naphtali

I think I understand about the tape. Its purpose is to bulk up the lens barrel while providing slightly increased coefficient of friction?

 

If the shop repair is to replace felt, I would anticipate this is an equally impermanent fix. But if the shop repair is different, please furnish background what the repair might be. And, I guess, why Nikon didn't use the more nearly permanent snugging method originally.

Mr. Freeman:

 

The link is non-functional.

 

Have you any idea of the cost to have the ring snugged properly by a shop?

I have an otherwise acceptable Nikon series "E" 75-150 f3.5 constant aperture zoom lens whose focus-zoom ring is

loose. Gravity moves the ring. What can be done to snug the ring's action? If necessary, is there a repair shop

capable of dealing with the problem reasonably?

I have noticed several FB-5 bags available. I use FM2/T and FM3a cameras. Is FB-5 satisfactory to secure the camera body? What lens sizes will the case secure? I have MF AI-s Nikkor 50-135 one-touch zoom, MF AI-s Nikkor 200 mm f/4, MF AI-s Nikkor 180 mm f/2.8 ED plus several "standard" lenses.

Has anyone tried Bluefire Police 135-24 35mm film, EI 80 ultra-high resolution B&W film from Frugal Photographer? If YES, how useful is it?

 

Are there comparable films with quicker speeds?

***

No one has mentioned B&W slide film. Has this product class been discontinued?

I would have processing done by a lab.

 

One concern is that I have no idea how to identify what film uses what formulation by reading its label.

 

So furnishing specific film identification is good to get me from zero to wheels rolling.

I am new to attempting black and white film photography. I understand that there

are different methods of achieving image on film.

 

How can I differentiate among them when buying film.

 

For now, I am interested in 35 mm roll films.

This query fits nowhere on photo.net, really.

 

Is there a data back, Contax, Yashica, other that fits the Contax S2 SLR cameras?

 

Who, not affiliated with Contax, repairs or maintains S2s?

I have not used or seen an SL2. I have heard words such as "tank-like" used to

describe the camera.

 

What are its dimensions?

 

What are its body die casting, top, and bottom plates made of? What are the wall

thicknesses of these parts?

 

I suspect a great deal of its "tank-like" mystic comes from the works rather

than the three parts I previously asked about.

***

Now for the critical stuff. Are SL2s repairable/maintainable at reasonable cost?

When they are working correctly, how useful is an SL2's meter compared with

Nikon FM2n's? If the meter is not functioning correctly, are CdS modules

available? Are complete meter assemblies available?

 

I recently acquired a Nikon FM2n/T. How does a spec. SL2 compare, not the

lenses, but things such as ease of use, expected remaining service life?

Is there a databack available for the Leicaflex SL2? If there is not, can any

model/brand databack be adapted successfully, and without being ultra-expensive?

Where can I find a list of Leica-manufactured zoom lenses compatible with R6 and

R6.2 with constant aperture throughout zoom range?

 

I am particularly interested in zoom ranges somewhere between 35 mm and 90 mm.

I want to thank all of you for holding my hand and pointing me in the right direction. I bought a Nikon FM2n/T and a Nikkor AI 43-86mm f/3.5 Zoom (constant aperture).

 

I chose the Nikon rather than the Leica R6 for the following reasons:

1. I'm very big on redundancy. Cost of obtaining a back-up camera, in this case an FM2n, is orders of magnitude less expensive than a second Leica. Having back-up and primary camera using different lenses and accessories -- an R6 and FM2n, for example -- is fuzzy thinking. I'd be abandoning Leica lenses were back-up camera become needed.

 

2. CLA costs are less than R6's while CLA frequency will not differ significantly.

 

3. FM2n/T will retain its value approximately as well as R6.

 

4. The lens I chose as my general purpose one is a sweetheart. It yields about as much utility as I would want while not being much larger than a 50 or 55 mm lens. I was unable to match the lens for the R6 at anything close to the same price.

***

The reasoning may be faulty, but at least I HAVE reasons for the decision instead of relying on emotion.

Mr. Herr:

 

A professional photographer who uses Leica Rs but gives a partial endorsement to the Nikons is probably the guy I want to listen to.

 

I anticipate after the initial purchase to "Volkswagen" lenses if I must -- An Aston Martin doesn't cost any more than a Golf; it just costs longer. As you pointed out, the Leica R lens costs are not severely out of line with Nikons if you look carefully.

 

About the only things I haven't attempted to factor are routine CLA cost differences; frequency of CLA; and brute reliability. I hesitate to consider the brute thing. Cameras are not to be dropped or fallen on or dumped into Salmon Lake. And the CLA thing -- none of the cameras should need frequent servicing. CLA cost for each brand, though?

***

The machines have similar controls but I'm uncertain if one among them is significantly more convenient to use, or if one machine's contols do a significantly better job. I don't think a 1/4000 shutter is significantly more useful than a 1/1000 shutter. Throw a dart for me. I find myself being sucked into the Leica mystic as I'm writing this. It's silly to make an investment using just emotion.

I've run into a snag. From retail resellers I have identified three camera bodies whose function are remarkably similar, whose selling price is within $50.00 of one another. Assuming my first assumption is accurate, I believe any will be satisfactory.

 

And that's the snag -- too many choices to be made by someone unqualified to make them. And I have not a clue which among the three is the best. So I'm laying off the decision on people who are qualified to make it.

