nomad_.

<p>On what basis do you state that it is "probably" glued in? Have you taken such lenses by Cosina apart before?</p>

<p>Where did I say that I tried to unscrew it? I have not. In fact, the purpose of my post is to find out about the fitting, from someone who has done it, without attempting an uninformed disassembly myself.</p>

<p>I am not going to find a scalloped tab, I am going to make one. It will be designed to use the same fixing method that the current focussing lever uses (to save adding holes to the lens). The tab that I made for my Jupiter-12 seems to work very well. On that basis, I feel that a similar tab on the Skopar would be preferable.</p>

<p>I have no intention whatsoever of sending it on an intercontinental journey for the sake of getting someone else to open it up!</p>

<p> </p>

Does anyone know how the focus lever is attached to the 35mm Color Skopar Classic? I'm considering changing mine for a Leica-style scalloped tab, but I'd like to understand how the fixing is done before I try making anything or taking the lens apart.<br /><br />It strikes me that it's either simply screwed in from the outside of the focus ring, or passes through the ring (possibly through a non-round hole to prevent rotation) with a retaining screw on the inside.<br /><br />Any clues would be much appreciated.

<p>The camera repair forum is in a sub-folder...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kyphoto.com/cgi-bin/forum/discus.cgi">http://www.kyphoto.com/cgi-bin/forum/discus.cgi</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert, I'd imagine that the risk with using a soft release is to do with its larger diameter - if one consistently operates the shutter by pressing on the edge of the soft release, rather than in the middle, the force applied to the shaft part of the shutter button mechanism is not directly downwards, but tilted somewhat. This would eventually lead to wear of the side of the shaft and the cylinder that it slides in.</p>

<p>Andy, to be clear, do you mean that the lens is loose in the LTM thread? If so, how much of a gap is there between the flanges on lens and body? Is it enough to see into while shining a light into the gap, such that a backed-out screw could be visible? You could try unscrewing the lens with the lens pointing vertically downwards (for a loose lens screw), or vertically upwards (for a loose body scrrew). It's possible the offending screw could drop into the hole it has come loose from, and make enough space for the head to clear these nooks and crannies than Gus refers to.</p>

<p>So, do later lenses like the 35mm cron ASPH also have plastic components, or have they revereted to metal?</p>

<p>There was mention of the hardness of sand, diamond and metals - where do engineering plastics lie on the same scale?</p>

<p>I don't see why the delivery charge should be a factor. The cost of the film is the amount you spend (including delivery) divided by the number of rolls. If the price per roll is decent enough, then there shouldn't be an issue.</p>

<p>For Ilford, you can also try Calumet - if there's a branch near you, you can collect in person (they have moved stuff from shop to shop for me, and I've also bought online and collected from the shop). digitaltruth.co.uk is also worth a look, but I don't think they do Ilford. They were recently doing Legacy Pro (rebranded Fuji Neopan 100 and 400) for less than 7dayshop were doing the Fuji flavour, and that was including their delivery charge.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I'd buy more than 5 rolls at a time - it gets the delivery cost per roll down. I usually get 10 or 20 and put them in the fridge. Also sometimes get together with other film users (colleagues at work) and bulk buy.</p>

<p>Went out with my Leica IIIf and my last two rolls of Kodachrome 64, using Elmar 50mm, Jupiter-12 35mm, and Voigtlander 15 & 90mm lenses. Mostly trees, views, skies, and some of a derelict farm building. Also put a roll of Kodak 200 print film through a Rollei 35S.</p>

<p>Josiah, if you shoot RAW + JPEG, does the issue appear in both images?</p>

<p>Ray, I assume he's posting here to get a second opinion, and to see if anyone has encountered similar, with a view to narrowing down the likely causes.</p>

<p>I went for an M2 instead of an M3, mainly to get the viewfinder with 35mm framelines - M3's widest framelines are for 50mm. Either way, I don't think I could have got along with the double stroke advance lever. If I wasn't willing, or able, to put a bit more cash towards it, I'd probably choose the M4 out of the two you mention - for the aforementioned reasons, and because I assume the M3 hasn't had a CLA. In other words, I'd take a CLA'd beater with 35mm framelines and a single stroke lever - but I'd rather spend a bit more and get something with the same features, but in better cosmetic condition.</p>

<p>What do you mean by "non-matching"? They fit and focus, don't they?</p>

<p>Bryan, my point is simply that there is no such thing as best. Camera gear at this level is like expensive hi-fi or expensive sports cars. All have capabilities way beyond what the more run of the mill versions can do, and, compared to those, any of the expensive ones could be seen as 'the best'. But, once you leap into the stratosphere and actually try to home in on 'the best', one finds that there are subtle differences that make one 'best' not quite as good as another 'best' in certain areas - and vice versa in others. The conclusion has to be that there is only a 'best for me' (or a 'best compromise' as you point out). At a certain point, the questions have to be directed more at oneself - asking others will only elicit information about what is 'best for them'. The measurements, the specs, the reviews and lab reports, the anecdotal comparisons by others, all of these can only take you so far towards making a choice.</p>

