david_werbeloff1

<p>I love the size and feel of the 35mm Summaron f3.5. I wonder if it would become a better performer if it went for a cleaning...</p>

<p>Summaron 35mm, f3.5. Just lucky it flared in a less important part of the frame...</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Christopher & All,<br>

Thanks for sharing your work on the thread. Some really great photos!<br>

Christopher, I figured that the image I was really capturing was the reflection in the mirror in front of me, so I focussed on that. </p>

<p>Best,<br>

David</p>

<p>Let's try that again and see if the image will post inline...</p><div></div>

<p>Hi All: Add your photos to the thread. Happy New Year!<br>

David<br>

Leica IIIa, Summitar 50mm, Fuji 800 Press @ ISO650</p><div></div>

<p>Leica IIIa with CV 28mm. Fuji Press 800 @ ISO 650.</p>

<p>National Zoo, Washington D.C. Leica M3, Elmar 135mm f4. Fuji Press 800 rated @ISO 650</p><div></div>

<p>d</p>

<p>Leica IIIa, Summitar 50 mm, Fuji 800 Press rated at ISO 650</p><div></div>

<p>Raw Power</p>

<p>M2, Visoflex III and 280mm f4.8 Telyt</p><div></div>

<p><br /> Leica IIIa, Summitar 50mm, Fuji Press 800 @650</p><div></div>

<p>Gentlemen, thanks for your responses. John, thanks for heads-up on the low light. I use Fuji Press 800 (rated @ 650) as standard, so I'll be fine. I'll have to do the "over-the-shoulder" test to be sure, but I'm tending towards the small and light kit. Best, David</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

I'm planning a trip to the National Zoo in D.C. My question for those who have tried photographing the animals there, is this: can I get away with my IIIa with 75 and 135mm, or do I need an M with Viso and 280mm? I'm really trying to avoid having the extra weight. <br>

All advice appreciated.<br>

Best, David</p>

My M2, inherited from my father, displays an identical light leak across the top of the frame. It only happens intermittently.

The camera has been to at least three Leica specialists over the course of the past 46 years seeking a cure for the leak. Needless to say, I'm very interested to hear of a similar problem in another M2, and what folks propose as a probable cause.

Best, David

Stan: Mea culpa... Ronald is correct; with the lens head from the Tele-Elmar (as opposed to the older 135mm f4 Elmar), you don't need the adaptor. The lens head screws directly into the 16464.

There are two listed here:

http://www.igorcamera.com/leica_accessories.htm

 

Best, David

Hello, Stan: 16464 is the helical focusing mount that you need to focus the lens head. In addition you will need an adaptor called an "OTSRO" (ref.#16472)which fits between your lens head and the 16464 focusing mount. Then your 135mm f4 lens head will focus from infinity down to 38" on the Visoflex.

 

Best,

David

Hi Ronald and Mark:

 

Thanks for your replies. After looking inside the lens barrel again, this time with a magnifying glass, I found the last 3 digits of the serial number scratched there along with what looks like the tech's initials. I feel much better now that the lens is good. There are no signs that any unqualified hands have messed with the lens, which is also reassuring. Will still run a film through.

 

Best,

David

Hi All: I'm considering buying a 90mm Elmarit. I was surprised not to find the

lens serial number scratched inside the lens barrel when I unscrewed the optical

unit. On both my 135mm Elmar and DR Summicron this has been done. The DR

Summicron even has the actual focal length scratched inside the barrel along

with the serial number. Should I be concerned that the lens unit and barrel are

not a matched set? I'll be running a roll of film through the camera to check

that the rangefinder cam is coupling correctly and also for any strange

abnormalities in the images.

 

Anything else I should watch for? Under the oblique light from a flashlight I

see a cleaning mark in the center of the front element, otherwise the glass is

beautifully clear; no signs of fungus or separation.

 

Best, David

Hello, Robert: I cannot add anything to the above comments about your rangefinder, except that when the time comes I'll be sending my Barnacks to John Maddox based on the many recommendations I've read here for his work. As for the VCII meter. It's a great little meter and seems to be accurate and sensitive in low light. The only thing that I don't like about it is the fact that on mine (and others here have reported the same thing), the ISO adjuster on the left dial tends to rotate too easily. I've tried tightening it down with the correct wrench, but it still tends to change settings if left to its own devices.

 

Best, David

Y'know, it seems to me that an artifact such as a prototype M3 belongs in Leitz's museum collection so that anyone who wants can go and look at it and appreciate it for what it: a monument to great industrial design and inventiveness. Too bad it'll disappear back into a collector's vault ne'er to be seen again.

Hello, Ray: The only way for folks on the forum to confirm that you have the real thing is to post some pictures of your camera here. You got me a bit curious so I took out my own 1936 IIIa. The D.R.P. on mine also is on the second line just below the LEICA logo, as is the camera in the New Yorker illustration... I'm a bit confused by your comparison between your camera and the one in the illustration.

 

The Summar f/2, depending on the condition of the glass, can be an excellent lens with its very own "signature". Despite its tendency to flare easily, it renders somewhat dreamy, yet beautiful images when fully open, and stopped down it can be absolutely tack sharp. Unfortunately, most of them either have cleaning marks on the soft front element, or the interior is hazy, or both.

Best, David

Hi Vic: I'll preface this by saying I'm not an expert on this, but I have resurrected an MR4 meter by exchanging both the activation lever and the MR4 cover for one from the older MR meter. I suppose it's possible that the cell just died, but it's far more likely to be the activation lever contacts. The activation lever from the MR is sturdier. The little brass contact strips attached to the lever and printed cicuit board are very delicate, and also prone to oxidisation over time; the older lever seems to work better.

 

Best, David

Hi All: Thanks very much for your respective experiences with Billingham. Maybe the answer is to smear blood all over the outside and wear the thing in a bit...

 

David

Hi All: I've been thinking about ordering the Billingham L2 "Alice" bag. It

looks gorgeous, very functional, and just right for my application: an M or

Barnack body with a couple of extra lenses and light meter. However,to my mind

the Billingham bags look SO classy that they simply scream "STEAL ME".

 

I'm interested to hear the experiences of others: are the bags as functional as

they look, and have others also felt they were setting themselves up to have

their precious gear swiped?

 

Thanks,

David