christopher_m

<p>Hi Sal,<br>

As mentioned in the l-camera-forum, it is a Leica Standard or Model E from 1940-1942. Unlike l-camera-forum, I can offer an opinion on the value.<br>

If it is in good working order, I would say the camera is worth $200 - $250 in a private party sale.</p>

<ul>

<li>Their use is limited because they don't have a rangefinder (a focusing aid) found on other cameras.</li>

<li>Since they are from Leicas early production years (early 1930s), they aren't quite as collectible.</li>

<li>You have a box in nice condition which is adds value.</li>

<li>The vulcanite (black coating) is off, which isn't that bad of a thing. People sometimes recover them with different skins anyway. <a href="http://www.cameraleather.com/leica_s/index.htm">Cameraleather </a>has some cool products for about $20- $40.</li>

</ul>

<p>What is good working order? The fact that the gears move is nice, but the shutter has to move too and the speeds have to be accurate, and the shutter has to be light tight.</p>

<ul>

<li>Open the camera (at the bottom), slip a piece of white paper behind the shutter. Wind the knob (the one with the numbers) and press the shutter button. Watch the shutter to see if you see the white paper. You can change the shutter speed by lifting the dial and turning it. Set the shutter speed after it is wound.</li>

<li>Don't do test the shutter outside. Strong sunlight can create holes in the shutter. It is made of cloth and can degrade over time.</li>

<li>Since there is no rangefinder or slow speeds (less than 1/20), you don't have to worry about them being broken.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not sure what the photo 016.jpg is of.</p>

<p>John is correct, except that his prices are high<br>

Camera, if in good working order, private sale is about $300. Dealer may charge $400. Good working order includes, shutter that works, accurate shutter speeds (the slow speeds tend to get very inaccurate), visible rangefinder<br>

Lens, if in good working order, private party sale is $350. Good working order means clean of major scratches and haze, smooth working apertures and focus.</p>

<p>I have been very pleased with it. Great skin tones, nice rich color, unnoticeable grain</p>

<p>Off an 50s Rollei with a 75/3.5 Tessar:<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6610439071_7d10245a1a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Yes a good article. The news wires keeps writing cliches about how it "failed to adapt to digital" or "got caught offguard by digitial revolution", which is untrue and the article describes the real reasons. </p>

<p>John's comments are correct as well. Kodak made only crappy cameras, such as the Instamatic. There was no way to go up-market with Kodak.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew Yue is also right about the shutter speed dial and the knob wind. These match the Leotax, not the Leica.<br>

I think your perception that " the top cover, around the shutter speed dial, is perfectly round, but in Leotax is slightly curved" is just a optical illusion based on the angle. There is a chance it is not a Leotax, but there is no chance it is a Leica.<br>

The lack of a serial number is irrelevent, since the engraving of the rest of the top plate is so off. You might also ask why the font is tremendously off. </p>

<p>Perhaps its a slightly different version of the Leotax. From another <a href="00Dr2r">photo.net thread</a>, this Leotax version has strap lugs and slow speed dial. The view finder, shutter release, and cam match yours. Your slow speed dial may have been removed judging by the patched vulcante around the spot where it should have been. <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00D/00DrB0-26060484.jpg" alt="" width="934" height="700" /><br>

The "Leica" engraving is always scripted, never in block lettering. The "Ernst Leitz Wetzlar" is in a different font and down towards the edge. I've never seen a photo of a real Leica like this. Sorry, but I think it is a fake. Below is my Leica IIIa:<br>

<img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6058/6304229103_945a335783_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

 

<p>Interesting, the "Leica" engraving is completely off, but a number of thing are Leica style, not Russian style: The roller cam is a Leica style. The shutter release looks like a Leica with the collar missing. The infinity lock stops where a Leica should.<br>

I think it's fake, but not a fake Russian. I think it is a faked Leotax.</p>

<p> From flickr user UsedCam Man, a Leotax Special IID f<br>

<img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4133/5027127110_f5d0a575de.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="433" /><br>

Another Leotax:<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5237505939_0a31794f55.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="327" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've used an Epson V500 and have been happy with the results.</p>

<p>Yeah, I would second the R3a recommendation. 75mm framelines and aperture priority. 1:1 finder makes focuses at wide apertures easier.</p>

<p>The more information about the working condition you can provide, the more money you get. If you list the camera & lens without accurate discreptions, you would get about $200-$300. Buyer would include risk that the thing is broken. With good descriptions, you could then expect Hoopers pricing, which is about double for the pair.</p>

<p>If you do list them for sale, sell them seperately.</p>

<p>I second Sherry Krauter. She isn't going to be the low cost option, but does a fantastic job in a timely manner.</p>

<p>First question. Which Elmar? There are uncoated and coated Elmars. You'd be able to look up the year from the serial number, and that should tell you a lot. I'd go for a coated lens, btw.</p>

<ul>

<li>Elmar - great lens if you can live with f/3.5. Collaspibility is a big plus. Prewar lenses are uncoated. $150-$300. </li>

<li>Summitar - good lens. Collaspes but perhaps not enough to be useful. Low contrast at f/2. uncommon filter thread. Prewar lenses are uncoated. $175-$250</li>

<li>Summicron - rather expensive. $300 -$450</li>

<li>Summarit - often full of haze and scratches. Very low contrast at f/1.5. $250 - $400</li>

