anthony_brookes5

Careful thought, and the prime element - LUCK

My Zeiss Contaflex with 3.5 Tessar. Never produced a bad picture.

the pre-war 35mm Elmar must be one of the smallest. An excellent lens.

Simplicity itself. Reliable, great lens and very good shutter.<div></div>

They were incredibly well made enlargers and like you Arthur I used a Peal 8x magnifier to check final focus. They were rock solid and I was fortunate in having a solid bench for the enlarger with adequate ceiling height. All I have left is the Peak which I have on my desk beside my 'shoddy' computer.

No, Photoshop has not spoiled my appreciation of good photos, but I do think Photoshop has depreciated photography. Cropping, darkening or changing paper selection are photography, any other attention is picture making. Photographs are not pictures IMHO.

The M Safari reminds me of my Werra

It's the fashion to have a very wide angle as people seem to relate to the type of photos taken by phones - packing in as much as possible to fill the frame. I can't see a serious photographer using the Q except as an ancillary camera. Pity. Now if it was a 40mm or 50 mm then that would interest me.

I used to have a Focomat IIc and thought it was wonderful till I bought a used V35. The V35 is a revelation. The IIC was excellent whilst I was using it and I couldn't criticise it but I only used it for 6x6 on a few occasions. After selling my Rollei I just got fed up with its massive bulk and slow working.

A Corfield Periflex - the poor man's Leica. I bought one. Marvellous.

I can thoroughly recommend Bert Hardy Book My Life. It is full of atmospheric pictures. A delight.

I am not sure how accurate this story is but it is said that a professional newspaper photographer (Bert Hardy) was challenged about how easy it was to take a decent photo with a modern (1951) camera. Bert hardy said give me a single speed box camera and I can still take a good photo. He used a Kodak Box Brownie and this picture proved his point and made him a lot of money.<P><I> Photo removed. In violation of Photo.net Terms of Use. Do not post photos which you have not taken yourself.</I>

I fitted a Summar to my M6 via an adaptor and it worked well. the meter was fine.

Digital cameras will die long before film. No one will use a camera soon unless it is for film as everyone will use phones or watches.

I have given up on digital having had a Digilux 2 and an M8. I have gone back to film simply because I mainly print B&W and digital just cannot match the quality of film. I had no idea that digital cannot print enough shades of grey whereas a 35mm negative has ten times as many shades of Grey. It has taken me a long time to realise this largely helped by professional advice. PLUS going back to my M6 is like real photography instead of a happy snapper.

I would suggest the value is between $200 and $750 depending entirely on condition and including the Summar lens. The Summar is a superb lens but as has been wisely said above the front element is soft so if it has not been cared for will not give good results.<div></div>

I don't know if this is the right place but I am looking for an E39 orange filter for my M6. Does anyone have one that they no longer use ?

If it's a reputable camera store the price should tell you.

It has taken a long time to find out why my B&W images from my M8 couldn't compare with my M6 film pictures. I now know that a digital B&W image cannot match a high resolution film scan because there just isn't enough information in the output of the sensor. I have passed my old negatives through my scanner at 9000+ dpi and my Leica Vario-Summicron digital image when converted to B&W does not compare. Of course there are medium format digital cameras that give as many mp but film appears to have many more grades of black. Am I right ?

The R4s was a first class camera.I used mine with a 50mm R Summicron a combination which could produce the finest images. There was trouble with the light seal around the film type window with some people but I never had any trouble with my R4, R4s, or R5. the R4s was I think the best of the three. It is a delightful small compact SLR. You should enjoy it.

Bela - I miss 'proper' photography from film development to enlarging and printing. All those skills are no longer required. One just needs a finger for any quite decent picture. Of course there is skill in artistic interpretations but some of us enjoyed the technical side of photography.<div></div>

Mukul - yes of course but it has viewfinder on top which makes it bulky like and SLR

I have read several reports about the Sony A7 - all favourable but it's an SLR which I don't want. My R4s is a nice small camera which I should be quite happy with if I wanted an SLR

Having owned and used most models of Leica from a Leica 1A to a Leica C including Rs and Ms I have reached a conclusion as to what my ideal Leica would be. The body would be an M. It would be digital full frame. It would have a vario summicron zoom lens 28-135 with manual or automatic focusing. Have I any chance of seeing it ?

Leica III with 50mm Summar and 90mm Elmar