cameron_sawyer

Another vote for the M6 which is simply more usable, if less pretty, than all of the earlier M's. I don't understand the recommendations of the M4 or M5 which are now expensive collectors' items more expensive than M6's (you said you are on a budget). The only thing which might be slightly cheaper than the M6 which has 35mm framelines would be your M4-P (essentially a meterless M6) or M2 (a pretty but not so very usable antique -- Al will argue this, but anyway). But the built-in meter is a tremendous convenience for very little more money. A user M6 can be had for as little as $800; a mint M6TTL can be had for $1200 or even less.

 

Then buy ANY 35mm lens; there are simply no bad ones made for Leica mount. Any Summicron except the expensive aspherical and version 4, or, the excellent VC 35/1.7 Ultron, or, if you don't need the speed, the sharp, compact and well-made VC 35/2.5 Pancake II.

 

Some people will recommend one of the excellent and cheap 40mm Summicrons or Rokkors, but there are no framelines for this lens in any M body. You don't need that hassle with your first lens.

 

A user M6 plus one of the VC 35's can be realistically had for less than $1200; for $1500 you can have the same lens plus mint, practically new, M6TTL.

 

Last point: Beware of user bodies which have been heavily used and have not had a recent CLA -- maintenance is very expensive, and is required on a regular basis. The early M6 had a somewhat problematic meter. Look for a body with recent CLA, or one which is relatively new, or factor in the cost of CLA ($200 to $300).

 

Don't be shy with your "beginner" questions. Everyone here is happy to help new or potential Leica addicts. Enjoy and post your photos.

Leica ought to be relieved that the body is damned expensive! Will anyone buy it over a mint M6? Even if it is much nicer than an R2, it still has that Copal shutter . . .

Proper comparison is probably with the VC 28/3.5, not the Ultron 28/1.9, which is more than a stop faster.

 

The Hexanon lenses are very highly rated by Puts (but he didn't test the 28, but Photodo gives it a 4.2, slightly better than the Elmarit). But the VC 28/3.5 is much more compact (the most compact VC lens and one of the most compact lenses ever made for RF cameras), only half-odd stop slower, inexpensive, extremely good optically, probably the equal of the Hexanon. Check it out, especially is size is important to you.

I can't imagine that TTL flash is worth all that trouble. Lately I've been using the SF20 in auto mode on a CL and it works brilliantly. The only drawback is you are limited to several f stops unless you want to fiddle with exposure compensation, but for me this is no big deal at all.

Well, Leica made and still, as far as I know, makes a nice soft zippered leather case for the M6 with some compact lens installed. I believe it was intended for the collapsible Elmar-M, but it works like a charm with the VC 28/3.5.

 

Less pretty but more practical is the Zing neoprene case, which will fit over a greater variety of lenses.

When I first got my CL, I made some shots with my 90 'cron to test the rf compatibility and accuracy. Perhaps I was lucky, but even the wide open shots were sharp (and the 90 'cron wide open is a devil to focus close up even with an 0.85 M6). I also shot a 50/1.5 Nokton wide open on it, likewise with good results.

 

All this seems to me to be pretty strong support for Harry's statement and good reason to forget compatibility issues. Of course, with the small size of the camera and very short RF base, it is just common sense that you wouldn't want to use bulky and very fast lenses on it. But I would think even a 90/2.8 ought to focus and work ok, based on my experience, as well as any 50 of reasonable physical size (not the bulky Nokton, however).

I have a VC 25mm finder which I don't need. Please e-mail if interested. Prefer to sell in U K. or Europe as I am in Europe myself these days.

Robbie, do you want mystique or a lens?

 

There are lots of great portrait lenses and in this focal length I don't think the choice of lens is going to affect your work much. My personal favorite is the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS; I also love the Minolta 90/4 for the CL. You can hardly tell either from 90 Summicron at comparable apertures. The Nikon is perhaps the most fun because of the large format-like DOF at the widest aperture; downsides include its huge front element making it less discreet than the others, plus you can't use it on a RF camera.

Whatever you do, don't push it! It's a lovely film with amazingly subtle tones. Looks muddy in flat light, but does really well indoors with high contrast lighting -- blowout-resistant highlights and good shadow detail. I don't know what "blocked blacks" you were reading about. I would say a good choice for your application. Just bring a fast lens and a steady hand.

Mistake or not, the buildings look great.

The fit and finish of the 35 'cron asph are not up to the best Leica standards -- like the beautiful pre-asph 90 'cron, for example, and not even up to the best VC standards. But who really cares?

 

Ed, I think Foto na Kutuzovskom is now an authorized Leica dealer (are you in Moscow, like I am?), with better prices than anywhere else in Europe I know (prices are in U.S. dollars!), but you're still better off buying used, and buying in the U.S. when you're home on a business trip or vacation.

On the contrary, the loading mechanism doesn't work with the bottom plate off. So it's useless to wind on with the camera open. Just drop in the film and close it as God and Wetzlar intended. Like with any non-digital camera, you must observe the rewind crank while winding to the first crame. Since giving up the useless attempts to observe the initial wind with the camera open, scores of rolls ago, I have not had a single misload. And I have learned to love the M4 style rapid loading system which seemed so odd at first.

