finnegan

<p>Thanks Chandos, but I don't trust myself with anything mechanical, especially a Leica. The hair will have to stay until/if I get the camera/lens CLAd. The hair, even if all else is fine, may drive me to that.</p> <p>If I should think differently in the near future I'll get back to you about your wrenches and I appreciate the opportunity!</p>

<p>A UV filter could go on the lens front?</p>

<p>This is a 1955 M3 with collapsable Summicron 50 I just bought, really good looker, like new, but a hair in the rangefinder is an unwanted guest, right in the patch. Anyway to blow this thing out or anything? Or does it stay until sometime I may get a CLA?</p>

<p>Got it, guy at the film store and I figured it out. We took took the take-up spool out of the camera, threaded film leader into the curving slot (not "indentation") and then put both into the camera, the film side going through slot on side of camera and into proper place. The spools moved with the camera bottom off as we could see, then with bottom back on the red dot on the rewind moved around for the last advance. I never would have gotten the film leader into that very thing slot in the take-up spool with both spools already in the camera. This is what I was doing first time.<br> So I'll shoot a few and more when I finish some days of work at home for my dear employer.</p>

<p>Thanks Steven, But I see no slot in the spool. I'll have to take another look.</p> <p>Just did. No slot, a line like an indentation that then defines a small box outlined near the lines end. Couple of other geometric indentations near that. Hard to see them.</p>

<p>Thanks all, only one I did so far is the laser. Dunno if I did that right but whether it's the light thru the eyepiece or the light on an object while looking thru the eyepiece, I see one dot. That mean its aligned or at least from one test? But I may not be doing it right for even with the focus ring rotating it is still one dot, shouldn't it be two when the focus is off?</p>

<p>My first Leica was delivered today, 1955 M3 with collapsible Summicron 50mm. I'll do the tests that were suggested here.<br /> The camera & lens look like I just walked out of Leica store in 1955 with my new M3 & lens. Seriously, there is nothing I see that is a mar, scratch, anything, anyplace to suggest it's not new.<br /> The only off thing I couldn't fail to notice is a hair in the viewfinder, right in the middle of the focusing rectangle.<br /> I'm not used to focusing it at all and it may be a tad rough as the ring turns, hard to say.<br /> I failed to load it correctly, film wasn't advancing but I don't really understand the 1954 vintage 6 page manual of the M3 in its instructions on loading, . So I'll ask at my camera store when I get some film, someone there may know. Not clear if the film leader goes over or under the take-up spool.<br /> Anyway, its a fine looking Camera & Lens - even with the hair in the viewfinder - and I assume the Seller's statement true: it was not used much. Hopefully then, even if it could use a CLA, the interior parts are not much used either.</p>

<p>A Leica I bought, '55 M3 should be arriving today. Helpful folks have told me how to check it out but I'm not sure of the RF check for alignment. How does one do that?</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>I don't know how casual "casual photo conversations" can be but anyway:<br /> This is a story I thought of for a TV show. Set in the 50s.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>We a short scene of the camera being sold at a Police Auction. Then in the next an older man at a vacation resort has the camera. A young couple hand in hand stop and and motion to him as if they want their picture taken.</strong><br /> <strong>We see his view through the camera has he snaps them with their arms around each other smiling. Later we see him looking at a contact negative in his darkroom. He is looking closely at one with a magnifier. He looks puzzled as if trying to remember. A paper, photographic, is seen in the pan, an image slowly coming out.</strong><br /> <strong>When it finishes there on the print is the same two we saw through his camera arms around each other, smiling. The woman's body lies in a pool of blood, signs of a fight all around, and the man with a knife in hand, looking grim and disarrayed at the body. </strong><br /> <strong>This is followed by more scenes of different people owning the camera, and ordinary photo taken, and when developed a scene of violence and murder. We see an occasional newspaper headline: "MURDER OF SOCIALITE, HUSBAND CHARGED" Haven't thought thru all of that.</strong><br /> <strong>Except:</strong><br /> <strong>A man with an old and expensive type camera, we'll say a Leica, is shown sitting in front of camera taking a self-portrait. The camera on a tripod is an older one and expensive-looking, it is he same as we've seen throughout. At the right moment the man poses, smiles and presses the trigger on the cord and the camera clicks.</strong><br /> <strong>Next we police cars around a house, and a body being wheeled out to a corner's vehicle. A detective is seen walking out with a camera in an evidence bag. The same one we saw the photographer use. In a Police Lab a roll of film has been developed and printed, the technician is looking at the contact sheet with a loop, which we see through as well. There's a series of ordinary photos on the sheet and the last: the photographer we saw take a self-portrait hanging from the ceiling, the same chair he sat on kicked over underneath him. Next we see the camera lens facing us, staring at us. There's a pause - and then the camera clicks.</strong><br /> <strong>That's the end of the film.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong><em>**(I freely acknowledge I may have taken this unconsciously from "THRILLER" the old TV Show, or one of similar tone: TWILIGHT ZONE, ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS etc but I checked and I did not find any listed on YOUTUBE)</em></strong></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><strong><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1187343">Mukul Dube</a></strong><br> <strong>The lens is extended in the first photo and collapsed in the others</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>You see, I wasn't being humble when I said I was a Leica-rookie</p>

