david_killick

I have seen an ad for a quite reasonably priced Leica III together

with a Summar. Assume this is an f/2 50m, pre WWII outfit. I suppose

it wouldn't be up to post-war M standards of performance and

convenience, but the screwmount looks kind of fun, and is also a

little smaller than the Ms. The IIIf red dial was about twice as much

without the lens, but I wouldn't need flash sync. What are people's

experiences with actually using the screwmounts? Are pre-war lenses

still usable? I was thinking of using it for colour and possibly

getting back into B+W.

While we're talking about different cultures: apparently the world's

biggest rangefinders were made by Nippon Kogakyu (now Nikon) to sight

the big guns of the WWII Japanese battleships. Does that mean you

shouldn't buy Nikons? Mitsubishi Zeros bombed Pearl Harbor. Don't buy

Mitsubishi cars?

<p>

It really does seem naive to link culture and politics. Camera-making

had nothing to do with Nazism.

Atrocities do provoke understandable emotion though. My mother, whose

family was oppressed by the Soviets, once "got rid" of a Russian

camera I believe. Mind you, I don't know how good it was....

The original posting has gone off on an interesting and

thought-provoking tangent. The issue of Leica's involvement with the

Nazi regime was raised in a letter to PopPhoto, sometime last year. If

I can find it, I'll quote it. According to the magazine, Leica DID

actually make efforts to help victims of the Reich. It did not use

slave labour for example. I cannot confirm this, but perhaps someone

else could find the original response in PopPhoto or has some more

information?

Obviously Leica made military-issue cameras emblazoned with the

swastika, but then the British army also used Leicas during WWII

according to one book I read.

It is true that Germany has a long established tradition of producing

high-quality finely tooled products of all sorts, made by

"Feinmechaniker". This is a fine tradition I believe.

I think, however, that associating any product with a country's worst

excesses is fallacious. Products are tainted by association but it is

not they that are at fault, whether they are Volkswagens, Mercedes or

Leicas from Germany, or Toyotas and Mitsubishis from Japan. Surely the

actions of people and the use to which products are put are more

important.

Put another way: how much better off the world would have been if

Hitler had just devoted himself to building autobahns and Volkswagens

- and encouraging the makers of Leicas, Contax et al - instead of

invading Poland and launching World War II!

Hope this reaches you in time. My wife and I have just returned from

Turkey. We both made do with a couple of Leica P@Ss and were pleased

with the results, though in retrospect I would have liked to have

taken my M3 as well. The reasons: accurate manual control and faster

for people photography.

<p>

Your gear sounds eminently suitable. Here are a few pointers you may

find useful:

<p>

1) Ignore carpet touts! They are everywhere. Just keep walking, and

don't let them deter you from enjoying a fascinating country, or from

taking pictures. You will find them less hassle OFF the tourist beat.

<p>

2) If you are taking any internal flights, you will need to have your

luggage X-rayed twice: bad news for fast film. You can ask to have it

inspected by hand.

<p>

3) For mosques you really need an ultra wideangle; your 24 should do

it but wider still would not harm. Tripods are not allowed. The Aya

Sofia in Istanbul is very dark; but this is where the M is such a

winner. You will need about f2 at 1/8th with 100ISO film. For

close-ups of Byzantine frescoes, a 35 may be too wide and a 90 produce

too much camera shake; hence that 50 could be a good bet. An

ultra-wideangle will also come in useful for visiting the Topkapi

Palace. There will be masses of tourists. For a night view of the Blue

Mosque (don't be disappointed if there is scaffolding), a 35 should

do the trick.

<p>

4) Underground cistern, a fasinating legacy of the Romans: you need

ultra-wide angle and fast film.

<p>

5) People photography: my feeling is the 50 just can't be beat, but

the 35 will probably be fine, set at hyperfocal distance with exposure

pre-set. Try a walk through the crowds at the weekend by the Galata

bridge. In my experience, no-one notices a Leica, even an M; the

flashiest cameras are video cameras and big SLRs.

<p>

6) We had a great time in Cappadoccia, staying in Goreme. Amazing

landscape and any lens should do, but here you might find your 90

useful. Some intriguing cave churches: low light again, but your 35

should be fine. Table-top tripods are helpful.

