silverfish1

I will take a guess that it has to do with parallax correction being

incorporated into viewfinder framelines in the Leitz designs. The

roller follows the (cam shape) timing precisely and continuously thru

the range for each lens. BTW the frameline's actual field of view

changes from nearest point to infinity. This has a minor effect on

metering in the M6.

My own very subjective opinion is that the transition will go ok if

you realize the differences in the philosphy of the two design

prototypes. As to metering the chromes (transparency film), I come

from the incident reading (hand held metering) school but more

importantly training your eyes to meter based on experience (and

bracketing). Silver masks and duping have saved more poorly exposed

chromes than you can imagine in the biz. It is hard to salvage an out

of focus image. The direction that Canon (manual)lenses focus is

actually the same as the Leica lenses unlike Nikon so that shouldn't

be too tough. I wear glasses all the time and to see the framelines

for the 35mm or shorter can be a challenge. An optical finder for the

28mm etc. can help a lot. Leica Diopter Eyepieces for your vision

correction might be a solution. In general the Rangefinder system is

easier and more precise for focusing in less than ideal light. It is

a less versatile (fewer lens choices & limited working range) system

since there is no ground glass image. There is an aesthetic from

Architectural Design (Mies van der Rohe) that states "Less is More" I

think Oscar Barnack sensed this when he gave birth to the Leica.

Which 50mm? The sonnar for the I thru IIIa? The screw mount versions

for the Leica? The latest designs? BTW, as noted above, lens coatings

ultimately gave Leitz and others an optical advantage but the

invention of coatings are attributed to Carl Zeiss. He apparently

lost the control of the design rights inadvertantly. Most lenses

including Leica's are a nominal rather than actual focal length and

speed. Again circle of focus on the film plane like the COC is a

relative measurement. My GUESS is that Zeiss designs have this

tolerance as well.

Subjective interpretation of objective criteria varies.

Depth of Field Tables published in the 11/61 edition of Modern

Photography give (General Photographic work) near point of 8',1.2"

and far Point of 13',1.2" for a 50mm lens focused to 10' @ f/8. For

Critical Work, the near point is 8',5" and the far point is 12',4".

The writer notes: "The variety of depth-of-field tables engraved on

lenses and on cameras, published by lens and camera manufacturers and

appearing in countless guides and data sheets very greatly in

consisitency and reliability. Many are hopelessly imprecise. ..."

Using a circle of confusion 1/20mm or 1/30mm would give very

different results than the accepted(?) 1/40mm for general photography

or the 1/50mm for critical amateur or professional work.

Yes Bill, I am not clear here either. The later version Contax had

the focus/ mounting ring/helicoid for the 50mm as permanent part of

the body. This allowed for a smaller lens. What did you mean

by "about two stops more generous"? Perhaps just having more physical

space for engraving made this distinction possible.

Just to follow up, When you consider that a gradiant neutral density

filter is necessary to correct the light fall off in the Zeiss

Hologon 15mm that was what you had before the Bessa Voightlander

15mm, a little fall off is more than acceptable. With the 21mm or

28mm (or other) Leitz or Leica optics, what you are paying for is the

freedom from or negligible vignetting or fall-off. Also as spartan as

they are, the viewfinders for the Bessa Voightlander system beat the

Canon VFs that were available for the earlier 19mm , 25mm, and 28mm

lens for a rangefinder system.

I am no expert but ... In case your faced with the question in a

trivia pursuit game the "M" comes from the German word messen which

means to measure. The Zeiss glass in the Contax IIa and similar

vintage pieces may indeed have been better optically than concurrent

Leica glass, but the 90mm baselength of the Contax rangefinder over

the 73mm of the Leica III was probably more forgiving. Some "M"

lenses won't work as well on the CL for these reasons. The achilles

heel of the early Contax was it's shutter. The Leitz shutter today is

still essentially the same design as the III. The design of M3 and

forward to the M4 relied on hand finishing but also tight

manufacturing tolerances. You can adjust the cant of the rangefinder

coupling roller on a pre M4-2 body and correct for alignment error in

the rangefinder patch. Cams wear like all metal surfaces.

FYI, the October 1999 issue of Popular Photography (pg.101) published

resolution tests for the 15mm/4.5 and at f:4.5, center was 96L/mm and

edge was 57L/mm. Same at f:5.6. At f:8, center was 85L/mm and edge

was 54L/mm. At f:11, center was 68L/mm and edge was 50L/mm. Light

fall off noted at all apertures.