<p>Thanks. I'm don't think mine, by the way, is collapsable.</p>

<p> Yes, he seems a very friendly person indeed and I love his story...</p>

<p>Ok Mukui, I'll bite: What is a "SOOFM hood"? It sounds ominous.</p>

<p>Well, what do you know, from BH PHOTO:</p> <h1 >Leica 1.25x Viewfinder Magnifier for M Cameras </h1> <p>B&H # LEVFM MFR # 12004</p> <h2 data-selenium="mfrLogo"><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Leica/ci/24708/N/3933929672" data-selenium="itemLogoLink"><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/manufacturers/leica_14.gif" alt="Leica" border="0" data-selenium="itemLogo" /></a></h2> <p data-selenium="anuthDealer"><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Leica/ci/24708/N/3933929672" data-selenium="itemLogoLink">Authorized Dealer</a></p> <a name="enlarge" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images500x500/Leica_12004_Viewfinder_Magnifier_1_25x_for_234516.jpg" data-cmelemtag="{"elemId":"LEVFM-REG","elemCat":"MAIN:Image`Zoom`Dtl"}" data-selenium="enlargeMain"></a><img id="mainImage" src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/234516.jpg" alt="Leica Viewfinder Magnifier 1.25x for M Cameras" width="150" height="150" border="0" data-image-folder="images150x150" data-cursku="234516" data-selenium="mainImage" /> IN STOCK Order in the next 00:00:00 hours to ship Today <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=freeShipping&Q=&sku=234516&is=REG&message=expedite">Free Expedited Shipping</a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234516-REG/Leica_12004_Viewfinder_Magnifier_1_25x_for.html#customerReview" data-selenium="readReviewsLink"> Reviews </a>(19) <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234516-REG/Leica_12004_Viewfinder_Magnifier_1_25x_for.html">Q&A</a> <p >You Pay:$299.95</p> <p data-selenium="BuyUsed"><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/234516/Leica_12004_Viewfinder_Magnifier_1_25x_for.html" data-selenium="buyUsedLink">SHOP USED FROM $149.95</a></p>

<p>It's a 1955 according to Seller, would that make it double-stroke?</p>

<p>Thanks all and I'll check out Frank Marshman, sounds good idea to have it checked out.</p>

<p>Well that's good to know, not like the car dealer's, "Well, we found couple of other things..."</p>

