ben z

<i>As a result I have 2 double page spreads in Paris Match this week of the bombing.</i></p>

 

What issue and pages? I think Barnes&Noble or Borders carries Paris Match, I'd love to see those photos.

I use Kinderman stainless reels and their loader. I feed the film down the guide and into the reel to the center clip, then grab the little extension nub on the reel and turn it like a fishing reel. Takes about 15 seconds, never a mis-load from the first roll through hundreds. I use the same type for 35mm. Some people have tried to shame me for not being able to successfully load a regular stainless reel, but I could care less. It's not a competition, it's about not ruining my film.

<i>I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to Leica - a Leica brand film would be awinner. Undoubtedly, it would be sharper than the original<i></p>

 

LOL! Yep, my Leica Ex-Sigma 28-70 just glowed right and left : ) Wayne, you sarcastic ol' dog you : ) But hey, it might be cheaper for Leica to buy up Agfa's film producing apparatus and a bunch of mini-labs and make their own film, put a mini-lab in Leica USA, Leica UK etc., than to R&D a digital M. Maybe when Kodak goes out of the film business entirely Leica could buy the Tri-X machine.

Bob, I have a distant cousin who does arial photography, mostly brochure work for builders/developers. He used to use a Kenyon Gyro Stabilizer which was a bizarre device that looked like a small propane cannister bolted to the bottom of his camera with a power cable and a battery like a motorcycle uses (or at least it looked like one). I think he might still use it with shorter lenses but I know he's got a Canon 1Ds-II and a 70-200/2.8L with Image Stabilizer that he uses for the tele shots. Sorry I can't help with the R 70-180 specifically, if it works less well than the Canon. I do know if I had the choice between which one to accidentally drop out of the copter, it'd be the Canon, on the basis of cost!

Well Frank...(just joking)</p>

 

Peter, <i>I can't imagine how my lens could get better</i> is as good a reason as I've heard not to let someone try and shame you into turning your pockets inside out to "upgrade" just because they've got an obsessive need to. My 1969 50 Summicron, 3rd-generation 35 Summicron, 50 pre-ASPH Summilux and 90 pre-APO/ASPH Summicrons have all come under fire from the test-chart brigade but I'm still shooting with them and more concerned with lighting and composition than line pairs per mm. BTW, later in the production of your lens Leica issued a revised hood that did have a cut-out. You can probably locate one, or just make a cut-out in one corner if you're handy with a small file or a Dremmel, and if the hood blocking the finder bothers you.

<i>i haven't yet been convinced that a Nokton 50/1.5 delivers only 90% of the performance of a 50Lux-ASPH</i></p>

 

Oh oh, I think I hear the whirring of scanners busy scanning photos of test charts and 100000% blowups of their bookcases to help convince you.</p>

 

<i>Leicaphiles will always invent new ways to categorize their glass ahead of everyone else's.</i></p>

 

Oh man, you sure are cruisin' for a bruisin' : )

Derek, I think the important clause in their statement is <i>the quality that they would want to achieve</i>. Zeiss has to take into account that people who would buy such a lens would expect it to perform at least as well as the Leica 50 Summilux-ASPH on test charts and MTF graphs, but cost less. Cosina can make a lens with 90% performance and 10% the cost of the Leica counterpart and people will buy it because in their real-world photography it performs just as well.

<i>So we get plastic and thin metal formed and assembled by robots. Very functional but no soul.</i></p>

 

Which Leica bodies fit that description other than the ones they bought in from Japan? Then again, for me a camera that is "very functional" that I can afford is preferable to one I can only dream about affording. I'll supply my own "soul" while composing the photos.

<i>IMRAN AHMED , nov 10, 2005; 09:29 a.m.

SL2's needs to be checked for high shutter speedsa and silvering in the prism. I have had nothing but problems with 2nd hand SL-2's</i></p>

 

That's what DAG and Sherry both told me when I was thinking of getting one, but others have different views entirely: </p>

 

<i>Gus Lazzari , nov 08, 2005; 07:58 p.m.

Well folks, I repaired photo equipment for many years, had my own shop and was trained by some top technicians....When I was "inside" these Leicaflex Standard, SL & SL2 cameras, I couldn't believe how "linear, consistent, stable & accurate" the shutter speeds were on virtually all of these cameras. One day to my astonishment, I discovered that the gearing in the shutter mechanism for the 1st & 2nd curtains couldn't be physically scratched by my stainless steel tools! I believe that the Leica precision and the choice of materials were the reason for things such as this. Many including me give the vote for ?the best SLR ever made? to the Leicaflex SL2.</i></p>

 

I guess it comes down to who do ya trust.

