colin jackson

<p>I use the basic off-white masking tape with no problems in 45 years. Stay away from the "low tack" painters tape which is green in our area, and presumable blue in yours. It is preferable in painting applications because it is easier to remove and less apt to take the paint with it but you don't want that for bulk loading. I use any brand white tape (Henkel at the moment) that I can find. <br /> I use the low tack green tape ON my M bodies (short bits) to show which are loaded at the time (and ISO) and I like them to come off easily in that case. I put them on the top and over the bottom AUF/ZU latch so I don't accidentally open it with film in.</p>

<p>Both eyes open, too! <br>

I'm impressed!</p>

<p>My 8 factor (-3 stop) red filter registers only a 1 stop correction through my MPs meter so I either estimate or meter then open up 3 stops and ignore the MP meter. These meters do not necessarily meter filters correctly.</p>

<p>My friend took me up in a Boeing Stearman biplane on the 12th to an area NE of Vancouver, B.C. While he performed some aerobatics, I fired away on the D200 at 4 frames per sec CL setting trying to hold the camera while pulling G's from about 3 to about zero which isn't easy! Also looking through a finder while the world spins around is a sure recipe for revisiting ones last meal and I was no exception! Still a wonderful, once in a lifetime, experience. This is one of many frames shot performed during a loop.</p><div></div>

<p>I just checked my 35 ASPH and it is just as you described, aperture slightly closed at f2 and the ring turns open just slightly and the aperture goes away leaving a round hole. I used to be concerned about this also but is apparently normal.</p>

<p>Check this out:<br>

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pd<br>

Note:<br>

 

<p>MANUAL PROCESSING <br>

Small-Tank Processing (8- or 16-ounce tank) <br>

With small single- or double-reel tanks, drop the loaded <br>

film reel into the developer and attach the top to the tank. <br>

Firmly tap the tank on the top of the work surface to <br>

dislodge any air bubbles. Provide initial agitation of 5 to 7 <br>

inversion cycles in 5 seconds; i.e., extend your arm and <br>

vigorously twist your wrist 180 degrees. <br>

Then repeat this agitation procedure at 30-second <br>

intervals for the rest of the development time.</p>

<p>I do it just like this and air bubbles have never been a problem in several decades. Don't forget the "tap".</p>

 

</p>

<p>I had that problem with my MP a few years ago. Turns out the MP film rails do not slope up at the rewind end as the older M's do hence if the cassette is not clicked home fully into the body the film hangs down over the bottom rail and rides there for the whole film. My M3 and M2 are more tolerant of careless loading. Ensure the cassette snaps all the way in and the film sits twixt the rails and you'll be OK.</p>

I get that occasionally on my M2 or M3 when there is a bright light source out of frame and above. I believe that the bright source is

imaging on the stepped metal bar that forms the bottom of the film gate and reflecting back up to the bottom of the film (top of image). My

camera tech repainted the flat black below the film gate during the last CLA and I have not noticed the effect since. It was getting quite

glossy in that area. My MP does not have the step shape around the film gate that the older ones do and the flat black is fresh and very

flat and I have not had that problem with it. I suspect that the stepped shape aggravates the tendency for reflections.

FWIW both my M2 and M3 showed 1/1000 quite a bit faster just prior to CLA (due to sticky low speeds), judging by the thin neg I got when

running a series of equal EV exposures. All the other speeds above 1/30 were consistent zone V density but 1/1000 was about zone IV,

ie. approaching 1/2000. The M2 still had the L seal so had not been tweaked in 40 years.

The advance lever position does not affect the metering on my MP.

Here's some sites that should be helpful. Good luck, haven't tried it myself but the next time my beater M3 acts up, I'm giving it a shot.

Let us know how you make out!

 

http://www.micro-tools.com/store/item_detail.aspx?ItemCode=LF-KIT-C

 

http://pentax-manuals.com/manuals/service/leica%20basic%20repair.pdf

 

http://www.jumboprawn.net/jesse/cams/gear-profiles/leica-m2-overhaul/leica-m2-overhaul.html

Thanks for the info! I see there is confusion among some sellers on the "bay" so it is worth querying them to ensure one gets the right

size.

I have a '65 M3, '66 M2 and a newish MP. All have the same tripod thread size. This size is, I believe, the smaller of the 2 options. It

seems to be 1/4" to outside of the threads, normal for my tripods, grip etc. When shopping for an old case of which I only need the lower

half, what size am I looking for? I am guessing they are 1/4" but am not sure how the threaded shafts are measured: inside/outside diam.?

