jsc1

<p>Please, delete my account.</p>

<p>Fuji X-E2 w/AF DC-Nikkor 105/2D @ 'neutral' defocus...</p><div></div>

<p>Fuji X-E2 (has an EVF, i.e. electronic viewfinder) with a Fuji M-mount adapter and a LTM/LSM, RF-coupled, coated Nikkor-S.C 85/1.5 @ ISO 400 and f/1.5...</p> <p>(My thoughts and opinions of the Fuji X-X2 could belong in the "Mirrorless Digital Cameras" forum but I first thought of the "Leica and Rangefinder" forum as the photos were captured with LTM/LSM-compatible 'glass.')</p><div></div>

Fuji X-E2 with Leica Hektor 85/2, uncoated, un-RFcoupled without a diaphragm or Waterhouse stops... i.e. f/2.5<div></div>

<p>I suspect that the chrome "beauty" ring caused the circular reflection. I will coat the chrome with flat, black paint.</p><div></div>

<p>These photos were captured with a Fuji X-E2 using a 1930s uncoated, non-RF-coupled Hektor 85/2.5 projection lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Fuji X-E2 with uncoated, non-coupled LTM/LSM Hektor 85/2.5 projection lens, circa 'late 1930s.' ONLY 'Auto Tone,' i.e. AT, was used in post-processing.</p> <p>To me... AMAZING.</p><div></div>

A pre-WW2, uncoated, LTM/LSM Leica Hektor 85/2.5 projection lens that is neither rangefinder coupled nor does it have a diaphragm/Waterhouse stops. Leica M9 @ ISO 400, AE, repeated 'trial and error correction' fosusing.<div></div>

<p>Leica M9 w/ Thambar 90/2.2 @ ISO 400</p><div></div>

<div></div>

Leica M9 w/ Nikkor 85/1.5 @ f/1.5<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The first is a VC Heliar 50/3.5; the second is an Elmar (Red Scale) 50/3.5.</p>

<p>Opinions?</p> <p>Votes?</p> <p>*****</p> <p>I can only hope this is fun for Leica afficiandoes. I will, of course, reveal which is which?</p> <p>Josiah</p>

<p>...the other one</p><div></div>

<p>I would describe the Elmar 50/3.5 as a Tessar descendant; the Heliar would, consequently, be a Tessar improvement in center sharpness.</p> <p>Here are an Elmar versus an Heliar example. The photos were taken within moments of one another, i.e. same camera, same setting, same conditions.</p> <p>Your can decide for yourself.</p> <p>(BTW: they are ONLY jpegs...)</p> <p>*****</p> <p>Photos will be uploaded... 1by1...</p> <p> </p><div></div>

Nikon D70s converted to IR...<div></div>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=251971">Steve Levine</a> , May 04, 2014; 09:27 p.m.</p> <p>I'd go with a bargain grade shooter body ignoring serial numbers and immediately send it out to be serviced. The lube needs redoing and many parts can be worn and out of spec.In my experience you will then have easily 20 years of trouble free shooting. All of the M3's were all hand built by meticulous craftsmen at the top of their <a id="itxthook0" href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00cZ04" rel="nofollow">game<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. Certainly later in the run they honed things in a little. But the M3's are so well engineered the differences are moot in my humble opinion.<br> *****<br> I agree with Steve Levine. The Leica M3 DS and the SS are 'first cousins;' they are far more similar than different... regardless of SN.<br> The Leica M3 DS has the 'smoothest' advance of ALL my rangefinders.<br> Quiet.<br> *****<br> And I'm not even a photographer.</p> <p> </p>

Olympus Stylus Tough 3000.<div></div>

...a red flower dropped onto green growth after a BIG rain.<div></div>

White-tailed deer fawn.<div></div>

<p>The center of the venerable Leica Elmar 3.5/50, in all its' versions, is very sharp.</p> <p>After casual testing, I think the VC Heliar 3.5/50 is sharper than the modern BlackScale/RedScale Elmar 3.5/50 in the center.</p> <p>Other opinions.<br> (I can post a jpeg example.)</p>