marc_berg

Thanks Charles and Alex for the suggestions!

I guess it will be difficult to get one ot those if they are all made in the US. Have done a short

ebay search in Germany and nothing is available. An equivalent to Leica -german brand Braun

or Zeiss Ikon; perhaps Rollei too- should be much cheaper in ebay. I will take a look at the

Kodak Carousel too. There seems to be some down here...

Thanks again.

Marc

OK, I forgot to tell I live in Europe. There are not so many Kodak Carousel like in the american

ebay... I have seen some although. So it seems quality would still be better using the

Pradovit, isn't it? What about a Rollei? I heard they're also solidly built.

Anyway, it looks like it could be quite inexpensive a Carousel here too.

Thanks.

Marc

Hi Pablo,

Thanks for your answer. I am definitely serious about that, why sould I not?

That seems a sensible choice, since everything carrying the red dot is remarkably expensive

second hand. Things from Rollei too, by the way.

Any suggestion for the lens?

Thanks again.

Marc

Hi all,

I got recently a used screen and would like to step into slides for my colour photography; my intention is

becoming as independent as possible of the local labs for printing issues. The main problem is that I never

shot slides before.

I thought that getting a projector would be quite cheap since very few people seem to use them anymore;

I visited a local shop today and the salesman told me a good choice was the Leica Pradovit P300; he told

the 250W bulb, the glass COLORPLAN lens and the illuminated area made it a much better choice than the

Pradovit P150 -which he told it was really overpriced-. The problem is that I already find the 250$ of the

P150 too expensive for my initial budget. BRAUN alternatives were almost as expensive as Leica's; Rollei

and Kodak were even much more expensive -probably for better performance, anyway-.

So I definitely have to go second hand. I found today a Rollei -single lens, so I guess a bit old- black

projector for around 80$ -sorry for the description, I can't remember anything else-, which would much

better match my budget. So the question is quite simple: what would you recommend -brand and model,

if possible- to buy second hand and under let's say 100$?

I understand the post is a little bit fuzzy, sorry for that and thanks in advance for the answers!

Marc

Hi all,

thanx for the answers. I took my summicron today to Foto Werkstatt Wiener in Munich. He didn't assure me he could fix it, but I gave it a try. The problem of sending the lens to Solms is that I am not really sure that it's worth. I paid for the lens around 400 Euros, and if I had now to invest additional 200/300 for the repair, I'd rather keep the 50 as is and spend the money in a summicron 40 or 35 -a part of it-. But the mismatyching disturbs me a lot, and not just for the pictures.

Kris, thanx for your experience, it seems the most reliable information on the problem. I'll tell you next week when I pick the lens up if the fixing was succesful.

Oh, Jacques, don't take me wrong. You seem to know what you're saying, but I find it difficult to believe that Leitz production of the 80s were just crap. It is however quite evident -taking a look at my Elmar 90- than the construction quality of previous objectives is better anyway.

Marc

Hi Kris and John,

and thank you for your responses. I tend to think that it is sensible to have it repaired. I

will take it to Foto Werkstatt Muenchen ASAP.

My pictures are OK in the 99% of the cases; If i aim at infinity and move the edgea little bit,

then I know that I am matched and can take pictures without problems. But it disturbs me

anyway that it is much more fun to focus with my old 250$ collapsible Elmar 90 -around

50 yo- than with the Summicron. I use the Summicron probably 80% and I would like it to

work properly. Kris, who repaired yours -if you tell me Leica itself, then I forget about it-

and how much did it cost, if it is no too rude?

Thanx again.

Marc

Jacques,

thanx for the quick answer! I do not have the lens here, but the version must be 20-25 years

old -so mid 80s- while the body is an m6 of '98. So that would match your explanation.

However, I bought the lens in 2002, and I think it had not this problem then. At least I do not

remember such an important mismatch between the two images...

Marc

Hi all,

nice phorum.

