paul_hagan

Hi,

If it is an upper case B with a 'flourished' style then it is Leitz GB (London).

I have an M3 with a similar seal. I know it is for real as I am the only owner and Leitz GB were involved in a repair many years ago.

Just found your post so apologies for late reply as you may have this answer already.

Regards

Paul

I have just chanced across this thread.

I use both M6 ttl and M4-2, both are in constant use without any problems.

My advice is regular CLA's for Leica. This is not the case for my Nikon SLR's. My Nikon technician only recommends service when a

problem arises, and that is rare as he is mainly relubricating and cleaning my lenses.

So regular service for leicas is good. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to use one for over twenty years without a clean as

lubricants do not age well.

If you were to see the internal grime they accumulate with normal use you would treat them to a regular CLA.

A strange paradox, but if my Nikons were to cause more problems they would receive a regular CLA.

I hope your M4-2 is still in good shape.

Best Regards

Paul

<p>Indeed I do, and never plan to stop using my two F5's. I am currently on the verge of purchasing an F6 to see what all the fuss is about.<br>

The F5's are used together with two D700's.<br>

Nothing has fallen off the F5's although it is easy to replace the connector covers and rubbers. Buy a supply while they are widely available (I have). I cross threaded the 10 pin connector cover and replaced the cover from my supply.<br>

I use the waist level finder and regret that interchangeable viewfinders have disappeared. I did read somewhere that the sales of alternative viewing aids was only 1% of Nikon camera bodies (from F to F5 series), so hardly surprising they have been dropped.<br>

The pleasure of using an F5 cannot be described and B/w prints from film are a joy to look at.<br>

The F5 is not an outdated dinosaur and it makes you want to load up a film and go out and shoot images.<br>

I look forward to an F6 and really hope it does not relegate the F5's to the display shelf.<br>

Incidentally I have two F100's but they just lack the F5 magic.<br>

All the best<br>

Paul<br>

</p>

<p>Norman,<br>

Like you I have given the digital medium a fair outing. I enjoy using my high end Nikon DSLR's but the experience lacks a certain satisfaction which I got from film. My solution was the Pentax 67 system with a focussing magnifier. My eyesight is no longer perfect but this worked for me. It will all come down to what works for you.<br>

I will continue using DSLR's but film is my medium of choice. <br>

Regards<br>

Paul </p>

<p>Jukka,<br>

I have used them all and the acute-matt are well worth investing in. Much brighter. As a previous response stated - watch out for metering prisms.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Either will do the business. I think it comes down to personal preference, so a case of try before you buy if possible.<br>

As a long time Hasselblad user I would go for the SQA but I am sure other posters will have their own strong preference for the RB/RZ series.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Thanks Michael - my prototype is on its way to the dustbin! Wonder why anyone bothered to produce the petal design and then post it on a web site?<br>

Ah well back to the HB-1<br>

Paul</p>

 

<p>I have decided that it may not be long before Nikon discontinue either one or both of their DC lenses, Either the 105mm f2.0 or the 135mm f2.0. So I am going to buy a new one before they disappear.<br>

Which one do you recommend as producing the highest IQ?<br>

For my intended uses the focal length is immaterial. Simply which lens yields the highest IQ and how far do you have to stop down to achieve this? Also would be good to know where diffraction problems kick in and at which point is further stopping down degrading the performance? </p>

<p>A solution and a question here. I have just acquired a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AF D lens. It is outstanding. I notice numerous posts - all over the place on the inadequacy of the supplied HB-1 hood. Other hoods are often suggested for use on DX Nikkors. But the problem remains that it is often inadequate for FX use. Other hoods tend to vignette at 35mm on FX sensors.<br>

It is lamented that the hood is not a petal design which would solve a number of problems.<br>

Here is the solution <a href="http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Nikon-AF-Zoom-Nikkor-35-70mm-f-2.8-D.php">http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Nikon-AF-Zoom-Nikkor-35-70mm-f-2.8-D.php</a><br>

A template for a petal hood. Cut out the hood from black plasticard and fix to the original HB-1 with cyanoacrylate. You can jazz it up by spray painting black and affixing black flock paper to the inside surface or use black felt/velvet to minimize reflections. I have just mocked mine up and it works beyond belief. I may make another using brass shim. <br>

