Johnny Martyr

Here's one for pre-IIIg Barnacks:

https://petapixel.com/2024/04/01/a-new-quick-load-spool-for-barnack-leica-and-similar-cameras/

Another point about FISON is versions. Not only are there the chrome and black but there appear to be at least five variants of black paint FISONS.

 

One version without the thumbscrew, just a push-on. It's made of all brass.

 

Then the versions with the thumbscrew are made either of all brass, all aluminum or brass and aluminum. The brass clamp ring and aluminum barrel FISON seems to be the most common. The all aluminum copy is inscribed New York and 50mm instead of 5cm. The inscription is also on the clamp ring, not the barrel like all other variants.

 

Finally, there is a super rare black crinkle paint version. This version also has a nickel coated thumbscrew whereas the other variants have chrome plated thumbscrews.

 

My copy is the brass/aluminium version with the chrome thumbscrew. All the versions are currently represented on eBay.

Glad you gentlemen seem to find the cosmetics of the black FISON agreeable on my black and nickel body/lens. It took about six months of hunting for the black FISON to turn up in good condition and a fair price. The brushed chrome ones are much more common and I'm sure look quite fine with chrome or black and chrome bodies/lenses but I needed that black paint!

 

But more importantly, with plenty of film shot through it, I'm happy to report that the FISON works very well with the uncoated Summar. So much so that, I have a hard time understanding why Leica designed such a large hood for this lens originally. Mathematically, I'm sure a large hood makes sense at full aperture but I really haven't noticed, in real world use, any distracting vignetting at full aperture with this hood. Meaning, yes, in conditions at full aperture with bright corners of the scene, there may be slight vignetting but the lens without the hood would probably be doing this too. And it seems to help with flare protection as intended as well. I have been successful with shooting in bright sun at 100 ISO, with no or minimal flaring.

 

As noted previously, there is little finder blockage and the correct 36mm cap can fit onto the hood and protect ones shutter easily. That thumbscrew, I keep pointing down instead of at the side as is designed. Unlike XOONS for my 5cm 1.5 Summarit, the FISON hits a stop when pushing it onto the front ring of the lens. This gives a definitive placement of the hood. So I'm not sliding it back and forth to get it to fit well, as I do with the XOONS.

 

And yeah, that's about all I can think of that might be useful to mention. FISON for Summar for the win!

Really inspiring to hear about all these beautiful pre-war cameras and lenses still in use! Seems like there's even more interest than in 2002 when this thread was started.

 

It's been about two years since purchase and I'm still enjoying my 21xxx 1930 I/III and nickel Summar. I rotate using a 5cm finder or Voigtlander VCII meter in the accessory shoe. Sometimes also a Thumbs Up grip. I've tracked down a good repro chrome collar of the shutter release, which I was missing. And I keep a black FISON hood on the Summar for a little front element and flare protection without adding too much additional size to the rig. I feel comfortable using this camera alongside my more modern Leica and Nikon bodies for important shoots but mostly I just carry it with me for casual snaps. It's about time to have the Summar cleaned as my regular use of it seems to have freed up its lubricants and it's glowing more now than when first purchased. Other than that, still going strong!

 

Kodak has deployed a new coating on their 120 backing paper to combat the aforementioned concerns.

 

120 Film - Kodak Uses New Backing Paper - The Film Photography Project

Based on Soeren's 7 year old advice and excellent photo, I just yesterday picked up a nice black FISON for my nickel Summar.

 

The larger hoods may be more effective at preventing flare but the tiny FISON is only slightly visible in the finder and doesn't add much size to the camera as a whole. Maintaining a diminutive form factor is a critical element of the beauty of Leica cameras.

 

My copy of the FISON fits and locks easily and securely to the Summar lens, though as Rick mentions with the FIKUS, the engraved black paint-filled dot aperture indicator is obstructed when the hood is slid tightly into place. I don't see this as a bother though because the Summar also features a small protruding metal tab opposite the dot which also serves to indicate the selected aperture. This is not obstructed in any way by the hood.