When I focus my Summicron 50 at infinity, the two images in the rangefinder do

not exactly match. Moreover, by slightly pushing the edge of the lense, the

second image -the one coming from the rangefinder- moves a bit. My other lenses

do not have the same problem, so the body is OK. It is not a big deal, since

most of the pictures are wonderful, but it causes misfoussing sometimes. Could

anyone have an idea what problem my little summicron has? Will it be expensive

to have it fixed -after Leica standards, of course-? Thanx for the answers.

Marc

Hello,

I thought about buying a digital camera up to a price of EUR 200 (~$

200) and the Canon Powershot A520 seemed to be a good compromise

between optical performance and price and was well tested.

Now I heard about a new model from Canon, the Powershot A530, which

seems to be the successor of the A520, but I cannot find test results.

Can anyone tell me about his experiences with the A520 and/or the A530

or the differences between the two.

Do you think the A520/A530 is a good choice ?

Thanks in advance,

Marc

Nick,

that was my impression too -although I have never used the 40 'cron-. In my case, it is

more a question of having something else that I can take everywhere. The price of a body

(CL or CV) plus 40 'cron does not compete with the Rollei.

Concerning the minilux, I have already heard that the lens is excellent. But I don't know, I

did not like how the camera felt in my hands; not as much as the Rollei, anyway. And it

also costs twice as much.

Marc

...which does not mean their work would have been any worse if they had had more

refined lenses.

Anyway, I have found the comments really interesting. My initial intention was not stating

"without a 50 'cron you just get crap"; it is just that I had read several threads on the

optical performance of the Rollei 35 S and I thought that someone might be interested in

my personal experience.

Cheers

Marc

No question, it is a great value for the money; I already pointed out that you get the lens plus

the camera -nice indeed- for half the price of a 40 'cron; and it is really fun to shoot with.

The tests Todd suggests seem interesting, but this was not my original intention -moreover,

I do not have the Rollei anymore-. Perhaps my tests were just nonsense -like I said- but they

give me an idea of what I can expect from a Rollei 35 S and from a 50 'cron. For my shooting

and printing, I will get in general better results with the Leica.

Marc

Kai,

Yes, it was a Xenar. It was me who wrote Xenotar -sorry for that-. I had already read that

Xenar was the Tessar from Schneider.

Concerning the question Tessar/Sonnar, I believe you; surely results are the same from f/8

on. It is just that after having bought some Leica equipment -but also offered "cheap"

digital cameras-, the 30-50 euros overprice of the Sonnar is just peanuts. Moreover, I

found myself shooting quite often at f/2.8 and the results were quite satisfying. So I think

I would go for the Sonnar anyway.

Thanks for your offering, but I do not have the Rollei anymore, so I wxould not be able to

test it against the Sonnar. And I do live in Europe; in Munich, precisely. The problem here

with the T is that many of them are the german versions and they cost more or less the

same than the S versions. And it is difficult to get one black T too!

Thanks for the information anyway.

Marc

Tri Elmar,

I also liked the Rollei very much. Quite small and very robust; I repeat that I was positively

impressed by the first results. I also liked the S model much better than the SE because of

what you point.

However, I find the comparison perfectly fair. For the cases where there is not much

difference between 40 and 50, and shot at f/8-11 the leica image had more contrast than

the rollei. Still, the resolution of the sonnar is very good, and differences could only be

detected wide open on the corners -although these differences were very evident-. But I

found all my shots at f/2.8 from the leica of noticeably higher quality. The poetic character

of a lense is something hard to describe, but I agree that sometimes the sonnar can take

better pictures than the summicron -if a lense can take a picture at all-. In my case, I had

the Rollei three weeks and shot around ten rolls with it. I think 3 or 4 of them were A/B

pictures. The leica got nicer -and more poetic- photos in 80% of the cases. Still, the proof

that I liked the Rollei is that I was very impressed by most pictures of the other six rolls -

with no leica counterpart-.

