finnegan

<p>Edward,</p> <blockquote> <p>"The diopter can be used with the magnifier, screwed into the eyepiece end. There are cheaper, 3rd party magnifiers, some with a rubber eyecup. Magnifiers are more complex than they appear. There are at least two elements in a Galilean telescope configuration."</p> </blockquote> <p>What screws into what? Like to try it.<br> Thanks </p> <p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Well, If you have a couple of extra bucks here's nice little trinket for you:<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/USED-Leica-180-280-400mm-3-Lenses-PL-Mount-Conversion-/191221336077?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c85ae080d#viTabs_0</p>

<p>Craig, I never shot with my glasses. What I had before the diopter was a magnifier, which magnified the whole view making the area of view smaller. That was some help. I'll just use the diopter alone. In fact, with the latter already correcting in some way one problem, seeing near, using glasses for seeing far may make things less clear. Glasses on top of glasses.Though I could try it as an experiment. I don't like glasses with a camera, and the M3 has a reputation for scratching them.<br> I've seen some kind or soft attachment, you know, rubber-like for Leica Ms. But that would seem to put the glass in glasses too far away from the finder circular window to do much good.<br> My viewfinder window I can see with a magnifying glass has some dust or something against the window that lets light in for viewfinder. I'm going to get a CLA soon, so maybe after I'll get a brighter viewfinder which certainly would help focusing. Yours might not be brighter for the same reason.<br> Here when others addressed my post about difficulty focusing, several spoke of rangefinders being like that. I have one other rangefinder: a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, that also is a pain to focus.<br> Good luck with your own less than clear viewfinder!</p>

<p>I have a new "old" Leica M3 with collapsible 50mm Summicron Lens from 1955. Looks new:<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/311349810473?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT<br> I find it hard to focus, like my other rangefinder: Fuji GW690III 6x9. My eyesight is good, no legal need for glasses for driving but it's clearer so I do wear a pair but I use them only for that, never wore glasses in my life. But I know I do have a prescription, wear reading glasses at 1.0 from drug store also.<br> So, I got a diopter 1.25, I read the M3 had a -0.5 finder lens and figured 1.25 would work well. It did.<br> Got it from China with an "Offer" on Ebay, regularly $95, my offer was $80 and accepted. It came from China but is a regular Leica diopter.<br> I is a BIG Difference, easier to focus, much clearer throughout. I urge anyone with even slight vision problems but having focus problems with a Leica M to get one of these. Well worth the 80 bucks!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Gerry,<br> My Leica is not the one I think your seeing, that's the ad for diopter I bought. But here's the one for my M3 & Lens that I also bought on Ebay if you're interested:<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/311349810473?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT</p> <p>Best!</p>

<p>Well, if its NYC I can tell you why the question: "Why are you taking a photo of that?" is asked.<br /> It's because it's a cop making sure you're not a potential terrorist preparing an attack. Don't laugh, I almost get into trouble going on to a bank's property to get a Photo looking south on Park Ave at night.<br /> At the time, an "Orange Alert" was on for all banks in New York because plans were found in an Al-Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan to hit U.S. Banks. As well, next day was the Opening Of The United Nations when every world leader on earth would be staying in the very area I was in, including the President of the United States. On top of being a Stupid for being where I was with a camera, a Bank Guard ordered me off the Bank-Property and I argued vehemently when he then ordered me off the sidewalk too. All this guy would had to do was call 911 and tell them a man was taking pictures of the bank and now beginning to "fight" him. Every police terrorist team in NYC including Feds and Secret Service would have zoomed in and met me with drawn guns, had me on the ground cuffed, and taken me in for intense questioning.<br /> As far as the rest of the interest, may just be "excitement" of meeting an "artist" photographer in real life. That kind of thing...</p>

