shah_vittapuras

Putting aside for a moment the absurdity to which lengths political correctness is drawn and how it obscures and trivializes the serious issues we really need to deal with intelligently and urgently...the expression refers to war, not domestic violence, and it's almost universally <i>men</i> who wage war against other <i>men</i> and the rest are caught in the crossfire, so I think the saying is appropriate just as it stands.

<b><i>Anyone thinking nikon isn't into making a FF is a fool.</b></i></p>Actually the fool is someone who purports to know what Nikon is thinking or planning beyond the facts at hand and Nikon's history with respect to turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the success of its competitors' technology and the mass defection of their own customers.

<b><i>lens "signature" isn't a widely term used with digital cameras...... is it?</b></i></p>AFAIK it isn't a term widely used by photographers, just us guys who like to shoot the breeze about lenses.

<b><i> My Xmas joy M3 Full Kit...WHAT ELSE DO I NEED</b></i></p>Love? Family? Good health? Peace on earth and good will toward men?

I know there was a significant (at least to us minutae men)shutter change involving a ball-bearing with the IIIf Red Dial. In my experience I haven't seen any difference in precision, reliability or accuracy between the III, IIIc, IIIf-BD and IIIf-RD shutters, although paradoxically the pre-war shutter curtains seem to have held up better in general than the post-war, yet interestingly the M3 and M2 curtains seem to have held up better than the IIIf-RD and IIIg which was produced during the same period.

Mel Levy. I'd read that he was quite ill a while ago though, if he's not around then I don't know of others offhand.

We're likely to see every one of those items before the first, "FF", given Nikon's history of pure stubbornness in sticking to their decisions not to acknowlege Canon's technological breakthroughs as a matter of principal even if it means losing most of their business until they eventually have no choice but to give in (eg in-lens AF motors and VR). Glad I hung on to my AIS lenses even though I sold off all the bodies and went Canon digital. They were worth nothing at the time but now that there's a Nikon dslr that average people can afford where the meter works with AIS, maybe I'll be able to get something for them now.

<b><i>Many novices over-react to the advice of 'experts'

 

Now let the flaming start....</b></i></p>OK! I am in complete agreement with this statement, but if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people think the science of photography is mysterious or they're just plain lazy, then nobody would buy how-to books or read articles in amateur magazines and those 'experts' would have to rely on sales of their images for the entirety of their income, so the saying "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

There's a mechanical linkage inside the camera that is pushed by a cam on the rear of the lens as it moves in or out with focusing. The linkage turns a mirror inside the rangefinder that deflects the second image. The whole thing depends on the rangefinder linkage being calibrated so the 2 images of a subject at infinity are superimposed when the lens is at the infinity position, since all compatible lenses are made so that they sit the same distance from the film plane when they're set at infinity. Different focal lengths move different distances from infinity to the close stop, so the cams on the lenses are ground in a specific way so that they compensate the linkage movement.

Oh. I thought it was a lowbrow attempt at satire and/or humor. It probably should have had a caption, for those of us who are new here and don't happen to be clairvoyant, so nobody would egg his own face like I did.

<b><i>Bob Haight Photo.net Patron Prolific Poster, dec 22, 2005; 11:24 a.m.

Shah, do you use your lenses? You mentioned sitting in a display case on a pedestal....</b></i></p>No no, you misunderstood. It's not I who sits in a display case on a pedestal, it's my Leica lenses. I use my Canon lenses for photography but I did use Leica lenses when I was still shooting film and I still shoot them in a safe environment to test their performance. I doubt that the Digital M, given its reputed specifications will tempt me back into Leica usage (especially if it has the same unimpressive performance of the DMR at fast ISOs) but if not I have a few less-than-mint and non-rare Leica lenses to use.

Yes, very much different. All 3, the 3.5, 2.8 and the 1st-version Summicron, are double-Gauss types, but the 2.8 and the Cron use the Lanthanum glass. They perform nearly identically (except of course at f/2!). The 3.5 is a ten years older design than the 2.8, it's a remarkably good lens even today, but it seems like you're looking for wide-open fingerprint, not all-over performance at the optimum aperture, so the 2.8 will be much closer to the 35 Cron and to the 50DR.

That's odd, I don't recall a Christmas scene in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

If you can't stretch your budget to an 8-Element 35 Summicron and you can live with losing a stop, then I'd recommend the 2.8 Summaron. It's very, very close (like, basically identical) in fingerprint.

There are very few top brand lenses in the short tele range that don't make splendid portrait lenses. If you're not out and about shooting candid portraits, I'd give serious thought to medium format.

<b><i>I think it's a mock-up. Like one of those "atrappes" where the insides don't work. </b></i></p> No it's not. It's pure Photoshop.

<b><i> The past two years I have owned nothing but canon. I have the EOS EF L 24-70 and i love the pictures it proudces, but....I think its time for me to get into Leica.</b></i></p>Well there's a logical progression. ..not!<p><b><i>Evey person i have talked to has said Leica blows Canon out of the water; no questions asked.</b></i></p>Maybe it's time to pose a few questions...and to people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm a Leica collector and Canon user, and any sweeping generality that puts one in its entirety over the other is a clear cut sign that person is a clueless know-it-all type.

<b><i>i have an opportunity to acquire one quite cheaply for my wife.</b></i></p>Straight-across trade or will you need to add cash?

