harry__florida_

Under the circumstances, it might be safer and easier to be "a" photographer at the wedding than "the" photographer?

Buy them both and send back the one you don't want based on your own evaluation. They at KEH are easy to deal with.

You might call Dave E. at Leica in NJ. Not long ago he sold me a new replacement element for an original 50/2.8 Elmar M from the 60's. If he does not have it he will ask the factory. Sherry installed it. Nobody yet has specified exactly which element is in question and you would need to tell him that.

That's 50 watts per tube so there must have been a lot of other consumers too? Couldn't be just a bunch of 6SN7's. Any relays clacking away?

Why not use a long time exposure and let the filaments provide the sole illumination? You could even overdrive the dickens out of them and let the plates glow cherry red.. No harm for a few seconds.

Why is there mention of a camera flaw or error? Stuart's explanation is perfectly rational and born out by inspection of the streaks showing that they are fuzzy along the edges which would be expected, not razor sharp. Operator error plain and simple, in violation of instructions for use.

It was seen down here in the tropics decades ago in use by underwater photographers. Code word was BASTU. Purpose was to extend the camera's release to the waterproof passthrough linkage in a bulky brass and glass submersible housing which had negative buoyancy. Housing itself was third party I think.

The easiest thing for you to do is check your lens with some other camera bodies and check your camera body with some other lenses. An alternative is to put a piece of CLEAR (not ground) glass with an inked crosshair at the film plane and examine the aerial image with a high power magnifier. It is more likely that the body is at fault based solely on the the relative ruggedness of the lens and body workings.

Nothing you see in the viewfinder tells you if the lens is "in focus." It just tells you what the rangefinder interprets the lens' cam to be saying to the camera body. What happens with other lenses?

Mine are both the same as yours. Does your f2 detent work properly, clicking well into place?

Gert, isn't it more than that? No matter what the viewfinder magnification, the coverage of the 50mm lens should be the same. The coverage of the framelines in all three magnifications varies!

The illustration obviously does not illustrate what it purports to do. Can you supply the link to the actual site you accessed? I would like to read the original German text.

Not mentioned so far is the mount. I find the current Elmar very quick to focus compared to the other 50's (especially the 1.4 asph) and ideal for candid photography with moving subject or photographer.

Michael, I use these depth gauges

 

http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1140

 

but have experience only with the M cameras (1mm less specification) and securely fix a small piece of glass cut to size in place of the pressure plate to provide a stable measurement surface.

I have M3 through MP plus the ZI and have to say that, wearing eyeglasses, the ZI has my favorite viewfinder by far when using 35mm lenses. Not as rugged mechanically as a Leica though.

Careful counterclockwise use of a properly sized lens spanner, firmly engaging the two little diametrically opposed slots in the front retainer ring, will let you remove the ring and then remove the front element. If you do not have the right tool and a firm steady hand, any camera repair shop will have. If you slip, you scratch!

The rangefinder on my Zeiss Ikon body needs adjusting. Where do I send it?

thanks, Harry

You might also consider the subsequent model Prado Universal often available at an attractive price. Its 250 watt low voltage bulb generates a lot less heat and puts more light on the screen than the large, line voltage 500 watt bulb of the Prado.

Mike, with respect, you will never gain satisfaction from this forum for two reasons: 1) You do not have the technical expertise to distinguish the wheat from the chaff re electrical advice/comments/misinformation offered (believe me, there is not a whole lot of wheat here) and 2) you steadfastly refuse to reply with the requisite information to those few posters who are willing and able to help you.

Mike, in addition to my earlier remarks I concur with Rob that a transformer may be an option for you. However, it would be nice for us to know exactly what electrical data are imprinted on the projector or its maker and model number. Or all the data printed on the bulb itself. Perhaps you could post more information? Nobody can reply adequately without knowing more of the facts.

 

Many homes have 240 volts available for heaters and air conditioners which would make it easier to connect than via the kitchen outlets.

 

I have Leitz projectors with 240 volt bulbs ranging from 100 watts to 500 watts and mention this because the adequate sizing of the transformer is important. I paid about $100 total on eBay and was happy to do so for a Zeiss 120/240 500 watt transformer that must weigh 10-15 pounds. You may not need that capacity and may not appreciate German manufacturing quality but nonetheless should consider safety in your operations. regards harry eemit'62

all above references to "amps" and "phases" are bogus and uninformed.

The question cannot be answered based on your limited data. If the 240 volts does nothing but power a 240 volt bulb, then you could do what you suggested. If it instead powers a blower and/or a transformer stepping the voltage down to for instance 12 volts for a halogen bulb, then you may have a possible problem due to running their designed-for 50 Hz equipment on our 60Hz line frequency. It depends on the design of the aforementioned motor and transformer. At best it would work but the fan speed would be reduced. The number of phases is irrelevant. Reputable makers indicate such considerations on the equipment itself and in the instructions.

Perspective has nothing to do with the focal length of a lens. Perspective is solely a function of the distance to the subject.

Your #2 most likely a model IIIg about 50 years old and your #3 most likely a model IIIf a few years older than that.

Did you mention somewhere the shutter speed equivalent and type of tripod used?