Troll

My Summar is optically perfect, and has what may be factory coating. The chrome barrel is unfortunately scraped down to the bare metal from lots of use, and looks terrible. I can't tell any significant difference between its performance and my Collapsible Summicron, either B&W or color. I particularly like to use it because 36mm slip-on filters fit, from my other screw mount lenses.

From the position of the focusing stop it is obviously a very early, probably non-coupled, lens. Certainly NOT a bayonet mount. I still wonder if it's a 50mm Hektor, or possibly a non-Leitz lens. The viewfinder mask suggests a 90mm.

Kodachrome was ASA=10, Kodachrome II was ASA=25 (in my opinion, the best color film ever made),

f:4.0 would have been fine. (LTM would have been mouth-watering!.)

If I could read it, I wouldn't have to ask here. The image was taken from an AHC TV program (TV screen) about Hitler, I can't improve on what is shown. Sorry. (It's bugging the hell out of me!) Thanks.

Definitely not an Elmar! Could it be a 50mm Hektor? Why is there a 90 mm mask over the viewfinder?

Is it really 24mm x 36mm, or is it a little less to allow space between the negative images? Thanks.

Looks to me like a tiny bit of camera shake.

Does anyone else enjoy this wonderful old Leica book from the 1930s? His inspiring text is accompanied by some 200 perfectly exposed, perfectly composed, beautifully printed, boring photographs. Still, I love this historical old book. Wilhelm

Best of all: Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM. (The field of view exactly matches the 90mm framelines of my M3.)

Wear, tare, and Murphy's Law just to frustrate you.

Not every camera is improved by a later version. The later version of the T series, such as the T-900, are smaller but don't have as good stabilization, as well as a shorter tele optics.

I dearly love my T100, but when shooting at ISO=800 there is too much "grain" in the faces, (Pizza face). Just a slightly higher resolution would fix it. (I also have a T900, but the stabilization isn't nearly as good as the T100). Thanks

What city would that be? Wilhelm

The original prototype for the Domke bag was produced for him by Smith (in Chicago?) who made canvas tents for circuses. They were sold under the Smith name by Ken Hansen, and I was lucky enough to get a couple, the New Yorker and New Yorker, Jr. The New Yorker was taken in a home burglary, but thank Gawd I still have the Jr. It is the most perfect bag I could imagine, first for Leicas, DSLRs, and finally for Digital (both Canon SLRs and tiny little Sony RX100s.) Oh, it is a wonderful bag, and saying that about a piece of photo equipment nearly 50 years old puts it in league with the original Leica, and Nikon SLR.

1949. A beautiful rosewood and mahogany "Liberated" Gaundet & Gie(sp?) 9x12 with the lens missing. (I'm sure that it had a 135mm Zeiss which was why it was discarded.) Eventually I got a like-new 15cm Steinheil Unifokal in Compur Press shutter (I've never seen another listed). 3.25x4.25 Filmpacks were available which fit perfectly. A roll-film back and chrome flash for Press 40 bulbs eventually completed the package, along with a really miserable aluminum tripod. In 1953 traded for a Tower 35 (Nicca) with 50mm Nikkor, which was in the repair shop more than being used. I made one great photograph, which is still in my portfolio, I followed Mod and PopPhotography, and thought I was a great Kodachrome photographer. Boy was I wrong! My next "great" image didn't come for over 10 years. Eventually traded for a brand-new Leica IIIf RD/ST and kept the Nikkor lens. The Leica was stolen 10 years later, but I've got and occasionally use its replacement almost 70 years later.

Contax IIa. (I once knew it, but the little grey cells seem to be forgetting more and more tiny little insignificant details from time to time.)

What a GREAT thread. I just happened on it again after these nearly 20 years, and am even rather proud of my own contributions.

How big? And is there a particular Zeiss lens hood -- also, what size?

Thanks for the honest assessment. I've used Leicas for nearly 70 years, and really hunger for a digital one, but I realize that even if they weren't so bank-breaking expensive that I'd not use it much. Where I'd once shoot at 1/2 second without fear, now even 1/100 is about 50% probability of showing some shake. If they ever get in-body IS I'll be first in line to inpoverish myself.

For nearly 50 years I always carried a Minox in my pants pocket; first a IIIS, then a C, and finally an LX, until getting film and decent processing became difficult. Eventually 35mm cameras came down to a size and weight so I switched; first a Minox 35, (unfortunately unreliable), then an Olympus XA. Finally, nearly 20 years ago I went digital with Minolta and now with a choice of SONY (T100 is my current baby/RX100 in its various iterations is too big and heavy for my pockets, and also too obvious to use when I don't want to be noticed). Although I have a freezer full of Minox 9.5mm films in various speeds, I gotta admit that I'd really like a true digital IIIS or LX. It doesn't even need a digital view screen -- the bright-line finder is just fine for me. I'd even settle for commercial processing with high quality reasonable cost scans. Guess it's all wishful thinking -- BUT if I should hit the lottery....!

The 43mm was my favorite Pentax lens. yes, it was hyped although it was actualy even better than my 40mm f:2.8 pancake, which was also a real winner.