jorge_diaz

<p> The electrical contact would be implemented partially by the snug fit in the container , not the glue . The flat conductor will have to be press fit to the positive nipple by making a hole that allows to gird it through pressing . From that the flat conductor would be made contact with the side of the can which is negative .The glue just keeps the individual batteries from shaking loose . I imagine that the weak part of this is that in every electrical connection made by just snuggly holding the connections together , as when the battery compartments just have a spring to do it , some minute arcing always takes place . This will eventually make for a resistance build up . It may not be as long lasting as soldering or spot welding it but it can work , I suppose , the same way most battery compartments are still designed . At this point I am just thinking about it . My battery is charging quickly and going down to '7' fast also . It won't be long before I can get only a couple of shots per charge .</p>

<p>Is it really necessary to weld or solder them ? I am thinking some of flat conductors like the originals held in contact with the batteries by gorilla glue or epoxy . Then taped/insulated .</p>

Now I have my honeymoon and the Leica M8 confused and conflated.

I got the gist of the argument. It works. I wish there would be a new technology scanner that would really get the gusto out of film. Perhaps Kodak should work on that and sell it competitively .I'll bet it could save the film industry.

I do not know what is involved in making a better scanner for film. Perhaps using the microscope's lenses and really get down there and check grain by grain.Software could automate the extensive decision making and give you a whopping megapixel equivalent out of good old 35mm film. I do like digital but I already have a heap of digital cameras that stopped working.Switches , displays, dead pixels ,etc.. On the other hand I still use Leicas from the 1930s.Thanks Mauro. Maybe you got the start of a new renaissance for film.

Man oh man this is a long discussion! I won't read it all. I read and skimmed and hopped to get some gist of it.

There's a glow. It almost shows up invariably on Summicron 50 Ms. I believe it is because the lens 'comes together

masterfully' and renders the 'tipical and optimal normal lens shot' with so finely corrected aberrations at that

particular point that gives you the sense of faithfully seeing the actual subject as it is.It is not a Leica Patent.It's just

that Leica works best to get it.A close performer is the nikon 50 1.8.I have some pics with it that look glowish but

something is missing.Tightness.The 'tightness' of correction at that precise point that pokes your neurons to

say "that is the actual thing" and your perception remembers more keenly the real subject because of it and the 3

dimensionality and glow of life remarkably get recorded.A face shot shows the sides of the face in the same focus

resolution as the nose with negligible distortion if any.It's a sweet spot.Another pic of some other situation with the

lens may not show 'the glow'.The nikon 50 1.8 is a reckoning by nikon that this is the case

but to get each of those lenses tight enough to have a competent glow will put the price up there with Leica's.So they

let it go at close enough ,hit or miss.Another case of a fine lens is the Contax G normal 45 planar.The colors are

superb but the look is 45mm.It is off tightness by those 5mm.Close but no glow even though the color rendering is

often superior to Leica's warmer one.Those 5mm toward telephoto make the Cron50 more intimate.The 45 is more

social.

There is glow and it is a remarkable feat of engineering and a spot that Leica may know how to get better than the

rest.

I have the e510.Recent purchase.Kit lens is nice but barrels like a kaleisdoscope at the tele end.I'm being facetious

and exagerated due to shock from what it was a romance with the lens which is otherwise awesome but barrel it

does.A lot. I read the review posted comparing it to the 14-50mmVE and wonder if I got stuck with a bad kit lens or

they just didn't go to the 42mm end of the kit lens.It's atrocious.It's the worst barreling lens I have and I have lots.But

it is only at the extreme tele end.After all it is a kit lens and it already is the best of the kit lenses I've seen.

Now is the VE14-50mm this bad at its tele end?How about the 14-54mm? Does the 14-54mm really beat the Leica

14.-50?

I have the e510.Recent purchase.Kit lens is nice but barrels like a kaleisdoscope at the tele end.I'm being facetious and exagerated due to shock from what it was a romance with the lens which is otherwise awesome but barrel it does.A lot. I read the review posted comparing it to the 14-50mmVE and wonder if I got stuck with a bad kit lens or they just didn't go to the 42mm end of the kit lens.It's atrocious.It's the worst barreling lens I have and I have lots.But it is only at the extreme tele end.After all it is a kit lens and it already is the best of the kit lens I've seen.

