josh_carr

<p>The M9 sensor has microlenses that become progressively more offset from the actual photosites as you move toward the edges of the frame, to minimise the problems of extreme ray angles on rangefinder lenses. A standard Canon or Nikon FF sensor doesn't have this feature as SLRs put the light onto the film plane more normally. You would get more purple fringing and fall-off if you put, say, a D700 sensor into an M9. The existing sensor still needs a load of post-processing (hence the 6-bit coding) to sort out the deficiencies in the raw image.<br>

The M9 works surprisingly well but you can argue that historical rangefinder lens design, which exploited the lack of a mirror box and often placed the rear nodal point very deep into the camera, was only really suitable for film. Film is less fussy about the angle at which it is hit by light. In future I imagine Leica will start to design M lenses which are optically more like the R-line. The only problems I see are larger physical size and potentially more distortion (Nikon still can't build a 35mm lens which doesn't bend the horizon).</p>

<p>The mass market for black-and-white film has been dead since the 1970s. Black-and-white film didn't disappear, did it?</p>

<p>In t'olden days you could have a sync speed up to 1/1000 (albeit with a lowish Guide Number) by using the right type of slow-burning flashbulb. However, the M6 doesn't have the required M-sync socket which ignites the bulb before the first curtain gets moving, nor are bulbs readily available these days. I remember them from the 1970s, and they were getting to be a niche product then.</p>

<p>The tradtional way to get power without spending too much, if you didn't need any dedicated features, was the Vivitar 283. Occasionally NOS ones come up on eBay - I bought one a few months ago for 25 GBP. It is a bit wobbly on top of an M3 due to its size.</p>

<p>The images were off-centre on my IIIa but never got into the sprocket holes and never caused a problem with commercial printing.</p>

<p>It is a nice one. Note the "incorrect" ASA/DIN scale; the standards were changed a few years later so 100 ASA = 21 DIN, 200 ASA = 24 DIN etc.</p>

<p>The eyepiece bezel is missing. You can get replacements and it will hurt the value to sell without. It is a black dial camera.</p>

<p>Only the last IIfs had 1/1000. All black dial cameras are 1/500, as were earlier red dial cameras.</p>

<p>In good condition with no dents, scratches or significant brassing, and if the lens is clean and clear, maybe 200 GBP for the body and 150 GBP for the lens. If the lens has a red distance scale and is in really fine condition it might make 250 GBP. I'm assuming the numbers around the shutter speed knob are black and not red; "red dial" bodies are worth a little more.</p>

<p>It's not a hugely valuable model.</p>

<p>LTMs are lovely and very pocketable, but Ms are way easier to use and give you access to lens technology after the 1950s (except for CV lenses, of course, but that depends on why you like Leica; for the bodies or the lenses).</p>

<p>The advantages of not messing about with accessory VFs for the common focal lengths and the parallax correction clinched it for me.</p>

<p>If you sell them together and they really were bought new at the same time (check if the serials are from the same year), advertise them as "matched". You'll get more for them sold separately though - you may need to get a rear lens cap and a body cap to help.</p>

<p>I had a fairly clean collapsible 'cron and I didn't like the photos much (the bokeh is horrible), so I'd definitely sell the lens. Likewise, you can get a good user M2 *and* an M3 for the price of a mint IIIg.</p>

<p>"Universal" finder normally refers to the Kiev copy of the Contax turret finder.</p>

<p>L mount is L39 screwmount, i.e. 39mm x 26TPI.</p>

<p>My Russian 35mm viewfinder agrees exactly with the 35mm framelines on the M2 at normal distances. I also had one of those Russian turret viewfinders and that was in very good agreement with the M3 on its 50mm setting.</p>

<p>Screwmount viewfinders are calibrated for 3 metres, I think. Below that you lose a little on the film, and also have to swing the camera up a bit after framing, and at infinity you tend to get a little more on film than you expected. In practice you have to compensate a bit at 1 metre but don't need to bother at infinity.</p>

<p>The parallax error is usually a bit worse on an M because of the taller top plate, but there's not much in it.</p>