Maybe because they aren't owned by a world-renowned haute-couture brand, they don't have fashion at the top of their priority list?

My 2.8F (1963-64 IIRC)has a working and accurate meter. That said it doesn't have that great of sensitivity in low light and it reads a very wide area, so I prefer using a handheld meter. If the built-in meter died I wouldn't shed a tear.

I scan b&w on my Canonscan 4000 (using Vuescan) as a color transparency and invert in PS on the recommendation of the pro I bought the scanner from. It works much, much nicer than scanning it as b&w.

<i>I have a trusted local repairman who will CLA the camera and repair the meter for about $90, and Jeannie and KEH will pay $50 towards the repair when presented with a cost accounting from the repairman. I am satisfied.</i></p>

 

If you are satisfied then all's well that ends well. I would love for someone to pay me $150 ea for my Spotmatics that I can't use anymore due to eyesight issues. Their meters all work perfectly. That said, if it'd been me I'd have let KEH take it back and either repair it or send me another one after first checking to be sure the meter was working. It's not like Spotmatics are rare.

<i> I am in the mountains of Pakistan doing earthquke relief work </i></p>

 

Wow! You've got power and internet access in the mountains of Pakistan after an earthquake and half of south Florida was in darkness for 2 weeks after a catergory-2 hurricane. Makes me re-think my concept of the First World.

 

I wish I could help solve your problem, and I'm sure you don't need a lecture on bringing backups to remote locations (or to any location if you use Leicas because dealers and service are few and far between compared to more popular brands), but I hope you did bring spare batteries, they don't really use up much cash or space. If you've tried new batteries and the meter is still acting up, maybe you can scrounge up a handheld meter somewhere nearby. Otherwise you've still got the exposure chart inside the film box (an expanded version of Sunny f/16)and bracketing. Remember too that it isn't necessary to meter every shot if you're in constant light, so take advantage of the moments when the meter is working. If you can find a patch of clear blue sky big enough to fill the central area of the frame, 90 degrees away from the sun, go with that reading. Or set the lens to infinity, take a reading of your palm that fills the frame, open up the lens 1 1/2 stops. Either of those readings should be good for any subject in that context unless the light changes. Open up a stop more if the subject is in shade. Wish I could be of more help.

Bill, I was contradicting the person who wrote that the abandonment of top-plate engraving was a result of the switch from brass to zinc, with information given to me by a former Leitz employee. I never said, anywhere, that these measures didn't save Leica on costs.

"Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, nov 09, 2005; 03:20 p.m.

You'll have to excuse Stephen. He's under the delusion that this is a photography discussion forum..."

 

Why would he think that? Because of the word "photography"? These are the current 10 most recent threads on the Large Format PHOTOGRAPHY forum:

 

 

? Horseman 5X7 and Canham 6X17 compatibility by Jim Banic (2005-11-09)

 

? Linhof panels for MT 2000 wide angle lenses. by Robin Coutts

(2005-11-09)

 

? Date of CP Goerz Double Anastigmatic (Dagor) Lens by Paul Brenner (2005-11-09)

 

? Convertible Symmar vs. Symmar? by John De Cristofaro (2005-11-09)

 

? Any User comments on Hobo 8x10? by Brendan SPhoto.net Patron (2005-11-09)

 

? Crown Graphic 4x5. Yes or No? by Michael Marmora (2005-11-09)

 

? Grafmatic 4x5 to Polaroid Bodies Conversion by Lee HamielPhoto.net Patron (2005-11-08)

 

? Second-hand LF gear in Tokyo by David Lamond (2005-11-08)

 

? Fotar enlargers by robert hall (2005-11-08)

 

? Does Arca Swiss 141mm LB provide as much rise as 171mm? by N W (2005-11-08)

Frank, did you happen to know a salesman at Altman by the name of Mark Van Scoter (or something like that, been a looooong time)? He was a great help to me back in those days (late 60s actually), most of the older salesmen in camera shops couldn't be bothered with a scrawny kid.

 

Gus, I didn't mean to be mean. You might really be a camera repairman who went out of business just like you said, obviously I have no way of knowing, it's just that what you wrote and I quoted pretty much contradicts everything any factory-trained repairmen I've met face-to-face has said.