Thats my solution. Question is, does anyone have knowledge of an off the shelf hood which works for those of us with a scissor phobia?<br>

Incidentally there are many templates for hoods on this site.<br>

Regards<br>

Paul<br>

</p>

<p>Grab it with both hands. I agree with all the other postings. Initially many processing houses will offer you a scan of your negatives - that is until you upgrade your scanning capabilities. Don't jump all at once the accessories are not going to disappear overnight. <br>

Enjoy<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I had similar fault with a lens. Other lenses were fine - so it was not a fault of the camera body. Get hold of another lens to try. If that is stiff then it is likely to be the body. If all is well then suspicion must fall on the original lens.<br>

The Mamiya 645's seem a bit fragile in my opinion. I switched to Pentax 67 and Hasselblad, which aside from larger negs have their own problems. But both feel and seem like they are more robust.<br>

Paul </p>

<p>Ground glass side down. There is never any exception to this.<br>

Rgds<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Place the clear acetate screen on top of the screen and all the focussing is done on the screen below - so no effect on focus accuracy. Measure actual screen size (the ground glass portion). Then multiply by 4/5. This will give you the side of the rectangle which is equivalent to 4". This can then be placed anywhere on your acetate the long side is equvalent to 5" Suggest placing it centrally will give you more flexibility. Draw one up on a word document then print out on a clear acetate slide using a laser printer. You can then cut from the slide using a craft knife. Do a few while you are about it as you may as well fill up the acetate before printing<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Ingemar,<br>

Good to think that you took the time out to tell us. Personally all my screens are Acutematte D's - but might give one of these a go in an old frame. One question which others might be thinking of asking. Is the image sharp on film? That is - is focus correct for the film plane?</p>

 

<p>I have no experience of them whatsover. Wait for the genuine Hasselblad item to show up. I have several 'real' screens for my 501 and 500 and they all work perfectly. Maybe the others work perfectly but why did you buy a Hasselblad in the first instance? In any case the screens are available new and will fit the 500 C/M assuming that is what you have . Different story for the 500 C.<br>

Regards<br>

Paul </p>

<p>Roman,<br>

I will echo everyones else's responses.<br>

I use the 500C/M and 501C/M. I also use the 500C but it is much less versatile.<br>

1. Cannot change screens<br>

2. The older they are the more difficult a repair becomes if parts are required.<br>

3. Pre 1962 C's have a pin in the lens mount area which means they cannot use CF and later lenses<br>

(May be an issue if you spot a nice CF for sale)<br>

Regards<br>

Paul</p>

 

<p>Rick,<br>

Yes there is a specific one for the 6x7 (and the same one for the 67). Have a look here <a href="http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=13076">http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=13076</a> to see what it looks like. I do not think this (or any supplier) will be able to offer a new one (although it might be worth an email). A search on ebay 'pentax 67 magnifier' will usually find one if it is for sale. I just search all Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 67 if I am looking - usually never more than ~160 items to check. These turn up on a fairly regular basis - so you shouldn't have to wait long ( About $120.00 US is about right). It can be fitted on the finder permanently if you like because the magnifying component is hinged and flips up to allow a view of the complete screen. A really nice accessory as it is a really positive confirmation of precise focus even with much brighter f2.8 lenses.<br>

Regards<br>

Paul<br>

</p>

<p>Rick,<br>

Yes there is a specific one for the 6x7 (and the same one for the 67). Have a look here <a href="http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=13076">http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=13076</a> to see what it looks like. I do not think this (or any supplier) will be able to offer a new one (although it might be worth an email). A search on ebay 'pentax 67 magnifier' will usually find one if it is for sale. I just search all Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 67 if I am looking - usually never more than ~160 items to check. These turn up on a fairly regular basis - so you shouldn't have to wait long ( About $120.00 US is about right). It can be fitted on the finder permanently if you like because the magnifying component is hinged and flips up to allow a view of the complete screen. A really nice accessory as it is a really positive confirmation of precise focus even with much brighter f2.8 lenses.<br>

Regards<br>

Paul<br>

</p>

<p>Rick,<br />I am in agreement with all the previous posts. I have, and use all four incarnations of the 6x7 (non MLU), 6x7 MLU, 67 and 67II. They are all a dream and I am looking for another, as mint as possible 67II. Yes the 67II screen is a touch brighter. I find that the Pentax focussing magnifier assists me to some degree when the image is a little darker. I use one successfully with the 6x7 bellows when the image can darken down considerably at longer extensions.This may be personal as I also found one to be helpful on some 35mm systems. They don't cost a fortune - so worth a try- you can always sell it on if it doesn't work for you. Obviously the problem is the f4.0 of the lens - but not much you can do about that.</p>

