astral

Discount Films Direct (Mansfield) have Jessops mailers at 3.50 and Fuji Mailers at 3.75 (GBP). Great guys, fast m/order. Recommended.

 

http://discountfilmsdirect.co.uk/shop/acatalog/Colour_Slide_Process_Mailers.html

While I have not benefitted from falling "classic" prices yet - no Leicas for a tenner - I found today that Jessops (the largest UK photo chain) is currently giving 33% off displayed secondhand prices. They appear to be dumping stocks of used film cameras and lenses quite quickly and now even have an EBay store.

 

However much of Jessops' secondhand stock nowadays is in pretty average (often sub-average) condition and is often oddly priced - sometimes ridculously overpriced, sometimes wonderfully underpriced. But there are are some gems to be had. Today I bought an excellent, barely used Nikon FE for 80GBP (140USD) - ok, not the best price ever, but it does have a 1 year warranty & 30 return option.

 

I find that on many dealers' webshops camera and lens prices can often be distinctly lower than I see on EBay - and you get a warranty and full legal protection, and often the price comes down if you're interested rather than up!

Spend a couple of minutes/hours in Photoshop/Paintshop Pro, or whatever, and make a small logo of your choice - like Bessa, Fuji, Canon, Zeiss, Zorki, etc .... Print the logo on an adhesive label such as the semi-glossy CD labels. Stick the said logo over the red dot, cover with clear plastic film - voila!

Thanks again everyone.

 

To be rational, I think that a IIIg would only be a sensible buy (for me, anyway) if I didn't already have more cameras than arms, and if the price was low enough to sell-on at no significant loss within a year. A great prices doesn't always mean a great purchase.

 

According to a central London Leica dealer I spoke to yesterday, the market for LTM cameras is currently rather stagnant - a "buyers' market" - leading to slowly falling prices (Yeah!?). Maybe this helps to explain the high prices for some Leica-M items that are in greater demand: dealers make a living from what they sell, not what sits on their shelves.

 

Also, the cost of a Leica camera is the equivalent of an airfare to an exotic/photogenic place, etc, so rationally for me an air ticket should win ... for example, buy a IIIg, or have a trip to Cuba with an M2? Hmmm!

 

The subjective/emotional arguments about owning classic gear are more complex. Of course when I get my hands on the camera tonight/tomorrow I will have the benefit of all of your comments & information, and the truth about its condition, useability, etc will become apparent. There could be issues, but we may simply not get along together.

 

In the meantime, this 'counselling session' is very valuable ... You have all put forward good arguments as well as valuable information - thank you.

After hunting around every (UK) online shop, and magazine advert for several months I decided the 35/2 pre-Asph. Summicron was - as suggested - overpriced. So in December I snatched a new-in-box Skopar 35 PII at a London Camera Exchange branch for 135 GBP - they were clearing shelves!

 

Then only 2 weeks ago a shop in Sussex had an immaculate 35/2 4th Series 'cron for 425 GBP; there was also a mint M6 for 625GBP, plus a mint 'Lux at c.700GBP too. I bought the 'cron but couldn't justify the other items. All items were sold within a few days.

 

So, there are bargains around - even today - but you have to be quick and decisive. The good stuff goes quickly.

It's nice when these topics run along for a while, you get to hear the full spectrum of views. It's a valid point to say "old gear is old gear", however lovely and nostalgic it is. But I guess the attraction of old cameras defies reason to a degree.

 

I have some gear that I use only when I need to: Nikon F80, D70, FM2n, M6TTL, etc. And there's some I use because I want to: like my M2, Nikkormat, Retina and Balda 6x6 crf.

 

Similarly, I have a eco-drive, solar-powered, quartz watch which is waterproof to 30metres and is accurate to a few seconds per year, or so. But it ain't half as much fun as a cheap, French-made, gunmetal First World War military watch I bought from a flea-market for 2GBP and restored/serviced myself. It is accurate to about a minute or two per day "with a following wind" - still plenty good enough for me. I wore this watch when visiting the Canadian Museum at Vimy Ridge in France in '98, and it is exactly like one on display there. A Canadian guy who spotted it on my wrist said "Gee! what would I give to own a watch like that!" For me and that guy this $5 watch was priceless! Useless and valueless, but priceless.

 

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Thank you gentlemen. It sounds like there are very few horrible quirks with the IIIg, so thanks for the information. And yes, the IIIg price does seem a bit good.

