hoyin_lee1

Boris, your dream (or nightmare?) is coming true! {:-O

 

</p>(Expensive special edition bright green plastic lightweight Leica.)

<br>

<img src="http://www.photoshot.com/shops/jag2x/leica.jpg">

Hey Bailey, no need to get all worked up. Rangefinders are indeed better for my purpose, and SLRs for yours, so to each his own. Here's a shot taken with a Leica M that I couldn't have better taken with a SLR because of the low light and lack of a camera support: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1146574&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1146574&size=lg</a> (handheld at 1/15 sec; no polarizer and no graduate filter). Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

<i>"The typical Leica M owner or photographer seems to be at least 40 years old, most of them are over the 60. Very few (close to none) between 20 and 40. More than 30% are only collectors or don't take more than 10 rolls a year. Most of all the M cameras ever made are sleeping in a collector's showcase."</i>

 

</P>I'm definitely among the minority! I started using Leica in my late 30s and I shoot well over 10 rolls of film a year. My 2 Leica-Ms were brought used, and their biggest gripe is that they don't get much sleep!

Sure a SLR is more versatile, but since I don't need the versatility to shoot tiny, speedy or distant things, I'm better off with a rangefinder. It feels refreshingly good to use a back-to-basic Leica after years of holding up a metal brick of a do-everything Nikon to my face.

Those are <a href="http://www.fujiicameras.com/camera_resources/camera_info/leica/m1.htm">Leica M1</a> non-rangefinding cameras made for scientific and technical photography. They are prized by collectors because of their relative rarity, but not good choices for a practical camera (no rangefinder, difficult to load, difficult to rewind, need to set film counter manually). Stephen Gandy's Camerquest website has a good buyers' guide to Leica M cameras: <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm</a>. The <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1548">Leica Photography Forum</a> is a good place for information on Leica equipment.

<i>"A)I do wanna learn and become a better photographer"</i>

<br>

Keep shooting and have fun--practice make perfect!

 

</p><i>"B)I will look into buying some books to learn. Is there a book from "...for dummies" series ?"</i>

<br>

I find this to be the best I've read: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130282715/qid=1038507944/sr=12-1/002-7398102-3332813?v=glance&s=books"><i>Photography, 7th Edition</i>, by Barbara London and John Upton</a> (mine's the older 6th edition, which probably is the better (and cheaper) one to get if you're not interested in digital photography).

 

</p><i>"C)How and where do I trade in my old camera and lenses for a new/used camera?"</i>

<br>

Most camera shops that sell used equipment allow partial trade in of your old cameras and lenses, but you probably won't get too much for your T60 and Vivitar lenses. Ebay is another place to sell off old equipment. Or you could donate them to a school . . . .

Several things may affect the (technical) quality of your pictures"

 

</P><u>The lenses</u>: this is probably a big factor. When I first started out in photography, I used to shoot with Vivitar lenses similar to yours mounted on Canon manual cameras, and most of the pictures came out lacking in contrast and colour. Then I got a Nikon SLR as a present and I switched to some decent Nikkor lenses (that's NOT to say that Nikon is better than Canon; I'm saying that the optical quality of Nikkor lenses is better than that of Vivitar lenses), and suddenly, the quality of my pictures improved--they became crisper looking (probably due to better contrast and resolution) and more saturated in colour! Perhaps you should consider getting some used Canon FD manual-focus lenses for your T60, which are very reasonable in prices and are capable of very good results.

 

</p><u>Film and lab</u>: film is less of an issue these days given that most consumer films such as Kodak Gold and Fujicolor Superia have very fine grains and saturated colours. Process labs are more of an issue, as a good photo print depends very much on the skill of the person in controlling the printing process. If you have been using the same photo-processing lab and are not happy with the result, perhaps you should try another with good reputation.

 

</p><u>Camera</u>: or more precisely, your camera's exposure meter. From my experience with older Canon manual-focus cameras (FTb, FX, AE-1, AE-1P), I find the cameras' built-in exposure meters have a tendency to slightly over-expose, especially when there's a bright light source (such as the sky) in the picture. This results in pictures with a light haze and desaturated colours. The meters in the more modern Canon EOS-series of cameras are much better, and they give better exposure results, based on comparison of pictures taken with my old Canons and my friend's EOS Rebel G (EOS 500n).

 

</p>If I may make a suggestion: consider trading in your T60 and Vivitar lenses for a used EOS body and a Canon EF auto-focus lens. I bet you'll find significant improvement in the technical qualities of your pictures!

