luis_rives

<p>In the 'net I ran across a old issue of Popular Photography from the spring of 1981. In an adv for what used to be Cambridge Camera in NYC they were listing the price of a new Summilux 35/1.4 as $494. I ran that number thru an inflation calculator to arrive at a today's price of about $1300. If one checks the asking prices in the big auction site, the current prices even in completed auctions are well above that. So what gives in the difference? Is it just collector demand? Used prices relative to new prices? I could see prices for pristine samples at the highest levels and then user grade samples close to the inflation adjusted price. However even a well used sample of this lens is at the $2000 level. The similar phenomenon occurs for most Leica equipment.</p>

<p>"Leica collectors are notorious for wanting mint/near-mint cameras." How true but only because they see them as an investment to go up in value and understand nothing of their aesthetic value. His two black paint M4s are absolutely beautiful revealing their brass metal underneath. Note that Leica is releasing a special edition set where each body is artificially aged by a technician removing the black paint at strategic locations, and specifically advertising that no two bodies will be alike.</p>

<p>I have had nothing but trouble with <strong>non-brand</strong> Chinese LTM and NEX to M-mount adapters, so I stay away from them and recommend others do. Its false economy. Now I only use Metabones, Fotodiox, or Voigtlander. Yes, these are made in China but the brand will not jeopardize their reputations by contracting to manufacture junk adapters. I must have a small fortune invested in all the brand adapters I have.</p>

<p>I realize that but I would be using this just like the 6x9 folders where its a fixed focal length lens. I raised the question to find out generally the image quality of some of the lenses used (Xenotar 135/3.5, Rodenstock Ysarex 127/4.7) and to find out just exactly how easy it is to carry. Seems doable in terms of size but just how straightforward is it to use handheld?</p>

<p>Quite by accident I ran across a post in the big auction site by an outfit on the West Coast that converts a Polaroid 110 by using certain large format lenses and a compact 4x5 back. Focus is by the built in rangefinder or ground glass. This caught my attention because it appears to be the most compact hand holdable large format camera available especially when the lens is folded closed. I am very familiar with using 6x9 folders and like them quite a bit, so this would be more of a step up rather than something new altogether. Another handholdable 4x5 like a Speed Graphic seems much larger and heavier than this. I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with these converted cameras. Thank you.</p>

I was recently photographing with a Zeiss Ikonta C having a 105mm lens. Two the photos are tack sharp, the remaining six other were blurred. After thinking about what I had been doing with the camera, I remembered that the six blurred frames were taken with a shutter speed less than 1/100 sec. I am sure all recall the rule of thumb that recommends a minimum shutter speed that is the reciprocal (meaning if the focal length of the lens in use is 100mm the minimum shutter speed should be 1/125 sec.) of the focal length of the lens to avoid camera shake when taking a handheld photo. I was arguing to a photographer friend that while this rule of thumb originated with 35mm film it is equally applicable to medium format. He argued that it did not. Who is correct? Thanks.