There is a good bit of room around the 40mm framelines in the CL finder, and the finder aperture itself is a little bigger than on an M. I would think that most people would find the 40mm framelines quite easy to see, surely not worse than the 35mm framelines in a 0.72x finder of an M.

George, may I suggest the CV 28/35 minifinder. This thing is so small you don't really notice it's there, until you need it. Then you have very usable 28 AND 35 brightline framelines for your CL, which in total gives the CL everything you could ever want (the little CV 28/3.5 is a great match with the CL).

What in the world is the point of this lens when you can get the sharper, more compact, one stop faster 'cron-C for $200 or so? Not to mention the brilliant Nokton, which is TWO stops faster and nevertheless more compact?

For newcomers: Kevin is talking about the infamous Jay; this place is much duller without him, but he was certainly wrong about RF flare. It's a real problem and worth doing the upgrade. It's rather pathetic if you've ever used an el-cheapo Bessa which is entirely immune to this problem, but we put up with these things for the sake of other pleasures. My M6 0.85 is at DAG right this very moment having it done.

I've used mine in Siberia at -30C with no problems whatever, and with far from new batteries. I think yours must have a fault.

That would be Ukrainian of course, not Bulgarian, right?

Yes, "kamera" in the slavic languages means chamber, most commonly "cell"

as in jail cell -- perhaps appropriately.

 

Dmytros, is that a Bulgarian name? Your surname sounds like a slavic "odd

numbered".

"Nice camera but I think that the viewfinder on the Bessas are way better. Also easier to load"

 

No argument here. The Bessa finders are amazingly good; I don't think any Leica matches them in fact. But the Bessa, light as it is, doesn't fit in a jacket pocket.

Consider also a Nikon F3 (or FM or FE) and Nikkor 85/1.4 AIS. Dirt cheap (whole kit less than the cheapest Leica M lens alone) and just as lovely a portrait lens as you could ever want. Shot wide open you get a shallow DOF effect almost like large format; stop down to F2 or F2.8 and you get a different effect -- very sharp but with smooth OOF areas, subtle tonality.

Which 90 'cron? They are different sizes. The original '90 'cron (non-telephoto optical design) is quite a bazooka, and does intrude into the 90 framelines. The compact E55 version does not. I can't comment on the current APO-Asph, but isn't this similar in size to the E55?

 

The finder magnification makes no difference if you're talking about intrusion into the FRAMELINES themselves, which is the only thing you care about.

So I've burned a few rolls in my new (to me) CL, and have the

following impressions to share:

 

1. The ergonomics are simply fabulous, worlds better than other RF

cameras. Since all-manual RF film cameras are now clearly obsolete,

this is probably the high water mark of ergonomic design for such

cameras. You set your preferred aperture, look through the finder,

and turn the shutter dial with your index finger while watching the

speeds and meter readout in the finder. Who needs AE with a setup

like this? And the analogue needle meter readout is easier to read

than LED's.

 

2. Although the shutter curtains are cloth, the shutter has a loud,

unpleasant sound much like a Bessa's.

 

3. The RF patch flares, is small, and is hard to see. But I had no

problem accurately focussing a Nokton 50/1.5 wide open and close

(also a 90 'cron at 2.8).

 

4. The finder (after a Sherry overhaul) is quite bright enough but

has a curiously narrow field of view for such a low (0.6?)

magnification. Finder is rather cluttered with 40 and 50 lines

showing at the same time, and with two of the 40 framelines formed by

the shutter speed and meter scales. Despite low magnification, 90 is

quite usable.

 

5. The loading is straightforward but once you've gotten used to the

M4 and later rapid loading system, you miss it.

 

6. If you ever wondered whether the 40 'cron really deserves all the

praise it gets -- it seems to me like it does. I still don't like

the field of view much (it's not a wide angle at all; for me it's an

unpleasantly loose normal), but the optical quality is marvelous,

seems sharper somehow than my 50 'cron.

 

7. And the main point: with the 40 'cron it will actually fit in a

jacket pocket. I bought it for travelling and it seems to be just

the ticket.

This is getting way off topic, but yeah, I know stories like that too, but which turned out differently. I was 13 years old, and my father and I bought a Triumph Spitfire with a blown engine, which I rebuilt. But after everything was back together there was left over a funny metal plate with two holes in it and asbestos on one said and no obvious function. The car ran, but as it warmed up started to backfire and run like crap. We tuned and tuned the S.U. carbs and nothing helped. Finally, a neighbor who understood these motors better than I explained that the leftover part was the carburetor heat shield -- the exhaust manifolds were radiating heat into the carburetor float bowls and boiling the fuel.

Are you quite sure that there is any difference? I have heard from various sources that BW400CN is just the old Portra BW400 with a different name. I certainly hope that this is the case, as I have come to love the Portra chromogenic film with its lovely long tonal range and easy scanning.

 

And it has remarkable latitude. I shot a roll recently with a dead battery on a cloudy afternoon when Sunny 16 cannot be easily applied. I was quite amazed when every shot turned out well -- not a single one had any detectable exposure problems. I had to have been off by at least two if not three stops in both directions on occasion.