<p>I'm sure it will. Thanks...</p>

<p>HEY thanks all - I especially liked the remark: "Shoot as you're most comfortable..."<br> Maybe I should put my eyeglasses over the lens, with a plastic mustache underneath....<br> I'll experiment with my glasses, if they keep my eye too far from finder-lens obviously I'll drop that, and also start using my left eye more, maybe have my nose amputated.... <br> My other hobby is handgun shooting (at the range in case you're wondering...). Completely different type of focus. Both eyes really stare fixedly at the front sight of the gun, not the target. The target is in the background visually though you align the front sights at the blurred center of the target with the in-focus front gun-sight; it's VERY accurate.<br> If at a certain distance you may see a doubled image of the center of the target in the background, you aim at the image corresponding to your dominant eye, entirely different than what eye has the better vision. To find that out ahead of time when first learning, you put you finger out at arms length and look at it with both eyes open and slowly bring the finger in closer and closer to your eyes. At the very end when the finger is about 2" away it will automatically move to one eye.<br> That's the dominant eye, and if the background image of the target is doubled when aiming using the front sight, you aim with the dominant eye's image in the background. The other usually disappears, it is not an image of anything in reality. The dominant eye's image actually reflects reality.<br> When you shoot for combat, it's at close-distances. Most usually ignore sight-aiming, no time. Then it's Point Shooting: shooting through a "feel" of where the gun is aimed looking at a target. Since the target here is about to take your life, it's impossible to just ignore that and struggle to stare at the front sight of the gun. Estimates are, shot on target from holstered handgun must not have a duration of more than 2 seconds.<br> Well, now you know how to shoot with something else..</p> <p>Thanks again for all the info! Big help,<br> Jerry ("Wm Hutt")</p>

<p>No not a camera, but a note from Seller I bought a 1955 Leica M3 with Summicron 50 from on Ebay.<br> The camera and lens looked very good and the Seller stated that he had bought this from a friend 15 yrs ago or maybe more, hadn't used it but put it in storage and had carefully checked the camera out, specifying how, before selling.<br> Today I got this message from him, with info on the camera/lens being sent. But with much more:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>"Dear xxxx,</strong><br> <strong>Hi Jerry: It is shipped Priority insured. You will have to sign for it. Tracking number xxx US. You should get it by Thursday. A little history: This camera was bought new by Carl xxxxx around 1956. Carl had a gun store on Whitesbridge Ave here in Fresno for 35 years. He was raised in San Francisco, and worked at the St Francis Hotel as a bartender before WW2. He was also a boxer, and made a little money doing it in San Francisco. He was the cutest guy as an adult, but showed me a picture of him at age 19 in boxing stance. I told him I probably wouldn't have liked him at 19. He was a tough little pug. He was always interested in boxing, and took pictures of up and coming fighters at a ring downtown here in Fresno. </strong><br> <strong>He was at the Battle of the Bulge, and loved to talk about Captain Carrey, his commanding officer. He won a Silver Star at the Bulge, and a x-Highway Patrolman friend of mine got it, along with the certificate. </strong><br> <strong>I bought this camera from him about a year before he died. I miss him, and probably would not have sold his camera, but I am getting old, and don't want relatives to sell some of the items I have for nothing. When I first got this camera, the owner of Modesto Camera Exchange told me it was worth 2k. If for any reason you don't like it, you may return it to me for a full refund. Best regards, xxxxx"</strong><br> And this was my reply:<br> "XXXXX<br /><br />That is a fascinating story. Knowing it I will use it in your and your friends gift to you in his memory and honor from the battlefields of WWII. It's so nice to have something imbued with the past, cameras now are out of date after 4 years, and left to be cleaned out in some future year and tossed out like garbage. So is everything else.<br /><br />I also am older, and remember common things from my youth, a vacuum cleaner, the early TV, nothing plastic, it was pre-plastic. Things really had weight and heft and were metal - and lasted years and years. Workmen came over to fix things and give them decades more use. The history of common things around us is gone, it's all impersonal, disposable. <br /><br />One of the reasons I wanted an older Leica was all this. They go on and on, still take wonderful images and have passed through many hands. Some of my guns I still use at the range have the same past, nicks and scratches from use, my old Colt Detective with an agency's initials and a number, and officer's number, an actual Detective's gun. Who knows who he was and what he did with this. The gun is from '64, shortly after JFK's assassination. I remember it like yesterday.<br /><br />So thank so much for sharing your camera's history. If all goes well and I use it for all my days I will make sure I, like you, give it to someone who appreciates it and who will keep it well used and in top shape.<br /><br />I also thank you so much for your offer of a return, but can't imagine doing that from what you wrote and who you are, an honest person.<br /><br />Best<br />Jerry"<br> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> > Not your usual impersonal business transaction, hey?</p> <p>Best<br> Jerry ("Wm Hutt")<br> <em> </em></p> </blockquote>