<p>Sounds uppity for someone with his first Leica, an M3 in pristine condition, (looks brand new), to be giving advice for practiced Leica folks, but<br> <strong>IF YOU'RE EYESIGHT IS EVEN A LITTLE BAD AND YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY FOCUSING WELL, GET A DIOPTER!</strong><br> I bought a 1.25 from China for $80, an "Offer" Bid on Ebay, usual price $100. My eyes are good and though I don't legally need glasses for driving I do wear a pair with weak prescription. I have an astigmatism too. But for regular activities I've never worn glasses. Yet focusing my M3 was difficult, I think some of that due to difficulty in rangefinder focusing. I have the same in a Fuji 6x9.<br> The diopter I picked a 1.25 for, I use a 1.0 for reading, the drug-store type. Some told me the Leica M3 eyepiece was at -0.5, dunno why, so I figured with that a 1.25 would hit the spot. And it does, I'll have to get used to the focusing gradually, I know that, but with the diopter there was an immediate improvement, very noticeable, much clearer view, and easier to focus by a good bit.<br> Anyway, that's my Diopter Report, it's a regular Leica Diopter by the way, though it came from China. <br> The expenditure is well worth $80 and I urge any others, even without really bad vision, if you need aid get a diopter.</p> <p>Get 12, give 6 for Christmas presents, and 6 for you to pre-set for any occasion. Sleeping, bathroom, car etc.</p> <p><em>(joke)</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em>Here's where I bought it with the OFFER "BID":</em><br> <em>http://www.ebay.com/itm/261418163758?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2648&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT</em><br> <em> </em></p>

<p>Hey Stephen, That's a great scale, I'll memorize some of the settings for night shots, and weird ones like lighting at Niagara Falls, that's really hard though I expect, the colors of the lights change every few minutes and makes b&W shooting particular difficult, and no table has:<br /> <strong> "Outside Artificial Green Changing To Red General-Lighting at Night Scenes With B&W 35mm Film" </strong><br /> The Table would explode. I do remember a few night shots that worked with exposure estimates, this one: http://www.photo.net/photo/17650954<br /> was taken with a Zeiss Ercona II folder camera. Uncoupled rangefinder. I think it was 20-30 sec. exposure at f/16 or f/11. A little off focus: in the middle of the exposure a subway train rumbled someplace near underground, train vibrations are an occupational hazard in Manhattan photography.<br /> Well, I'll use the Spot and average, or sometimes lug the other camera around, or use that Table Stephen so kindly pointed out. Think the Spotmeter might have been unnecessary reading these responses, but it's paid for, was but $40 and I'll have it "in case".<br /> </p>

<p>I've been shooting a new "old" Leica M3 and getting tired carrying around another 35mm camera when I want to use a light meter. It's a Honeywell, supposedly almost new. I don't know them, or any spot meters, but it stated to be almost new. I paid $40 It's a 1%</p> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Honeywell-Pentax-Exposure-Meter-/161712883703?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=gjJSyoKLNboWSGemRm5PIizo%252BSw%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=ncAnyone know them?What I meant by how do you use them, I can make accurate exposure values for most day shots using Sunny-Sixteen, or my own version which narrows the exposure categories down a bit. But the meter would be for tougher lighting conditions. I especially like night shooting. So, say I'm shooting Niagara Falls, (near-by where I live) at night.With a 1% meter, the Falls are not exactly a tiny area. So, if shooting at the falling water, you'd just take a spot-reading at any particular place? <br />

<p>Well, Gus, Merry Christmas to you too.<br> That's your interpretation. You don't know me whatsoever and haven't the faintest knowledge of anything about me and yet you're sure of my morality? how about getting off the high moral horse until you do, which you won't.<br> Rather than fishing to blame someone I have a camera after shipping with either something in it or a crack in the prism. If the camera was sent without anything in it, and had something in it when it got here: which is more likely, that a hair or thread of fabric got into a cased camera surrounded by shipping material and within a box, or it's a crack in the prism which happened in ground-shipping. You figure it out.<br> And that's why I was thinking of filing a complaint. Anyone capable of judging morality in others from an internet post can figure out also whether I did this or not. Next time you feel the urge to morph into an Ethics Evaluator, head for the nearest mirror.<br> How about we return to our former relationship before we knew each other. Why kill a good thing?</p> <p> </p>

<p>No they have been, greatly - but in this thread clearly there is exasperation. In any case, I've overstayed the party, the host and hostess want to go to bed. The camera will either work well or it won't.</p>

<p>No they have been, greatly - but in this thread clearly there is exasperation. In any case, I've overstayed the party, the host and hostess wants to go to bed. The camera will either work well or it won't. </p>

<p>...<strong>and to continue</strong>.. I'm very sorry I've posted this much but no idea everyone was so fed up. if i'd known I'd quickly have gotten off photo net but am now. I tried to delete my post that opened this thread so no one would have to read it but that is not possible.<br /> *I HAVE been shooting the camera<br /> * The Seller was only asked about the viewfinder<br /> * I've no familiarity with this brand of camera, no comparisons possible as to what is a problem or not (except the viewfinder which I know is not usual)</p> <p>Take Care, farewell and thanks for all the posts and info! "Above and beyond...."</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. A test role I shot I'll see Monday. The imperfection seems too small to affect photos I believe - I never have had a leica, there's no past comparison to use on these or the "thread" in the eyepiece except the latter I know is not usual.</p>