 

The seller lives near me and is "easy-going" about the sale: I can run a film thru it and have it processed at a local store within an hour. Also, I have a "tame" Leica expert who will check it over for me for the cost of the postage. So it's starting to sound like a "no brainer".

 

As for bragging and sleeping on the couch, etc ... well, maybe I am on a lucky streak: a) I recently bought an immaculate NNIB 35/2 pre-Asph 'cron (1 year warranty, etc) from a dealer for 425 GBP (c.760 USD) and b) my "missus" hasn't yet spotted it. With this luck I'd better buy a lottery ticket.

 

Incidentally, the real butt-kicker for me was not buying a Reid II & nice TTH for 50GBP (from Marston & Heard, Leytonstone, London) in 1969 - 3 weeks wages, no less!

 

Supplementary: has anyone really had to spend a week on the couch because they bought a Leica?

I have been offered a nearly mint Leica IIIg with collapsible 50mm f2

Summicron, and original case. All were bought together in late 1959

(hence one previous owner). The seller is absolutely genuine and I get

to handle the camera for as long as I wish before buying.

 

I know the main things to look out for in r/f cameras (I currently use

a M2/M6, plus several Retinas), but I have not yet found much

information specifically about the IIIg's strengths and weaknesses.

So, I have three questions for you more-experienced folk please:

 

Are there any particularly problematic points with the IIIg that a

buyer should look out for?

 

The asking price (in the UK) is around 600 GB Pounds (approximately

1075 USD). I believe this is a good price, am I right?

 

Finally, as a 'user' camera is the IIIg worth having? (OK! dumb

question, but I gotta explain to my wife why I've bought another

expensive old camera!!).

 

Your advice and additional comments will be most welcome, thank you.

The main point is that the choice of a different prism will not give you better photographs, the prism and focussing screens play no part in creating the image per-se. Also, they are not changeable on the Spotmatics without a lot of improvisation, major (strip-down) work and uneconomic cost.

 

If you are contemplating just using the Spotmatic with regular lenses all you need to do is set it on infinity, select your view (or guess) and shoot - getting the exposure right is the big problem: the answer is trial-and-error and reading upon it. If you aim to attach the Spotmatic to an Astro 'scope there are other issues to consider.

 

Either way, the camera's meter will be useless for astro purposes - it is just not sensitive enough, apart from anything else. However, the Spotmatic will be capable of giving you results just as good as most consumer cameras, provided that the shutter is working correctly at the slow speeds. Even if it isn't, for long exposures (many minutes) even a camera with a dicky shutter can work well - as long as the B or T setting works.

 

I can give you more information if needed, but let's see if the experts are online first ....

My personal view based on actual use of various Pentax A (not Takumars) and M lenses on an MX/LX:-

 

A series Pentax lenses often have small improvements in overall sharpness but this may not be noticeable in practice. The coating on A series lenses is usually exceedingly good: in some conditions this is quite noticeable, not universally so, though. However, the A series characteristically use more plastic components - particularly in the aperture rings - which sometimes can be troublesome.

 

I have no issues with my M50/1.4, (I prefer my A50/1.7 over my M version). If I was to do more flarey contre-jour work I'd buy an A50/1.4 just for its coating.

 

The following pages have some user comments - draw your own conclusions:

 

http://stans-photography.info/BriefComments.html

 

or

 

http://stans-photography.info/LongComments.html#Short%20PrimeDET

I once asked for some fags in a USAF PX "somewhere in Cambridgeshire" ... interesting reaction!

 

So they originally cost 7/6d and you paid 19/10d - that's inflation for you!

Oh thanks Jerry, sounds interesting - I'll mail you shortly.

So quick ... you get the bonus points Benjamin! A definite thank you. Guess I'll have to keep the lens :) - Alan

Help please? I can't find a definite, positive and categorical answer

to the question: does the current hood for the 35/2 Asph 'cron

actually fit the last of the Series 4 (pre-Ash) 35/2 'crons? And how

about the front caps? Has anyone tried these please?

 

I just received a late numbered mint lens with very tacky 12524 hood

and no front caps. The (UK) store's response went "Oh, yes the ASP

hood and cap definitely possibly fits ... we're absolutely certain

that we think it does ... maybe ..." Huh? 'The expert' at Leica UK is

on vacation for a week or so.

 

The genuine 12524 hood & its outer cap is now discontinued (unsure

about the original lens cap) - I'd rather return the lens than live

forever with a screw-in kludge or wait an eternity for a listing on

Ebay. Many thanks.

