bill_schneider1

I have the IV Summicron 35mm lens, and have had the front loosen in use. I fixed it myself by taking the lens

mount off, and finding the threaded retaining ring that holds it together. It takes a spanner, but in the field I've

done just fine with nothing more than a set of jeweler's screwdrivers while sitting on a hotel bed.

 

The retaining rings of my IV 35mm lens, and those of a couple friends who also had this lens loosen have all

been threaded. Any Leica tech worth his or her salt can fix this problem easily, and will probably add a drop of

nail polish to the threaded ring to prevent it from loosening until the next CLA.

 

I will have to put up a web page someday with illustrated instructions for fixing this problem. It's a topic that

arises here periodically.

Cleaned up for more genteel duties, my XA made this picture of famed art photographer Duane Michals asleep in a car trip (I must have been a boring host on this long trip!). The XA had a quiet shutter that didn't wake him up.

 

It's particularly fitting because of his early book titled "Sleep and Dreams".

 

I credit the XA with sparking an early interest in rangefinder cameras, and the Leica in particular because it would last longer than my XAs.<div></div>

I had four of the little beasties, and loved them while they lasted. I attached Velcro to the back of one and wore it around on a matching holser. Because of its small size, it looked like a pager.

 

I packed it on off-road motorcycle rides together with tools in a fanny pack. Off-road riding takes a toll on equipment, but my first one never failed because of the rough treatment.

 

However, I did wear deep grooves in the plastic film rails after countless rolls, and it began trapping the film.

 

A replacement XA was dropped (broke the clamshell cover off), and two other second hand version had severe lens problems.<div></div>

The bottom plates have significant differences between models that prevent them from fitting.

 

There was a thread called "M6-lost bottom plate" in September 2005

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DSK3

 

in which this was discussed.

 

I uploaded a couple of pictures illustrating the differences between my MP and M6 classic baseplates. The older M6 baseplate won't fit my MP because of a welded tab shown in the pictures. There are differences in the camera bodies that have to be accounted for when mixing/matching baseplates.

>>Of course, if the projector jams and the slide burns up in the gate, you would be glad to have a backup right away! But of course that won't happen with a Leica projector!

 

Of course not. They have an infrared filter in place. :-)

 

Seriously though, I've had hundreds of dupes made that are of such excellent quality that I had to scrutinize to tell the difference from the original. Sadly, the lab that did this marvelous work turned to digital and dropped their E-6 and duping services.

 

Aside from this one business, most commercial dupes I've seen have been of low quality.

I took advantage of an educational discount for a 35 Lux in the summer of 2005. Even at that time there was little information available concerning the discount, but the friendly folks at Glazer's in Seattle prepared the paperwork etc. It's worth a call the the dealer to see if it's still being offered because the savings was substantial.

Huw Finney did a relube of his 40mm Nokton a couple of years back and posted extensive notes and pictures here...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ai8p

 

For the mechanically inclined, of course.

 

Bill Schneider

I'll chime in for the Upstrap. The pad has much more grip than the original Leica strap.

 

On my early M6, it was a simple swap-out for the original strap using the original hardware. For some reason I can't remember, the swap was a bit more complicated for the M6TTL or my MP.

 

Bill Schneider

I would have lost a bunch of frames made with studio strobes if I hadn't tested a Canon 10D before a shoot. The camera worked great in daylight, but as soon as I tried my Norman P2000 strobes, I got the strange color casts top to bottom as shown below. For the planned shoot, I resorted to film.

 

Couldn't figure out what caused the color bands on the Canon on about 2/3 of the frames made. The other 1/3 were fine. Had to go with what worked reliably in the past, but hated to scan all those negatives!

 

The same strobes have worked with other digicams like the D2x I currently use for these situations. This provides support for testing before using new equipment configurations even though separately each of them seem well behaved in everyday situations.

 

Not quite the same as having a corrupt memory card, but results would have been equally unacceptable.<div></div>

After making prints for a show of Italy pictures last year, I realized that the greatest majority of pictures in the show came from 1993 when I carried a CL.

 

See for yourself...

 

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~schneidw/into_italy/

 

With that kind of track record, I should just sell the M6 cameras I used afterwards and go back to my CL. I now have a VC 40 f/1.4 that fits nicely on the CL and provides an extra stop. The camera is so small it looks like the tail wagging the dog though. I still love the results I got from the 40 'cron though.

 

The CL and the 40 'cron were a fine package.

I've had questions about my MP and about why I use such an "old" camera - I just say that I prefer to use it.

 

The funniest question happened when a friend and I were out several years ago with our 4x5 wooden view cameras set up on tripods with darkcloths out. A pair of hikers came by and asked if they were digital cameras!

 

After a brief pause (with wisecracks floating about in our minds) we just politely said "No, they're not, They use film".

Here's my older Summicron. It's a 5th version that was produced from 1980-95 according to Camera Quest. The serial number matches a 1991 production date according to the link given in a previous post.