 

One potential issue is that when the FISON is installed such that the Leitz engraved script is facing up, the thumbscrew is on the side of the lens at about where I am accustomed to holding the aperture ring for adjustment. The simple solution is to rotate the hood so that the thumbscrew is facing down and not interfering with aperture adjustment, however, its interference is slight and probably not cause for alarm.

 

Another point that I love about the FISON is that its front diameter matches that of the lens. What this means is that one can use the correct Summar lenscap on the FISON hood. Cosina Voigtlander lenses usually come with a lenscap that fits onto the hood also. I like this setup because the hood can live on the lens permanently and the cap will be used more often as it's easier to add and remove.

 

I have yet to process any film from this setup but am expecting it to be favorable. Many thanks to Soeren for his perfect recommendation!

Old thread but I stumbled across this and wanted to contribute! I'm currently using a 1930 I/III conversion near daily. It's SN is a very low 21xxx. Factory black paint with plenty of brass peaking through. Nickel, not chrome controls with matching Summar. It's an inspiring camera to shoot with! Glad to see so many oldies are were in use in 2002! How about now?

<p>Thanks for the positive feedback stuart!</p>

<p>Lex is correct, I do not push my XP2 at all. It doesn't need to be pushed. What Lex is incorrect about is that I'm "digging out the thin image and adjusting in Photoshop." While the negs are thin, nothing more than simple levels adjustment is required to get the images where I want them to be. There is, when properly done, however, PLENTY of image on the negative. I am not "force[ing[ XP2 Super to do something beyond its range" by any means. <br /><br />XP2 as well as Kodak Portra 400 do not require pushing when rated at 1600 and exposed in fairly contrasty lighting. I've found that shooting in flat/muddy light makes the negatives too thin and you start to see digital noise replacing the grain. In contrasty light however, you get negatives that are as robust as high speed film and, when exposure, processing and scanning are done optimally, there is no digital noise replacing the grain.<br>

To be clear, I have processed over-rated XP2 at numerous consumer grade and professional labs and have also used their scans. In the case cited, I rescanned at home because I was not happy with the lab's work. I am mentioning all this to point out that there was no special work done to get the results. These films are just rich in latitude and they over-rate perfectly well on their own!<br /><br />"I'm not sure I see the point"--The point is that XP2 is much finer grained than TMAX, Tri-X and HP5 in most developers due to it being an ink cloud film. Beyond grain, this film has much richer contrast when over-rated or pushed than the traditional b&w films. XP2 just looks different. You may or may not like it but if you do, there it is! Also, this is a great way to reach high ISO's without the added expense of using a pro lab and paying them per stop to push or processing at home. Is this method for everyone or every job? No. Is it another arrow in your quiver? YES! <br>

</p>

<p>I'm really surprised by the negative comments people are leaving about the Pentax 50mm 1.2. I have used all the 50mm smc-m (the 50/1.2 is technically just smc in my case, I have not handled the A) and the 50mm 1.2 is hands down the strongest performer and well worth the money, particularly when one considers the cost of 50mm 1.2 Canon or Nikon lenses. <br /> In terms of sharpness wide open, the 1.2 won't beat the 1.7 or f2 but it is no slouch either. It's pretty much impossible to build a lens that's as sharp at 1.2, or even 1.4 as an f2 lens. If you are looking for maximum sharpness, wide open is not where you want to be on 90% of all lenses anyway so I'm not really sure why that would get such weighty consideration. If you want to talk sharpness, the 1.2 stopped down is the clearest piece of Pentax glass I've ever seen and draws more similarly to pro level Nikons but with a little more character.<br /> Size and weight? The 1.2 is a bit of a beast and even requires a 52mm instead of 49mm filter thread. Mounting it to my ME Super reminds me just how small the M Series are. But it's not annoyingly heavy or big and is certainly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 50mm 1.2. It's also not THAT much heavier than the Pentax SMC-M 50mm 1.4 yet I find the 1.2's performance at all apertures markedly superior. If you want the fastest compact Pentax 50 manual K-mount, the 1.7 comes out on top. 1.2's are big lenses. As with wide open sharpness, this just comes with the territory. And personally, I never saw weight as a bad thing when it comes to quality camera/lens construction (which is partly why I am not interested in digital cameras.)<br /> While it is only a fraction of a stop brighter than the 1.4 or 1.7, I find it really brightens up my viewfinders too, making focusing much more easy and accurate. While nailing focus at 1.2 and a close distance can be tricky, even with my poor eyes I am here to report that it's very much possible, particularly with a split screen. <br /> Here are some of my favourite shots with the 1.2:<br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2607/4155964839_9c764b6381_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/3040319322_c68e135440_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4460443977_36c84f0d6a_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p>An album containing the larger versions and more can be found here:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnymartyr/sets/72157624418603520/with/4155964839/</p>