<p>Much thanks - the spot on mine is about 1/3 of the distance between dead center and the rim.<br /> I'll try the Q-Tip again but I do think it's in the lens. Thanks for the post, the photos - very nice of you to do all that!<br> I believe the spot is too small to effect anything, hopefully - really tiny.</p>

<p>I have a just bought 1955 M3 in pristine shape, looks new, and a Summicron 50mm collapsible lens. Unfortunately, while the front and rear look excellent there is a mark the size of a large period in a sentence on the rear lens. Well it's IN the glass, not surface mark. Hoping it won't effect photos, I'll see Monday when a test role ready at the Photo shop.<br /> But the TIP is what I used to find that out, read it online. Not wanting to play around with the rear element in old lens, seems safe, so I tried it:<br /> You pull some cotton on a Q-Tip end to make it sort of like a little mop. Then put a cleaning cloth around the "mop" end of the Q-Tip. Just push it into the cloth and hold the middle of the Q-Tip with the cloth around it.<br> Breathe on the lens and lightly move the cloth with the Q-Tip "mop" underneath it. It instantly cleaned way everything in that small area, except the mark, now smaller, and clearly it was indented into the glass. I did a light once over of the whole lens, first breathing on it again, and it easily looked shiny and pristine, except that freakin' pin-head mark.But that's how I knew for sure it wasn't surface.<br /> Think that mark will do anything to a pix? Seller is a real honest guy and he just said his photos, the few he took on this pristine "outfit", were beautiful.<br> I'm hoping....</p>

<p>I'm the rookie 1955 M3, Summicron 50 Collapsible guy...</p> <p>At the risk of fatiguing everyone:<br> 1) Got around to doing the flashlight test. BUT, first: while learning the lens removal, the first time I just moved it halfway to the body red mark, then went in to look at on-line manual. Before I did I practiced focusing on a near object - and when I did weirdly for the first time saw two sets of rectangles, one I had always seen before at outward limits of the view through the eyepiece. But now there was another, much closer to the focus-patch.<br> Later, after the flashlight test (which follows), I experimented by inserting the lens into the camera body and only turning it about half-way to the "click-spot". Through the viewfinder there the same two rectangles. I then turned the lens the rest of the way until it clicked. Now in the viewfinder there was just the outer rectangle, like it had usually been, just the one.<br> So, anyone know what that is about? Should I always be seeing two rectangle outlines? If not, why does another show up at the half-way point of turning the lens to insert or remove? I.e. why does the lens have two rectangles period?<br> 2) RESULT OF FLASHLIGHT TEST, the front lens seems fine, a few very light scratches in one area, maybe, but they are so light I'm not sure if I really saw them or just a reflection of the light - hard to tell. Rest of lens smooth. So the forward lens to me looked very good; even if those were scratches they were the lightest I have ever seen.<br> The rear lens is pristine looking EXCEPT :<br> almost in the middle is a mark about as big or a bit bigger than this asterisk: <strong>*</strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>It is <strong>IN</strong> the glass, like an indentation, rather than a mark <strong>ON</strong> the glass. I didn't touch the lens by the way, just looked. t won't get a test role back 'til Monday. Until then when I see: do you think this will have a noticeable effect on photos?<br> And any thoughts about the weird second rectangle?<br> <em>-I should publish my posts on my first Leica as an aid to insomniacs.-</em></p> <p> </p>

<p>No, young shooters now don't know what an f-stop is.<br> I just bought a diopter for $80 on Ebay, from China, be here in about 3 weeks. (I mean it's not a Chinese diopter, just sold from China).<br> I'd already put an Offer in before I looked at B&H Photo, where they'd be a bit more but New York'd be a little quicker - and B&H very reliable. But I use a credit card on all on-line purchases, so I'm protected against funny business. I once got a Rollei 6008i on Ebay that was all screwed up and the Seller disappeared to England. After a successful credit card dispute I had my money back, charged the Seller the $600 I had paid getting it fixed at Rollei before I'd return the camera; he wouldn't pay and just disappeared again. So I got my money back AND kept the camera: $600 for a $3000 camera.<br> The Diopter is 1.5. Since the present eye-piece I was told was -0.5, that would be +1.0 correction which is what I use on a Contax and is fine (and makes focus much easier).<br> In the meantime I'll wear corrected distance glasses, see what that does. </p> <p>THANKS!</p>

