guy bennett

I found this to be very helpful. I recommend you check it out:

 

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/rollei_infrared.php

 

Guy

Sorry! That was a failed attempt to include a hyperlink in the message rather than just give the address, which I'll do here:

 

http://nemeng.com/leica/034b.shtml

Re: #2, try <http://nemeng.com/leica/034b.shtml>here</a>.

 

Good luck!

Why not use the Wein cell non-Mercury replacement batteries for the PX625? They are the proper voltage (1.35v) and are easy to find. Among many other places, Freestyle Photo carries them for $4.99 USD. And you don't need an adaptor. Their one shortcoming, IMO, is that they only last a couple of months.

Bruno,

 

Tony is referring to the R version of the 90...

Negs shot with my Xpan II definitely show the notch. It appears on the upper right side of horizontal panoramic shots; standard non-panoramic images do not show the notch.

 

This has never bothered me, though I've never understood why the notch is there.

According to Hove, the proper hood for the Elmar 90/4 is the IUFOO/12575, though it was not introduced until 1956. Prior to that one, there was the extendable FIKUS/12530 which was introduced in 1933 and covered focals from 35-135. The later ADFIK (1946) was another extendable hood fitting lenses from 50-135 and including a filter holder.

I know the C/V plastic finders, having had the 25 and the 35, and they are very nice. But I also know the metal finders, having the 28 and the 35, and they are even nicer, IMO.

 

Hope the 21 will one day be available in metal...

Has anyone heard whether Cosina plans to offer their 21 VFs in the

same metal style as their current 35 and 28 VFs?

 

TIA for any info you might have.

Seems to me it would be less accurate than a quality external VF w/bright lines fixed to the camera.

"Do the frame edges of a 0.58 finder roughly correspond to a 24mm lens?"

 

Not in my opinion. If you want to frame your shots as precisely as is possible with a rangefinder, use a separate viewfinder.

 

Also, search the archives. If I recall, a couple of years ago some one here put together a presentation of the fields of view covered by the in-camera finders and brightlines, and the fields of view as captured on film.

"...various people have said otherwise for very specific situations: for subjects that are very dark or very light, they suggested an adjustment."

 

It sounds like these people were thinking of reflected, not incident, light readings, in which you should adjust the exposure indicated by the meter in the above cases to avoid over or under exposure.

 

As Stephen Lewis mentioned above, incident metering reads the light falling on the subject -- not reflected by it -- and thus shouldn't be influenced by the light or dark tones of the subject itself. The exposure indicated by incident metering should give you correctly exposed negatives.

 

If you'd like to experiment with that exposure, why not shoot a roll and bracket each shot, using 1/2 and/or 1 stop more and less light than the incident reading suggests, then you can see the results for yourself.

Thanks all for the helpful responses.

 

FWIW I had considered the B+W and Heliopan hoods (love their filters), but they would be more expensive than the lens! So I'm looking out for others.

 

Though neither has a tele hood in a 49mm thread, I'll check with Heavystar and Camerafilters. I'm reluctant to use the standard hood since it blocks the rangefinder image on my IIIf.

Can anyone recommend a source for a 49mm lens hood (it's for a Jupiter

9, so I'm looking for a tele model)? I've checked a few on-line

dealers and ebay but have yet to come across one.

 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions you might have.

 

Should add that I'm hoping to find a metal one, either new or in good

condition.

"also for something a bit different - mostly architectual shots - check out Horst Hamann's New York Vertical and Paris Vertical books, all with Xpan."

 

Hamann did not use an Xpan for the New York Vertical book, he used a Linhoff technorama. Not only does he discuss the camera in his postface to the book, there are even pics of him carrying and using it on location. Don't know what camera he used for the Paris book, but would be surprised if it weren't the Linhoff.

I would like to extend a personal "thank you" to all those knowledgeable enough to explain to the rest of why Leica is in deep s***, financially and/or otherwise. At least somebody out there knows what's wrong with the world and what needs to be done to correct it.

 

Perhaps they could let Leica know how it's gone wrong and what it can do to make up for the errors of the past. Then maybe we can get the price for a new M body back down to $2,000 USD (+$200 USD rebate, of course), where it belongs.

 

What ho!

"Sumtimes this storys are making so fonny, they crack my laugh."

 

Is this an attempt at humor, or just the bit of insulting stupidity it appears to be?

"I wonder if this would cause the price of a used Summilux to drop..."

 

I hope so!

 

I'm less and less drawn to the almost brittle sharpness and harsh bokeh of some of the latest ASPH offerings, and am drawn more and more to the older lenses.

Before you can determine the price, you will need to know whether it is a IIIG, the last, most sophisticated and most expensive of the LTM cameras, or a IIIa (essentially a III with a top shutter speed of 1/1000), which was sometimes referred to as a IIIG, which was a much earlier, much less sophisticated (and thus much less expensive) camera.

 

The IIIa (G) was made from 1935-1950 and had serial numbers from 156,201-360,100. The IIIG was made from 1957-1960 and had serial numbers running from 825,001-988,350.

Does that "Convert to B&W Pro" software have settings for different films, developers, and enlargement sizes, in addition to settings for filers? For example, it'd be cool to be able to say: "Now here's the same pic with the TriX / Xtol 1:3 / mild agitation setting. Here it is again with the APX 400 setting, with a 1 x 8 grain structure and a ND .8 filter." The next thing would be to have different settings for various papers, finishes, and toners: a Forte Polywarmtone setting, an Oriental Seagull setting, an Ilford RC pearl setting, all of the above with various densities of KRST tints, etc.

 

Then again, I suppose you could always just use film.

Have you checked out any of the numerous ads for the Hexar on this page? Some/one of them may have the info you're looking for.

As Steve pointed out, Leica + Paris = $$$$, even when the dollar was stronger. But when you consider the current exchange rate, new and used gear is going to be a lot more expensive than in the states, barring some incredible find somewhere. Can't hurt to look, but don't expect miracles.

If the numbers of the "synchro selector dial" (i.e. the little numbers around the base of the shutter speed dial) are red, its a "red dial," if they are black it's a "black dial."

Don't mean to sound facetious (and apologies if I do), but why not just hit the streets in the city center and see for yourself?

 

If you don't want to take a chance, you could always get a basic guidebook and read up on what the town has to offer and go from there.

Haven't tried Arista.EDU, but if it's a good as their paper (which, like the film, is made by Forte, which operates out of a factory set up by Kodak early in the last century, hence the "old style" look), they're probably pretty damn good.