paul_taylor2

Purchased at the estate sale of a commercial dealer. Absolutely sure the film

was NOT stored in a freezer. So, for $1 per roll times six, I thought I'd have

some fun.

 

I was taught to overexpose and underdevelop B&W, and normally will shoot 400

film at about one-half stop under or approximately 320. I will be using a

commercial lab, not my own.

 

Due to the age of this stuff, what are your thoughts?

Purchased at the estate sale of a commercial dealer. Absolutely sure the film

was NOT stored in a freezer. So, for $1 per roll times six, I thought I'd have

some fun.

 

I was taught to overexpose and underdevelop B&W, and normally will shoot 400

film at about one-half stop under or approximately 320. I will be using a

commercial lab, not my own.

 

Due to the age of this stuff, what are your thoughts?

Pan scrubber made by 3M; did a number on my new chef's knife.

 

Try some clean, fine steel wool or sandpaper?

I won't use him again. My IIIf developed horizontal streaks visible on light backgrounds. Camera returned in just a few weeks with one new curtain and $200 invoice. Not tested as problem still existed. Returned to him again and he replaced the second curtain, after three months, charging me for parts only, another $50. Still not usable. I'm down almost the value of the camera when you include shipping & insurance four times. No, I didn't pay the second invoice.

 

Fails in the shipping department as well. About four years ago a package arrived, bearing his address. Contents included a M-2 and 50 Summilux, both in excellent+ condition - obviously well cared for by the owner. But I wasn't the owner. He lived 2,000 miles away, and we shared the same last name. I called him, told him I had the package and immediately insured and returned it. He's lucky that most people are very honorable.

 

Sherry, on the other hand, did a wonderful job on a lens. Price was her original estimate and it was returned in about ten days. Not sure if she still is doing SM bodies.

 

I'm close to Toronto so I'll be going to Kinderman with sample photographs from the IIIf. I think it is a baffle causing a light leak. Otherwise, the camera is useless except as a nice paperweight.

Wilhelm Stein (1906-1976)was the principal designer of the M-series. He began his career in engineering as an apprentice with the Iron & Steel Works of Buderus in his home town of Wetzlar. In 1936, he mover to Ernst Leits GmbH. Barnack, who initiated and supervised the development of the oringinal Leica, died in January of that year. This left a gap among the remaining engineers. Ludwig Leitz recognized Stein's talents and gave him an opportunity to make contributions with the company's design group.

 

Some credit Stein with the improvement of the focal plane shutter which Barnack invented in 1924. He was not drafted into the German Army but instead was sent to secret military development installations. After the second World War, Stein was made the head of Leica's design deparment.

 

(from LHSA's VIEWFINDER Vol. 27, no. 1)

On futher review, Hove also indicates that 5,000 cameras were produced in 1946, your camera apparently coming from that batch. But confusion reigns. It states 15,000 IIICs were made in 1947. How do you get a total of 40,000 IIIC models in the two year period?

 

20,001 cameras are listed as being produced in 1948.

The Elmar was produced in 1937, according to the Hove index. It elaborates; 365,852 lenses were produced in screwmount, from 1924 to 1958.

 

The same book does not help us on the camera. Serial numbers 400000 to 440000 were produced, as you referenced, in 1946/47.

 

Maybe someone has another source.

 

Enjoy the camera. I had one from serial range 412xxx, and it was well built and a joy to use, but had a louder shutter brake than the later IIIf.

 

When you're really bored, learn how to load it in the pitch-dark.

I have a 1959 lens. The ergonomics are not great, and the weight is horrific. Depth of field is impossible at F2, especially with a 0.72 viewfinder. However, it is built like a tank and will take almost any abuse. The build quality is second to none. And because it is a two-piece lens, the rear element is well protected but is easily cleaned.

Optically, it is a perfect portrait lens for me; very slightly soft and lower contrast when wide open (how many women want to see their pores?), but sharpens-up when closed down two stops or more. This is basic for almost any non-ASPH lens, when sharpness and contrast are at their best - two stops down from maximum.