<p>

7) We also visited Pamukkale and the surrounding Roman ruins, as well

as Aphrodisias. Ultrawides will be good for those amphi-thetares; a

longer lens will be useful if you see the terraces at Pamukkale.

<p>

8) Have fun! If you need any more info on Turkey, please email!

I am visiting relatives in New York City next month. Any suggestions

of good Leica stores to visit? I realise this could be dangerous armed

with a credit card but oh well.....

So what's the point of it? So any dummy can take a dumb picture with a

great camera. So what? Why bother? It does remind me of a cartoon I

liked though: a guy says, "hey, I've just bought the most

sophisticated camera in the world, but I can't find anything worth

photographing......"

Once again some interesting answers. This forum attracts a lively

response! I agree there are noticeable differences between lenses of

different vintages, and reckon I'll exploit the characteristics of

this Summicron rather than upgrading for the sake of it. And yes,

maybe get another focal length instead. I think there is sometimes too

much emphasis on ultimate sharpness when other factors may be more

important. I like the glow of the old lens in colour slides and

prints. I like it for low light portraits; pleasing even at full

aperture. I may get back into B+W too (has anyone tried Agfa Scala B+W

slides, BTW?). Will also check out capability for big enlargements.

Happy shooting!

Different opinions: Erwin Puts at www.imx.nl/photosite says there is a

big difference between old and new versions of the 50mm Summicron.

Steven Gandy at Cameraquest.com reckons the differences are

infinitesimal for practical users. A professional here in New Zealand

who has published a book of landscapes says he can't tell what camera

a picture was taken with but he can tell what film was used.

I would like to know how my old 1957 5cm Summicron stacks up. Is it

worth getting the new one?

Here are my own (totally unscientific, since I don't shoot test

charts) findings on the old Summicron, bearing in mind the vagaries of

different films etc:

- At first I thought it wasn't as sharp as Japanese lenses, but this

isn't so: it is not as high contrast, which some people mistake for

sharpness.

- It does have extremely high resolution of very fine details.

- Colours glow, subjects stand out from the background. Quite a

different look from bitingly sharp rendition of fine detail throughout

the scene.

- Nice out-of-focus areas.

- Appears to be a warmer rendition of colours than (some) Japanese

lenses.

<p>

Any comments welcome.

Some excellent advice here. Just a couple of points which may be

helpful.

<p>

All Leica rangefinders have a kind of built-in focus guide. If the

ghost image appears on the left of what you have focussed on, turn the

focussing ring right. If it appears on the right, turn the focussing

ring left. Try it and see. After a while, rangefinder focussing is

extremely quick.

<p>

I agree the 50mm lens, which gives normal perspective, makes for very

natural looking pictures, especially of people. An advantage of a

wider lens such asthe 35mm however is its greater depth of field. You

won't need to focus as much.

<p>

Have fun on your t

A British mag in a review on the M2 commented: "these will still be

going when oil reserves have run out and Man has colonised Mars."

Exactly. Let's hope there will still be film. Another comment:

"Cameras are just a tool, but choosing the right tool makes a

difference."

To me, my old M3 just feels comfortable - more so than my minilux. Oh,

and rangefinder focusing is so easy. The M6 looks tempting solely

because of its built-in meter.

Pros at the paper where I work use Nikon F5s and D1s. They are

versatile and ultra rugged, but it's interesting how many pros seem to

eschew matrix metering in favour of manual. The big Nikons look too

heavy for my amateur or semi-pro stuff.

Amateur AF SLRs and PSs seem loaded with geewhiz gimmicks that hold no

appeal whatsoever. I think Nikon is not totally technoholic though --

the company deserves praise for keeping its 1959 lensmount, unlike

Canon.

The reliability of the old Leica M cameras is testimony to their

superb construction. I too find them aesthetically pleasing, and why

not? I agree style is different to ergonomics. The Canon Elph APS

camera for example is stylish, but how fiddly is it to use and does it

come up with the goods?