I had the Nikkor AF 24-50mm f3.3-4.5 lens and still have the AF 35-70 f2.8. The lighter and more compact 24-50mm makes a good travel lens, and the 24mm wideangle is more versatile (for my purpose anyway), but not very good for architecture because of the noticeable barrel distortion at the wideangle end (not severely so, but noticeable when shooting, say, a wall straight on). I actually owned the lens twice, but sold it off both times as I find the pictures taken with it lacking something.

 

</p>On the other hand, I find the 35-70mm a significantly better lens as it seems to be able produce more contrasty and saturated images. There's a marco function at the 35mm end, which is a useful feature (but you probably won't need it given that you already have the 60mm macro). What I don't like about this lens are the size and weight and the push-pull zoom mechanism. The prices for this lens in the used market seem to vary quite a bit, and on one occassion, I have seen a non-D version of this lens in excellent condition selling for only slightly over US$ 200. Among the two lenses you're considering, the 35-70mm is the lens to get, in my opinion.

Hi Marc, the comparison of butterfly wing images is featured only in the magazine article, and not on the website. In no way I'm saying that Nikkor lenses are inferior to Leica lenses (I'm a keen Nikon user myself!); I dragged in Leica's name in my original thread to try to make it relevant to this forum, that's all! Cheers!

Oops, it looks like I've confused the EOS 2000 with the EOS 3000! The confusion came about because the EOS models are called differently outside the US, which is where I am (EOS Rebel G = EOS 500n; EOS 2000 = EOS 300; EOS 3000 = EOS 88; see what I mean?!!). Anyway, let me start again (sorry! {:-D <--sheepish grin ):

 

</p>In simple terms, the Rebel 2000 is the improved version of the Rebel G, while the N55 the cheapened, dumbed down version of the N65. Don't know much about the ZX 60, but it's most likely also a cheapened, dumbed down version of a higher-priced model, probably the ZX 7. I would recommend the Rebel 2000, N 65 (NOT N55 in my post above--another mistake!) or ZX 7, all of which have gotten good reviews.

 

</P>I should add that a friend who's completely new to photography has asked for help in getting her first SLR camera with the criteria of price, ease of use and durability. My recommendations were the same (EOS 2000, N 65 and ZX 7), and she finally settled for a Nikon F65 (black version).

In simple terms, the Rebel 2000 is a cheapened, dumbed down version of the Rebel G, and the N55 the same of the N65. Don't know much about the ZX 60, but it's most likely also a cheapened, dumbed down version of a higher-priced model, probably the ZX 7. Buy the Rebel G, N 55 or ZX 7, all of which have gotten good reviews.

Al's absolutely right! Forgot about those holes near the bottom of the cabinet!

Hi Mike, go here for detailed info on the Leica IIIc: <a href="http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/screwdriver/3cbody00.html">http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/screwdriver/3cbody00.html</a>. A war-time Leica IIIc is a highly prized collectible, the common post-war model you have is perhaps more worthwhile as a user camera.

Hi Mike, what you have seems to be a perfectly repairable Leica screw-mount camera. You could send it to Leica for repair, which would be fairly expensive, or you could find a qualified local repairer to do it, which would be cheaper. Since it's a fully mechanical camera, and the rangefinder and shutter mechanisms seem to be working, the amount of repairing needed should be minimal.

 

</P><i>"The leather is gone on most of the camera and it does have a lot of wear and brassing."</i>

<br>

These are cosmetic flaws that won't affect the camera's functions. I'd suggest that you have the leather (actually, it's a rubber material called Vulcanite, as a previous poster has pointed out) replaced with the common leatherite (synthetic leather for camera bodies). It's farily inexpensive and most repairers can do it, and I personally prefer it to the smelly and crumbly Vulcanite! For the wear and brassing, I would leave them alone, but, if you wish, you could send you camera to this guy in Japan who will have it repainted for US$ 500: <a href="http://homepage2.nifty.com/Shintaro/top1.html">http://homepage2.nifty.com/Shintaro/top1.html</a>.

 

</p><i>"I don't beleive the apeture works but the shutter and focus does."</i>

<br>

The shutter and focus work--that's good news! This means that your camera is still in working order, and all it probably needs is a CLA (cleaning, lubrication and adjustment), the cost of which should be minimal. The aperture sticks--that's a problem with the lens, not the camera, and it can be quite readily repaired (probably cleaning and lubricating the aperture blades suffice, if the lens isn't damaged). Or, you could leave the lens alone and get yourself some modern Voigtlander lenses (see: <a href="http://www.cosina.co.jp">http://www.cosina.co.jp</a>) which will work nicely on your Leica.

