rgerraty

Nice that this thread settled down. Poor Gus. It's enough that he has DAG and Golden Touch extolled so often at his exclusion. 'Master' rightly hit a nerve. I wouldn't work on a Leica shutter when I know that some finesse is required just to perfectly adjust the gears on my bicycle. The only good work done on a film Leica of mine was by a Wetzlar born and trained technician with years of experience. Happy shooting everyone.

Tuture. (Dolly) <a href=" title="Dolly by Richard GM2, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8617/16109804805_8606ba0e72_z.jpg" width="640" height="426" alt="Dolly"></a>

You know the brass the top plate is made of? That guy is as bold as that brass. His response is typical of the sort who appropriate. Nothing much you can do I suspect. We have a highly regarded much published author in Australia who just rode out the minor fuss he caused himself with such behaviour. If I raised it now in polite company I don't think anyone would now believe it ever happened. O tempora. O mores.

In answer to your last question, the lens model 11891, which is the ASPH 50 Summilux: yes.

<p>Monday evening, central Melbourne</p><div></div>

<p>There are images online without the focus tab, but many more with the tab and the tab is standard. Images without it may have been adjusted for some perverse symmetry. Suggest you refer to Leica's own site.</p>

<p><a title="Melbourne 2014 by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8648/15390505803_128370b281_z.jpg" alt="Melbourne 2014" width="427" height="640" /></a></p> <p>Melbourne 2014<br> Leica II 50mm Elmar f3.5; Rollei Retro 25</p>

<p>I have used the Rolleinar 1 to get just that bit closer with people shots. Mostly I use the Rolleinar 2. I don't have the Rolleinar 3 which is very close. My two Rolleinars came in a long leather box with some colour filters and a uv filter too.</p>

<p>8.56 AM Saturday</p><div></div>

50 mm Elmar M collapsible with the tiny cylindrical hood. For the size and weight and the lens rendition and even the focus throw ergonomics, notwithstanding the absence of a focussing tab. Almost glued to the M9-P.

Nice photos. Well done. I had a version 2 Summilux stolen. But thanks to that I discovered the considerable advantages of the lighter and more compact Summicron with its extremely useful focus tab. Craving the wide open look at f1.4 that I used to have I went one better and later got the Zeiss C Sonnar. The Bokeh is better and the lens is lighter and more compact. I too have had my Summilux desire quenched by the Sonnar.

The coat is considerable for the Leica sensor and circuit board unit. On rangefinfer forum and Leica forum there's been discussion of a ten year program of Leica for covering the cost of replacement of over $2000 with gradual reduction of the proportion of this paid by Leica. I am happy with M9 and Monochrom and see this as a positive which likely keeps my cameras viable for ten years as I had originally hoped.

The issue is putting any more money into the camera. Definitely worth it. And even if some time in the next ten years you have to pay some of your own money for another new sensor. That is a realistic possibility. My point is that $300 is steep for the rangefinder adjustment and $500 is outrageous.

$500 is a rip off for adjusting the rangefinder. $300-350 is still rather steep. That's around what I paid, in Autralian dollars. I suspect Leica are squeezing the local repairers on the cost of the labour to replace the sensor so they're trying to recoup by overcharging for rangefinder adjustment. The apparent bargain is the free new sensor making the rangefinder adjustment charge less painful. But fair is fair and $500 is ridiculous.

Stephen, I keep coming back to that most lovely photograph of yours. I have a 1950s collapsible 90 Elmar in the cupboard, also hazy. With that I took some wonderfully atmospheric shots of my young wife reading to our daughter years ago. I must get it out.

Fatalities are very rare Alex. The last serious injury in play that I can remember was Rick McCosker's broken jaw in the centenary Ashes test in a Melbourne in 1977. No doubt there have been others. In junior cricket practice in Melbourne a few years ago a boy died in exactly the same way as Hughes, traumatic dissection of the vertebral artery and secondary subarachnoid hemorrhage. It has been a devastating week around the country and throughout the cricketing nations. Indeed, Hughes' death was even noted in the New York Times.

<p><a title="Collingwood, Saturday morning by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8650/15718783247_dc9c3e1b76_z.jpg" alt="Collingwood, Saturday morning" width="640" height="426" /></a></p> <p>A cricket bat in a window in Melbourne, a universal mark of acknowledgement at many doors and gates around<br> the world following the death of 25 year old cricketer Phillip Hughes, felled by a cricket ball in a match<br> in Sydney on Tuesday.</p>

We're stymied by the first two pictures, so beautiful.

<a href=" title="The new Wraith (to the world, not me...) by Richard GM2, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7531/15662816669_f287afec1e_z.jpg" width="640" height="426" alt="The new Wraith (to the world, not me...)"></a> WRAITH

<p>Very beautiful Yuki. I am amused when you describe your 'attempts' at photography. Anyway, this one succeeded for sure.</p>

<p>Lovely shot, Barry.</p> <p><a title="Too much dust maybe? by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5603/15605266349_2e75d6d048_z.jpg" alt="Too much dust maybe?" width="640" height="640" /></a></p>

<a href=" title="50A by Richard GM2, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3937/15736890325_9cfc3c9b80_z.jpg" width="427" height="640" alt="50A"></a> Leica II Nickel Elmar 50 HP5+

Never is the answer to your concluding question. Damaged, or not fitted properly.

<p>Grand</p> <p><a title="East Melbourne by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5603/15369601767_1cf66cb660_z.jpg" alt="East Melbourne" width="426" height="640" /></a></p> <p>And not so grand</p> <p><a title="Wooden House by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5616/15558825031_0f61d5be26_z.jpg" alt="Wooden House" width="426" height="640" /></a></p> <p>Monochrom and version IV Summicron 50</p>

<p>Mukul, I agree that the M2 and M3 is the most reliable loading system, and I really don't mind loading my M2 even now. But an original ad for the M4 showed a man loading it with gloves on, and it really is very quick. For a time I had an M4, and then an M4-2 and finally an M6. Each was easy to load. Out of purism I stopped checking sprocket engagement and spent almost two years loading the M6 exactly as laid out in the manual: insert the film tongue between the tines of the take up tulip, put on the baseplate and wind. It worked exactly as directed by Leica AG. Until, after many months, one film failed to load. I returned to sprocket engagement and parallel film direction between the rails was all checked, as one does with loading the M2. I had one film, possibly one of the Fuji slide films or maybe Neopan, where the film was particularly unruly and hard to load and I resorted to bending the tip of the flim leader, which I otherwise never do. I suspect you were just unlucky, that one time.</p>