wendell_kelly

There are a number discussions concerning the reliability and build quality of the Leica R6 here, and elsewhere, on the web. These are mostly ten to fifteen years old and many of the problems reported seem in the realm of "infant mortality", that is, manufacturing defects which appeared in new cameras and presumably were corrected under warranty and were avoided in cameras produced later. At least ten years have passed now, and I post this to ask how well the Leica R6 has held up with time. Early defects, if any, will have been corrected and user's experience/comments will reflect camera durability and quality of design. Early problems often mentioned are mirrors becoming detached, frozen shutter speed knobs, and seizing of the DOF lever. Are these persistent problems or just early failures with new cameras? I am eager to read responses here. I have a nice R6 that I'd like to take with me to Europe. I'd prefer the lighter weight of the R6 but will bring a Leicaflex SL if there are reliability concerns. TIA all.

I've been using Nikor tanks (and reels, of course) since 1970 for 35mm. I haven't had a bad reel load for a very, very long time (read 10 years). I find that I am completely (perhaps, congenitally) unable to load 120 film into a Nikor reel without ruining one or more frames with kinks/halfmoons. I've gone over to Paterson-type plastic reels for 120mand my loading problems have gone away. I've processed roughly 200+ rolls of 120 without a bad load. (I don't do things blindly, if it seems the reel load had a problem, I remove the film and load it again).

You might try using a level to see if your negative stage is parallel to the baseboard (check in both dimensions).

It would be useful to the rest of us (me at least) if those offering opinions/anecdotes regarding lens performance would certify that their enlarger optics were properly aligned (with a bit of comment about how the alignment was done) and how the illumination system was properly centered.

I use one quart amber glass "growlers" bottle used to package microbrewery beer. I replace the original thin metal bottlecap with the heavy plastic ones from household bleach bottles.

Other LTM lenses will mount on the camera properly. What you will need for focal lengths other than 50mm is an auxiliary viewfinder in order to frame your photographs properly. You might find a lightmeter a helpful thing to have.

Several years ago I ran a comparison of ten "Russian Elmars" of various flavors (these used to be very inexpensive) against four genuine Elmars (all coated). Used a newspaper classified section as a focus target and supported the Leica IIC camera on a tripod; I made exposures at 3.5 and 5.6. My conclusions were that all of the Russians were OK lenses, with little difference in sharpness among the group of ten. None of the Russian lenses was a sharp as any of the genuine Elmars, particularly wide open (no surprise).

A competent CLA should remedy all of the problems which you describe. Be sure to insist on replacement of the RF beamsplitter.

Some Barnack Leicas are very difficult to load, even with a properly cut long leader; I have two such cameras. The use of the card solves this difficulty. I have a bit of expertise with Barnack Leicas; I bought my first IIIc in 1964. Happily, that one loads easily.

If I may jump in with a comment. When the film is being difficult to load with my Barnack Leicas (I have a couple that are really ornery) it is because the film is becoming stuck between the pressure plate the edge of the film gate which consequently prevents the film sprocket holes from engaging the sprocket roller next to the take up roll. If you set the camera to "T" and fire the shutter to open the curtains, you can reach into the film gate and slide the film so that it aligns properly with the sprocket roller. The lens need be removed to allow you to reach into the film gate, of course. My description is making this sound more complicated than it really is. There is another, simpler way to load a Barnack. With the bottom of the camera removed, slip a thin card or piece of plastic in behind the film gate. Then just slide the film down into the camera between the card and the pressure plate (the side of the card away from the film gate); this prevents the edge of the film from hanging up on the edge of the film gate and usually the film goes right into place. Once you are sure the film is advancing properly, remove the card. I use a 2"x4" piece of plastic cut from a plastic milk container, it is nicely rigid and thin. I found an ordinary credit card too thick but hotel key cards seem to work as well. I have managed to reliably load a IIf without cutting a long film leader in this way. Put an extra card in your wallet to keep it handy. YMMV.

I've travelled quite a bit from upstateNY/USEasterncoast to and from Italy and central Europe. I've carried 120 roll film (in unopened boxes, 50 rolls commonly) and 35mm cassettes (out of the original boxes but inside the plastic cans) through security searches many times. In each case, I've had the film in a single layer within a "Tupperware"-type transparent film container. Not once, coming or going from the US or back from Europe, has anyone at the security point even asked to open the film containers. The agents in Europe were more interested in having my laptop out where they could view it. I have had reason to object to rude behavior from TSA agents (only and especially in Newark NJ) and with the extant problem( having nothing to do with what was in my luggage but with my clothing) was quickly resolved by the adults in the room who set things right quickly.

What rodeo joe said is correct and good guidance. Adjust your variable contrast filtration according to the appearance of your prints. This is what matters.

I really have to jump in here to respectfully disagree. From personal experience over the past 20 years, I can only urge caution when considering purchase of a FSU lens in leica mount. 1) Jupiter 8's are usually OK and sometimes very good. A lot of (soft) aluminum was used in their construction and considerable wear is a common problem. Unless the J8 is priced as a real bargain, go for a Canon, or Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8. An appropriate price for a J* is one half that of a Canon lens. 2) Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 9 lenses are an absolute crapshoot. My own experience with four J3's is a 25% success rate in getting a lens that was useable on a Barnack Leica. The other three required shimming, by an expert (not me) to make them useable. I just sent the offending J9's back to the Soviets; one useable one out of three. 3) The Jupiter 12's I have all be good on receipt; some of this may be the forgiving DOF characteristics of a short lens. The J-12's make useful WA enlarging lenses. 4) Most of the FSU 50mm Elmar 50mm/3.5 lenses I've accumulated (a dozen now) have been OK shooter but not as sharp as any coated Elmar to which I've compared them. OK lens is your prints don't exceed 8x10. Gentlemen can disagree.