Fred, I sold the latest Elmarit after I bought the pre-ASPH Cron. The front of the lens is wider by about the same margin as the filter sizes (i.e. 9mm) since both of them have the same thickness of sliding shade. The other end of the lens is pretty nearly the same (the Cron gets wider ahead of the aperture ring). Length-wise they are also almost the same, within a few mm at most. Weight-wise the difference is surprisingly small too, maybe not when comparing the grams on paper, but when actually using/carrying them I was har pressed to tell the difference. Performance wise at all the apertures they have in common they are virtually indistinguishable. The Elmarit went down to f/22 vs f/16, but of course the Cron goes to f/2. Performance at f/2 is exactly what I wanted, for the kinds of shots I use it at that aperture. A bit lower in contrast, a bit softer in the corners. If I was looking to shoot detailed landscapes or interior shots wide open then maybe the APO is a better choice, however my choice in that case would be a larger format altogether. In all I am very pleased to have the Cron in place of the Elmarit, it gives me advantages.

Everyone knows that I'm not one who has to have bragging rights to the latest Leica lenses and try to make other people feel ashamed of their previous versions. I've shot the latest 50 Lux-ASPH against the pre-ASPH and while the differences are there, they're not significant <i>for the type of shooting I buy a 50/1.4 for</i>. I've also shot both the ASPH 35 Lux and pre-ASPH, and, other than perhaps someday buying the ASPH if I can find one at a price I'm willing to pay, I personally will stick with a Summicron of any generation or even a Summaron (2.8 or 3.5), before I would get the pre-ASPH 35 Lux. I just never got results wider than f/5.6 that I liked, and any of those less expensive lenses are as good or better by that aperture. You can get a 3.5 Summaron, in nice condition, for less than $450. Just make sure it brings up the 35 framelines, IIRC not all of them do. The same lens can be found in LTM and could be used with an adaptor. I've got one of those, it's <i>tiny</i>, shorter than a collapsed 50/2.8, a really nice lens for pocketing the camera.

<i> in 1984 Leica abandoned their traditional name and serial inscription on the top plate. The latter was done on the side railing of the accessory shoe right up to this day except for the current MP. Why did they deviate from this practice since their early production years in the 1930s knowing just about every owner has always preferred otherwise?</i></p>

 

Putting the serial# on the flash shoe started with the M5, and was done (accoring to a dealer I know who formerly worked for E. Leitz USA) because previously if a top plate got damaged it couldn't just be replaced with a new one, it had to have the serial# re-engraved. The reversion to the top-plate # on the MP is, like several of its features, for esthetic reasons. At the time the top plate engravings stopped, Leica was still operating under the mistaken impression that their customers were buying tools to take photographs</p>

 

<i>It has to do with switching from brass (easily engraving) to zinc (not so but cheaper).</i></p>

 

That's a good story, except the late M4-Ps which have the same zinc top plates as the M6, have "Leitz" thickly engraved on the top plate exactly like the brass ones before it, and subsequently the "Leica" and model designation simply moved to the front of the camera and became block letters. According again to the dealer who worked for Leica in those days, the reason for the changeover was to get the brand name--which is after all an advertisement--more clearly visible to onlookers, rather than to the owner.

<i>Anyone order the MP3 set and know when they will get? </i></p>

 

As soon as I find a dealer willing to let me put one on layaway for $10/week, I should have it in about 15 years 3 months and a few days.

<i>The 2000th of a second was dead accurate with its thick rubberized silk curtains...F3 shutter used mini electronic coils with delicate magnetic surfaces and a gold plated blade (Thin wire) to adjust the timing of the high speeds. A little bit of debris or lube fumes & erratic speeds were the result. Slow speeds were adjusted by turning mini variable resistors on the thin flexible, tearable circuit. The LCD displays failed. (Life span short, about 5 to 8 yrs) The memory lock push button held in by friction popped out eventually. (Many were lost) On both cameras, watch out for the thin titanium foil shutter! (very unforgiving)</i></p>

 

LOL, is it April 1 already? Ok, who are you and what do you really do for a living?

<i>When preparing to take a photo, I tend to take metered readings from all over, but sometimes, when i think about it i try to end up with a circle, which is why, i am now realising, I?m getting very contrasty images, as when taking the photo I?m using the grey as white! Eureka, that?s why when printing, i aim for a well balanced black AND white photo, I?m actually printing a black and grey image.</i></p>

That's, like we say here in the US, "clear as mud". It doesn't sound to me like you're getting it, but maybe you are, future photos will tell. FWIW your shot doesn't look like the result of a metering problem, but one of a compressed tonal range. If it was a sunny day I'd say the scene outran the film's contrast range and stop there. But since it's an overcast day and b&w, I suspect the problem is more likely in your development and printing. What film/developer/paper did you use for that shot?

BTW I had someone check my 300 Nikkor back in Chicago and turns out it's an "H" after all, not a "P". So things aren't quite as dismal as expected : )

Excellent point.