adrian bastin

<p>Ted. Thanks for adding to this thread so long after I started it and a pleasant surprise to have the email alert.</p>

<p>I suppose its possible both our cameras started life in black paint and were later returned to the factory for chrome finishes and for yours, strap eyelets ? With the camera developing so quickly at that time, a lot must have been sent back for upgrades.</p>

<p>Mine was bought at Wallace Heaton Ltd., London in 1937 by the father of the Gentleman I bought it from. It has a transfer of that Co. on the back of the camera and a label inside the nose of the case. Plenty of possible reasons and opportunities there for a fashionable upgrade. </p>

<p>It came to me with a nickel Summar, which looks a bit strange, but I believe it was the lens originally supplied with the camera.</p>

<p>Adrian</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don't forget CRR Luton here in the UK can re-cover Leicas with vulcanite using the original process. </p>

<p>I</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just to note that the "awful exchange rate" is actually very much in your favour if you are in the US and buying from the UK - that is: exchanging US Dollars for Pounds Sterling.</p>

<p>Also, someone mentioned Euros: the Euro is not UK currency; it is fluctuating in relation to the Pound just as the Dollar is. </p>

Marek. I thought the Summicron looked a bit different - in fact - just like a 50/1.5 Sonnar. So he would have been using that long before the M in the 50s ?

Mike, I'm sure you're right. I'm pointing out that he anticipated as much as possible and had the camera to his eye as short as possible.

William, I guess it was another age. I'm interested in what you think of the texture of his pictures; we are getting a taste for smoother surfaces, or, a more controled grain.

The lens he used from its introduction in about 1953 till he stopped shooting proffesionally was the collapsible Summicron. Though others preferred the rigid Summicrons, wich had slightly different optics, he stuck with the collapsible one. And I believe he used an M4 from its introduction onwards.

 

He usually zone-focused and at f8 for sufficient depth to cover. So, as much as possible, he just raised the camera, shot and lowered it to keep it out of sight; using just his eyes mostly. He also black taped the camera to make it inconspicuous. Even the front of the lens was black, though he usually used a small, round hood.

I should have said that the 3 grub-screws are evenly spaced around the base of the cone and hidden by the focal-length adjustment assembly. Their points hold the cone on and locate it by being screwed evenly into a circular groove around the outside of a projection of the main body casting.

George, I don't think it can be disadjusted, as long as you note how it comes apart. Cleaning the prism is straight-forward. The cone, once got to by removing the mask-sizing rings, I found difficult because the grub-screws were hard to move in one finder and impossible in the other. They only need backing out and only 2 of the 3. In fact if one can be left alone it might help locate the cone correctly on re-assembly. Its a while since I did it so don't remember clearly.

The lenses can get misted up. I have two of these and one was much improved by taking off the cone and cleaning the lenses. But I was unable to shift the grub-screws which locate and hold the cone on, in the other finder. Its easy enough if you have good screw-drivers and if its willing to let you get into it. I agree you should clean the prism, first and see how it looks.

Trevor, this picture deserves a thread of its own. But its a a beautiful image even without knowing the extra weight of meaning everything in it carries. That I don't know whether it was produced using a negative also adds to it. Another image of one of this building's windows, hovers above it.

The painting of the lettering is much too good. What makes you think it has been repainted ?

Raid, I don't know these cameras but it doesn't look to me like the body was ever chrome - just the leavers.

Travis, I don't believe the GX is much like the GRD, which is in a class of its own. I agree with Ray - it would suit your style.

 

Looking forward to those M8 Summaron shots from Alex !

Kevin. The mechanism is under the top-cover but John is right, have someone experienced CLA it. To clean and lubricate the shutter means a total dissassemby. Attempts to lubricate the rollers can ruin the rubberised curtains.

On my shot there's obviously some sharpenning, from being put onto a CD, but it gives a good idea of the tonal qualities of the Summar<div></div>

Tomasz.

 

Also, that early lens will probably not be coupled to the rangefinder. I believe its from a Leica I© which was the first to have interchangable lenses but had no coupled rangefinder. If this lens has a three digit number on the sloping face of the focus mount, then it was matched to a particular I© body and won't focus correctly on any other camera.

 

That still doesn't account for the stop being in the wrong orientation - if, in fact, it is.

There might be a problem with the Elmar lens on this one; if its screwed all the way in, the infinity stop should be at the 11 o-clock poition;

I get a light spot in the centre when taking into a bright sky, and that's at small apertures. My Summar is very clean, has no cleaning marks, elements properly allingned and edges blackenned.

 

To counteract it I like to use the barn-door, Summicron hood (slightly smaller mount than the exclusively Summitar one) mounted via a SOOGZ A36 to E39 adaptor - which the hood clamps onto the outside of. Anyway it's easy to carry, though bulky when on the camera. But, closed, also works as a sort-of lens-cap.

 

Like Bill says, in the first image there are no shadows so colour and contrast must have been boosted, unless there was a very bright hazey light, and that can be quite glaring.

 

The colour from the Summar and Fuji Reala can be wonderful. I can no longer get it processed to my satisfaction, though (in the UK).

Just come back to have a look at this thread. Well, at least in buying a Leica the old bugger did something right !

Mark is right to say so. Adam might regret selling it one day when I finds what a leica is. For a buyer that can be one of the best value camera deals you can make, but not for for a seller - selling a family heirloom, especially. The flash socket will decrease the (monitory) value also.

 

These cameras took a highly skilled craftsman 39 hours to produce. That's not just an old camera. Its still my favorite camea/lens combo of any.

 

Adam, does your dad have any of your grandfather's pictures taken with it ?

Contax T for a 38mm and Ricoh GR for a 28mm. But they're too different from eachother to say which is 'best'.

Wonderful stuff !

 

And I suspect David made a good choice of equipment to produce it.

John gave the definitive answer re. coverage.

Your first film should tell you, if you make a note of what was framed. These VFs are too small to be that precise anyway.