 

This is the one that has optics that unscrew from the focusing mount as I discovered accidentally when twisting off a stubborn filter. If the optics aren't tight against the proper stop, there's no way focusing will be accurate.<div></div>

I have two Summicrons - one made in 1991 and a current model made sometime after 2000. Both have "22" on the focusing mount.

 

The 1991 model has detachable front optics - the entire optical assembly unscrews from the focusing mount. I posted some photos of the unscrewed 50mm optics in a thread earlier this year titled "Loose front section on 35mm Lux ASPH".<div></div>

I got one for my wife, and used it much more than she did. I never warmed up to it though. Still, I made some OK pictures with the Digilux 1 while I used it. It now sits on a shelf.<div></div>

>> I don't understand why if our airports are so 'security' conscious and all employees are checked out, why theft from checked baggage exists at all.

 

And I wonder when a "reverse theft" will occur in which something dangerous is added to a traveler's bag going into the cargo hold...

 

Dangerous times.

If you are shooting landscapes (and especially if you are using a tripod), the Hassleblad will make a better print because of the larger negative.

 

I use both because each has its own strengths for different situations.

 

Used medium format equipment should be more affordable than in the past because of all the wedding/portrait photographers migrating to digital.

 

You mention photographing on trips too. If you are thinking of doing much indoor shooting at all, keep the Leica. It is ideal for low light photography. The Hassleblad will certainly require a tripod indoors for most photography.

Now how did you manage to make photos in the Sistine without the guards stopping you?

 

I've had to be very surreptitious in that chapel, and have seen others escorted away for photographing in there.

 

The rest of the museum was always easy as long as you didn't use flash.

 

Bill Schneider

I've disassembled my 35mm v4 and my 50 'cron once or twice to correct minor problems (stiff focus, etc.) and remember that once I reassembled one of these lenses incorrectly. The same symptom you describe was the result. It pushed the focus cam against the stops in the camera body.

 

I reassembled the lens and that fixed it. I do believe it was the focusing helicals that were started on the wrong thread, but it's been 10 years or so. It was easy to fix.

 

Of course this assumes that all the parts are correct mates and that the lens is not a "mutt". Personally, given that this is a recent purchase, I'd send it back because incorrect assembly is only one possible problem. There could be other issues, and they could be fairly expensive to fix.

Bill Schneider

And how the rear element looks after removal from the focusing mount...

 

 

BTW, the commonly loose v4 35mm Cron front is just one part of the optical unit, and can be fixed by removing the bayonet mount at the rear of the lens, removing the brass plate beneath that, and finding the retaining ring that secures the front assembly.

 

Maybe I'll post a pictorial "how-to" someday when I run across another loose one. It's fairly simple to fix. Don't know about the Lux though.

 

Bill Schneider<div></div>

And another...<div></div>

Robert stated:

 

>> Not that many people did it but the front optical unit part of >>this lens does unscrew just as the earlier first rigid and DR >>lenses ...The next Summicron with the tab 11819, and the present >>11826 with the built in hood do not have this feature.

 

Maybe you didn't twist hard enough. My tabbed 11819 cron certain has a threaded optical unit that separates from the focusing mount.

 

Here are some pictures of it unscrewed:<div></div>

Ouch!!!

 

I hope the rest of the trip goes better for you.

First, there may be hidden damage beyond just having it knocked out of adjustment. After you adjust the rangefinder for infinity, try to run a test roll through to evaluate the camera's health beyond the simple adjustment steps that follow.

 

To adjust the rangefinder, remove the lens and look for the cam follower at the top side of the lens opening (it's a round roller mounted on an arm). First, make sure this roller moves the arm freely and rule out more severe damage.

 

The screwdriver slot at the center of the roller is an eccentric adjuster. Find a suitable screwdriver and give it a tweak while noting which direction you are turning it in case the adjustment needs to be reversed.

 

Mount a known good lens, rack the lens to infinity focus, and find a distant target on the horizon (or moon at night). I use a cell phone tower a couple miles away for testing rangefinder coincidence at infinity. Continue to test, unmount lens, tweak, remount lens, test again until it's satisfactory.

 

If the infinity adjustment is OK, but near focus pictures are unsharp, there is another adjustment at the pivot of the whole rangefinder cam arm, but that is much harder to deal with in the field.

 

I've had to repair equipment in the field and it's no fun. Best of luck to you.

 

Bill Schneider

Here's a diagram that might help explain graphically why longer lens hoods provide better shading.

 

The lens hood that I chose to illustrate is actually more wide angle than needed, but still offers better flare properties than a lens cap modified with a rectangular opening sized to fit the projected image.<div></div>

Telescope users are the only group more compulsive about clean optics than photographers.

 

Opticlean sounds much like a method for cleaning telescope optics that uses collodion. It's applied in viscous liquid form, permitted to dry, then peeled away.

 

Here's a web site that discusses using collodion:

 

http://webari.com/oldscope/atspages/techtips.htm

 

Here's another web site that mentions other ways to clean telescope optics, but mentions that collodion may not be suitable for amateurs because of fire safety and its narcotic effect...

 

http://www.company7.com/library/clean.html

 

Bill Schneider