nee_sung

<p>I agree that the Hector is the best bang for the buck. I like it for the fact that it is a great portrait lens, that its contrast is low and that it's light. I've had almost all Leica 135's , both M & R mounts. The Hector is the only one I keep now. It's a great lens to me.</p>

<p>Oh, the original Leicaflex! They over-built it because it was the first model and they had to make generous redundancies. It was basically an M + Visoflex encased in a tank. So sort of like a tank inside a tank. It also had the brightest view finder because it did not need to divert some light towards TTL metering.</p>

<p>I am definitely ok with the 36mm effective focal length and f/2.8 speed. When the price goes down to 2,000 in my city I'll buy (it's now selling at around 2,800).<br>

I have a Minilux & 2 CM's and I use them regularly. So I know what it means to use a fixed lens camera with auto-focus. Anyone who is satisfied with the Minilux or CM will probably want one.</p>

<p>Hugo, in Hong Kong you have the right to ask the police to conduct the search in a police station.</p>

<p>The R3 to R7 were designed and made by Minolta with Leica QC. The R8-9 were completely Leica designed and made.<br>

The R8-9 can take on the Leica digital back, apparently an excellent but under-appreciated Leica equipment.</p>

<p>I had the collapsible Elmar for about 10 years. It was my favourite lens, more so than the 50/2, because its distortion was less. I eventually sold it to buy a pre-war 90 Elmar, because my wife kept complaining the collapsible was too sharp.<br>

In general I found the 90mm lenses to be the best overall performers in the Leica lens roundup.</p>

<p>Omar, to me, you already have the perfect camera for your needs, the LX3, which is a Panasonic version of the D-Lux 4.<br>

On the other hand, if you're going to use it for class assignments...does your school have specs for the camera? When my daughter was in school (same major as yours) the school had a set of minimum specs for the camera.</p>

<p>That would be a match made in Heaven, I believe.<br>

I have the same lens, and I think the over-saturated colours of the Velvia will just about make up for the muted rendition of the Elmar.<br>

This is a combination that did not exist when the lens was built, so you are making something new and fresh.<br>

I had wanted to try this for a long time but somehow never got round to it.</p>

<p>Images on the internet, because of severe compression, cannot bring out the quality of the Leica.<br>

To post an original file would usually eat up too much band width. Besides, people usually say that it's the brilliance of the photographer that is responsible, and that he/she could have taken that shot with whatever equipment they have.<br>

Only the photographer him/herself knows how much the shot is due to the camera. That is why most people don't post their Leica images.</p>

<p>Despite the price tag of $2,000, demand have so far outstripped supply so much that where I am the X1 has actually gone UP in price rather than down.<br>

It started to be sold here at $2,450, already above MRP, but last week it had gone up to $2,840! And only ONE is available in the whole city.<br>

I was supposed to be the lucky guy but I told my dealer that the whole purpose of my calling him was to see if it has gone down. So I passed. More waiting.</p>

<p>Serial number has been given by the OP in the third post.</p>

<p>The first Leitz 35mm I bought was the pre-asph lux. The images at F1.4 were soft, nowadays people call this the Leica glow. The colours were a bit cool. Sharpness was OK.</p>

<p>I decided to switch to the pre-asph Cron. It was sharp at all apertures, the colours were vibrant and contrast was outstanding. And it was small and light. What a world of difference! I endorsed an earlier poster, I had not had any issues with it at all. And I bought it, what, 20 years ago? No, must be closer to 25!</p>

<p>One final word, no matter how flare resistant your lens is, always use a lens hood, even at night.</p>

<p>Don't ever give up, Joseph, you'll win in the end.<br>

For delays in payment, the bank could be the culprit. It's interest-free funds to them, so some banks will tell you that your payment has not yet arrived while they divert your money to some urgent over-night (or short-term) funding requirements. This happens a lot when banks are short of funds, such as during the 2008 financial tsunami.</p>

<p>Re plastics: my understanding is that modern plastics are tougher than steel.<br>

I met a gentleman from a German advanced materials company and he told me that the engine of a car can be completely made of modern plastics, user's psychological resistance is the only barrier. In fact the whole car can be made of plastics.</p>

<p>Maybe these:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Ko9Q</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00OTQ3</p>

<p>Yes, I am of an age when the world was transitting from the TLR's to that of Japanese SLR's. Although I have never used one myself, I've seen many photos and brochures where the TLR was used for copying purposes. And I have seen many photos of sports scenes taken by the Rollei. So I do know that the TLR's were almost ubiquitious.<br>