<p>On a slight tangent, I was wondering about your reason for wanting to buy new gear. I think you said something about it would feel good to have done so. I can understand that, but would also question it. If the gear depreciated by, say, $3000 after 6 months, that strikes me as a rather expensive way to get a feel good factor for a while. At the same time, given your desire to understand the differences in the equipment in detail, such that the right choice is made (not to mention the subject of this thread), it would seem that we are not talking about a bottomless pit of money. A nice pile of cash to spend on camera gear, but not so large that you can go to the mega Leica shop and buy one of everything. There's an argument that says it is indeed better to buy excellent-to-mint used equipment, not to save money as such, but to try out at minimal depreciation. Why buy a new lux or cron when you can get a used one for a half to two-thirds of the cost - and then sell it on for almost the same money if you don't like it? Some careful purchases, and sales if need be, will tell you loads about the equipment and whether it's really what you're looking for. Then, if it absolutely has to be brand new, you sell off the used gear and get your new kit with a wealth of knowledge and experience behind the decision.</p>

 

<p>Bryan, you seem to be of the view that there is a universal ultimate that simply needs to be identified and purchased. Like the notion of a 'best lens that money can buy'. Best by what criteria? There are many people who like what older, supposedly flawed lenses produce. There is no best lens, only lenses that suit particular uses, subjects, emulsions, conditions, and photographers.</p>

<p>Same goes for your question about the extra size and weight of a lux compared to a stop less speed in a cron - nobody can answer this for you. You're the one that's going to carry the camera, look through the finder, shoot in a certain level of low light, with a given proficiency in camera handling technique, and with a certain speed of film. It's not a question of best, it's a question of preference - and nobody can tell you what you prefer.</p>

 

<p>The difference in DoF between f2 and f1.4 is very small. Here's the technical data on the 50mm Summilux...</p>

<p><a href="http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1769.pdf">http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1769.pdf</a></p>

<p>Scroll to page 5 and check out the numbers. For example, at closest focus of 0.7m, DoF is 15mm at f1.4, and 20mm at f2. At 1.5m, 76mm and 104mm. f1.4 buys you about 25% less DoF compared to f2. You can't see this difference in the viewfinder, and it varies continuously for whatever focus distance you're using. Carrying the charts or a table of numbers in the field (or even an interpolated graph) would, to my mind, get in the way of taking pictures. I can't see the sense in spending an extra grand or whatever, putting up with the extra weight and bulk, and possible finder blockage, just to get a 25% reduction - that I can't preview - of what will already be a very narrow DoF at f2. If I was considering a lux or cron, I'd be considering it on the basis of whether the extra stop of light was worth having.</p>

<p>Regarding the question of film vs digital, what are you buying, and why are you buying it? If you love using film, then why buy a digital that will be out of date in a few years? I love using film, my M2 is 48 years old, and it isn't out of date. The thing about digital is that it is not a mature technology - it is very much going through the development phase where each iteration is markedly better than the last. Film, by contrast, has been around for over a century - and the application of emulsion to a flexible substrate came after 60 years of development of the basic chemical processes. Digital is somehere in the middle of that first 60 years. When sensor technology makes its next leap, and delivers 30-40mpix or whatever, and with dynamic range to rival (or better) silver halide emulsion, today's whizz-bang M9 will be old tech and worth far less than today's MP will after the same number of years. Unless you buy your film 100 rolls at a time, and use them up rapidly, I don't think there is an economic argument for getting an M9.</p>

<p>Economics aside, there are practical pros and cons for each. With film, you have to carry it around and get it processed. With digital, you have to mess around with downloading images and constantly keeping batteries charged. <br>

<br>

If small and light is the key to a good travel camera, I see no sense in getting the extra half stop a Noctilux has over a Summilux - too much extra weight, extra bulk, and, to my mind, a complete waste of money when virtually any film can withstand being underexposed by half a stop. If I really need more light, I'll lean against something and hand-hold at a slower shutter speed, and I'll do that long before I consider buying ridiculoously fast glass, especially at a price of something like an extra 7K for a mere half stop more. Good camera technique can save you thousands, and give you kit that is much easier to carry around.</p>

<p>Ultimately, you have to go for what you will be happy using. If film is what you're into, and if you don't have professional needs dictating the technology you use, then a film camera is what you should get.</p>

 