Now is the VE14-50mm this bad at its tele end?How about the 14-54mm? Does the 14-54mm really beat the Leica 14.-50?

Hey! I always wanted to cover New York skyscraper with single pics of my baby daughter but the cameras were not

up to task and building owners wanted sooo much money for it.

Hmm Looking at my cristal ball I see a digital CL for $1500 restoring the brand to the masses .

Seems to me that the portrait lens was called such because the formula rendered portraits with minimal distortion.There's a distortion associated with focal length.Try to get a portrait with a 21mm and the point is made dramatically.Even if it is a top 21mm.Distortion of this sort diminish as the focal length increases.At around 50 mm you get "normal'' perspective for you average picture taking on the 35mm film frame.It remains true whether you use DX or whatever size that the manufacturer places at the same distance to the lens so you can use your 35mm intended glass collection.It does not turn a 50 into a 75 or whatever .It remains a cropped up 50mm perspective.You still have to shoot it like you would a 50.A portrait lens usually allows you to get intimately isolating.With the shallow depth of field and the facial proportions undistorted it will fill a frame with your mug beautifully.You can do portraiture with a 50mm but the facial proportions will have an elongated distortion however mild.Pardon me if wrong and if repeating what already has been stated.I did not have the time to read all posts.

My m8 is still working.I still like it very much.I still feel sorry for the material M.Kamber lost. I bought it refurbished for much less than the price quoted.Still it was the highest price I have payed for a camera and the point of decision was that I had collected plenty glass that could be used on it.I had read the controversy with the DMR and the many 'comparos' with the other options one could choose for a camera at that price .One of the experiences I liked the most was shooting candids with Barnack cameras and then the Ms . So there. I like the niche. It was a bit of a gamble. Is Leica going to be able to surmount its difficulties into a satisfactory product.I feel and hope they will if it hasn't already happened .Comparing Leica's R+D power to Mighty Canon's is unrealistic.In the meantime I am enjoying my M8.I am not a rich man.Buying the M8 occured when I tried to treat myself for being such a nice fellow who is not a pro hanging his reputation on the thing. I feel as sorry for M.Kamber's lost work like I do for Frank Capa's lost D-Day shots.I do have a background in electronics and know that those 'designer chips' sometimes come in bad batches that the supplier corrects after some run by trial and error.Can it happen to anybody?Absolutely.Have you thought about the possibility that your favorite other camera goes through a massive die-out after some time in the market due to some inherent flaw of design somewhere? I harbor no animosity one way or the other for any manufacturer.I have had disappointments with brands now disappeared that I wish were still around to offer service for their unintentionally failed products.Such is life.

Wow! What a burst of energy this discussion ! I have an M8 and it failed on 3 things(shutter,rangefinder display and flash recognition.).Went back to Leica NJ.They kept it for 4 months(I told them to take their time sensing 'new product development learning curve problems') and they swapped circuit boards for newer revised ones.I have had it for about 1 1/2 months and so far excellent. I had a Canon xt that was stolen but shot enough pics to notice that Canon had winner tech.I imagine if the 5D is anything like it not to talk about better then it must be a winner too.Other than that my digi SLR experience is a Fuji S2 pro and a Kodak 14n pro.Great photo machines.

The M8 is super! I have not had the problems M.Kamber had and have no doubt about them being bona fide beef.Leica's behavior may feel

a tad tacky on not telling him about the difficulties but it may be due to them also not figuring out that in his business the camera would be out of place.Also to avoid 'unnecesary panic stampeding'.At these prices they are easily formed.

After reading the piece I started shooting same scenes in rapid succesion and always the color processing was consistent.If Leica could offer a change of 'skin' with the problems M.Kamber pointed out corrected(it shouldn't be too difficult) it could honor their pledge to keep up the development of the product.I for one think it is worth it but I bought Leica glass way back before the dollar fell against the euro and prices were,if high,not unreasonably so.Prime glass is expensive no matter what the label.

