richard_oleson

Real. I don't think there is such a thing as a fake R3. This is what to look out for when buying one: Buying a used Leica R3 / R3 Mot Camera

I did once sort of hack a fake R4 .... I had a Sears KS2 that was roughly the right size and color and had no name on the prism, so I made a LEICA logo and a red dot and glued them on. For the 50/1.7 Rikenon lens I made a new ID strip calling it a Mediocron. I kept it that way for a while as a joke, but after a clerk at a local Leica dealer complimented me on my Leica I got kind of scared and removed the logos.

<p>Hi Walter! Does it look like this one?:<br /> <br /><a href=" /> <br /> I think this is the only M42 camera with a non-removable waist level finder. The Biotar lens would go with this or a Contax/Pentacon, both East German cameras. Also, it was a common practice for US camera stores to private label East German cameras, often defacing the original name before gluing or riveting their nameplate on top. This was done with Prakticas, Praktinas, and Pentacons that I can think of offhand. Here is a Pentacon that's had that done to it:<br /> <br /><a href=" /> <br /> This was generally done in the early-mid 1950s. Pentax adopted the M42 mount in the late 50s, the Olympus FTL not until 1970 or so. It became very common on Japanese cameras in the 60s: Ricoh, Fujica, Yashica, Mamiya, Chinon, I'm sure a few others that aren't coming to mind. But this was all after the rebadging days, and I don't recall that ever having been done on a Japanese camera in any case.<br /> rick</p>

<p>Hi Jarrett: I have disassembly & repair notes for this camera, write me at rick.oleson@gmail.com if you'd like a copy. A pretty common problem with the Konica A - T series is a failure of the plastic stud that holds the (-) terminal into the bottom of the battery box. Does that terminal look loose and floppy inside the box? It's an easy fix, except that the box does not come out downward, so a lot of disassembly is required to reach it from the top. Another possible problem is corrosion in the (-) wire from standing for years with a battery in the camera ... the same disassembly is required in that case. Other possibilities are the CdS cells, though they seldom go bad, or the galvanometer, which could have a wire off or just a stuck needle. I've seen a couple of cameras where the hair spring in the galvanometer came unsoldered, that can be tricky to get back together... but it's rare.<br>

rick</p>

<p>The only criterion I've ever come up with is Stuff I LIke. And I'm not even real strict about that :)=</p>

<p>It's probably dirty, they usually are after 45 or 50 years. It may tend to become more fussy at cooler temperatures and better when it's warmer. The real solution is having it cleaned, which is not a huge job but unfortunately there aren't as many camera repair places around any more as there used to be.</p>

<p>oh my god. it's supposed to make SENSE? i'm doomed.<br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/albums/72157610757987197">https://www.flickr.com/photos/26262745@N08/albums/72157610757987197</a><br /> : ) =</p>

<p>Very nice camera! A little late for this one since you've already got it all fixed up, but I have some repair notes for these if you'd like a copy. (email rick.oleson@gmail.com )</p>

<p>no.... everything still seems to work except for the discussion forum and the guestbook.</p>

<p>Excellent purchase! I have yet to find one that descended to my price level, I expect when I do it will be nonworking (but that may be OK)</p>

<p>I saw it at B&N and asked for it (and got it) for Christmas. It was never my intention to rely on it as a historical research resource, and I haven't read enough of it to have found anything to complain about so far. Certainly seems well worth the $15 to me, if only for the photographs.</p>

<p>Neat! The 45/2.8 Pantar on my Contaflex Prima has no serial number at all. It just says "Zeiss-Ikon Pantar 2,8/45".</p>

<p>I don't know .... I'd consider $30-40 fair in the States, and eBay sellers don't have to pay the upkeep on that store. I think $48 in a store in the UK is a pretty decent price.</p>

<p>The slow speed timer in the 55 was much more robust than the one in the 44, and was probably the reason that the 55 came out just a year later. The front knob is like the slow speeds on an Exakta, you have to wind the knob before each shot for slow speeds.<br>

Biggest problem to watch for on the Perfex is failing to cap, or gapping open during winding. Fading at the highest speeds is of course a risk with any cloth shutter of that age, as are pinholes; I don't know if these problems are any greater with the Perfex than anything else, except that the shutter is not really designed for easy adjustment.<br>

The biggest durability issue is that the "ribbons" are just extensions of the shutter curtain fabric, and so are not as strong as proper woven ribbons; but Perfex were not the only ones to do that either. I would not use it heavily, but it should be fun for an occasional roll of film.</p>

