wendell_kelly

<p>Heavystar, a US based eBay vendor, offers 41mm filters at times although these are not B&W.</p> <p>Congratulations on finding a real bargain. You may be quite pleased with the Summarit when stopped down a bit.</p>

<p>Willoughby's, a large camera store in New York City, offered a camera which appeared very similar, if not identical to yours under the name "Robin 1.9" Somewhere on the body was engraved "Taron Camera Company" and I believe that the lens was a f1.9 Taronar. There was also a Robin 2.8.<br> I've read somewhere on the web that Taron farmed out manufacture of its cameras to others, the Robin being made by Petri.<br> I bought one of these new in 1963 for USD$28. The lens was quite a good performer. I had probably run about 75 rolls of film through it when the shutter failed and I found a secondhand Leica IIIc to replace it.</p>

<p>Consider a Canon P with 50mm f1.8 Canon lens (or a Serenar, the earlier lens name).</p> <p>You'll find a nice discussion of the camera and lens on both the Cameraquest website and on Dante Stella's site.</p>

<p>DAG does have a source of resilvered prisms for both the Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL.<br> He replaced one in a SL for me a couple of years ago.</p> <p>If you do send the camera to DAG for a prism, you might consider having him recalibrate the meter for a silver oxide battery while he has the camera.</p>

<p>No, the SL2 shutter is different from that in the Leicaflex and the Leicaflex SL.</p> <p>It has a reputation for misbehavior at the higher shutter speeds. Plenty of discussion of this on the web.</p>

<p>"For Leica SLs, the legendary SL2 with all analogue dials and huge view finder is the one to get for use"<br> I really can't agree with this. I own, and use, regularly, the original Leicaflex (version II), the Leicaflex SL, and a particularly nice SL2. For years now.<br> Other than being compatible with some less common (and, I suggest, perhaps less useful) Leica R glass (for example, the Elmarit R 24mm) the SL2 offers very little advantage beyond the Leicaflex SL.<br> One might suppose be nice to have all of the bells and whistles of a (last in the series) Leicaflex SL2, but to buy one would be to purchase a less common and considerably overpriced Leica SLR with a flaky shutter.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My preferred Leica SLR is the original Leicaflex. I rarely shoot with anything longer than a 90mm and, when I do, I use a Leicaflex SL. I've never used a lens longer than 400mm on a 35mm camera.<br> Given the great increase in the price of Leica-R lenses over the past few years, you might well want to consider a Japanese match needle SLR. I have, and use, a Nikon F2 (massive bit of gear) and the Nikkor optics are, of course, superb (most of them).<br> That being said, why not look at a Pentax Spotmatic? You can but a clean body in working condition for under USD50 with a 50mm lens. The M42 Takumars are fine lenses. Hendrickson (at Pentaxs on the web) offers really economical CLA service if you want to tne up a new acquisition before taking it to the field.</p>

<p>Certainly an impressive set of photographs Tony.<br> I enjoy using my Nikkormats.<br> I believe the pick of the (Nikkormat) lot are the FT3's. All of the advantages of robust build and Nikkor optics but with the considerable advantage (IMHO) of using silver oxide batteries directly, with no need for adaptors or other compensation.<br> It is difficult to best an all-mechanical, TTL SLR, with native superb optics. </p>

<p>Some aerial reconnaissance lenses have indeed found later civilian use.<br> One of the Aero-Ektars (157mm focal length if memory serves) is a convenient size for view cameras and can be fitted to a Speed Graphic, a good combination as one can use the Grraphic's focal plane shutter.<br> The Metrogon 6" can be used for very wide angle conventional photography but has found a place for meteor photography. For meteor and stellar photography the shutter can be the lenscap.<br> I bought one of these once and it came in a (US) Army Air Corps case with the entire front section of the camera. The camera housing had a internal n set of electrical heaters, presumably to keep the optics clear and the mechanicals working at altitude.</p> <p> </p>