<p>They didn't - the Jupiter-12 for LTM does not have a preset ring. The seller's description mentioned by Samuel is erroneous.</p>

<p>That sounds like a description for a lens on an SLR. On a rangefinder, the iris changes when you change the value on the aperture ring - it doesn't stay open for viewing (because you're not viewing through the lens), to be stopped down when you're about to take the picture. My Jupiter-12 has one aperture ring, and is always stopped down to whatever aperture I've set.</p>

<p>John, yes, 7.5kg and not 7kg.</p>

<p>So, for camera fairly level, the 410 will probably be okay, at least for a few years, but the more off centre the camera's mass is, the more wear and the greater likelihood of something breaking. It strikes me that carrying the camera and tripod together, over the shoulder, would therefore be a risky proposition - the camera's mass would be well off centre, and there would be a chance of slight shock loadings if the tripod bumped down onto the shoulder. I'm beginning to feel that the 410 isn't really up to this, which leaves the 405, or maybe the 400 (which is heavy at 2.6kg for the head alone).</p>

<p>My interim solution is to get the quick release adapter that uses the same QR plate as the 410 and 405, and fit the lower part to the ball leveller that I already have. At the moment, I screw the camera directly to the leveller, but it's a fiddle. If the QR adapater and plate are strong enough, is there really a need for me to get a geared head? (I'm pretty new to LF, and my subjects have been landscapes so far. The idea of geared adjustment has an appeal, but maybe it's overkill?)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm considering getting a geared head to use with my 5x4 MPP monorail. Manfrotto do a couple - a 'junior' one (MN410) with a load limit of 5kg, and a heavier duty one (MN405) rated for 7kg. In the UK, the MN410 can be had for about £140, but the MN405 costs anywhere from £320 to £400. According to my bathroom scales, the camera weighs about 5.5 to 6kg, so I find myself wondering if the cheaper MN410 will work okay. An extra £180 to £260 is a lot to pay for another 2kg capacity, especially if the products are engineered to give some headroom over their published ratings. I should mention that both use the same quick-change plate.</p>

<p>Does anyone use the smaller geared head, particularly with a camera that's close to, or over, the Manfrotto load rating? If so, does it work okay, or does it feel like something might break?</p>

 

<p>I got four short-dated rolls a few months back, for less than £2 each, and they've been in the fridge. Shot the first one last weekend, and it's in the post. (Anyone know how long processing is currently taking from the UK?)</p>

<p>One of the remaining three will go into my Leica IIIf and will be used only with the 50mm Elmar (I like my Russian 35mm, and hardly ever use the 50mm, but it seems fitting to shoot a roll in a Leica, using Leica glass). Another roll will go through the M2, and probably include some test shots of each of my lenses (fun stuff with a tripod and a brick wall). Might keep the last one for when autumn comes in.</p>

<p>Gus, did the IIIf not change to bearings in the shutter, rather than bushes?</p>

 

<p>Food for thought - thanks for the suggestions, everyone.</p>

 

<p>To make a 'moving' image, you still need a camera in your hand. You also need to operate it, and thus have some appreciation of its principles of operation. It also helps to have some appreciation of the effects of consumable parts being consumed, like how operable the camera is if/when the battery runs out. After all, if you don't know how to use it, or it becomes unusable, you're not going to making many images of any sort. Since this thread is about choosing a camera, I don't see what point you're trying to make.</p>

 

<p>I have a CV 15mm viewfinder, and may get one or two others. At the moment, I just wrap the 15mm one in a microfibre cloth and kind of nestle it into a space in my bag. However, I can't say I'm very happy with this - the front element is convex and the cloth doesn't really protect it from knocks.</p>

<p>Are there such things as cases for external viewfinders? I'm fairly handy, and could probably make something, but it would help to see some existing ones before I give that a try. Alternatively, are there aftermarket cases?</p>

 

<p>Well, I wouldn't say I sold you the idea, so much as indicated the reasons I would have for choosing the MP. Or, to be more exact, for not choosing an M7. If those reasons work for you as well, then good luck with MP when you get it. (Still my dream RF camera, but if I had the cash for that, I'd be spending it on glass.)</p>

 

<p>A multi-burst strobe is exactly what it is. Given the time for the slot to traverse the frame, I can't imagine this would be good for freezing fast motion (holy multiple exposure, Batman!). Yes, I read that the viewfinder has a natty seconds counter for when you open the shutter on B. All you have to do is not nudge the camera when you look through the finder at regular intervals to see how long the shutter has been open.</p>

<p>That's two gimmicks in one paragraph. Since I don't use flash, and do wear a wristwatch, I'd be off to the MP shop without further ado (but I said as much before the gimmicks came to light, so I'm biassed).</p>