I have never used a Contax T. How does its objective compare to the Rollei's? I have heard

that it takes wonderful pictures too -providing there is a capable someone shooting with

it-. I must say that I considered buying the minilux or the contax instead of the Rollei, but

this one felt more robust and much better in my hand -and was also considerably

cheaper-. Moreover, I think that I am more comfortable with all-mechanical cameras

Marc

SP,

I have already heard of the Petri, but never seen neither used one of them. I have also read

that the lens of the Rollei 35 S is better anyway -but who knows?-. As I have told before, I

did not find the Rollei particularly difficult to use. But I do agree that it has some odd

features. Nothing which disturbs me, anyway. You can get one 35 T here for around 100

euros. The 35 S is slightly more expensive, but it is not so difficult to find for 120 euros.

Compared to the price of Leica gear, the difference 50-120 Petri/Rollei is not really a

problem. Regards,

Marc

Jonathan,

the ergonomics and the focussing are not a big problem for me. I like the feel of the

camera. It reminds me of the leica -I had also used other cameras before-. I was

delightfully surprised to find that very few pictures were out of focus; I don't know, maybe

I was lucky.

My summicron is not the newest one. I bought it sh and I think it's already 15 years old.

And the Rollei was the S model with the sonnar, which should be wide open a better lens

than the tessar. OK, the summicron is still some 15 years younger than the sonnar, and

much more expensive too. But I expected a simmilar performance. Anyway, I was not

disappointed with the Rollei at all. If not compared to the Leica, many prints looked

wonderful.

Marc

Kai,

I do like the Rollei too, no argue. But the contrast difference between the sonnar and the

50 'cron was noticeable even when I shot at infinity around f/8-11. However, I was

surprised of how many times I shot at f/2.8-4 -with in average very good results- with it,

and it is probably at these apertures that a difference between the sonnar and the tessar

arises. Given the price differences in Europe for both models, I think the sonnar is an

overall better choice.

Regards,

Marc

The Rollei is not really small but it suits nicely in the coat pocket. I do not see a problem

there. And I can cope with the ergonomics. My only camera is the M6 and there are places

where I would not want to take it with me. Therefore the use for the Rollei. I have also heard

that the Sonnar is a far better performer than the Tessar/Xenotar. But frankly, I have doubts

that it equals the performance of the summicron, given my experience.

Cheers.

Marc

Very nice picture, John. The first b&w roll I made with the Rollei looked very very good too.

Very good resolution and contrast. It was by comparing with the results of the Leica that I

noticed the difference in let's say 80% of the prints.

Marc

Thanks for the answers.

Yes, I know the 40 'cron is considered to be a very good lens. I think I will buy another

Rollei anyway as a travel camera -I stress that I got a bunch of wonderful pictures with the

one I had-. Just because it is small and costs 1/10th of the price of the M.

I think I just had expected a comparable quality between the prints of the summicron and

those of the sonnar. I do not know, perhaps my pseudotests were just nonsense.

If the 40 'cron comes close the performance of the 50, then I guess the Leica lens is

noticeably better than the Rollei's -at twice as much, it's true-.

Marc

Hi all,

nice forum and nice pictures. I wanted to share my recent experience using a Rollei 35 S. I

bought three weeks ago a nice black exemplar for a present. I had read here that the

overall quality of the sonnar 40 of the Rollei was quite comparable to the 'cron 40 for the

Leica CL.

Whereas I found it a very nice camera to shoot with and I got some impressive pictures

with it, in a direct comparison with the 50 'cron I use on an M6 -taking the same picture

with both cameras- the results of the Leica were noticeably superior to those of the Rollei.

No complaint on resolution, but there was a noticeable contrast difference between the

Leica and the Rollei prints -for several and different b&w and colour films- and the

behaviour of the Leica on the edges at f/2.8 was much much better.

I had been thinking of getting a 40 'cron for the M6 and I had considered the purchase of

another Rollei 35 S instead. Is the Sonnar slightly inferior to the 40 'cron or is the 40 'cron

slightly inferior to the 50 'cron I already have?

I would be glad to hear your comments.

Marc

PS. Even shooting often at f/2.8, I missed very few shots with the Rollei, trully a camera I

had fun with.