I have an ArtixScan M1 and it is good for a non dedicated film scanner.Of course the negative has to be good too.It can't get what's not in the negative.It gets a little bit less of what's in the negative.There's always some loss.The loss part maybe in part due to skill or lack of it .I'm still new to scanning.

I bought an Osawa 70-210 Mark II that surprised me.I own pretty good zooms from Leica and Nikon.Also some others that are on a 'if there's nothing else around basis so I have some education on zoom lens performance.This lens I tried along with a CZ 28-70 C/Y mount.

I forgot to make a list of which frame was with which lens and it came to my surprise I could not tell which of the 70mm (the one focus length in common)shots belonged to which lens.I suspect the Osawa to be the softer i.e. less contrasty frame.Both were pretty shots nonetheless.It came along one of those estate liquidation packages one runs into at ebay at times so there was not a direct value sought for it.But it came to way less than $100.00 if one would like to speculate a breakdown of the final auction winning bid.

Oh gosh darnit! I was soooo happy with the M8 I just bought refurbished for about a grand less... I hope Leica does last at least till my social security checks start coming in.

I have both 135's (the goggled and the pre apo).The pre apo is a surprisingly sharp and well corrected lens.But it's f4 at its widest.If you are doing portraiture you can work around it somehow but 'candid shots' that would've been nicer with shallow focus(bokeh?)

are not within easy framing.

Enter the 2.8 bespectacled one... .This is where the lens shines.You can put people or objects in a rapidly blurring context that spares the framing eye from worrying too much for capturing less than alluring texture of background.

I bought it cheaply.Some $200.00(nobody bid higher from an 'antique'

outfit!)and the goggles were somewhat foggy.Engaged as I'm prone to ,in cleaning them myself it took me to reach at the top of my brain power to come up with a way to get it to focus with something close enough to precision once the cleaning of the parts was done.It helped that I had shot a roll with the dirty goggles to come up with

something close to precleaning accuracy.It was not easy.It took several attempts through carefully planned shots with recorded settings to finally figure out satisfying accuracy.It was worth it!

Even though my black.85m6ttl looks like some contraption designed to inflict pain and fear with it(in an attractive sort of way)I do carry it while on the candid hunt.It does compel curiosity,even in kids who relate it to some transformer toy or something alike.The only problem I had with it is that the darned lens cap was made out of stamped aluminum and no felt inside for snug fit.It disappeared one day and I'm still looking for a replacement.If anyone out there is willing to part with their 'extras' or dropsies please email me.

It's about 63mm inside diameter.The lens is of Canadian origin.

Having read plenty of not very good stuff about these 'cheaper'zooms from Leica I stayed away from them.I bought only when I could get them really cheap.I got a first gen.(and supposedly Sigma formula tweaked by Leica but still Sigma built)35-70VE and it had plenty use on it and was loose and somewhat foggy inside.Being cheap I took a chance to tear it down and clean it myself.Put back together and it seemed better through the viewfinder.I took it for a few shots along with some primes on the same roll.I lost account of which shots were done with what and could not tell by their quality in the prints either.Still the lens was loose due to excessive wear but taking great casual shots.Of course being slow lenses the depth of field is rather large.Not much margin to toy with that like in the primes.

Next I bought the 21-35 and I find it stunningly sharp,good distortion control and flare and glare control too.

Next I bid on a 28-70mm on ebay and got it for very little money .It was the final nail in the coffin of the bad reputation of these lenses.It is a fine performer.Could it be that maybe there is not really good qc at the alternate factories for some of these(and it's seems to be more true for the first gens. of the 80's)batches?The performance is not far from the 21-35mm for which I payed around the typical price.I haven't even looked hard for distortion because the pics make the task pointless.The texture and color are so nice you just stop looking .Isn't that the point of it? A balance that makes the lens enjoyable if not stunning?Anyway one thing I noticed is that the screw-in hood and the front cover form a dust tight seal.The lens keeps clean longer.