<p>i have an R2 and enjoy the camera very thoroughly but am impressed with the additions the newer models bring. </p>

<p>i wanted to post here to clear up some overly simplistic statements about the a or m question.</p>

<p>electronic shutters are certainly not more durable than mechanical ones. mechanical shutters have been creating images for over a hundred years and are plenty rugged and a thousand tymes more repairable than electronic shutters.<br>

electronic shutters are usually stepless though. meaning that if proper exposure is in less than a stop, the shutter will give you that exact speed such as 1/100th whereas mechanical shutters only work by full stops. this shouldn't bother anyone with print film but might be an issue for slide film shooters or those who are just looking to stop down on the lens that little bit more.<br>

while i usually pair my camera systems up with both one fully manual and one auto/manual shutter, i think the fully manual is my first choice. cheaper, more durable and keeps me on my feet! <br>

i also happen to think cosina's electronics are not the hottest thing and don't regard them with much trust. </p>

<p>i have handled a number of ql17's that have both reluctant aperture blades and non-firing or erratic firing shutters--these seem to be their most common issues. </p>

<p>the shutter not working could be dried lubricants as stated but more commonly what i see is that repair has been attempted to free up the aperture blades and the lens was not remounted properly during disassembly. this is very easy to do as the compact lens assembly is very delicate and each part needs to be rotated to fit at precise degree. the cocking mechanism cannot engage and this essentially locks the shutter. i really don't recall the details of correcting this as i decided these cameras are too complicated for my liking and passed a project one to a friend.</p>

<p>i just wanted to point out another possibility of what the problem could be.</p>

<p>of course if you're not going to attempt repair, getting a professional to CLA it will give you a great little camera.</p>

<p>hey rick, it sounds like you know more about repair than i do but i figured sharing an experience couldn't hurt.<br>

i cleaned and recalibrated a canon canonet rangefinder a couple months ago and found that i had the choice of getting infinity and middle ground focus right with close up incorrect or close up and middle correct and infinity wrong. </p>

<p>i opted for my close up to be correct, figuring that i can always just turn the lens to the max for infinity but i of course wonder how much this will affect the whole focus range. </p>

<p>i've always been interested in a welti. there is just something very appealing about their look and size to me. the leather covering resembles well-worn bomber jackets, they have the sophistocated turn of the century look of mf folders with the cute modern handiness of a 35. </p>

<p>did you have to doctor the bellows at all? what do you think accounts for the foggy look of your images?</p>

<p>wow michael, thanks for the detailed description of the problem! i own two fe's, an fm, and two nikkormat ftn's and have not run into this problem with any of them. i am considering purchasing a cheap nikkormat online that the seller says has a bad 'pre-advance'--i wonder if this is a similarly simple problem?</p>

<p>martin, in response to your question. i live in baltimore, maryland and know of a local shop i trust for these things. i would recommend looking for someone in your area. and yes, get them repaired! a 100% functional fm can go for $200 or so if you sell it with detailed knowledge of its working condition. if the repair only requires bending the lever, i'd say that's worth it! if the repair requires parts, i doubt it could cost more than $40 based on michael's description. so you could still stand to make a profit and you're helping to share reliable 35mm cameras instead of problematic ones!<br>

i have no plans to ever get rid of my nikons. i've shot a number of famous and otherwise important folks with mine and they've been rugged and reliable throughout. </p>