<b><i>I'm shopping used equipment locally. I only encountered two 35mm summicrons</i></b></p>Mistake No. 1. With the internet there's no reason to limit yourself to local shops, who probably rarely have a sucker walk in the door willing to take their insulting lowball offer for Leica equipment, probably indeed paid next to nothing for these lenses citing the very defects you pointed out, and are trying to recoup all the profits they've lost to ebay and digital in one fell swoop.<p><b><i> I suspect are the latest varients.</b></i></p>If you don't know just from looking then for your own good you really ought to hold off buying any used Leica gear until you've done more homework.<p><b><i>Should any binding should be present at these prices?</b></i></p>Binding should not be present at any price. In the world of reputable dealers and knowledegable buyers, camera equipment prices vary according to their physical condition, period. Mechanical faults are the responsibility of the shop to get fixed before putting the item out for resale. If it is not economical for them to do so, then they will either decline to accept it in trade, or offer it clearly marked "AS-IS" with the defect(s) noted. My advice from years of collecting is to pass on that store, but not go from the sublime to the ridiculous. There is no need to pull your heart out through your ear financially and pay the going rate for a new lens unless that's what you want to do. In the USA alone, KEH, Stan Tamarkin, Sam Shoshan, Eli Kurland, Ken Hansen, Jim Kuehl, George Ury, and Dan Black are all reputable high-volume knowledgable dealers in used Leicas. I don't know what's up with Don Chatterton but he used to be as well. B&H and Adorama also generally have large stocks of Leica but their prices are generally on the high side and I recommend seeing the goods in person at those shops if you can get to NY. Jack's Cameras in Muncie, Indiana and Keeble&Schucat in Palo Alto, California are two more dealers who often have good stocks of used Leicas. The list goes on. Take your time and you will be rewarded. No need to buy a pig in a poke just because it's close at hand.

In re 1st question: That part is normal, even for many older Leitz lenses. In general the construction of Leica lenses introduced from approximately 1978 and later is quite different from the previous generations in that many formerly brass components were replaced with plastic ones. This is not to say they are inferior, but the tactile feel of the workings, particularly the diaphragm rings, is noticeably lighter.

 

In re 2nd question: the shade cap shouldn't "pop out" if it's always attached and detached properly, which is to slide it off and on parallel to the front of the shade. If you habitually pry it off and snap it on, eventually it stretches enough so that it doesn't take much more than a rub against something to have it pop off.

<i><b>Fortunately I have my M3, but it's loaded with T-Max, and I've already got the M6 loaded with Portra 160NC for my Xmas portraits.</i></b></p> Are you for real? Just rewind so the leaders aren't all the way into the casette. If there are any exposed frames already just make a note and mark it on the casette with a Sharpie, later when you re-load that film just make sure the body cap or lens cap is on and go one more frame just for security against a double-exposure. Really it's a no-brainer.

I won't try to dissuade you from upgrading your computer, I don't know how you can stand to even surf the net at the snail's pace your machine must crawl, it'd drive me up a wall. But, for what the Digilux-2 is, you really don't need to upgrade computers now, or bother with Elements. Any Epson or HP printer with a built-in card reader, as long as it takes SD, would probably be enough for you to get your kicks out of the Digilux-2, and when you've whet your whistle in digital and are ready to move up to a serious digital camera such as a Canon or Nikon, you'll be able to get whatever computer configuration is current at that time. As soon as you try to shoot the Diligux-2 at ISO 400 or higher you'll see that you need more than just Elements to try and quiet the noise, and by then you will have lost a lot of resolution. BTW it's none of my business but as a friendly word of advice, I hope you aren't trading away any Leica "goodies" of real value on that Digilux-2. They were very overpriced to begin with, and now that Panasonic has pulled the plug on them expect the value to drop like a lead baloon. I wouldn't be surprised to see them e-bay for under $500 by next spring and perhaps half that once the real Digital M arrives. The Digilux-2 was a stopgap interim pacifier for its customers who wanted to go digital but had to have it say Leica and look and feel a little like an M. (Aside to the power that be: I tried eleven times to post this and kept getting a message about do I kiss my kids with my mouth. Finally I figured out that it was that the software considers the name of Panasonic's parent company Matsu s h i ta as a dirty word. Geez, grow up!)

The 50mm Summilux-ASPH is indeed a masterpiece. I particularly admire how Leica has brilliantly acquiesced to the lunatic caterwalling of proponents of both sides of the tab/no-tab debate by attaching a tab to a milled focus ring. Right now my 50 Summilux-M ASPH occupies center stage in my Leica M display case on a Leica pedestal between the 75mm Summicron and the 90 Macro-Elmar with its occular goggles. These last few years have been a Leica collector's dream.

The early version has E41 threads, the later version has no threads at all and the hood is required to hold threadless series VII filters. Both will accept a 42mm push-on cap though the early version will stretch the cap and it tends to work its way off. The 35 Summilux is one of the few Leica lenses I do not own, because it has much lower performance than any other M-mount lens made by Leitz and is of little interest as a collectible due to its lack of rarity. However that is not to say it is a bad performer, just a notch below what we expect from Leica.

Yes indeed. In fact I haven't exposed film in my Leicas or the other cameras I collect, for almost three years, since I bought a Canon 1DS (I now have the 1DS Mark-II). Digital is so much more convenient and the results especially at ISO 800 and above are just leagues better than any film. The feel is about all there is left for me insofar as Leicas are concerned, in fact I've got an ala carte MP on order now, which I don't think I'll ever load with film. My Leicas are like objects of art, beautiful to look at and work the controls. It doesn't bother me in the least that some lonely rage-filled social outcasts may come at me on the 'net and put me down for treating Leicas like bric-a-brac and never shooting with them. If it weren't for guys like me Leica would have gone broke in the 70s. There's nothing wrong with admiring the Leica for its beauty and admiring Canon digital for being a working camera. Horses for courses as they say.