I am not keen on show-off technology that is jampacked with

unnecessary features, whether it be cameras, stereos or remote

controls. I would opt for simplicity and purity of form following

function. To sum up the whole Leica approach I guess you could say:

"If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

A generational thing? Well, I'm 38 but I think it's refreshing how

many young people appreciate classic, proven technology, and are not

just taken in by the latest throwaway fads. Newer is not always

better. Sure, as one writer comments above, it's dumb to ignore either

the old or the new; a

Thank you folks, some very useful replies though quite divergent

opinions. And yes, I did mean CLA. So far the tally seems to be

(subject to hand counting!) eight in favour of keeping the M3 (though

one says keep M3 and M6 too), four in favour of getting the M6, and

one suggesting I get a Contax G1 or G2 instead. This includes two

emails not recorded here. So a huge majority who support the classic

M3! A pretty mean feat for any product from the 50s I would think.

What shall I do? Hmm. Not quite decided. I love the old M3 and the way

it handles, and its viewfinder. Don't mind loading or rewinding. Meter

is just about the only thing I would want to change. I take the point

that the minilux is a point and shoot. I still think its lens is fine,

but in terms of handling and versatility it doesn't come close. Trade

M3 and minilux for M6? I think I will keep the M3 and enjoy it unless

I get a really unturndownable offer. Any other comments

Please help, fellow Leicaphiles! I am still pleased with both my M3

and minilux but now have a dilemma. The dealer who sold me the M3

(early DS model) called to say a collector would like one to complete

his collection. I could trade for an M6 (SLAed) body in return for M3

body plus $500. Worth it or not? I do not have to sell. I enjoy using

cameras rather than collecting and really can't justify a huge outlay.

Points to ponder:

M6 meter useful. Old M lenses technically inferior to minilux compact.

Could get new lenses. Which is best for travelling? Small compact or

M? M viewfinder is excellent, even with glasses. I love using M3, but

requires care. Minilux has electronic whirr but faster to use and does

produce good results. To further complicate matters, my wife would

like a wideangle compact which I could include in trade. Any thoughts

A belated thank you to everyone who replied to my question on meters

for the M3. Very helpful - I think I'll stick to a separate one. I

would like to get a wideangle to complement my 5cm and 13.5cm. Main

use: travel and scenics. My choices are:

1) The old 3.5 Summaron with specs. Quite affordable, not so fast of

course, but how does it stack up?

2) Old or new Summicron with separate finder. How much better?

3) New Voigtlander with adapter ring. The 15mm might be useful for

buildings and interiors, otherwise 25mm.

I must admit my initial preference is to stick with original Leica. I

would welcome people's thoughts on th

Check out www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5799/lecalink.htm for heaps

of Leica stuff including Duane Birkey's site. Hope this is useful

Alas Ron, I would not recommend buying this camera. The fix may well

be reasonably simple but then you may just get stuck with a duff

camera. Ask your friend to get it fixed first, or check the repair

cost and deduct it. (Be careful - do you want a friend and no camera

or a duff camera and no friend?) My first minilux had faulty

electronics; I sent it back to the dealer and it was replaced

straightaway. Since then, absolutely no problems. It has an excellent

lens and is capable of first-class results. Get a new camera or go

through a dealer with a warranty! There is also something to be said

for the classic simplicity of the Leica M. You have to keep the

shutter depressed during B (it is not like the old T) but the LCD does

give you a very useful readout of ti

I must try the new Provia 100F soon. I find Ektachrome E100S makes an

excellent general-purpose slide film - noticeably better than its

"amateur" equivalent, Elite 100. Realistic colours yet good

saturation. Yes slide film really is very subjective. People rave

about Velvia but I find it too artificial. Perhaps that's just because

of New Zealand's very intense sunlight. Love K25 but can't get it here

or get it processed. E6 is much easier. And 100 film is just that uch

I have a Minilux and have just bought an old DS M3 with a 5cm

Summicron and 13.5 Hektor, having always hankered after the old

classic. My first serious camera was a Oly 35RC, so I am keen on

rangefinders. Both are great but I am interested in what people find

the pros and cons of each. Minilux has proved ideal for travel and has

an excellent lens. Love the feel and weight of the M3 which seems to

make it more stable at slow speeds. Metering is a hassle though,

especially on slide film. So how do I get the best out of it? Is a

separate meter the way to go? Which one? I have had limited success

with the f16 rule. Does it work? Would be interested on comments on

whether point and shoots suit a particular style of photography

compared with ran