eduardo_pacheco

I believe that these days the best place to find used Leica equipment at low prices is on Ebay. The UK site www.ebay.co.uk is ok, but the German site www.ebay.de has a much wider choice.

I guess you can tell it's a Catholic country, churches and chapels are everywhere.<div></div>

This is a photo taken in Portugal last December.<div></div>

Yep, there are some seriously nasty people on this forum, things have not changed. I think I know why, but I'd rather not mention the reason. It's a good thing I no longer post any messages, it's just not worth it.

I'd be careful buying used equipment from Classic Camera. I once got an R3 from them, which did not match their description of the condition of the camera. They're pretty expensive too. Jonathan Harris and Ffordes are trustworthy.

I'll leave it as is for now, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I don't use DOF except for stop-down metering with an older 90mm f2.8 lens. In any case, I'll have my R-E and R3 to fall back on if something goes wrong with the R6. If the three of them crap out altogether, then there's still the more trusty M6.

Yes, I admit that I was actually somewhat surprised that WD-40 worked, and would expect the effect to go away after some time. I may next try to use a Teflon spray or ACF-50, a high-adhesion aviation lubricant/anti-corrosion compound which I use on my motorcycle. This sfuff costs costs over $20 for a can, but is supposed to form a special bond with different types of materials.

 

http://www.learchem.com/Aviation.htm

I acquired an early R6 last week, which had a sticking DOF lever.

This got better by gently exercising the lever, but still wasn't

quite right. A few drops of WD-40 applied on the lever pivot point

did the trick, it now has a perfectly smooth movement, no sticking

whatsoever. I protected the surrounding surfaces with a paper towel,

to avoiding getting the lubricant onto the body.

I've got a 90mm f2.8 2-cam lens from 1966, can this be used safely on

my R-E and R6 bodies. I believe you can only use stop-down metering

with this lens, however the camera manual recomends not using

Leicaflex lenses on R cameras. It says it could cause some damage.

GGr = Gelb-Grun = Yellow-Green ; I've got a Leitz 39mm filter with a "1" on it, the filter factor is 0.5 (half-stop).

I used to shoot K25 at 32 ISO, when it was around, that is. Now I shoot K64 at 80 ISO. Shooting at the ISO rating produced images that were somewhat disappointing.

What would be your choice for shooting with one lens, one slide film?

Can anyone give some tips on cleaning Leica camera bodies and lenses

(the black surfaces, not the glass).

Thanks a lot for your advice. It looks like I just may have to live with the limitations of this lens. That's probably why it was so cheap, only 100 pounds. Leica UK said they might be able to obtain a retaining ring from Germany, I'm not sure if they meant the hood ring or the filter ring. The lens is older than I thought, serial #2171482 is supposed to be from about 1966. It's amazing it's still in such good condition, apart from the missing hood.

This is a follow-up on my earlier WTB post for a lens hood and series

7 filter retaining ring for a Leitz 90mm f2.8 R lens (first version,

serial # 217xxxx). This lens has a so-called built-in sliding hood,

which I believe is held in place by the filter ring which screws onto

the barrel's male thread (51mm according to my measurement with

Vernier calipers). Or does the filter ring require the hood to secure

it in place (as in the 28mm f2.8 R first version)? I'm actually not

too bothered about the hood, the most important thing would be to

have a filter in place to protect the front element. I would be

grateful for any information on this.

 

Eduardo Pacheco

I am looking for a lens hood + Series 7 filter holder for a Leitz

90mm f2.8 R lens with serial number 2171482 (first version). Do you

know of anyone who could supply this. I bought the lens in good

condition for only 100 pounds here in the UK, I suppose not having

the hood is what made it so cheap.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Eduardo Pacheco

Village street scene, Portugal. Taken with Tura 400 film, 28mm lens.<div></div>

There really isn't that much to these photos. I just found the

billboards to be interesting and original, and wanted to share them

with other people.<div></div>

Photo taken during the Great Britons publicity campaign.

It does have some flare, but I like it. Used Fuji Neopan 400.<div></div>

Hi Jeffrey,

 

What a coincidence. I acquired an LS-40 two days ago, and am quite satisfied with it. Why I got it is a bit of a long story. I've use my housemate's Jenoptik JS-21 for the last two years, this is probably one of the worst film scanners ever made, they don't even sell it in the UK anymore. Last week I ordered a Minolta Scan Elite II, which simply did not work at all, and returned it promptly. It just looked like long term trouble, and I've heard that the Minolta service is pretty bad. After checking out a few scanner reviews on the Internet, I decided to go for the Nikon LS-40. It seems to be quite robust. The Nikon Scan software appears to be somewhat clumsy, I am using VueScan instead. The first few scans from Kodachrome slides are excellent.

I would definitely recommend a Nikon scanner after my previous experiences. And be careful with the Minoltas, they are probably not as good as most people think.<div></div>

Thanks, Christoph. I receive ARTE via satellite here in the UK, and will certainly be watching the documentary tonight. This is one of my favourite channels, together with TV5 and BBC World.

Yes, you're right, I am little shy. Although sometimes I'm not with the muse, and that's when the photos come out more clumsy. I don't practice as much as it would be desirable, but then this is just a hobby for me.

Hi,

 

I've posted ten B&W photos to a folder in the Gallery. These were

taken in the UK and in Portugal, over the past two years. Comments

and critique are welcome.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=241582

 

Eduardo

Well, I used to be a Nikon user too (I had an F60 and two FM2s). The F60 broke down two times in one year, and one of the repairs had to be done twice by Nikon. I ended up trading it in for an FM2 last year. It was the second time I gave the FM2 a try, but still didn't like the handling and found it too clunky.

 

A couple of years ago a got a late used M6 Classic with a 35mm Asph and an Elmarit 90 for £1800 (all mint and boxed), little more than the price of a new body. The previous owner had paid £1750 for the body alone, in 1997. It was a bit of an impulse buy and I wasn't even sure if I would like it, but found myself enjoying it and using it more and more. It made me go out and take pictures.

 

Earlier this year I acquired an R-E, more out of curiosity. It is quite different from the M6, of course. Used R equipment is usually cheaper than the M, I guess there's not as much demand for it. Compared to the FM2, which is a renowned manual SLR, the R-E has a much more solid feel and is quieter in operation.

 

As for the lenses, and can't identify much of a difference between the Nikon and the Leica in colour slides, but for black and white the Leica seems to produce clearer images with a certain depth to them. The Nikon images seem to be more sooty. The build quality of the Leica lenses is far superior though, and the depth of field scale is very clear which is important for me as I tend to focus in hyperfocal mode. I had some Nikon AF and manual lenses, and found them very plasticky.

 

I don't like to believe that more expensive or fancier equipment produces better photographs, but it helps if you enjoy using it. At least that's my experience. I find it unfortunate that everything is so automated these days, it probably works against learning. I think there's a lot of clever marketing going on the part of the Japanese manufacturers, they just keep coming out with new cameras all the time and they may not be necessarily any better. Leica is quite expensive, but seems to be more honest, their stuff is not built to fall apart.

Thanks Richard. Yes, I knew that the ground needed a little more detail, the negative should have been scanned darker. The darkroom 10x8 is much better, but unfortunately I can't upload that.