But I think in the modern world it is highly unlikely that buyer bought it for close-up work, that is why I made the post. If this had happened in 1955, or even 1965, I would have fully supported the buyer.</p>

<p>I used a Canonet QL when it was brand new, its images were no match to that of a Leica. My friend had a Minolta fixed lens camera at the same time, and its images were far better, although still no match to that of a Leica.</p>

<p>Ehm...quite honestly, how important is it to be able to tell between 3' and 3.25'?<br>

I have the 3.5F with a Planar.<br>

My own feeling is that with a twin lens reflex camera focussing down to 3' is a bit pushing it because of parallex errors. With the sports finder you're not even supposed to go under 5'.<br>

Besides, the only time when this is relevant is when you measure the distance with an external device (say a ruler) and then turn the focussing knob to match the distance. How often does one do that? Also the focussing knob does not have any sub-division marks, so how likely are you to match the knob with the ruler precisely? Does your buyer even know that he's supposed to measure from the film-plane indicator and not the front of the lens?<br>

I do think your buyer is being unreasonable, he could fix this the next time he CLA's the camera, if he's so inclined. But to quickly resolve the issue I agree with the suggestion of a $100 discount.</p>

<p>I think most M2's don't have the self-timer. Apart from that, the M2's feel more solid than the M4 but the M4 is more smooth (I have used both M4 & M2).<br>

The M2 does not have the auto-reset frame counter (this was the original reason why it was cheaper than the M3), you have to re-set the frame counter wheel manually each time. I was caught out once or twice, but I was already in the habit of processing all my films at the end of a shoot, so it didn't really caused any catastrophe.<br>

M4's were made in Germany, M4-2 and M4-P were made in Canada. But after more than 30 years, the general consensus seems to be that there is no difference in quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm at a loss to understand the relatively low price it commands on eBay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The last two responses probably explain it. I think I had it for a while, but because of the weight I also did not use it much: when I wanted to take it with me I said to myself "nuh, too heavy for this shoot". Soon I found that it was too heavy for every shoot. So, sold.</p>

<p>If you're trying to get the Leica flavour, then I think at this early stage of your journey you should not go for any of the non-Leica lenses. I'm sure all the recommendations are valid and backed up by actual user experience, but those lenses will not show you the Leica signature.<br>

Buy a Leica lens, see if you like its signature, then buy another brand, say Zeiss, to see if you like it better, and then another brand, until you've cycled through all the available brands, then decide for yourself, based on your OWN feelings.<br>

After all, your photos are presentations of your visions. How can it be YOUR photo if it's based on somebody else's choice?<br>

If you choose your lenses, then you can say to viewers at your exhibitions: this is how I want the world to see this scene.</p>

<p>which is why with digital cameras that give you clean images at ISO 3200, you can get marvellous shots at F8, no flash, indoors.<br>

Our children will see images of our time that we cannot of our fathers' time.<br>

Which is why nowadays I shoot mostly indoors and at night; this is a new art form, and is what digital should really be about.<br>

The old art form (film) is still here of course, and its virtues now highlighted and brought into focus by digital, so it will continue to thrive.</p>

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention another thing, the 135mm is a "classical" focal length, meaning that it was designed AND perfected a long time ago, so all the research & development costs have been fully recovered, so all you're paying for is the manufacturing (+ markup, of course).<br>

And yet another thing, all chains along the manufacturing have been honed to utmost smoothness, so even QC is much cheaper (meaning far less rejects). Not only does that make the lens even cheaper, it means you're far less likely to get a lemon (not that I have ever heard of a Leica lemon).</p>

<p>All Leica F2.8 lenses are superior; they are cheap because the smaller initial aperture makes it a lot cheaper to manufacture. Users assume these lenses are inferior because they are cheap. This is the best kept open secret in the Leica world.<br>

Leica has said it in their literature many times over the years: unless you need the larger aperture, buy the smaller aperture lens, because almost all the additional cost goes to making the larger aperture, NOT improving the quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Olympus Infinity Stylus (Mju-1), with 35mm f3.5 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a review on photo.net on the Mju-II. Although it's on the II, I think if the problem is present in the II, there is a fair chance it's on the I as well:<br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/mjuII<br>

This seems to be a known problem. On the above page, search for "Michael Katz<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=191133"></a> " and you can see that he described a problem similar to yours, and he described the conditions in more detail. If it fits your problem, then I think you may just have to live with it.</p>