<p>I have (and use) all four versions: pre MLU 6x7, 6x7 with MLU, 67 and 67 II. I can thoroughly recommend them all. Although you are less likely to find a goodish non-MLU 6x7 for sale these days. I still use mine and it is a dream - some bad press on this version because of lack of MLU. I never have any problems so I suppose it is all down to problems with mirror vibration. My own take on this is that locking the mirror up will only solve half the vibration problems as the shutter is the size of a small car door and if you are having vibration problems after mirror lock up a change of technique or tripod is your next hope. All the 6x7 and 67's are brilliant. The 67 II was a superb last effort by Pentax and if your budget will run to it get one! But they will all amaze you and you will wonder how you managed without one before.<br>

As to the lenses - what can I say. they are all superb. The younger versions are probably a whisker better in some departments - but your technique will need to be good to spot the difference between the older and new versions. I don't have a favourite and use most of them between 45mm and 300mm. These include macros and the leaf shutters.<br>

If you are in the mood the bellows, extension tubes and helicoid extension tubes make for some fantastic macro shooting. I use them all.<br>

Incidentally the helicoid extension tube is a great way of mounting some third party large format bellows camera lenses for use on the 67. Simply cobble up a mount, fix it to the helicoid extension tube and the helicoid focussing will permit focussing on a lens with no focus mount. you might have to slot in another extension tube to create a large lens to film plane separation - the results on many lenses may be well worth the effort.<br>

Oh and did I forget to mention that it is an impressive camera and an absolute joy to use.<br>

Paul </p>

Late response here so I hope you are still tuned in. I use both 80's and the 1.9 does not vignette as already mentioned. My 1.9 is a C and I use a C and N 2.8. I cannot find any real difference between the 2.8's.The 1.9 C version I can recommend so go for it - you will not be disappointed (Certainly sharp enough for my purposes)

Paul

Yes going down the same route as Gary. NOS searches for Pentax 67, Maiya 645, Bronica SQ, and Mamiya RB/RZ 6x7. I have already got my hands on a formidable range of kit and have the four systems mostly sewn up with the lenses and accessories I want. These will last as long as film and as long as I do. Yes I shoot digital with a D300 -and it is a pleasure to use- I would not have missed the experience for anything. But film still holds a magic.

 

Paul

Sorry forgot to talk about the 30mm Zodiak. I have the older Zodiak version. The

newer Arsat 30mm is multicoated. The conclusion here is that you get a lot of

bang for your bucks here - mine cost $150.00 on ebay with the rear mounted filters

included. Not quite up to the Hasseblad offering - but then it is less than 1/10 the

cost. Not bad resolution for the money and even pointing into the sun flare is

reasonably controlled. If you don't like the wonky horizontals and verticals there

are many software packages which can correct these from a scan.

Oh if you buy one with the Pentacon6/Kiev mount you will have to factor in the

cost of a lens mount adapter. I know they are also made in 645 mount but these

are the more recent versions and more expensive. Give it a go- its cheap and if

you don't like it you can always shift the lens on Ebay.

I do not use mine much at all - but it is there if I need it!!!!

 

Regards

Paul

I have the super and Pro TL and a pretty extensive (ten lens) kit. I like them a lot! The ProTL just wins for the reasons others have given.

Other thoughts might be the Bronica SQ cameras - they are superb and so are the lenses. I use three SQAi's + half a dozen lenses. Or go for bust and pick up a Pentax 67 - again I use two bodies (no interchangeable back here!) + eight lenses. It is a monster of a camera but the results are superb. The Bronica SQ's are not much heavier than the 645's and you get more negative for cropping. The 67's are much heavier - but worth the bodybuilding. My conclusion is that none of the 645's will disappoint and there are loads of great lenses to go for. The zooms are a pleasure to use. In all cases scans from these negative sizes will blow the socks off you. Unless you lurch into 5x4!!

 

Regards

Paul

Hi,

No doubts here go for the 3.5F. It is a classic and the lens quality is beyond belief.

 

Paul