There are of course metal versions of the 21 and 28 Leitz optical

finders though my experience is that they are more susceptible to

impact damage than the resin. The resin designs have an offset in the

shoe aligning more on lens axis than the older metal designs. The

Leitz viewfinders have framelines that incorporate lead in as well as

parallax for near focus. These features are sorely missed on the

Bessa Voightlander optical finders. It comes down to how much or how

little information you need in optical finder for extremely wide

angle finders. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

As esoteric as the Barndoor hood is, it has cutouts that don't

obscure the RF or viewfinder. You might try a filter stepping ring to

adapt to another diameter screw-in hood or clamp-on. A camera show or

used equipment dealer might have a less expensive non-Leitz

substitute.

My trick is fold over the end of the film leader and loop it over one

of the prongs on the take up spool. This fold will usually flatten

back to normal when you rewind. The other thing many folks do is

tension the film by turning the rewind crank gently. Do this after

advancing at least one full frame. If it turns more than a very small

amount before stopping you have not loaded properly. You can watch to

see that the crank turns after releasing and recocking the shutter

for the first one or two flicks at the beginning of a new roll. If it

doesn't turn or if you can't feel tension on the rewind crank stop

and reload.

Not having the blacked out image when the mirror flips up as in any

format SLR gives the Leica or other rangefinder system an advantage

in a multitude of situations but especially in conjunction with

strobe in poorly lit places. Focusing is faster and more precise in

very low light with the Leica. Of course you can't pre-visualize

depth of field with the Leica M. With few exceptions the optics are

superior with the Leica. Assuming your clients don't need anything

larger than 8x10's, the Leica, with an appropriate focal length lens,

might well serve as an alternative Wedding camera system,

including, "for the formals". You may have to overcome skepticism

fueled by the inertia of medium format being the most frequent choice

of pros. In the end it is really about preconceived notions of what

wedding photos have to look like. In any event the Leica M is superb

for the candids.

Dim framelines might be corrected with a cleaning of the rangefinder

assembly or it might be necessary to replace the entire unit for re-

mirroring and re-coating. If the replacement part is in good

condition with crisp bright lines and focus patch and no fungus the

price is good. Leica as I recall replaces the rangefinder for roughly

twice that amount but it is a totally refurbished unit. Generally

since pulling off the top is the most expensive aspect of any repair,

a complete CLA not just the viewfinder makes good economic sense.

Replacement of very worn strap lug eyelets and any upgrades like new

PC plugs etc should be considered while you are in as well. New

shutter curtains greatly improved my M shutter's consistency.

I realize you are asking about a specific kind of test but I feel

compelled to say something about lens tests in general. Side by side

comparisons of different lenses under the same conditions and

parameters that give center and edge resolution figures for all

apertures were more useful to me. Leitz has long maintained that

tests of flat field targets are of limited importance since in

practice most subjects are 3 dimensional and curved field performance

is ultimately the real test of a lens. In the tests I recall from

photo publications in the 60's the 50mm Summicron resolved 80 lines

per mm at center and edge for f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 but unless you are

photographing a newspaper that's misleading. Finally professionals

have different needs than artists sometimes. A few "art"

photographers have opted for lenses precisely for the peculiar

qualities even defects they exhibit because of lack of correction.

Leica Product Demos with Factory Reps seem to travel from dealer to

dealer and offer a limited hands on opportunity to evaluate the

equipment. Often the equipment that shows up at the accompanying

free check-ups can be educational as it offers a chance to see what

is really out there in use as well. But rental for anything less than

a really extended period is not going to be enough time to really get

to know the equipment. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

OOPs! I forgot to include the word Flash in my TTL description of the

latest M6 versions. Thanks Andrew! The M5, CL, meters are actually

ttl metering as well though not dedicated with flash.

Forgive me but this like buying clothes for someone without knowing

their size. Gift Certificate? Does your friend ever intend to shoot

with a lens shorter than 50mm? If not a refurbished M3 could work

well. In case you don't know they come with single and double stroke

film advance. I personally prefer the single given the choice. The M2

had different magnification and has framelines for the 35mm lens. The

better the cosmetics of these older pieces, the more they will cost

because of desirability to collectors. I personally like the M4 and

opt for an auxillary optical finder for a 28mm lens. The M4-P and the

latest model M6 incorporate 28mm brightlines in the viewfinder. If

your friend wears glasses like me, he or she may find the optical

finder better than the bright lines in the camera. The models from M4

forward have easier film loading and canted rewind cranks. Rapid load

conversion kits offer a small improvement to the removable spool film

load system of the M3 or M2. You can get a slip on crank for the pull

up knurled film rewind knob on the M2 and M3. The M4-2 is possibly

the best value for the money. Pesonally I like the construction of

the older M4. It's purely subjective but the M4 seems sturdier in

use. If using a flash seems probable then know that not all M2 or M3

bodies have modern PC type plugs though for a fee they can be

upgraded. Most of the models after the M4 have a hot shoe as well.