<p>One of the Elmars that I had repaired, as I received it, had quite a bit more degradation at the outer circumference than at the center.<br> It was almost useable as a sort of soft-focus lens, sharp stopped down, gauzy wide open.</p>

<p>"Too bad you chose a Zeiss/Leitz hybrid."<br> Gus are you sure about this?</p> <p>My copy of "Leica and Leicaflex Lenses" by G. Rogliatti, 1978 edition indicates that the Summarit is an improved version of the earlier Xenon lens, A Schneider design. The Summarit also had some features that originated with Taylor-Hobson.<br> Rogliatti make no mention of Zeiss at all.</p>

<p>Gus- only the glass is a Zeiss hybrid; the mechanicals are all Wetzlar.</p> <p>As it happens a DR Summicron was my first Leitz lens and I can do a side-by side with my Summarits.</p> <p>IHMO, unchanged, the Summarit has superior fit and finish. The quality of the chrome plating is superb.</p>

<p>I have a number of Leitz lenses, 1930's to the present.<br> It is clear to me that the mechanical build quality of Leitz lenses of the 1950's has never been surpassed.<br> Of the lenses that I've seen and handled myself, I believe that the Summarit 50mm f1.5 gas the finest fit and finish and overall build quality (please remember that I'm not discussing optical performance).</p> <p>Comment?</p>

<p>I've had a bit of experience with this problem, particularly with the LTM variant.<br> The inside surface of the front lens element degrades by pitting and roughening. Not all 50mm f2.8 Elmars but a considerable fraction of them. The problem is irreversible and fatal.<br> I'm an inorganic chemist and speculate that condensing moisture is leaching soluble components from the glass but I state this without supporting information.<br> Replacement elements are available from Leitz at a cost considerably less than Gus mentioned when sourced from Focal Point.<br> Don Goldberg recently repaired several of these lenses (in LTM) for me. The parts cost (read new glass elements from Leitz) was USD$140 if memory serves. He seems to be able to obtain these from Leitz although there may be a wait involved.</p> <p>Good light all</p>

<p>I use the Summicron C 40mm but finding screw in filters and lens hoods is something of a struggle.<br> I recently found (new to me, at least) a Chinese eBay vendor who offers an adaptor to allow 39mm lens to (properly) mount on Leica C lenses.<br> The vendor is "sm-camera".<br> I bought several of the adaptors and can report that they are metal (not plastic), well made, nicely finished and do what they are expected to do.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The filters in the color head also work well with variable contrast B&W papers and you'll have a diffusion light source, if that is important to you.</p> <p>I've been using the color head on my V35 for years now with perfectly satisfactory results.</p>

<p>I believe that some camera technicians use hydrogen peroxide solution to remove fungus followed by a glass cleaner.</p>

<p>My earlier comments could use some clarification:<br> When I use the S625PX battery in the Leicaflex, it fits directly with no need for an 0-ring or washer.<br> If I'm using one the silver oxide cells that is smaller than a 625 battery, I use the O-ring and copper washer.<br> Either alternative seems to work just fine.</p>

<p>There is a silver oxide battery of the same dimensions as the old mercury cell originally used in the Leicaflex. The ones that I have are labelled "S625PX".<br> Before you go much further with battery size, are you sure the CRIS adaptor is still working? I suggest you put a voltmeter across the adaptor (with a battery installed, of course) and see if the CRIS is providing the expected output voltage.<br> I've used the CRIS in my Leicaflexes (SL and "Standard") without difficulty. As I've had the cameras CLA'd, I had the meters adjusted for the silver oxide cell. I use an o-ring around the silver oxide cell to keep it centered and a brass washer to make up the difference in thickness. I found this to be quite reliable.</p>