 

There are compromises in every piece of equipment, so enjoy what you have. I'm just tickled that this lens is half of what it used to be just a few years ago. The more photographers converting to digitalautofocusautoexposureplasticcan'tstandmoistureordust, the better for me.

You could go with a M-2 or M-3 and standard lens for about $1,000, but what about a CLA? That could run $250-350 and crush the budget, but you would be getting a reasonable ten years of service.

 

If you like the feel of the earlier screw-mount cameras, a IIIC or IIIF body will run $250-400, and standard Elmar another $200-300 for a total package of $450-700. A CLA will run $200 assuming that new shutter curtains are not needed.

 

Talk to KEH in Atlanta as they fairly represent and stand behind what they sell (within reason). Tamarkin runs auctions twice annually and some reasonably good deals can be had provided you are not in rush.

I would suggest a test roll or two of film shot at different shutter speeds, and hope for the best. I recently borrowed a late M-6 to compare to the feel of my older model, and found a number of subtle differences in the sound, as well as the feel of each. For instance, the winding mechanisms felt much lighter on the newer model, and the trip-distance of the release button also fired at different points in their travel. The shutters of each sounded just slightly different at slow speeds.

 

The first ding or scratch is rough. I tripped-up on the stairs of the Paris Metro last year, leaving a rough scrape on the baseplate. Now, whatever else happens I think, so what? Seeing what some of the oldest and hardest used M-3s and M-2s, as well as some Nikon Fs now look like, they all seem to take punishment in stride.

My philosophy is the lighter the better. Hauling a lot of extras just makes you want to change lenses and inevitably you miss shots, and leaving things in hotel rooms is just asking for trouble. Take what you find yourself shooting the most, or what focal length you "think best" in.

 

Last time I was in Italy, I had two screwmount Leicas and three lenses, using two of the lenses 95% of the time. Not only did the cameras elicit conversations with the locals, the outfit was extremely compact. I also shot 36-exposure rolls to limit having to change film while on the street. My favorite shots were of streets and buildings taken at night, having brought along a small tripod and handheld meter for that purpose.

 

More recently in Europe, I had a Nikon F with an 85mm lens, and Leica M-6 with a 35mm lens plus a superwide. The F makes a formidable weapon if needed in the seedier parts of Paris.

 

I would take your choice of digitals, but only if accompanied by a film camera for backup. Digitals are, IMHO, a novelty.

I use this lens as my normal lens. I must have a really good one judging from the comments herein. It proved itself for me when used inside The Louvre and Muse d'Orsay last year. All naturally lit and shooting 400, I brought home some incredibly detailed pictures of the sculpture rooms. Even snuck a photo of the famous lady, with the camera prefocused and hanging at chest level.

 

A minor complaint deals with the "ears" to adjust the diaphram, which are slighly in the way of the vented hood's attachment controls. Without the hood, or with the bottom half of the hood only, the combination of lens and body is very compact. The Series 7 filters have not been a problem. As there seem to be few buyers out there, I've picked a few Leitz and B&W from ebay at $10-15 each.

 

You can quibble all day about the merits of the two 35s. I prefer low speed film and the extra stop works for me.

I had good results with Fuji's Velvia brand, which was originally touted as having enhanced color saturation. They used to make a 25 speed which had exceptional sharpness, but now I believe it only is available in 100.

I am going to be doing some extensive traveling and want to limit the number of

pieces of equipment. For my aging but timeless FTN body, can you recommend a

high quality zoom lens having a maximum diaphram opening of 2.8 that will give

me a range of approximately 24 to 135 mm. This does not necessarily need to be

a Nikkor brand.

 

Weight and size is less important than image quality.

Andrew: The 892... camera body is a IIIG model from 1957, the last of the screw mount model cameras. As previously stated, value is based on rarity and condition, and a typical range for this camera is $700-1000. The second camera, 450... is a IIC made in 1951. Value range approximately $150-250. Such prices would be substantially more if in perfect, as-new condition and accompanied by the original boxes and instructions.