 

I am guessing the other size is larger but what would that be, 3/8", 5/16"? ..Just in case it is listed by the size.

 

For the trivia experts, out of interest, what models or years or countries of manufacture produced the other (larger?) size M threads? And

why?

 

Thanks.

My M3 rangefinder patch is mottled with spots and, judging by reponses to a recent post,

many M3 owners report the same. The patchs don't delaminate, the finders do in some

cases leaving ONLY the patch remaining intact. Don't worry, be amazed that you have only

a "spot".

I find when I use the older (40-50yrs) lenses compared with todays versions eg. 50mm

Summicron, 90mm Elmarit-M, there is lot of difference in contrast with the newer versions

being much snappier. But the lower contrast negs from the older lenses always seem to

have a great tonal range when printed up in contrast and high contrast scenes favour the

older lenses. The lower contrast of the older versions may be due to the cruder coatings

and even deterioration of those coating over time. Flare is much worse in the older lenses

in my experience, however. But flare aside, as long as you can get the acceptable results

from adjusting contrast on the enlarger or scanner, enjoy the classic glass. They also look

better on the older bodies!

I had the same problem and sent it to NJ after which it came back smooth. Mine took

about 5 weeks round trip from the west coast in mid summer '05. You'd think they would

get the idea that it is cheaper for them to do it right in the first place. Does anyone know

what the difference is in the shutter button action with MP's and, say, M3's of which mine

is still silky after over 40 years, even before I had it CLA'd?

It sounds that, now, your only problem is that the focus index is out of whack ie. your

focus distance scale is inaccurate. My chrome 50 was like that and it was a quick

adustment by my tech.

I went through this dilemma myself not long ago and ended up using double sided tape

and 2 tie wraps (providing a finger width gap feeling much like the Leica tab) which has

served well. I posted my question as you did and here are the responses including one

from Lutz Konnermann himself. I'll let you make up your mind:

 

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

To answer your question, no, I haven't, but I did find my own solution that works well and

costs almost nothing. I got about a foot of 3/4 inch wide nylon webbing from an

outdoors store, took it next door to the shoe repair who sewed it with 2 loops (for wrist

and split ring), put the split ring on it and presto! One could hang a bit off the end to

protect the camera from scratching if desired. I'm sure the shoe repair could have done it

in leather for me for me, had I desired.

My 500C/M had the same problem and I just had it fixed by the local repairman, very

quick while I waited and watched. But the 70 degree upper shutter was not yet dropping

down enough that it affected any exposures. I wouldn't worry about it at 70 degrees for

now but it will be a problem if it get worse.

I have a .85 MP and use 35mm. on it with no problems. I don't need glasses and I like the

way the finder almost fills the screen as you say. I might learn to like the .72 with this lens

but I can't stand the small framelines with the 50 and 90 on the .72. One could use the

very expensive 1.25 magnifier on these but one would have to be removing it when using

the 35mm. not to mention the issues with it fitting in the bag or sticking in the eye.

I have both MP and M3 and the M3 is better on a few counts. Viewfinders are not the

same and the .85 MP will flare occasionally but the M3 never flares. MP went back to Leica

to fix sticky shutter button and is much better but the M3 is still best and seems to

respond to my instincts with it's lovely little snicky shutter. The rewind stalk on MP is

wobbly and the M3 42 year old stalk is rock solid. I don't find the loading of the M3 to be

a problem, a little slower but never fails where a little carelessness with the MP loading

and I end up with a non advancing film. I don't think the MP can match the M3 build from

my experience. These are the only models that I am familiar with.

Or if you're a bit lazier you can do the above except leave the back on the body and mark

the film through the front of the body (lens off) while holding the shutter button down.

The mirror and body shutters will be out of the way. Saves the time putting slide in and

out and taking the back on and off. I am cheap enough with test films that I mark only

two corners for 2 tests then the top and bottom of the gate for the next couple of times

(different colour inks) etc. The first time are going to use the film, unroll it to the untaped

end and tape it in place otherwise you will get in trouble rewinding for the next test as the

film is shorter than the underlying paper due to the diff. in radii and the film will buckle

up as you reroll it. You should easily get 6 tests this way. My scottish ancestry showing!

Or:

 

http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=9BD6C9E65B7BBE2F

 

Easier to find. Amazing shot!

You can see the above Steinert photo at:

 

http://www.2021art.com/index.htm?/E/archiv/kuenstler/steinert.htm