steven_fong1

Hi, it's myself. Forget the question, I have finally figured out how to

remove the spool. This is after 2 hours of fiddling! For those who

complaint about M6 loading, myself included, this is a revelation. The

Barnack cameras make the M series look like child's play. I would

strongly advice M shooters to get a chance to play with a screw mount

Leica. You will appreciate your M that much more. Thanks and happy

shooting.

Hi. I have aquired a shooter IIIc and am having BIG problem loading the thing. I have visited Stephen Gandy's site, where he suggest removing the spindle by pulling it out. The problem is I can't seem to do this and I don't want to risk damaging the camera. Without removing the spindle, there is just no way for the film to catch round it. The sproket engages the holes but the film won't spool round and therefore will not load. I have no problem guiding the film in place through the lens mount when camera is in T, but the damn film just won't spool. Help please.

I have to agree with Ken here. However the camera body feels, it is the

lens that is the deciding factor. I have had many Nikon AI lenses, but

I have gradually traded them in for R primes, well at least those focal

lengths that I really like, mainly because they are so expensive, even

used ones. It has nothing to do with sharpness per se, but the way

Leitz lenses do colour. I just like them so much more than Nikkors. OK,

this is not a Leica vs XXX thread, so forgive me if I have strayed. The

point I am trying to make is, decide on the type of glass you like

first, then think about the body. To do otherwise is to have it

backwards. Happy New Year to all.

Thanks for the response. Seems like the hoods are used more frequently

than I thought. One comment got me thinking. Does the use of stacked

filter rings as hood, as suggested by Rod, cause vignetting, especially

on a 35 or 28? Can you confirm on this? By the way, the metal clip-on

hoods with cut-outs that I have are not freebees, and since I have

already paid for it, I suppose I might as well use it:)

Thanks for any further comments.

Hi all. Hope you guys had a wonderful Christmas. I just want ti know how many M users here routinely use the lens hood on their lenses. I am refering specifically to the clip-on type, NOT the build-in entendable ones. Do you fine noticeable improvements in your pics when the hood is used? The reason I ask is that these hoods are quite inconvenient to use and do block the viewfinder quite a bit. I cannot honestly tell that the pics without hoods are any worse than those with, but then I am very careful about incoming light source angles and take precautions to avoid situations that will cause flare. Any comments will be most appreciated. Also, pls do have a wonderful New Year, too.

Thanks for the quick response. The truth is I already have a Summicron,

which I love, and a Summilux, which I use a lot, I really should not

'need' another 50. But I just love the way it feels in my hands and how

small it is when collapse that I 'lust' after it. I am by no means a

collector, not having the financial disposition to be one, but I

suppose this will be the first purchase solely for sentimental reasons.

So Michael, I am taking it, sorry. And it is comforting to know, Josh,

that this lens is tough as nut. I will also heed Andrew's advice and

use it for people shots. Once again, thanks for the feedback.

Hi, I was quite positive that I have read something about this lens but I just can't seem to find that thread, so pls do forgive me for asking again. Is the Summitar (collapsible) an ok lens to use? I am not looking for large enlargements, for that I have a modern Summicron. It is coated, perhaps only single coat? Does it compare favourably with a 50/2.8 Elma LTM? The reason I ask is that I've been offered one in great condition for a very decent sum. Thanks in advance.

For a secondhand body, I think the RE can't be beaten. It is cheaper

than R7, R6 and 6.2, and very reliable. Good meter too. Also has TTL

flash tho' not as sophisticate as that on the R7 or 8 but good enough

for portrait work. But if you are already willing to pay the price of a

R6.2, then I think the R8 is a much better option. Contrary to some

reports, I have one since '97 and use it often without any problems.

Hi Bob,

I have previously used the manual focus Nikkor 180/2.8 ED quite a lot

and I must say it is a very, very sharp lens. I have no experience with

the 180 Elmar-R but am currently using a 180 Elmarit-R. The Elmarit is

also very sharp but subjectively speaking (I did not do any tests) I

feel that the Nikkor might actually be sharper wide open. But a few

complains about the Nikkor is that flare can be a problem wide open,

and out-of-focus bright spots in the background shows up as polygonal

disks, in the shape of the diaphram opening.

