be chrome.

Huw and Bill, thank you very much. Bill, do you mind saying how much that filter

cost? I'd like to try one. Is yours black or chrome?

I have a nice Leica II that has been CLA'd and takes excellent photos (well, it does its

part; the rest depends on me!) One thing bugs me about it, though, and I wonder if

anybody who uses a model II has any input. The secondary (moving) image in the

rangefinder is brighter than the primary image (the one that stays put). In all other

Leica screw-mounts that I've sampled, it's the other way around. The round

secondary-image field is quite bright and clear, but strangely it often seems to blot

out the primary image, so it's hard to focus at those times. It kind of depends on

variable factors of background, contrast, etc.

The Leica II's rangefinder is different from all the later models, I know, in that it's life-

size rather than 1.5x and lacks a diopter adjustor. I take a -2 diopter or thereabouts,

ideally, so the RF works best if I wear my glasses. But it's OK without. Also, the glass

pieces in the two RF windows are slightly different colors: bluish in the right-hand

one (looking at the camera with the lens pointed toward you) and yellowish in the

left-hand one. It was like that when I got it; I wonder if it was came that way from the

factory or if it's a legacy of a CLA decades ago?

Thanks for any insights!

Steve, the minimal beveling was to leave room for the numbers 0 to 20 to be

engraved around the shutter speed dial, in the case of a full IIIf-style synch

conversion. On your camera they just left it blank. The synched version is what the

handbook referred to as a "IIIa synch" -- i.e., IIIa body shape and shutter with IIIf

(black dial) style synch. The Leica 72 had this feature as well, I believe. To see a very

nice example of such a conversion, go to this link:

http://www.schouten-select.org/collectables/IIF23750.html

Using an LTM is easy once you get used to it. I bought a Leica IIIc seven years ago and

basically learned photography on it. The bottom loading and the small finder didn't

seem like a big deal to me because I had very little to compare them to. Now working

with them is second nature. From the beginning, I got -- and still get -- great

satisfaction from the mechanical feel and look of the camera, as well as ergonomic

ease from the size and shape.

I kind of disagree with the statement that using a screw-mount Leica should make

you slow down. I think of them as cameras for thoughtful snapshots, or artful

snapshots, call it what you like. Meaning you think about the picture in advance, but

shoot quickly, without stressing too much about exact exposure and framing (Of

course, you can take your time and compose as with an SLR, put it on a tripod,

whatever you want). Use negative film, and guessing the exposure will not be hard.

Once you know what you want to photograph, you can fire off exposures rapidly.

True, turning the knob is slightly slower than cocking a lever, but I've found that it

doesn't make too much difference in practice. You wouldn't use one of these cameras

in a situation that calls for a motor drive, anyway. But when the LTMs were new,

journalists used them to capture fleeting action, and they did it very well. Maybe guys

like Capa got fewer keepers on a roll than today's PJs (although I wonder how many

they trash off a digital card), but with the perspective of time, does it really matter?

As for the lenses, I don't think the Leica appeal has much to do with that, especially

not in the "classic" era, pre-1960s. I do appreciate the collapsibility of some of the

50mm lenses, which goes well with the compactness theme, but the screw-mount

lenses from Canon and Nikon as as good or better than many Leitz products. Now I'm

using a Canon 50/1.8 and it's great. And of course, there are so many high-quality

lenses, German and Japanese and other, for so many camera systems, RF and

otherwise, that it's pointless, in my mind, to single out Leica. I do know that back in

the 1930s, no one was talking about the special, creamy signature of any

particular lens; they were seeking maximum resolution, or "definition," as they used

to say. And speed -- although Leitz was ususally ready to sacrifice speed for image

quality. Note the proliferation of f3.5 or slower lenses during a time when Zeiss and

the Japanese were making faster ones.

Anyway, I say enjoy it!

Maybe the reason Gerald doesn't recall trimming any leaders is that it wasn't

necessary because until the early 70s, all 35mm film cartridges were manufactured

with a four-inch leader. That was done with the Leica and other bottom-loading

cameras in mind.

I use screw-mount Leicas and always trim the leader. I used to use a scissors and

now have the template. It's really easy if you do a bunch of rolls at once. The camera

is made to be loaded with a long leader, and besides, who wants to take the lens off

just to put film in the camera?

The 50mm lens doesn't match the angle of view of the human eye, it matches its

perspective. This is a very common misconception. With a 50, you don't get any

exaggeration of converging verticals, etc., nor do you get pictures that look

squashed, as with a telephoto. No lens sees exactly like the eye. For my

photography, I've found that the 50 is versatile enough for most purposes. Except

when something like a wall keeps you from backing up any further! And if you look

over the history of photography, the vast majority of memorable pictures were made

either with a 50 or with the equivalent "normal" focal length in other film formats.

Wide-angle lenses were too much of a challenge for lens designers till relatively

recently. Those lenses tended to be too slow and have too much vignetting or

distortion for everyday use.

It's not really "rangefinder style," it's "35mm style." When 35s came on the scene in the late

'20s-early '30s and revolutionized photography, they were all rangefinders, because that

was the state of the technology. With the advent of the Nikon F, photojournalists kept

snapping in pretty much the same ways.