<p>Thanks all, as usual top-notch advice!<br /> I wear glasses just when driving, my eye aren't bad enough to even need them legally but I'll try them shooting. I do use reading glasses bought at a store, they're +1 so perhaps that is the diopter adjustment? I have an astigmatism which also may come into play.<br /> Where do get a diopter for an M3? Sounds nice.<br /> Far as the "hair", since the Seller never saw it and he did a good check of the camera/lens before selling, as I said in another thread, it was likely jarred or fell during shipping, though it does look like a hair or small piece of thread, something like that. But how could that have gotten inside a cased camera surrounded by shipping material and in a box? So, must be a crack in the prism as someone suggested. But I barely noticed it while shooting today, so that's the way it is for the time being. They could check it in the future with a CLA I'll likely have done at some point.<br /> Last, likely as far as focus, just getting used to the camera should help a lot.<br> Thanks Again!</p>

<p>Yes it has been done before. The last story did have the owner of the camera hang himself by the way.<br /><br /><br> But it just a fun idea I had, I'm really not going to pursue it - unless I think of a new wrinkle. How about every person a camera takes a pix of changes genders - or turns into a different species, say a house-cat or a pig...</p>

<p>I bought a great looking 1955 M3 with Summicron Collapsable lens, my first Leica, and shot a test role earlier.<br /> I had problems focusing and wondered about any suggestions.<br /> There is a hair or prism-crack in the patch but that isn't a problem when shooting, it's tiny. The focus ring also feels a tad rough as you try to precisely focus, a tiny "jump", but the problem is not that, that's minor and controllable though the camera probably could use a CLA at some point.<br /> I just have trouble seeing a double image unless there's a line-like object I'm focusing on, like a tree or side of a building. In mid-object, like a leaved-tree where the focus in in the middle of the leaves, really hard to see a double image. I go more by how clear the focus point appears in the patch and that is pretty hard to see as well.<br /> Any suggestions about this, I'm a rookie's rookie with a Leica and taking much time trying to get the focus on each shot and I'm sure some or perhaps many will be off-focus.<br /> Thanks</p>

<p>It's a crack, must be. The Seller never noticed and he did a pretty thorough check before it was sent, though small one look through the eyepiece and you can't miss it.<br> It therefore can't be a hair that got in during shipping. It defies the laws of Physics that a fully cased camera surrounded by packing material, all of it boxed, could allow a hair in the viewfinder.<br> It is however not unlikely that ground shipping produced a drop, bump, etc while in transit.<br> Has to be a crack.<br> I just shot a test role, it doesn't bother me and against a colored background I don't notice it.<br> But I likely will file against USPS, fat chance but I lose nothing.<br> I'm posting on a separate thread a problem I had while shooting if anyone is interested</p>

<p>"</p> <blockquote> <p><strong><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1899361">Gus Lazzari</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 14, 2015; 08:54 a.m.</strong></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong>There is something simple & safe to try:</strong><br /> <strong>Next to the "frosted" middle window, there's a bright chrome screw that covers an access point.</strong><br /><strong>With a can of air and it's supplied tube, you can "puff" some air in the direction of two possible resting areas for this "hair" "</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong><br /></strong>You mean take the screw out first? You must, what good would a puff be otherwise.<br> Think I'll wait for a reply on that, it would be like me to misinterpret what you wrote and screw things up good.<br> Besides, there are two screws, one to the left of the frosted window looking at the camera from the front, and one between the frosted window and eyepiece window. Dunno for sure which you mean.</p>

<p>I actually have become friends with the Seller of a sort, so I messaged him about what Niels said. Seller said he never noticed a hair, and that he would have said something if he had. I believe him. He seemed to think it was his fault for not noticing, <br /> That could mean if it's a prism crack USPS Shipping caused it. It's small but obvious, no one could miss it.<br /> So, if Seller is willing to have himself quoted officially, I could file a complaint with post office.<br /> I've heard though they do everything to put you off, then deny.<br /> But I'll also buy some compressed air and do THE BLOW as suggested above first.</p> <p>I could build up a real obsession about this little hair or crack posting here and with all the kind replies , more and more preoccupied, muttering about it while in public, not bathing or sleeping..</p>

<p>No it doesn't extend beyond patch. Where is the prism, interior of the eyepiece? Then it would be permanent unless fixed. Wonder the cost? I may learn to love it if it's a lot. Right now it's irritating.</p> <p>Thanks for the suggestion.</p>