There seem to be a lot of interests in the Foveon X3 photo-chip among

members of this forum. The December issue of Discover magzine has a

feature article on the Foven X3 and its inventer (<a

href="http://www.discover.com/dec_02/featphoto.html">http://www.discov

er.com/dec_02/featphoto.html</a>). Very interesting article, even

though I'm totally uninterested in digital photography! To

demonstrate that the resolution of the X3 is almost as good as 35mm

film, the article features three magnified images of a butterfly

wing, respectively taken by a Sigma SD9, a Nikon Coolpix 2500 and a

Nikkor lens on a F5. I wonder if a Leica lens was used instead of a

Nikkor, would the image blow away that taken with the X3? (I'm not

seeking an answer; it's a weak attempt to make this post relevant to

this forum! ;-P)

Check out <a href="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/manuals.html">here</a>, <a href="http://rurmonas.cust.nearlyfreespeech.net/manuals/index.html">here</a> and <a href="http://mikec62.tripod.com/manuals.html">here</a>; you should be able to find downloadable manuals for most of your cameras.

I live in the subtropics and fungus has been a major concern for my cameras and lenses until I bought one of these <a href="http://www.drytech.com.tw/english.htm">Taiwan-made electrical dry boxes</a>. A long time ago when I was posted to Brunei while serving in the military, the camp's quartermaster stored all the optical equipment (scopes, binoculars, etc.) in an old wooden cabinet with an incandescent light bulb in it. Apparently, the heat from the light bulb was sufficient to dehumidify the inside of the cabinet and keep the equipment fungus free. You could build one yourself, but make sure you use a low wattage light bulb and have several holes drilled near the top of the cabinet to prevent heat built up.

<img src="http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/images/12836.jpg">

 

 

</p>(The Lomo LC-A is a copy of the Minox 35.)

Here's some interesting info on the legality of mercury batteries in the U.S.:

 

<b></p>"Production of mercury batteries has not been "outlawed" in the US. The Environmental Pollution Agency issued a regulation that manufacturers had to ensure that such batteries, though, did not enter the trash stream. Alternatives suggested included a "deposit and return" system (that is, for instance, an initial purchase of a battery might be $15 or so, with $5 being a deposit. Subsequent purchses would be at market price, but would require you to turn in one battery to be allowed to buy another.) The manufacturers declined to make such an arrangement and simply ceased production. Mercury batteries are still in production in the former Soviet Union."</b>

 

</P>(Source: <a href="http://www.nemeng.com/leica/bin/px625.txt">http://www.nemeng.com/leica/bin/px625.txt</a>)

Says here (<a href="http://members.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/webdoc4.htm">http://members.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/webdoc4.htm</a>) that the Nikon F will work just fine with silver oxide and alkaline batteries, but not Wein zinc-air cells.

It says on page 1 of this article, <a href="http://www.rolleiclub.nl/batt-adapt-US.pdf">http://www.rolleiclub.nl/batt-adapt-US.pdf</a>, that "A Pentax Spotmatic . . . does not need an exact 1.35 volts. This camera works perfect on a 1.55 volts akaline or 1.6 volts silver-oxide cell." My regular camera repair guy has told me essentially the same thing: some cameras that use mercury batteries will work normally with silver oxide or alkaline batteries (the former is better).

I'm quite sure that it can be done, as I had a M6 rangefinder installed in my M5 (for the 28mm frameline). But don't do it if you have a weak heart--the bill is going to be pretty frightening! You should be able to get a quotation from Leica before making a decision.

<i>I was offered a <b>like new Leica 21 asph at a <u>bargain price</u></b>. Strictly speaking what can you suggest me, to buy or not to buy it?</i>

 

</p>Oh man, what are you waiting for?!! Grab that lens before somebody else does, or you'll be regretting it for the rest of your life!

To answer my own question: yes, the Nikon soft release works very well indeed on my M5 (and my M4-P, and my friend's Bessa T)!

I'm not sure if you'll need to set underexposure for slide film on the Minolta CLE. When I first bought my CLE, I thought it had a tendency to underexpose (about 1/2 a stop). I had it checked at the local Minolta service centre, and they recalibrated the exposure meter to factory standard. Despite the recalibration, it still has a tendency to underexpose by about 1/3 of a stop, which is just nice for taking slide film. I would suggest that you shoot a roll of slide film in the normal exposure setting and see if exposure compensation is really needed.