<p>My eyesight is not bad, just on the edge of needing glasses to drive. I wear distance glasses for that anyway, (driving) I can tell a distinct difference. Other times I don't.<br /> When shooting with a non-diopter camera - and only one of mine has that - does that mean MY focus is different than the lens-focus? Practically speaking it can't be for my shots are usually sharp on a manual lens.<br /> And anyway, looking through the finder is the same as looking thru the lens in a modern camera, SLR, DSLR, Coupled Rangefinder etc. - so we "both see" things focused by the camera do we not, in the same way a pair of glasses also correct our vision?<br /> If that's true though why is it harder, for me at least, to see through a non-diopter finder? I can tell the difference immediately with my one diopter-camera.<br /> If it does make a difference, eyesight, then should you use glasses when you shoot, mine are for distance only? I have rubber viewfinder additions so I could wear my glasses without scratches to their lens or to the cameras finder lens, and the metal structure around it would also not scratch my glasses' lens.<br /> Last question, should you use your best eye to look thru the finder, for me that means my left eye (left from my perspective) would be the best, leaving my nose in the middle of the camera back, kind of complicated and I feel silly, but that would be the best view.<br /> Anyway, what think you on Eyesight and Camera-Focus? All a bit confusing to me.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Or A Fuji 6x9 Rangefinder, plenty on Ebay, a lot of them less than $500, great cameras. If you get a G690 it also has available a 65mm lens as well as the usual that comes with it, either a 90mm or for those it may be 100mm.<br> Those are only Fuji Rangerfinders without a built in lens. Your system is simple.<br> The g690 is known as the "Texas Leica", though most models look pretty close. They have great sharp lenses, all the Fuji Rangefinders. No light meters. Use the Sunny-Sixteen Rule as approximation or get a light meter or use another camera's light meter.<br> But if you set it at f/8 - f/11 and 125 speed you'll get most day shots except the real extremes, brilliant sunlight, early dusk etc. If those, just adjust from that usual setting. No big deal.</p>

<p>I had a GW690 that is now the thief's, may he choke 6x9 times...<br> I can't recall what the focusing screen looked like but I know it was more precise and provided a quicker in-focus shot than its replacement my GW690III. That has some orange circular area within which you line up a double image into one. It's fine if you're focusing along an edge of something, or a tree in winter etc, but not so good for anything within the "lines", like facial features.<br> It's a pain and I can't tell if some of the slightly out-of-focus shots I get (I haven't shot it a lot) are from an actual problem or just user-error in sharp-focusing.<br> Are there other focusing screens for these Fuji Rangefinders 6x9s - or for the GW690II ? A better one would be most welcome, along with some instruction someplace on installation.</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p> <blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8134530">Keith S</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>,I would <strong>only consider</strong> (and I use) the true professionals. That means <strong>Gus Lazzari, Don Goldberg (aka DAG) and Sherry Krauter. I cannot recommend you go elsewhere.</strong><br> What about Leica itself, they must do CLAs?<br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong> </strong></p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p ><strong><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8134530">Keith S</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 11, 2015; 02:34 a.m.</strong></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong>If you are serious about long term use and life of this camera (you can pass it along later, too, to your progeny,) it is almost a guarantee that after decades of sitting around it WILL need a CLA (clean, lube, adjust). Regardless of how well it may be working now. Is there any service history you or your seller know of? ...</strong></p> <p>I'll ask Seller that, and I too was thinking of a CLA unless he's had a recent one at a good place.<br> I'm dangerous around mechanical objects myself, once dousing a Zeiss Ercona II folder liberally with "3 In 1 Oil" to make it work "even better" than it already was, which was fine enough to produce terrific photos - and never was to again after my subtle lubricration. <br> Best<br> Jerry</p> </blockquote>