At least that's the way I see it, and I've used Leica screw-mount, Leica M, and Nikon F. I

enjoy them all, and although there are tradeoffs, I find I can do the same things with either

RF or SLR, where normal or wide-angle lenses are concerned. I do think that operating

intuitively with a telephoto is way easier on an SLR, although not impossible with a

rangefinder.

Thanks, David. I'll be looking for a DW-1 or -2.

The DE-1 fits the F, but you have to take the nameplate off the DE-1 before mounting

it. The F has its own nameplate attached to the body.

Luis, thanks. I took a look and they didn't have one, but they do seem to get a lot of

parts, so I'll keep checking.

Steve, thanks, but I'm positive it's a DE-1. It has a rounded top, not an angular one,

and lacks the letter "F" engraving that the F eyelevel prism has.

Since writing the post, I've noticed that the DW-1 waistlevel finder has a nameplate

that looks identical to the one on the DE-1. Since DW-1s are apparently cheap, I

could always just buy one and cannibalize the plate. Does anyone know for certain if

that is the case?

I just bought one of these for my Nikon F2. It mounts fine, but it's missing the Nikon

nameplate. That leaves two little holes visible on the front, which I suppose are for

the plate's screws or pins. Do I need to do anything to cover them up, to prevent dust

and dirt from entering the finder through them? Does anyone out there know how I

could get a replacement Nikon nameplate (black)? I'm guessing they're hard to find!

Thanks very much.

In a portrait taken in the early 1930s by Hoyningen-Huene, HCB has a 35/3.5

Elmar on his Leica and a worn-looking 73/1.9 Hektor on the chair next to him. And in

a shot of HCB taken in NYC by Clemens Kalischer in the late 40s, he's got a Contax-

mount Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 on his Leica, using one of those now-scarce adapters.

I have shot in the NYC subways, but don't plan on doing it much further. The ever-

brighter fluorescent lights don't make for the kind of pictures I like, though they do

make for easier exposures than before! I have gotten some images I'm satisfied with,

but unfortunately can't post them due to lack of technology on this end.

As I wrote in a previous thread recently, one thing that often goes unremarked is that

a photo ban would actually be a return to the way things were for most of the NYC

subway's history. Back when Walker Evans was doing his series of surreptitious

photos of subway passengers in the late 1930s, it was definitely illegal -- though the

reason then was privacy and property rights, as far as I know.

I hope they don't pass the law, but I must say that working in secret and with a little

risk attached could be conducive to art, for those who are interested.

For street photography, where shutter noise and hand-holding at very slow speeds

are not at issue, the only real difference between a Leica rangefinder camera and a

simple all-mechanical SLR would be the viewfinder. You can walk around with the SLR

prefocused at 10 or 15 feet with a 35 or 50mm lens and do just fine. I've done it. I

admit, with a 50mm the out-of-focus bits in the finder can be a bit disconcerting at

first; it's not quite like a direct image. With the depth of field of a 35mm lens, the

problem should be reduced. But if you find it hard to get used to, why not stick a 35

or 50 brightline finder in the accessory shoe of the SLR and snap away?

I use Canon 50/1.8 (late model black) and 35/2 and think they're great. Small and

light, too.

If they go through with the ban, it will just be a return to the way things were for

most of the NYC subway's history. Back when Walker Evans was doing his series of

surreptitious photos of subway passengers in the late 1930s, it was definitely illegal

-- though the reason then was privacy and property rights, not terrorism, as far as I

know.

I live in NYC and occasionally take pictures in the subway, so I hope they don't impose

a fine, but I must say that working in secret and with some risk attached could be

conducive to art. After all, not every good thing in life is laid out on a silver platter for

the easy taking. Sometimes you have to use your ingenuity, right? Walker Evans did!

And speaking of Evans, the definitive edition of his subway pics, "Many Are Called," is

just out from Yale University Press. It's really well printed, and fascinating. One thing

you notice is that the subway cars were a lot darker then than now, with just a few

incandescent bulbs piercing the gloom. Today's blinding fluoresents make for a less

photogenic light, I think. But they do make photography a lot easier in terms of

exposure; I figure 1/60 at f4 on Tri-X, or the equivalent. God knows what settings

Evans would have had to use with his slow films and murky lighting. Probably he

pushed the film a great deal.

Also, one thing I have never been able to figure out is how he wound on his film for

the next shot, hat with his Contax under his coat with the lens peeping through a

buttonhole and a cable release running down his sleeve! There are definitely

sequences where he shot the same person several times in a row without them

noticing. I've read that he sometimes took Helen Levitt along with him as a kind of

decoy, to divert attention from him if necessary. Maybe she knows the answer --

she's now in her late 80s -- but she's probably not telling! She's known to be very

taciturn, and when she got some press recently for a retrospective book and exhibit,

the few interviews she gave were downright monosyllabic.

I held one of these in my hands the other day in a camera store and was seriously

tempted to buy. I'm interested in perspectives from anyone who's shot with a Nikon

S2. What's it like to use? If it needs overhauling, who works on them? And how much

should I pay for a good example? I have shot with rangefinder Nikkors 50/1.4 and

35/2.5 in Leica screw mount, so I know they're excellent. Thanks for any help.