Also, compare with the Elmarit, the 180 ED is more of a handful. I have

smallish hands and the large barrel presents more of a handling problem

for me than the Elmarit, which is very compact.

I hope this is useful for you. Regards

Yes, a Leica photographers category definitely. Include URLs too if

gallery is on the Web. Thanks Tony.

Thanks Andrew. As I have suspected, the EOS should work only in manual

and I fully agree with you that it is a big pain after getting so

dependent on AE and autodiaphram. Looks like I will give this gizmo a

miss.

I saw a Noxoflex adaptor that will allow Leica R lenses to fit on Canon SLRs. Having no chance to play with the thing, can someone who has used one before tell me how this adaptor work? Specifically, what do you lose when you mount a Leica lens on an EOS? Does it only work in Manual or can you still retain AE? Thanks for any comments.

Hi Joe,

Was watching 'Addicted to Love' on HBO and saw Meg Ryan using am M6

throughout the show. The longer lens looked like a 135.

I have used the VE 28-70 for a while and find it every bit as sharp

as equivalent zooms from Nikon and Canon. Very convenient

and user friendly for travelling and quick street shots. But

eventually I gave it up for a 24/2.8 Elmarit and use this in tandem

with the 50'cron. This has shown to be the perfect combination

for me. You might find otherwise. The reason I gave up the VE is

because of the very noticeable barreling at 28mm setting. It

drives me crazy everytime I see that. The 24 Elmarit has very

little distortion despite being wider. The bottom line is what you

intend to do with this lens and what level of distortion you are

willing to put up with. As far as sharpness goes, I think the VE is

very good if you stop down 1 stop.

Hi John,

I have the 135 Elmarit and use it extensively for portrait and short

telephoto work. It is not a 'blow-your-mind-away-sharp' kind of

lens, but it has the most beautiful rendition of colours I have

seen and give very smooth and pleasant skin tones and still is

sharp enough to bring out details without being hash. I like this

length better than the 80 or 90 which I find a little too short. I hate

to stick a lens in front of people. Conversely the 180 is too long

for portrait. I never seem to find enought working room with

180mm lens. Even though the 80 lux is 2 stops faster I think to

get faces in focus you can't go much lower than 2.8. If I

remember correctly the 80 lux doesn't allow you to use converter

wherease the 135 works very well with the 2x if you stop down a

bit. May not have any relevance to your choice of photography. I

also use the 135 with an extension tube which gives me a nice

1:3 for most flower shorts. In this mode, stop down to f11 it is

very sharp. Hope you find this helpful.

Hi Al,

I had you problem sometime ago. I had the 35 and 50 'cron. I

eventually traded in the 50 'cron for a 50 summilux and have not

regretted. At 2.8 and beyond there is very little to tell between

them, and I gain 1 stop over the summicron. Compared to a 50 Noct it

is much more economical and a lot more user friendly, more in tune

with the character of the M. I would love to have the 35 'lux ASPH

someday, too.

When people talk about Leica, they almost always refer to the M. The R system are not held in such high regard or with equivalent passion. Why is this so? Could it be that other manufacturers make much more exciting SLR and there is no competetion in the field of rangefinders? I have been using an SLR with a clear screen with grids. I like the possibility of fucusing and composing at the same time. But when I switch over to the M, I have to fucus using that rather small focusing patch and then compose the picture. Is there a better way of doing things. I tried prefucusing but not always successful. Any comments from other M users to improve my technique will be most welcome. Thanks.

Can somebody who has in depth knowlegde of Leica lenses' history enlighten me as to how one group of lenses are called Elmarits and the other Sumicrons? Does it have anything to do with lens design, and if so please explain. I have been a Leica user for a long time thanks to my Dad's existing collection of bodies and lenses. I have always been charmed by the way Leitz/Leica name their lenses, instead of just simply by focal length and max.f/stop they add a family name to them. Thanks. This has been a much less stessfull forum to follow than LUG.