Thanks Ed & Bill, useful information.

 

This is going to be a short thread, however: the Summarit, which arrived yesterday from a leading London dealer(!), has fine 'polishing' marks all over the inside of the rear element, causing diffusion and lowering contrast, and it is pock-marked from fungus too. Apart from this and the dust and whiskers inside it looks ok!! Of course, it is going back. I'm gonna save up for a much later Summicron. In the meantime the silver Skopar 50mm would be a better bet, and cheaper. Hmmph!

 

AC

I am currently looking for a lens hood and Series filter adapter for a

Summitar.

 

I know some abbreviations in regular use, but I also see items on

online shops that may be useful - if I can just identify them.

 

Is there an online source of information on all (or any) of the weird

and wonderful (Leica) abbreviations, such as SOOEY, XOOIM, etc, please?

 

If online information is nonexistent, which of the many books provide

such information?

 

Thanks folks.

Kevin is correct. Have a look at http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/pdffulllist.pdf

My apologies! I seem to have screwed up on that reply a little. I somehow got a bit too engrossed with the subject and overlooked the 400/5.6 part .... Oops! Silly me. I also apologise if I was "teaching you (folks) how to such eggs" (English saying) - hopefully not from an endangered avian! Some bits remain relevant, I hope.

 

Good points, Douglas! Mebbe a key point overall is "the closer the better" - halving the distance is effectively doubling the focal length. Anyway, enough from me, I'll go and do my penance now :(

For 15000mm catadioptric read 1500mm!!!

The following comments relate primarily to film cameras - I touch on the digital considerations at the end.

 

At the outset my personal advice is: buy a good spotting scope and an attachment for a digital P&S or slr camera - digiscoping is the way to go nowadays. It "knocks the soxs off" the traditional approach - and you can have slides/chromes made. Scopes are fun, and 200mm lenses are ... just 200mm lenses, nothing more.

 

If you are committed to a traditional approach, read on.

 

I believe that the Pentax-M 200/4 has a reasonable performance under normal conditions, but cannot personally vouch for this. I am unsure about a f5.6 version - the price seems high for me however - others may be able to provide additional information.

 

However, I do know that 200mm is not really long enough for photographing birds unless you are closer than 7-8 metres (except big birds like geese, etc).

 

200mm is only around 4 to 5 times magnification compared to a 'normal' 50mm. Most binoculars used for bird-spotting are 8x or 10x magnification, and most spotting scopes are 20x or 30x. To achieve the same magnification, on 35mm film, as a pair of 8x40 birding binos, the equivalent focal length would need to be c.400mm. Such lenses are usually quite 'slow' with maximum apertures of f5.6 - 'faster' lenses are very significantly more expensive and difficult to find on the used market. Beyond 400mm (8x) camera lenses tend to be the catadioptric (mirror) type - these have a fixed aperture of f8 or worse.Focal lengths do, however, go up to 1000mm or 15000mm (if you have the cash).

 

While you will have some success with small birds a few metres away using a 200mm, I feel that you will not be too satisfied when photographing them at a greater distance. A simple practical test using a 200mm lens: a 150mm diameter ball (pigeon size) 3.5m away occupies about a quarter of the width of the 35mm frame; at 7m it occupies and eighth width-wise. Beyond that distance the ball begins to look really tiny. A 400mm lens doubles apparent object size two-fold at those distances. In other words: small objects many metres away still look small on the film is you only use a small telephoto lens.

 

And finally, while a general purpose 200mm lens may give good images within the above limitations, wildlife/bird photographers do tend to use more specialist lenses. I don't necessarily mean 3000 Pound/Dollar lenses, but items such as Novaflex 400mm optics which are very sharp in the centre of the frame (where the subject is) and noticeably less so at the edges: this is a design trade-off. The good news is that these lenses are moderately 'affordable' compared to big-game hunter lenses and are slowish movers in the used market. The sharp images allow greater enlargement of the image than would normally be expected from a normal telephoto lens.

 

If you are using a digital camera you will need to make allowances for the multiplication factor involved - typically multiply the focal length by approx. 1.6 to give the effective f.l. on a digicam. A 200mm effectively become c.300mm - but this is still a bit too short for the most rewarding of bird photography.

 

The 200mm length is a nice one to own, but I am sure that after a bit of use you will not use it for bird photos, and you will be heading towards digiscoping.

 

Good luck.