<li>Summar - often full of haze and scratches. Is a bit of a trendy lens now to produce artsy portraists. I think all are uncoated. $100- 250</li>

<li>Nikkor 50/2 - great clone of the Zeiss Sonnar. Most don't have the haze issue that Leitz lenses had. $200-$300</li>

<li>Canon 50/1.8 - good quality lens. improvement over 50/1.9 Serenar. - $150</li>

<li>Canon 50/1.9 - Summitar like style and quality - $125</li>

<li>Voigtlander 50/2.5 - modern compact high contrast lens. </li>

</ul>

<p>Unless you want to add an accessory viewfinder, I'd stick to a 50mm lens</p>

<p>Besides KEH, there are several different outlets, some with better prices. In my wee blog, I made a post which details places to go for used Leicas. <a href="http://photosttl.blogspot.com/2011/01/where-to-buy-used-leicas-and-other.html">Here is the link</a>.</p>

<p>Well you could train with the M4 and then once you run the real marathon, you'll be lighter and have a better go of it. It's like high altitude training.</p>

<p>Seriously, though, I'd leave the M4 and perhaps go with something smaller and lighter. In addition to the Minox, an Olympus XA2 or Rollei 35 comes to mind.</p>

<p>Get a V500 or V700. The scans are awesome and its easy to get a good image. The learning curve is very shallow.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim, I have one of those flat connectors, but it is for the Leitz Synchroblitzer, a flash bulb device. On the other end is a two prong outlet that sticks into the Synchroblitzer. The complaint about the flash plug poking you in the eye is common.</p>

<p>John, the M3 uses a separate flash connection, but the iiiF is a standard pc connection.</p>

 

<p>I would go for a folder as well if you want 6x9. Try a post war Zeiss Nettar or Zeiss Ikonta.. They have coated lenses and the Zeiss products hold up well and the bellows are usually still light tight (as opposed to the Agfa).<br>

Model numbers were 517/2 or 518/2 for the Nettar or 523/2 for the Ikonta. The body is the same, but there is a difference in the lens/shutter combination.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love my Nokton 50/1.5. It's my go to lens. Since I'm usually photographing people, I use the 50mm a lot. It has a high contrast wide open.<br>

I also have a Canon 35/2. I had a Skopar 35/2.5 but f/2.5 was a little slow. The Canon is tiny. These can be a little hard to find but go for around $350.<br>

Nokton 50/1.5 at f/1.5:<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4516228109_9dc84d1677.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Canon 35/2:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3710471881_b94e6b1894.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I think there are two things at play:</p>

<p>1. I think more people are open to the idea of gay unions, as written on paper, but to see a photo of it is another thing. I imagine if you took a poll, "Do you think being gay should be allowed by law" you would get a yes rate of 95%, but if you asked "Would you want to see two gay guys kiss" you would get a yes rate of 10%.</p>

<p>2. It may not be that the people are instantly turned off by your photo, but if a couple is choosing between you and another photographer who has similar quality and price, it could be the deciding factor between you two.</p>

<p>I've noticed TLR prices rising. As Louis said, if people make a transition to film from digital, MF has got the wow factor. TLRs are cheap ways into medium format. Folders are cheap way as well, but many don't have a way to focus.</p>

<p>I had the 21mm f/4 skopar for a while. It's a great lens. I never thought, "I need a wider lens."<br>

However, when travelling, I had the 21 and a 50. The 21 was just a wee bit too wide for a "walkaround" lens. I ended up trading it for a 25/4 skopar.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The inflation calculator says that $1000 in 1977 is eqiuvalent to $3600 today, which is an average of 4% annual inflation. In reality, inflation was about 10%-15% until the early 80s.<br>

Also interesting to see the price differences between the Hasselblad and the Bronica.</p>

<p>If you sell it "as-is", you probably would get about $200 for it. If you figure out how to work it, vouch that it works, vouch that the lens is clean and works smoothly, then you could see about $400.<br>

There are a lot of sales of Leicas from people who "inherited the camera and have no idea whether it works. as-is." The buyer takes a risk that they are buying a broken camera with a fogged lens.<br>

I'm not sure if you even pulled the lens out? The Elmar is a collapsible lens, and doesn't take good pictures when not extended for use.</p>

 

<p>Congrats! I have my grandfather's Leica and I use it regularly.<br>

There is a seperate serial number on the Elmar. It's on the black ring around the front lens element. It's tiny but it's there.<br>

It may be working now. Film loads in the bottom, and loading takes a wee bit of practice. It's a knob wind, so if you turn the knob on the right side (when looking through the viewfinder), it will cock the shutter. Here is a link to the <a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/leica/leica_if_iif_iiif/leica_if_iif_iiif.htm">manual online</a>.</p>

<p>I figure supply would eventually catch up with demand. Now all I need is $7000.</p>

<p>I have the Nokton 50/1.5. It's sharp wide open and it's really my go-to lens. <br>

I've never shot the Sonnar but its reputation is that it is a superb lens for portraits. I would consider the Nokton more of a general purpose lens.<br>

Here are my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris00nj/tags/cvnokton5015/">flickr </a>shots and here are a couple examples:<br>

Kodachrome 64:<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1342/5106449794_7576ec448c.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Fuji 400H:<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/4980903248_b09a0ef5e7.jpg" alt="" /></p>