ron_h__portland_

Born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Reside in Portland, Oregon, USA.

I miss the civilized politics back home.

I don't miss the &^%$#* cold weather!

 

Ron

My 50mm Elmar-M is 21.6mm collapsed, and 37.6 in working position. So, if you average the

two you come up with 29.6mm... ;-)

 

Ron

Lee,

 

I would like a PDF copy. Does it have the figures or pictures the Word version doesn't?

 

I'll drop you a line by email if that works for you.

 

Ron

Ah eyes, well the retina is, for all intents and purposes, flat at the microscopic level of rods and cones. Even the foveal pit (the precise center of the macula at which the highest density of cones resides) is flat-ish at it's bottom. The only part of the human eye capable of seeing 20/20 (or better) is the fovea. And it's only about 1.8mm across. Even the crappiest lenses can manage to project a flat plane over such a small area. Still, it is not the eye that "sees", rather the brain compensates for any imperfections secondary to a curved receptor surface (the fundus). And, yes, the cornea is the original aspheric refractive surface.

What does this all mean wrt photgraphy? Not much, the two systems are quite different.

 

Ron (an optometrist by profession)

Paul,

 

It should mount just fine, but I suspect they'll be a lot of vignetting. It already vignettes quite a bit on 35mm up to about f/8.

 

Ron

One more thing... The higher the viewfinder magnification, the more accurate the rangefinder will be. That said, I've never had a problem focussing any lens up to a 90mm f/2.8 with a 0.72 finder.

 

You can also get an accessory finder magnifier from Leica. This would turn a 0.72 finder into a 0.90 finder and increase both magnification and focussing accuracy.

 

Ron

Alan,

 

This is a big question. But, I'll try to give a couple of tips. I would avoid "going nuts" and buying a new M. Given your criteria, I'd suggest an M4-P. It's a relatively inexpensive (due largely to lack of meter) and fairly easy to find body. It will have framelines in the viewfinder for all three lenses you are interested in.

 

The designation 0.72 refers to the magnification of the viewfinder. A 1.0 viewfinder (which doesn't exist in a Leica M) would show the world with no magnification (1:1). A 0.72 finder minifies the apparent size of objects in the field of view and shows a maximum field just beyond that of a 28 mm lens.

 

The smaller the magnification number, the wider the field of view. The flip side of that is, the smaller the number the smaller the viewfinder image will be for a given lens. It is a trade off and depends on the lenses you're planning to use. I use a 0.72 finder and always have. It's become the "standard" Leica M magnification likely due to the large range of lenses it'll show framelines for.

 

I hope this is of some help and good luck.

I'm sure other members will chime in as well.

 

Ron

Also, Andrew Nemeng's description on how to choose a diopter correction lens is very good.

I'm an optometrist, so this should be within my bailiwick. Rob is correct. Your correction for

distant objects (the top part of any "bifocal" prescription) should suffice. Raymond,

astigmatism correction (even for "severe astigmatism") should be part of any pair of glasses.

 

Secondary dioptric correction lenses in camera viewfinders are used for people who DO NOT

want to wear their corrective spectacles or contact lenses while shooting.

 

Ron

MP, 50mm Elmar-M f/2.8, Fuji Neopan 400

 

Small, and fast enough. I carry this combo nearly every day.

 

Ron

" "Binding" usually means it's tight in one place while focusing. That means something's probably a bit out of round. It needs to be repaired or returned to the seller, if possible."

 

John, The lens is in otherwise perfect condition. I suspect "binding" was too strong/specific a word. Perhaps sticky at all rotation positions is a better description. I really feel a lube job is all it needs.

 

Ron

I have a nearly perfect new style Elmar-M f/2.8 which needs only a little

lubrication to make it perfect. It binds just a touch when doing fine focussing.

So, my question is, how do I go about fixing the problem? I could send it away

for a CLA and have a perfect lens back several days and several dollars later.

Or, I could do it myself (I'm pretty handy and not too squeamish). If I decide

to do the job myself, what lubricant should I use, and will it be sufficient to

lubricate the exposed helicoid at the back of the lens?

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

Nice kit though. Have fun with it.

 

Ron

Bill, such boasting about one's equipment is just in bad form. ;-)

 

Besides, you should never pair a black body like that with a silver lens. It's simply gauche. So, to help you with that, I propose you give me the silver lux.

 

just a thought

 

Ron

Thank you Jim. Excellent story told with stunning photos.

 

Ron

Very good Seb.

 

Aside from the expression of your daughter and the dog's appearance, I really like the muted

colours.

 

Ron

Interesting to note the lens attached is a 5.0cm focal length. This wouldn't be my first choice for an underwater setup. Typically, wide to super-wide angle lenses are used in marine photography due to the refractive properties of the water/glass interface. If I recall correctly, in order to achieve a 47 degree angle of view (that of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera) one needs something like a 24 to 28 mm focal length.

 

still, pretty cool kit.

 

Ron

I love the feeling of the chrome 50mm Elmar on my chrome MP. The slight extra weight of the Elmar balances nicely with the body (it is a tiny lens, after all). It lends a bit of... should I say, gravitas to the unit as a whole.

 

Future lenses in my kit will most likely be black, however.

 

Ron

Trevor,

 

I have to fall strongly on the side of normal saturation. I guess I'm just one of those

photographers who prefers a more natural look vs ultra saturated.

 

Life is as it is.

 

Ron

Al, you're right on. I only clean if I've managed to smear a lens somehow (usually with an errant fingertip). Dust will usually just settle on a lens and I'll leave it there without a worry. Still, after years of normal cleaning, I wonder what's happening.

Today's Leica lenses are reputed to have pretty tough coatings compared with the

older Leitz lenses of the past. I've read much comment in ads, for example,

where the seller discloses the presence of cleaning marks on the lens front

and/or rear elements of older lenses. I've never seen cleaning marks on any lens

I own. But my lenses past and present have all been within 20 years old. My

question is, are these remnants of overzealous cleaning a thing of the past? To

put a finer point on it; what kind of danger am I in if I clean my lenses? I

tend to use a UV filter only when shooting in adverse environments. I take care

to brush and blow lenses clean of debris prior to a clean with a microfibre

cloth or Kodak lens tissues. I can't see any damage with careful scrutiny in

full sunlight. But is damage happening at a lower level I should be concerned

with? Or, am I just obsessing (something I know we Leicaphiles are never accused

of)? Your thoughts, suggestions, humor are all welcome.

 

Ron

Lens cap?

 

Ohh, that would really hurt.

 

Ron

I bought a used MP from Tony Rose at PopFlash and have never regreted it. It is a great photo-making machine. To me, it makes no sense to buy a tough-as-nails camera like an MP new rather than used in good condition (unless you are a collector).

 

Ron

Thanks for the post, Trevor. My wife wants a digicam, so I'm looking at what's available in a compact. My only gripe is the lack of an optical viewfinder in most P&S digicams. I suppose the OIS is supposed to help with camera shake due to the combination of holding the camera away from the body and longer telephoto mag. Still, I the Leicaphile/ludditte in me wants to see framelines.

 

Ron

Stanley, John, Ed,

 

You are all evil GAS producers! ;-)

These kind of amazing photos have given me the worst case of GAS! I now have the Noctilust worse than ever. I have an MP with a beautiful, small 50mm Elmar-M (my "walking around" lens). Now, I want a Noctilux. My bank account thanks you!... not!

 

Ron