<p>Brian-</p> <p>Have you experienced problems with Jupiter 8 lenses on Leicas and Canons? My experience is that these focus quite reliably (petrified lubricant is something else again on the silver J-8's). </p> <p>Its the Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 9 lenses that have been a problem for me.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in my initial posting, Leicaflexes are (also) my preferred SLRs, and, among them, the Leicaflex "standard" is my favorite. Others in this discussion have expressed a similar preference; these are enlightened gentlemen to the man.<br> The point which I sought to make in the initial posting was to point out what an attractive bargain a Spotmatic camera can present to a film shooter today. I just recently bought an (additional) first generation Spotmatic, with a 50mm/1.8 Super Takumar, for US$18. The shutter fires properly at all speeds, the viewfinder is clean and clear, the meter works and is in calibration relative to my handheld Gossen, and the lens is clean.and clear. Quite a quality bundle for the price of three rolls of 135-36.<br> I believe that it follows that if a camera proves to be functional and reliable 50 years after its introduction, the Asahi engineers have produced a pretty slick design.</p> <p>Good light all-</p>

<p>Thanks, all, for your comments.<br> Some discussion regarding the Spotmatic representing a "pinnacle" have centered on the features which the camera offered when it was introduced. This certainly is a legitimate perspective.<br> My perspective is different, it is that of one (actually, regularly) using this camera in 2015, 50 years after its manufacture.<br> Since, for me, as I mentioned in my original posting, the Spotmatics have completely retained their (quite attractive) original functionality with working mechanicals, working meters, and optics which are competent even by current standards, I hold that the Spotmatic presents a high standard of design and reliability.<br> Gentlemen, of course, may differ.</p> <p>Good light</p>

<p>I shoot, whenever I can, with Leica rangefinders.<br> When circumstances require a SLR, I use a Leicaflex or Leicaflex SL. IMHO, t'aint nothing, nothing, to compare with a Leicaflex "standard" or "SL" with a Leitz 90mm (Elmarit or Summicron) for street or event photography.<br> The Nikon F2 hasn't escaped my notice but one must call attention to the limited lifetime of the carbon resistor TTL metering viewfinders. I have a couple of these with wirewound resistor TTL viewfinders and enjoy using them. Presumably. these metering viewfinders will outlast me.<br> This being said, I've always had a fond spot in my heart for Pentax Spotmatics, this since 1963 (when such cameras were well beyond my means). Since then, I must allow that I've accumulated quite a number of Spotmatics over the years, rarely at more than USD$25/the copy, and only then with a Super Takumar 50mm lens.<br> When I went through my collection (hoard would be a less kind word) of Spotmatics recently (one Spotmatic F, the others earlier models), it struck me that every one of them worked properly at all shutter speeds. I put the appropriate battery in each and the meters were accurate relative to my Gossen hanheld meter. I could field a softball team with my Spotmatics and expect super results.<br> I post this message to suggest that perhaps many/some/all of the match needle Spotmatics represent a pinnacle of mechanical film camera design, durability, and longevity.<br> I invite your comments.</p>

<p>The camera is a IIIc that was factory upgraded to a IIIf. The serial number indicates that the camera was originally manufactured as a IIIc. The black flash setting ring (around the shutter speed dial) is a separate plate held in place with two clearly visible screws. Leitz Wetzlar added these when IIIc's were sent to the factory for upgrade.<br> It is probable that the self timer was also added at the time of the upgrade by Leitz.</p>

<p>Among the Russian lenses in LTM, the 50mm J-8 and 35mm J-12 seem to reliably focus properly and have good quality optics. The 50mm J-3 and the 85mm J-9 have a reputation for poor calibration and not focusing properly. This has been my experience as well.<br> I have had two J-9's; one worked properly as received and the second was hopeless, it was returned to the vendor. Ditto on my J-3's, I've had about a 50% success rate with these as well.<br> Should you decide to buy a J-9 be certain do so with a trial period during which you can return the lens. I check the performance of my lenses by photographing a newspaper page at one meter distance with the lens wide open and the camera on a tripod.<br> As was mentioned here earlier, there are people who can adjust the shims so that a lens will focus properly. The Russian lenses are no longer inexpensive (to my wallet) and there seems little reason to repair a defective new purchase when a properly functioning example can be had for the same price.</p> <p> </p>