robert_fleischman

I saw a CL on consignment with 40mm Leitz Wetzlar, for $800. The meter seems intermittent. Assuming the dealer has it repaired first, does this sound like an OK deal on an OK camera? I might like it when I don't feel like carrying my M2 or M6. Does it sound like the meter will be an ongoing problem?

Andre, the single most important thing to know is that they come in at least two grades. The lighter and lower cost ones are OK for the X-ray units used on carry-on baggage. They are not OK for checked baggage, which may be subjected to megadose X-rays at some airports. I bought a bag that holds about 20 35mm rolls (removed from the boxes) and my film survived just fine after at least four doses. It cost about $35 in a camera store. If I can figure out where I put it, I will post the brand name. I would avoid the cheap $10 models from discount stores. There are others capable of withstanding the megadoses that checked baggage can be exposed to, but they cost more.

Andy, you can estimate the 35mm lens equivalent to any 6x7 focal length, simply by taking half of the 6x7 focal length. thus the 105mm Takumar is equivalent to a 52 1/2 mm, or roughly normal, lens, for 35mm format. The 90mm Takumar would be equivalent to a 45mm lens, which actually is more "normal" in terms of matching the film diagonal. Having used the 105, I can tell you it is very sharp!

 

The basic Pentax 6 x 7 is really quite good. About the only complaint I had was that when the battery dies, it will probably do so in the middle of taking a picture. The mirror hangs up in mid-swing, KAPUT! You lose the picture and the frame. Maybe they've improved this in the current model. Even with that, it's a good camera to start with. In other respects, they are easy to handle, aside from the weight. Just like a 35, only bigger.

I use my 50mm CF for landscape and cityscape shots. When shooting

structures like bridges with fine detail, I find the lens is very

sharp in the central region, becoming best around f/8. However, the

corners remain visibly soft until I have stopped down to around 11

and a half to 16. f/22 gives no further improvement.

 

The 50mm FLE is said to be better at medium and close focus because

of the adjustable floating elements. My question: does the FLE give

corner to corner sharpness that is improved over the 50CF at focus

distances close to infinity? Does it achieve corner to corner

sharpness at a wider aperture than the 50CF?

I have the 50mm CF. The lens is basically sharp, but to extend the sharpness to the edges, I have to stop down to f/11. To be sharp into the corners, I need 11 and a half to 16. 22 offers no additional advantage. This is for infinity focus. The central sharpness starts to deteriorate, though, stopping down smaller than f/8. I would be interested to know whether the FLE performs any better at infinity than the 50 CF. Any comments?

John, Iv'e never been disappointed with the focus on my SWC. The depth of field is so great, that if you just use the DOF scale in conjuction with a little judgment about estimating distances, you won't go wrong. I love mine. Buy it.

 

Regards, Bob

Tony, what is this about? DO= Depth Of (field)? That's what the

diagram indicates. Are you asking a question? Or is this an answer

to a question. What's gif? general illumination field? goodies in

focus?

 

<p>

 

Bob

David, the "whiting out" thing with the M6 is not to be taken

lightly. Being used to my M2, it's frustrating as hell to not be

able to focus in the presence of backlight. It is the reason that an

M7 is needed--aproblem yet to be solved. I am sorry I sold my M3,

and glad I still have my M2.

Al, when I was 12 I started using my dad's black-paint Leica model D,

also know as the Leica II. I seem to remember the lowest couple of

shutter speeds were 1/20 and 1/40, or something like that. 50mm

uncoated elmar. One day he left it in the car for a few seconds and

someone stole it. The insurance company bought him a IIIf, red-dial

I think. I used it until I was about 20, when I bought my own M2. I

never experienced the model D or IIIf as hard to load. It was what I

had. I loaded it. It worked. At 14 I shot a picture of Sharon, the

most beautiful girl I had ever seen, from my seat next to her in

biology class. Only took a second, nobody noticed. I wish I had this

camera back. (serial #685475) Also used it to photograph my Air

Force friends for several years. It is a very handy camera, but

lacks a built-in meter, of course. When my dad started letting me

use it, I think the speed of Kodachrome was 8. I think the basic

daylight exposure was 1/50 at 6.3, if memory serves. We had a Weston

meter, in case it was needed.

 

<p>

 

Unless you do flash photography, you wouldn't have to have a IIIf. I

always sort of liked the IIIc. I don't think it has flash sync (who

needs it?) But it is improved over previous models: die-cast frame,

one-piece top cover. I don't remember with which model they added

the ball bearings.

 

<p>

 

I think I would go with the 50mm collapsible Summicron. It was

available in thread mount. After all it has always been the world

standard.