<p>i don't understand why people show up at a classic cameras forum and expect enthusiasts of film and film cameras not to profess pride in their 'antiquated' equipment while denouncing the ubiquitous modern ones. that's the nature of this forum. it exists at least partly because we have to stick together in these times of increasing difficulty to commit to film photography. some of our reasons may be mythology just as some peoples' reasons to use digital instead of film may also be mythology but it's what we all prefer. and HERE, we prefer film.</p>

<p>why are members here arguing amongst themselves? those of you who are arguing against patrick, why? are your classic cameras nothing more than mantel decor? or do you believe in them the way he does? why knock someone for taking something more seriously than you do and putting it through its trials? perhaps you should be criticized for not making better use of your equipment. if you truly believe him to be wrong, what is the point of arguing with him? he clearly is committed and is not going to be dissuaded. nor should he have to be within this environment. </p>

<p>we can all sit around and argue about one thing or another that's better or worse than one format or the other for this or that situation or we can appreciate one another's work the way it's been done or make suggestions for improvement towards given goals. as we know with all other elements of photography, everything's subjective. while some math can be applied here, please realise that it's all subjective. </p>

<p>and if you believe patrick's work could be improved by making it look more like digital, how about suggesting ways to do that with chemistry? if lack of tonality is a problem, perhaps they should have been processed differently? it's like saying digital sucks because i saw some jpgs that someone didn't photoshop to my liking. </p>

<p>why do soo many digital shooters appear to be personally offended when someone says they think film is better for this or that? did you invent digital cameras? are you losing money on people not using it?</p>

<p>of course my bias is for film and the classic cameras that this forum is SUPPOSED to be in support of so allow me to run down a few points that seem important to understanding patrick's photos and his experience.</p>

<p>--price--a $3-5k body and a current copy of photoshop vs. a $100 body with some $5 film and just a few cents processing if you do it yourself (i'll spare computers and hard drives from this calculation since both sides need them to display online but in theory, you don't need either for film if the images were to be displayed in a gallery)</p>

<p>--viewing--we're looking at these photos which were scanned by a digital device and are being viewed on digital displays. the film is the visiting team here and the field is biased for the home team. </p>

<p>--tyme--i doubt patrick has has to edit these photos much, that they came out pretty much as expected. </p>

<p>--reusing instead of throwing out a perfectly useful set of items--why toss a good camera/lens when you can still get photos of this quality (better than digital or not) out of it? why not shoot a few concerts with it and enjoy the ride?</p>

<p>--focus--try auto focusing in this environment with less than $1k dslrs. and try manual focusing with fast lenses wide open. as a glasses-wearer, i find the viewfinders of the d80,d40, d90 and the canon rebels completely unacceptable. and yes i've calibrated the finders with the lenses i'm using. </p>

<p>--grain--folks in these parts generally prefer it to slick digital</p>

<p>anyway, i enjoy these photos very much. they don't look like everyone else's concert photos. they don't have to be the posters for the film vs. digital argument. they can just be nice photos and nice examples of how old rigs can still be useful.</p>

<p>i think i cleaned them well when i first got the drive last year but good idea to check!</p>

<p>mmm, i'd like to pick up one of those and a konica 40mm 2.8!</p>

<p>oh i didn't know the radioactive glass was called thorium. anyway, i've got a host of nikkors and none of them have ever been yellow but i've got one takumar that has and i've reduced the yellowing by sitting it in a window sill. </p>

<p>kerry, i don't know why/how i overlooked nikkormats for such a long tyme myself. and i agree that they don't seem to get enough attention. when i think of 1960's slr's spotmatic dominates my brain. i think the 1960's was more a tyme of fancy rangefinders. most slr shooters prefer 1970's model cameras because that was the heyday of these cameras--they became ultra fast to operate and all the best manufacturers were making them. </p>