Some workers prefer black bodies. Here you will pay dearly if you opt

for a M4 or earlier because of rarity. For a fee repainting a chrome

body is possible though some would call this heresy. The M4-2 and

later is black at no additional cost. M6 models incorporate state of

the art metering, TTL in latest versions. In practice you can use a

separate hand meter or possibly clip on the MR meter that is designed

to go into the shoe of the M and couple to the shutter speed dial

giving a constant 90 degree (angle of view) measurement of light

(=35mm focal length)as a less elegant but less expensive meter. there

was also an M5, very different in design, being longer than other M

bodies and using a built-in match needle metering system. The CL and

CLE joint effort with Minolta can use some of the Leitz and Leica

lenses. They are shorter than the classic M and load differently.

Both have built in meters. They sometimes sell for less than most M

bodies and might offer an alternative. This is way more than you

wanted to hear I'm sure. Sorry I couldn't be more succinct.

Jeff, Being able to mimic the traditional silver gelatin media's

permanance or look isn't necessarily the point. I don't want to get

off into an aesthetics discussion but, Atget stuck with glass plates

well after films were available and not because he didn't take the

time to learn about newer technologies but by choice or because of

economics. The resulting images are unique, beautiful and viable in

spite of being anachronistic. The silver gelatin negative to silver

gelatin print image has a certain integrity because of it's inherent

peculiarities or even it's relative limitations.

I've shot with Leicas since the late 70's and have a lot of

coventional silver gelatin prints and of course B&W negs. I've only

had a computer for a liitle less than a year. I guess that supports

my belief that I'm a deliberate primitive. My first attempts at

flatbed scans of my prints have been disappointing but I admit my

inexperience deters my getting better results.

I think the photo world is in a transition now and digital outputting

to digital is just around the corner as much because conventional

materials are only going to be around as long as there is a market

for them. If I was just starting out right now I wouldn't invest too

much in old tech even though some relatively great bargains can be

had as folks make the move to digital darkrooms. For as long as I can

get Tri-X I'll keep my wet darkroom. There is a gallery

called "Eyestorm" that handles the work of William Klein and others

and they have been experimenting with inkjet prints on archival paper

stocks to alay any concerns about permanance. Also I've read that the

NY Times and other holders of great photo archives are disposing of

the silver gelatin prints and moving to digital archives. Museums are

marketing those prints as limited edition artifacts. I think that

dichotomy will define the future of B&W photography.

Grant,

You may recall my posts and URL's from streetphoto@topica.com as

well. I don't think we should brow beat folks too much. I use a Nikon

SLR as well as Leica M and find fine qualities in both tools. The

specific experiences discussed here are educational and compliment

the sometimes lofty intellectual photographic aesthetic or

professional experience discussions on other lists. Even though I

acknowledge that economics can create fetishism, I would never

suggest that professsional work is in anyway inherently more

interesting than work by an amateur. Maybe the ideal list would be

one that has "I'm not OK, your not OK as it's central discusssion

topic.

One or two small specks would be negligible in effect. Surface haze

from the break down of the lubricant in an older lens or moisture

could bring down contrast and affect overall performance by adding

flare. The rear element is more critical than the front being closest

to the film plane. An optical bench ( and expertise)is used to

calibrate the alignment of lens elements and I would not attempt the

diasassembly of a modern Leica or other lens. I agree that the 35

summicron starts out with pretty outstanding performance and could be

degraded considerably before becoming a problem.

Extremely cold weather made my mechanical M shutter run lean or

faster than spec because of disparity between the second and first

curtain speeds. In the extreme heat it runs slow. I lost an old clip

on M meter when the delicate needle spring movement shattered do to

thermal shock in extreme cold. Watch out for condensation on and in

Lenses when you go back and forth between warm and cold spaces.

I have read of a problem with early M42 frame counters. It seems the

disc was distorted and could not turn freely and had to be repaired.

I suspect the top will have to come off and hope you are covered by

Warranty. Get a "hands on" expert opinion (or two) from a repair

person knowledgeable about Leica M before contacting Leica.

FYI, a hot soldering tip held close to black "Fimo" clay that has

been pushed into the space above that masthead screw in the Leica M

lens flange, will serve as replacement for missing script "L" or

other seal. The last thing I sent to Leica was back during the (late

80's) signature service days. The serviced camera came back with

plain black parrafin (no logo).

Unknown issues about grounding and the electrical circuitry in

general would make schematics desirable. RPS or Kalt or whoever has

absorbed them made a relatively inexpensive adapter than ran a cord

from the PC to a resin shoe that slid into the real shoe creating a

synchronized hot shoe. Duoflash makes or made extensions with shoes

at each end, perhaps rewirable for for your needs.