From personal experience, for production of slides/chromes/transparencies - No allowance made for a) nostalgia and/or b) forgetfulness: <br><br>

 

o Helios- any - paperweight/doorstop<br>

o Super-Takumar f1,8/55 - very good to excellent<br>

o pentacon auto f1.8/50 - almost adequate for undemanding use<br>

o SMC-Pentax A f2 50mm - well behind the f1.7 in edge performance<br>

o Yashica lens DSB 50mm f1,9 - very good test report in Camera Weekly (UK) around 1978-ish - would like to try one<br>

 

o Canon FD 50mm f1,8 - very good (based on brief use)<br>

 

o Nikkor-S auto f2 5cm - nice older lens with different feel to later 50s<br>

 

o Meyer-Optik Gorlitz domiplan f2,8/50 - useless even as a doorstop<br>

 

o AGFA ambi silette color-solinar f2,8/50 - lens sorta OK-ish shame about the camera<br>

 

o Retina-Xenar f2,8/45mm + Retina-Xenon for C f2,8/50mm + Canonet 40mm f2.8 - suited to the cameras they are on<br><br>

 

 

If I had to rescue three of the above lenses from a crusher, I keep the Takumar, Nikkor-S and Retina-Xenon (if still on a Retina).

I would, however, want to play with the Canon 50/1.8 and Yashica DSB beforehand, just in case ...... I'd joyously consign the Domiplan and Helios to complete destruction.<br><br>I can always achieve 'quirky' effects with a top notch lens, but only rarely top notch results with a 'quirky' lens.<br><br>

If you aim to do macro you will may be hampered by a tripod that has staybars between the legs - such cameras do not usually adapt to very low level use. Crank-up centre columns are sometimes useful, but in my experience are often not 100% rigid and do not help much with macro work. Similarly, I do not like pan and tilt heads; and any tripod with a fixed head is, for me, a total no-no. I use a variety of heads depending on needs - digital, 35mm, medium format, or as a 'scope tripod.

 

My preferred option for all purposes, including airline travel, hiking, macro, wildlife and architecture is a Manfrotto (Bogen) 190 Pro with a choice of heads. The 190Pro (and 055Pro) system allow the centre column to be mounted as a lateral extension - good for macro (see the website). Also, the legs can be adjusted for very low level use - virtually zero camera height above the ground, etc. The 190/055 Series are great in tight places like caves and slot canyons, perched over precipices and in many other tricky situations. I believe the Manfrotto range of heads and accessories is the widest of any manufacturer, certainly in Europe. I have carried my 190 around the world, and in fact have two - each tailored to different uses.

 

If you are going to carry a tripod for long distances check the all-up weight, including the head - a heavy tripod is often left at home ... a light one is often of little use, especially for long exposures; getting the right balance involves hands-on tests in a shop etc. Don't buy blind.

 

Whatever brand you choose look for quality, functionality and the potential to tailor a system to your needs - for macro work you may eventually 'need' quite a variety of accessories.

Coke - as in the cola variety - contains a small amount of phosphoric acid which is used at much higher concentrations (sometimes together with hydrochloric acid) to 'treat' rust in vehicle bodywork etc.

 

It's a nasty corrosive concoction and the usual health & safety warnings apply - like wear goggles/do not swallow .... same applies to the rust remover!

 

I guess you could try such an automotive anti-rust treatment, which would effectively stop the rust and turn it grey/black - personally I'd try it on something valueless first.

 

Neutralising any resulting sticky residue involves using lots of water and possibly some additional remedial after-treatment .... same applies to the rust remover!

I just bought - as yet untested - a chrome Skopar 28.3.5 and am very impressed with the chrome finish. It is a super match to my Summaron 35/2.8 and indeed the chromework looks far nicer (less 'granular') than on my other VC lenses. Looks 1st class on my M2 and M6. ... Oh yes, if Leica are indeed listening we should expect an announcement around 2012 ...

In my experience most Nikkor (and other make) circular lens hoods are much shallower than expected, possibly to allow for filters. I check all mine with a small graound glass screen at the filmplane and mark them accordingly - taking account of filters, etc. For example, my hood for a 75-150 Nikon E works fine on a 50/1.8 AI/AF. I usually buy up cheap plastic hoods for pennies at camera fairs and cut them down accordingly ... cheaper & 'tighter' than Nikon hoods. (I find the HN-1 on the 24 is particularly useless except as a front fender to protect the glass).