 

<p>

 

There is a question in my mind about whether one would be better off

with an old Leica, or a a modern compact. I am a little partial to

the Olympus Stylus. My girl friend, a philosopher, came back from a

philosophy convention in Russia with great shots of the Kremlin, and

shots of Doestoyevsky's home in (I think) St. Petersburg, as well as

some relatives in the Ukraine, all done with her Stylus. But I

digress. I have also been hankering after a screw-mount Leica. So,

let us know what you decide!

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Bob

Jim, there's another thread on this, posted by Joe Buechler. Also,

someone (but I can't find the thread) posted a similar item on

another small part, and the responses were to the effect that Leica

mails them to you free, and you glue them on. Me, I haven't lost one

yet. Guess I'm not using my Leicas enough.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Jim, I'm with Keith. I checked my 50 Summicron and found with the

lens focused to 10 meters, at f/8 everything from 5 yards to infinity

will be in acceptably sharp focus. Fire away!

 

<p>

 

Regards,

I've tried a few, but they all have problems. Either you can't search through them by subject, or else you can't interact on them (like the ListQuest archive). The Majordomo things seem to require a PhD. in computer science to figure out!

 

<p>

 

Any suggestions?

David, If you get anything wider than a 28mm, you will probably

experience a sort of "hole in the middle," or gap, between it and

your 50. then you would feel the need to fill in the gap with

another wideangle lens. I feel that 24-35-50 makes a good

progression. And 24mm is wide enough so as to seldom need anything

wider. I agree with everyone who gave high marks to the 35mm

Summaron.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

I looked at the website Al Smith cited (I should have done this in

the first place). The lens has 6 elements in 4 groups. If you have

access to the Leica M Compendium, take a look at the 35mm Summicron

on page 51. Now, take away the thin lens just to the right of the

diaphragm, and the remaining components, I feel pretty sure, would

bear a close resemblence to the 40mm Summicron.

 

<p>

 

That's the best I can do. Hope it helps.

A point to note here is that schematics published over the years, in

several books, such as The Leica Compendium, or the Leica Manual, or

Photgraphic Optics by Cox, show that the 50mm Summicron doesn't even

resemble itself too closely in its various versions. For this reason

it might be difficult to divine much about the 40mm, or how it

compares to other Summicrons. I should imagine it probably is a

gaussian design, with a pair of cemented groups, each having a deeply

concave surface facing each other from opposite sides of the

diaphragm; possibly a thin lens airspaced and interposed between one

or both of those concave surfaces, and the diaphragm; and single

element positive components for the front and rear elements. This is

the basic setup of the 35mm Summicron of the time period. But, then

again, the 90mm Summicron doesn't adhere to this type of formula, and

this too makes me question how much we can figure out by examining

the schematic. Why not ask some users to comment on the performance

of the 40? I think it's supposed to be good, but I've not used one.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

This actually depends on your vision, not the camera. If you have

20/20 vision, or better (some people do) you do not need a diopter

correction. If you wear glasses, and the optometrist gave you a copy

of the prescription, look at the entry under "spherical" for your

dominant eye (the one you look through the camera with). If you are

right-eyed, look at the figure for "O.D." which means "right eye."

It might say something like, '-1.5" or "-3.0" if you are nearsighted,

or maybe +2.5 or so if farsighted. this is your diopter correction.

It may also have an entry under "cylinder" such as "-1.0 at 100

degrees" and this is your astigmatism correction, which could be

included in a custom ground corrective lens.

Steve, according to The Source Book: Kodak Ektagraphic Slide

Projectors, Eastman Kodak Co., 1984,

"For most viewing purposes, pictorial slides made on properly

processed Kodak color films will be acceptable through 3 to 4 hours

of total projection time. This is true when the slides are used in

an EKTAGRAPHIC III or EKTAGRAPHIC slide projector that is equipped

with a tungsten-filament lamp and had unrestricted air circulation,

even if the projector is operated with the power-selector switch set

at HIGH." (p.154).

 

<p>

 

But, this is only a generalization, because slide life is roughly

proportional to light intensity. It is difficult to give an exact

figure, because "there are too many variables, such as proper

processing, adequate projector ventilation, ambient temperature, and

so on. However, the film types . . . does not make a significant

difference . . ."(p.153)

 

<p>

 

And note: > ". . . [slides] will change somewhat less if projected

continuously for a given time rather than intermittently until the

same projection time is reached." (p.154).

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

Just as a pure guess, it might be that they didn't include a 24mm

frame on the .58 model because maybe the 24mm lens, with hood, cuts

off too much of the right side of the viewfinder to be useful. I

can't think of anything else to explain this omission.