Here's some feedback for QC purposes.My monitor(lcd on a compaq presario v4025)shows the first set of jpegs foggy,like there was some light dust storm passing from the Sahara.I came here on my way to find about the Ultron 40/2 nikon mt.I remember my Contax G planar 45 as a mind blowing performer.While the nikon 50mm/1.8 is sweet enough in design it seems that QC maybe getting crapshoot.It seems that the Zeiss lenses are just put together better (centering etc.)hence a steeper price.Is it possible to hit Nikon jackpot and find a Zeiss buster in the lower prices?Maybe.

I use a cheap slave flash with my fuji s2 pro and it is just a matter of 'calibration' to get the nice pic.I explain: The cheap slave is a "Quantaray ms-1"(I think I paid around $20.00new)It is a light triggered job.It has a translucent bubble atop that houses a sensor.It comes with a base that you can mount on a tripod or stand alone.Initially since I shoot digital,I can calibrate a few test shots.Calibration for me is usually attenuation with the flash exposure values on my fuji s2 and or move the little slave around to get the most pleasing effect.It works fine!The little cheapie takes care of the shadows that the master makes.Hope this may help somebody.

I just got my first f100 and find it too awesome to put down.I got it for a similar price.A camera like this should be experienced by anybody seriously pursuing the key images of our time.The fit and feel of the camera is stunning.It invites its use.It invites awareness of the possibilities furnished by its technology.Perhaps the flip side of the stampede into digital is that this wonderful work horses of film are being practically given away.As for the end of production of film- my hunch is there's always going to be somebody on earth producing film.It is not that hard and there seems to be money to be made albeit probably to a smaller scale.I just hope that if Kodak and Fuji kill their film productions that they be nice enough to share their arcanes of their current wonderful productions with the world.

It happened to me a few times... I usually set it to B and it would shut.I replaced the batteries and it would solve the problem for a while.Later I read from 'Pop photo' that it does matter to use the silver batteries and good ones at that.The alkalines do not have the correct type of 'juice flow' falling too fast for the OM2's electromechanicals complete their 'work'or even having too much and keeping things too charged-up and therefore getting stuck halfway the normal cycle.I haven't used my OM2 for a while but don't remember having the problem after that.

try micro tools vacaville ca.

The CM is so much more than a better lens over the minilux...Shutter is 2x faster.You can store special settings in memory and have the Metz sca flash possibilities to name a few things that are better.

The instruction manual is huge by comparison.But just take the better lens....better lens than the minilux's?!!!The minilux's lens gives me

worries that it is better than the M's anything for which I have payed so much money... and this lens is better?!!

Just being able to use 1600 iso film and higher without worries that it will be too fast for the exposure capabilities is worth the money.The autofocus capabilities are uncanny....on both cameras... period.

It's (R3) a good camera.The talk of Minolta cloning is overstated.There is one problem with the R3(my R3).The asa setting often needs to be exercised to give you accurate metering.That is probably due to lack of cleaning of some copper switch or resistive slide of some sort.The telltale is that it will give you a metering value that is less than the expected for the film speed.In that case you turn the asa wheel back and forth 2-3 times and that has always restored the metering accuracy.And what a meter this thing has!!!!It inherited the power meter of the SL2!I am not using it as much these days as I bought an R7 cream puff .Going back to it feels relatively relaxed as I don't care where I tote it to.Hardly a soul knows what it is or cares.I love the heft,solid feel and the robustness of discrete old time electronics and solid mechanicals.The seiko shutter will seem to go on forever.And if it doesn't I'll miss it more for the experience than for the value lost.It's one of the most underrated Leicas.

I've had an sl66 for about 2 months.Used ,of course.Very old too.No meters etc...I have run all kinds of film.Slides,BW etc.. I have not had any of the problems I read about yet.None.

I did get the manual that warns of not tensioning the shutter before

loading...I failed to do that once and got a blank roll of film as a result.Not a failed first frame.No frames.It happened only once.I make sure I tension the shutter and it has been working wicked good.

Love the viewfinder.I wear glasses and can take them off when focusing and the view is better than with my eyeglasses .Much better.I wish my glasses were this good.