 

The lenses - The 3.5 is a good quality wide angle lens, and the Elmar 2.8 is regarded as an extremely good "normal" lens, so good in fact that it is still being made in a slightly different form. Values might be in the $125-200 and $200-300 range, respectively, assuming that they are not scratched.

 

Don't be tempted to clean the lenses unless you know exactly what to do and have the proper cleaning materials - not Kleenex and Windex.

 

The price ranges above assume they are sold to a user. A dealer would pay substantially less.

 

Everything you have can be repaired and very usable; reputable repair services are listed elsewhere in the forum.

I'm on my second Sunpak model 333, the first one lasted me about 17-18 years. The new unit has three auto exposure modes, bounce and swivel head, and will also take a number of bounce or diffusing attachments for softer shadows. Paid about $100 retail but also available at the big NYC stores for $75-80. The downside is its height above the camera, but this also gives you better protection against red-eye, with the flash head farther away from the lens. Auto exposure results are very accurate.

 

Some time ago I purchased a Metz 20, a very compact unit with limited automatic flash reach. Very good if you don't want to be burdened with the size of the Sunpak, but increased risk of red-eye. I also found that the exposure limits are conservative and usually close the lens down by about one-half stop, which gives more pleasing results (less overexposure).

I can appreciate your feelings about Ebay, however, it is there that you can obtain the actual selling prices of any item by using the "completed listings" check-off about midway down in the left column. While Ebay requires you to be a member to access this information, you need not have to use the site to sell your goods. I agree that Photo.net is a great place to transact business.

Take a look at Saturday's (12/02/06) WSJ cover article, revealing the history

of the photographer and his photograph that won the Pulitzer prize. Rarely

does the Journal devote this much space - three columns on page one continuing

to page A5 - the entire page.

 

The photographer was Jahangir Razmi, whose identity was protected by his

editor, who feared for his life.

Target and WalMart used to supply 4-packs of color film at a substantial

savings from individual rolls - usually $5 or $6 per pack. Lately, all that

they are carrying are 200, 400, and 800 speed. Anyone know of another chain

store that still carries the 100 speed in three or four packs?

The yellow color may not be a coating at all, but the natural result of the special glass that was mildly radioactive when the Summicron was first produced. Based on the 950,xxx serial, that lens would be an early model and could very well have such glass. The yellowed glass would be fine for black and white film, similar to using a lt. yellow filter.

 

I have a later number and the coating is bluish in color.

Where do the major travel magazines, Travel & Leisure, Conde Nast et al, obtain

their feature photographs? Do they use staff photographers, sending them where

needed, or purchase photos from stock agencies?

 

Anyone in the forum having any personal contacts in the industry, I'd appreciate

some information concerning employment therein.

 

Lastly, has the industry gone digital or is film based still utilized?

 

Thanks for any assistance.

Journeyman, one M body, two M lenses plus one CV and two LTM lenses with adaptor. Film for now.

Rob is correct; from the November 1955 product directory, the body lists at $180, and the body plus 50/3.5 Elmar, $237.

 

And, the now very collectable half-frame model 72 listed for $189, and the Leicavit, only $24.

 

DAG just replaced the first shutter curtain on my RDST, no. 685630, so it should be good for another 51 years.

Returning from Paris in April, the very nice Air France agent warned me that Security may have a problem, and to return to him to check the Gitzo and heavy head. Never happened, and got right on the plane. The larger issue was trying to explain the purpose of the light meter to another agent.

Francisco: Just returned myself. Disappointed in my pictures thus far. Took only Kodak's Ultra-color film - 400. Flat, low contrast outdoors but not too bad in the museums.

 

A meal suggestion, taken from Rick Steves' Paris 2006 book, page 361 in the English edition. Restaurant Perraudin, for its beef bourguignon. Family owned, very welcoming and served one of the best meals I've had in a long time. The three course menu was approximately 28 Euros. You may want to make a reservation. I showed up without one but, as I said, they were very accomodating.

 

Location is near the Pantheon and Luxembourg Gardens at 157 rue St. Jacques. tel. is 01 45 33 15 75.