<p>the nikkormat really appeals to me because i wanted to bridge the gap between my boringly perfect 1970's slr's that i use for paid gigs and my love for quirky 1950's and 60's rangefinders. the spotmatic has never appealed to me because of the whole stop-down metering thing and until i stumbled across a cheap ftn at a pawn shop, i assumed all these 60's slrs required stop down. </p>

<p>i love my ultra dependable nikon fm/fe's but the nikkormat is tougher and has more character. it's a fun camera that i can still take precise photos with. </p>

<p>plus, i just feel like a man when i'm carrying my ftn by its beefy 135mm 2.8 nikkor q! </p>

<p>haha, that onion article's hilarious!</p>

<p>steph, i too seem to notice more and more folks unexpectedly returning to film and their old cameras. i ran into a gentleman at a vintage vw show shooting on a 60's voigtlander 35mm rangefinder and a kid at a wedding this weekend with a pentax me super and apparently a host of other pentax's at home. sure these two are probably like us but i've even run into folks like a pair of high school girls at an ice cream stand taking photos of each other with a k1000 for class and a girl in a boutique holding an olympus om-1 who looked at me funny when i complimented her on it. i am sort of glad she was rude. it seemed to imply that it was only natural she be toting this 1972 machine alongside her new designer purse. </p>

<p>honestly though, i think that when you are involved in a hobby or interest you will see what you want to see. i am into vintage vw's and land rovers and i spot them all over the place now. but in previous years before i was into them, i didn't notice as many. </p>

<p>i meet very few folks who actually don't prefer film or the cameras to digital. they are just swayed by convenience. so i think that if we keep doing what we're doing and keep spreading the idea that it's actually not impossible to keep doing this, people will pick up on it and at least try it.</p>

<p>btw, my girlfriend has been putting down her d80 for a nikkormat i refurbed for her recently. i'm optimistic!</p>

<p>so i was shooting a friend’s wedding this weekend and just brought one body, many lenses motordrive and a p&s. the body was my trusty nikon fm and the motordrive one of my three not so trusty md-12’s. <br /><br />i tend to have random intermittent problems with every md-12 that’s passed through my hands but when they’re working i love them enough to put up with this. but this case was somewhat scary!<br /><br />i fired off maybe 4 or 5 shots with the drive connected then it just became unresponsive. i pressed the release and no red light lit and no shutter tripped or advancement. as if there were no batteries in it. i disconnected it, fiddled with the actuator or transmission that connects at the bottom of the camera body, fingered the electrical contacts on both drive and body and remounted it. this is my normal procedure for malfunction and it always works. this tyme it didn’t work. so i said screw the drive for a while. at the reception, i mounted the drive again and it worked. i fired off 4 or 5 shots then the side of the drive where the batteries slide in (nothing inside this part of the drive but the battery terminal) got extremely hot and the drive stopped working again.<br /><br />weird.<br /><br />i was half afraid the batteries were going to explode or something! <br /><br />any ideas?<br /><br />once i have an income again, i’m going to get all three drives serviced. but in the meantym</p>

<p>i agree with jarle and the edited versions get worse and worse! do you people have your monitors calibrated?! and why are you wasting your tyme trying to edit a low res compressed version of this shot? tell the op HOW to edit it like he asked and move on!</p>

<p>and Joel, if you want things to be tack sharp, shoot them right the first tyme! this photo doesn't seem so unreproducable that you can't just go take it again!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>wow, all this is confusing. and on another topic it's been said rollei is releasing an agfa 800 film? very confusing stuff...</p>

 

<p>wait, is AGFA still making film? i thought they stopped? did Rollei just take 'em over? i can't keep track of all these japanese-owned german film companies...</p>

<p>libby, the US will still get our 800z apparently </p>

<p>i agree that it's the best 800 out there though so this is sad news for many.</p>