<p>None today, because it's raining and nasty out. But yesterday, a Canon P with a 35mm Jupiter-12 (how's THAT for a coincidence?)</p>

<p><a href="

<p>well, if it's any consolation .... it's better being outside than bouncing around between the mirror and the shutter.....</p>

<p>and stop talking crazy talk.</p>

<p>Olympus is the same company, but it's been nearly 40 years since the OM-1 and over 50 since the beginning of the Pen system, and Maitani, the mastermind behind both, is no longer there. </p>

<p>It may have been a calculated decision, but I think it would have been very difficult to make a camera slim enough to permit an adapter that could receive FD lenses.... the manual-focus Canon bodies are extraordinarily slim. Only 2 other 35mm SLR mounts have ever been made with a shorter mount/film distance, the Miranda (0.5mm shorter) and the Konica (1.5mm shorter). Miranda had intentionally made their cameras thinner than any existing SLR to permit use of Exakta and M42 lenses on their bodies with adapters.</p>

<p>As it is, the EOS mount is shallower than any other 35mm AF SLR mount ... one can hardly accuse them of increasing the depth on purpose in that light. Canon's DSLRs are more versatile than any others of the same format size in the lenses that they can accept, which include M42, Pentax K, Nikon, Olympus, Leica and Contax/Yashica that I'm aware of off the top of my head. The Canon decision that made FD & EOS incompatible was made in 1959 when the Canonflex mount was introduced with such a short lens flange distance.</p>

<p>Your G-1 is really the thing to use with FD lenses....</p>

<p>Definitely something very wrong, the Opton Tessar is quite a sharp lens. You might look for a parts camera that could donate a lens; the Zeiss Ikoflex IIa used the same lens and might be obtainable cheaper than a Rolleiflex. Postwar Automats with either the Tessar or Xenar lens would also be good donors, and I think the Xenar that went into the later Rolleicords would fit too. All perform similarly. Even if you have to pay more than you'd like, you can re-sell the camera for parts and get some of your money back that way....</p>

<p>Do NOT go for that "as parts" lens - it's full of fungus. </p>

<p>The screen for the Yashica Mat will fit in the A. In the Mat124, the screen has a cutout at the front edge to clear the light meter movement. You don't need this cutout; off the top of my head I don't know if the cutout is big enough to leave a visible gap if you were to install a 124 screen in your camera. The overall dimensions are the same, though, and it should function fine.</p>

<p>If you're interested in one of mine, I'll have them available again in about a week. You will have your choice of a horizontal or diagonal rangefinder spot in the center, and any of a variety of grid patterns (which are scribed into the screen so they won't rub off)</p>

<p>rick :)=</p>

<p>The obvious hole is the lack of something like a 30/1.8, unless there's one out there that I've missed. The 50mm makes a fine short tele for portraits, but it isn't a normal lens on an EFS camera. Similarly, there is nothing at the wide end; I have a very compact 21mm OM lens that I can use on the Canon, but it's hardly a wide angle on this format... if Olympus 30 years ago could make a 21mm lens this compact that covers 92 degrees, why can't Canon make a 13mm with this coverage today? I have to haul around a zoom that's bigger than the camera body to get a decent wide angle. I have the 10-22 zoom, but only because Canon has given me no other choice.</p>

<p>That's KEH for you. I don't think I've ever found an "inop" camera from them to be working, but I have certainly had some "ugly" stuff that looked near perfect and some "inop" stuff that didn't take more than 15 minutes to return it to "mint". And the prices did match the ratings: $29 for an "ugly" 135mm Hektor, and $14 for an "inop" 50/1.4 SSC Canon lens that I think might have never been used. It doesn't always turn out quite THAT well, but I've certainly never felt cheated by them.</p>

<p>The Summar was a very flarey lens; there wasn't much color work when it was current in the 1930s, and it wasn't considered the best choice for color even at the time.... so what you're seeing might just be the normal behavior of the lens. (oops! you have a Summitar. Same holds true for that, though, in the uncoated prewar version.....)</p>

<p>They were reasonably popular because they were the only thing available; the wide angle one might be worth having since there is no other way to increase the angle of view on the fixed-lens TLR, but I'd stop down to at least f/8 to make it worth doing, and if possible shoot in black & white so that the color fringing won't add insult to the unsharpness. For the telephoto end, you are likely to get better results by shooting without the attachment and cropping the image down to create the tele effect you're looking for.</p>

<p>I would not replace the leather.... just clean it up and give it a bit of black shoe polish.</p>

<p>What I think you're referring to as the other connector below the lens is the cable release socket on the shutter. This was standard equipment.</p>