<p>I'd be surprised if it needed new curtains; these are only required if they're cracked or holed. The edges of them sometimes become tacky, playing havoc with the speeds, but they can be revulcanised. I have no idea how this is done, but CRR did it to my IIf.</p>

<p>I like.</p>

<p>So did Leica only move to Solms because of the demerger? Everything Leica that I own was made in Wetzlar except the Solms-era 39mm plastic lens cap that I use when out and about (don't want to lose one of those old chromed brass ones!)</p>

<p>At the risk of thread necromancy, there's a whole conversation about the relative merits of Hasselblads and Bronicas in "Secrets and Lies". Timothy Spall's character, a pro photographer, is asked why he doesn't have a 'blad yet if he's so successful but he claims to have tried one and prefers the Bronica.</p>

<p>If you didn't need interchangeablelenses, I'd say hold out for a Minoltina-S or AL-S. Cheap as chips and with an incredibly sharp 40mm Rokkor-QF lens. The built-in meter is selenium so may not work any more.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell says the DR has a ring of unsharpness (actually that's a bit unkind) 15mm in radius from the centre of the frame. You don't see it at top and bottom because it's outside the frame but you do see it at the sides until you stop down.</p>

<p>Your test shots confirm that quite well. Bottom left with a cropped sensor is right in the 15mm circle. On 35mm film it actually gets a bit sharper again at the very corners.</p>

<p>Have you taken any shots ignoring the TTL meter and just using the Sekonic? Obviously this means you have to add an allowance for any filters, but it would rule out the meter being the cause of the problems.</p>

<p>A fake Rolex is way cooler than a real one, as long as the owner knows it's fake.</p>

<p>According to Rogliatti's book, a few Kriegsmarine Leicas did have the Nazi eagle and swastika, but no others. There are certainly about 1,000 times more fake than real ones.</p>

<p>Doesn't the M8 have an option to manually enter lens details like the M9 does?</p>

<p>Funny; in olden times a lens had to be designed for even illumination and low fall-off towards the edges of the frame. Now you just tell the M9 it's a pre-ASPH 'cron and whoosh! The fall-off is gone in a puff of digital magic smoke.</p>

<p>In even older times the fall-off from the enlarger lens partly compensated for the fall-off in the camera lens, but we're talking 20th century here.</p>

<p>Dave, try Red Dot Cameras in London. They have a lot of Elmars and sensible prices, i.e. cheaper than eBay and with a guarantee. I have bought an M3 and an Elmarit from them recently by mail order and they were better than expected.</p>

<p>That Berlin Olympics fake is so OTT, I actually like it. What are the photos like?</p>

<p>Any Summicron is good; the main problem with a 50mm is that the viewfinder isn't optimised for one (the only one that is, is on the M3) so you have a 50mm frame with a load of wasted space round it. 50mm is also slightly limited indoors or for large groups of people. Having said that, there is a VAST difference in price between the 50mm and the 35mm ASPH (the clue's in those four initials) although you could have an older 35mm*, or even a Zeiss Biogon for a lot less.</p>

<p>The M7 is a completely different animal to the M6 and the two aren't really comparable. M6 is fully mechanical, with a meter added on. M7 has an electronic shutter.</p>

<p>The meter is as good as its user. It's a sort of spot meter (it reads off a silver patch on the shutter curtain).</p>

<p>*I use a 1950s Summaron 35/3.5 with an screw-to-M adapter and it's quite satisfactory - a bit soft at the edges of a 40" x 30" print (yes, I do mean inches) but that's about twice the accepted size limit of 35mm enlargement anyway. A bit more contrast would be nice, but you can't complain for a $300 lens.</p>

<p>The thing with the Russian lenses is that they either work or they don't. I had an 85mm with clear optics, very sharp etc but it was about a metre out at all distance with the rangefinder. Apparently the hit rate is about 1 in 3 with that one; the shorter ones are likely to be more tolerant of a small focusing error. I'd paid very little for it so I donated it to a guy at work who takes old cameras and lenses apart.</p>