 

All are graded as "Excellent" condition or 9 of 10. All have at least a 30-day warranty and 14-day return privilege. It gets worse. Comparable [camera] brand 50 mm lenses have selling prices within $50.00 of one another also. The bodies are: Nikon FM2n/T; Nikon FM3a; and Leica R6 (not 6.2).

 

I've decided to keep initial cost moderate while learning the camera by getting a 50 mm lens first. I anticipate buying a long lens within four months. By that time I should have a grip on what will work for me.

 

I suspect I could throw darts and not made a bad choice. What I prefer to do is [collectively] make a good choice. I want to complete what transaction we decide upon not later than close of business Friday, June 10, the sooner the better.

More thanks. You are making this very easy.

 

As Mae West should have said, but did not: Too much of a good thing is . . . marvelous.

Many thanks for your assistance.

 

I'm embarrassed to report that in most respects I'm a Luddite. My work requires an extensive LAN. Beyond that -- rotary dial phones, Norwegian welt boots, wool clothing, non-powered push mower, et al. -- you get the idea.

 

Okay, one point of unanimity: chrome body.

 

Would some sort of lens doubler (wrong verbiage) with a smaller telephoto lens be a an acceptable lens option? Regarding lens size, what range limitations occur at the 200 mm? And what kind of dollars are we talking about?

 

Regarding zoom lenses, is option this so cost effective that I dig deeper into pocket and just do it?

 

Since this is an avocation rather than vocation, I am willing to accept being forced to not attempt some shots. If I can buy smaller telephoto lens that will retain its value, I can upgrade if I choose without a severe additional cost?

***

Mr. Borovoy:

 

Mr. Cheung believes manual focusing is too slow. While I'm not in complete agreement, perhaps the FM3A mitigates much of the problem?

 

You mention that an FM3A is overpriced. What sort of premium would be paid compared with FM2N for used a body in nice condition? Premium as a percentage of selling prices may be severe while actual dollar difference is acceptable?

 

Again, I thank all of you for clearly responding.

I seek a Nikon SLR to grow with. Previous experience is with an older mechanical

RF camera. I am uncertain what my universe of new or pre-owned Nikons is for USD

1000. Following is a description of what I want to do with the camera system. I

have been informed that a high-quality RF will prove unsatisfactory for what I

want to do.

 

I have narrowed my search to one of the FM2/3 series, or F2. I intend to use it

mostly for photographing wildlife while wandering -- I live within 1.5 miles of

Lolo National Forest. I expect a substantial portion of use will occur near dawn

and dusk if camera and film permit.

 

I am not a large man, so weight-bulk is important.

 

I like the idea of electronic aids within the camera system, but I am concerned

about reliability.

 

This is a serious hobby only. I do not earn money via photography; I have no

intention of attempting to do so. I live in a nifty place and want to record the

same as well as I can without breaking my budget.

 

***

 

I have one essentially trivial question. Nikon has available silver chrome and

black finishes for all cameras I've mentioned. Which finish holds up better

cosmetically?

Please rank these camera BODIES, descending from best: Leica M4, Lecia M4-P,

Nikon SP, Nikon S-2, and Nikon S-3?

 

What were the factors that caused you to rank them as you did?

Zamac is a zinc alloy, FYI.

I did a series of searches to get a feel for classic rangefinder camera prices.

I was shocked to discover Nikon S3 cameras are valued at Leica M6 prices.

Excluding scarcity from valuation, are the Nikons really that well made?

 

How and of what materials are bodies, and also lock work, made of for:

Leica/Minolta CL; Canon VI (and P) series; Canon 7 series; and Nikon SP/S3?

 

I understand Leica bodies are cast brass with either decorative chrome or

industrial hard chrome skins. I also understand that the various

Cosina-manufactured bodies are cast aluminum alloy plus some major parts being

magnesium alloy. I wonder how much of the perceived sturdiness or lack thereof

results from differences among specific gravity of brass, aluminum, and

magnesium? Heavy material "feels" more solid?

 

I'm so confused.

Thanks, Paul. I think it's time to abandon the Contax in favor of Ms.

Many thanks for all your assistance. Apparently, the smart choice for me to try to minimize the CL would be to look at very short rigid 50s.

 

So how does that universe look? Has Mr. Flanders covered the field?

Please identify circa 1950s-60s Contax-compatible collapsible lenses. Are there

any compatible lenses that are more nearly current, or have been made this century?

 

I do not refer to Leica M or S lenses using adapters.

What collapsible M mount lenses collapse and function correctly and safely when

used on Leica CL body? I am particularly interested in 50 and 90 mm.

 

Regarding those lenses that do collapse on CL bodies to the same degree as on

M4s, are their rigid 50 and 90 mm lenses that achieve [nearly] identical

thicknesses? I am attempting to have my CL as small as possible within these two

lens sizes.

I have an M6. I understand the M6 meter gathers information from two points

[within viewfinder??] and the M6TTL from three points. How significant is the

difference? How do these in-camera meters compare in utility with an external

ambient light meter costing under $100?

 

Were my M6's meter to need to be replaced, would I have my choice of another M6

meter, or an M6TTL -- that is, can it be done; and would there be a significant

cost difference?

 

Is this series of questions so far out in left field that I need not have asked?