Wladimir, I had a camera, about 1952 or so, that used 35mm film

guage, but with sprocket holes only on one side, as you suggest. I

believe the film size was 626, if memory serves. I think it was a

Kodak Pony.

 

<p>

 

Now, as long as we're all being amateur camera designers, how about

this: 20th Century Fox once developed a deluxe version of

Cinemascope (anamorphic widescreen process) which used 55mm film,

supplied by Kodak. How about a Leica-type camera in this guage,

using approximately a 44 x 54mm image size? Same idea as the Mamiya

6x7, but in a 645 format with horizontally travelling film so the

camera would retain Leica-type ergonomics.

My favorite is: M6 with 50mm 0r 35mm lens, Fast film (e.g. Tri-X),

and available light. With some good daylight coming from a nearby

window, I have my best chance of getting a natural shot with a

gentle, non-harsh light. Enough light on the eyes is really

important. Flash looks plastic and artificial to me. I don't think

Eisenstadt used a flash for his picture of Albert Einstein.

 

<p>

 

Just my thoughts on the subject

I think Michael's comments about the difficulties of scanning pushed

film apply equally well to printing. Extending the development time,

in an effort to increase negative density, leads to blocked up

highlights which reduce the printability of the negative. Pushing

Provia 100 leads to higher contrast and inky-black shadows.

 

<p>

 

So, what of Kodak's claim that T-Max films are easily pushed, for

example in T-Max developer? I think one gets away with it a little

better, with T-Max, because of its very good shadow speed. I can

readily see that T-Max really does have more shadow detail than, say,

FP-4, to name one where I've made this comparison. Kodak even

recommends a normal development time when "pushing" (underexposing) T-

Max by one stop. Even so, you don't get as much shadow detail as if

you had not pushed. But the loss is minimal at one stop under. Only

thing is, T-Max tends to be a bit flat, IMHO, in many developers,

including T-Max developer.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Ron, I have both the collapsible 50 and the Summicron-M. The latter

is not the current version, it's the one with the focusing tab. I am

hard pressed to see a difference in sharpness between them. Small

architectural details look about the same when comparing at the same

aperture. I limited my test to f2, 2.8, 4, and 5.6, so as to keep

the shutter speeds high with Velvia and Technical Pan. Now, when it

comes to contrast, the M is contrastier. Shadows are darker, not

filled with diffused stray light. So, I guess the question is, if I

can barely tell the oldest from the latest, how much difference can

there be between the oldest and the second-oldest?

 

<p>

 

Just something to ponder . . .

 

<p>

 

Regards,

OK, how about $75 for a hood for the 35mm Summilux? I wanted it . . .

NHP, let me jump in here one more time. It sounds like you want to

do what Henri Cartier-Bresson did, capturing "the decisive moment."

He used a Leica, you know. I don't believe his lenses were anything

too fancy. Probably 35mm and 50mm lenses available at the time.

Maybe Elmar, maybe Summar, Summaron, who knows. He learned to use

them to meet his objectives.

 

<p>

 

Now consider the Life Magazine photographer, Alfred Eisenstadt. You

know, the one who took the picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in

Times Square. Another Leica man. "Eisie" said that whenever he felt

tempted to buy something, he always asked himself whether it would

really improve his photograpy. Usually the answer was "no" and he

didn't buy it. He said he couldn't justify a new Gadget bag for that

reason. Eisie talked, not about Leicas, but about the importance of

developing a rapport with his subjects.

 

<p>

 

Let's move on to W. Eugene Smith. He shot mostly with cameras

borrowed from friends. Nothing fancy. Yashicas and stuff. The

country doctor. The two kids walking down the tree-lined path. The

death of Gus-Gus. According to the latest issue of Aperture, you can

get five prints of Smith's work in a nice little cloth-lined box, for

only $1500.00.

 

<p>

 

Now imagine the following scenario. A painter goes to Claude Renoir,

and asks him whether he should trade in his 35mm Sable brush for a

35mm camel's hair; or whether a 28mm or 50mm brush will make him a

better, more famous painter. What do you think the master will say?

 

<p>

 

A driver in New York City rolls down his window, and yells to a cab

driver: HOW DO YOU GET TO CARNEGIE HALL? The cabbie yells

back, "PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE!

 

<p>

 

Best Wishes,

 

<p>

 

Bob

Yep. That's about it. Two frames to be conservative. One frame if

you like living on the edge and pushing the edge of the envelope.

 

<p>

 

regards,

 

<p>

 

Bob F.