You didn't mention which film format you use. Both the Omega B-22 and the Durst 606 will let you print 35mm up to 6x6. The are plenty of both to be found if you are patient. The B-22 is the more common and parts are readily available on eBay.

I've carried a Fuji GW690 around Europe in a shoulder bag several summers recently. Wonderful negatives (FP4 at ASA100), but this last time I concluded that the camera was becoming too heavy and awkward to carry all day. I thought I'd surrender some negative area and bring something easier to use in the future. I also considered the GF670 but concluded that there was little advantage, to me, over a late model Rolleiflex. The 6x6 negative is very close in area to the 6x7 in the Fuji, the Rollei is of similar weight, and is compact and fits into a small bag. Worries about durability of a folding mechanism and bellows life don't arise. The cost of the GF670, even used, is less than attractive.

You have caught my interest with your posting. Over the past few years, I've managed to buy three Focomat Ic's for well under $400. Two are entirely capable users, both are currently in use. Neither has a filter drawer; I use the filter holder beneath the lens for my Polycontrast filters. It was $100 or so for each of these, one of which arrived with an original Focotar and the other with a late model camera-grade/red dial Elmar 3.5 (coated) in place (now on a Leica IIf and out in the field) as well as a fossil wasp nest in the enlarger head. The third Focomat set me back $40 and is a useful source of parts; the bellows was/were beyond salvaging; however in that one there was a negative carrier. The wasp nest is long gone now. It was an eBay purchase in each case for me. I fitted a 6 element El-Nikkor to one of the Focomats; no difficulty calibrating things to the precision of a good focusing microscope and this is the 35mm negative enlarger that I use most often. I check focus weekly with the microscope and it is always on the money. I left the old Focotar on the other Focomat but I think now that I'll set that one up with a 50mm Componon-S; the charms, should there be any, of the elderly Focotar continue to escape me. Now, back to the past. In 1965, when I, about to be a college freshman, bought a really clean Leica IIc with a 50mm Summar from a shop in NYC near Willoughby's, from among many then offered "any on this shelf", my new jewel was $25. When I asked why the camera had a Summar f2 rather than the slower Elmar f3.5, the shop owner told me that he could get at least $25 for an Elmar f3.5 from people using then as enlarging lenses. Rather later in that year I won $25 in a college photography contest with a shot I took with the IIc, clearly confirming my judgment. Six years later I returned to the shop to buy a IIIf (I needed flash then); I again was treated but well sadly that shop is long gone now. Please read; Elmar 50mm/3.5 lenses were once, at least in less than prehistoric times, thought useful as enlarging lenses. I now mention that at times I make 24x36 inch (metric users choose the units which you prefer) prints using a Beseler 23/condenser source. My preferred lens for this is the Voigtlander Skopar 35mm f2.5 when printing on the base board. The Russia Jupiter 35mm/f2.8 isn't bad, but its ergonomics with the recessed f-stop ring are more than a little bit tedious.

First, I suggest that you determine how much automation, rather than photographer control, your partner truly seeks. Should the requirement be for a fully manual rangefinder with all exposure decisions be made by the photographer (as all the world did not all that long ago) I strongly suggest a Canon P with a (clean) Canon/Serenar 50mm/f1.8 AND!! a decent lightmeter, My preference is a Lunapro Digital (takes a readily available battery). Film and processing cost might not be so important if one avoids "spray and pray" and actually reflect on/selects the appropriate exposure.

The Taron cameras and the Kowa cameras are low end goods, intended for sale in discount stores. The optics were generally OK (most lenses were OK then) but the mechanicals were not notably reliable . If you seek a camera from that era, go for a brand such as Canon or Minolta - the thrift store won't have a clue as to the difference (read price difference) and you might get a camera that is actually useable.

I believe that you are describing Olden Camera; Spiratone was on 27th Street, as has been mentioned. There was also a "closeout" sort of store on Herald Square called Camera Barn. A really chaotic sort of place with all sort of things for sale.

I believe that you are describing Olden Camera. Spiratone was on 27th Street, as has been mentioned. There was also a closeout sort of store on Herald Square called Camera Barn. All sorts of odd stuff to be found there.

Why not just post our questions here? You will draw on the experience on many people rather than one person.

If memory serves, Tallulah Bankhead was quite partial to a layer of Vaseline when making her portraits.

John Maddox was a fine specialist for Barnack Leica repair. Some say he was the best. I'm suggesting that whoever has been using the name "John Maddox" as his member name in this forum recently has nothing to do with the real Mr. Maddox.

This seems to be some sort of recurrent scam. This information was previously posted by "John Maddox" in May. Messages to the "leica1925" address produced no reply. The Forum moderator may want to take some action

In the early 1960's, I used to shoot indoor basketball games with a 135mm/f3.5 Serenar on a Leica IIIc (no other choice, that and a 50mm/f1.8 Serenar were the totality of my camera gear). I shot with the lens wide open at 1/30th waiting for the players to be at the motionless instant of the top of their jump. Probably shooting my Tri-X at 1600 to 2000. I used Ethol UFG, warm with my Kodak tank in the top of my mother's double boiler. I came away with some pretty nice shots after some darkroom heroics.