christopher_junker1

<p>The red "M" locator dot is visible at 9 o'clock on the rim.</p>

<p>Since the 20th Century, Paul has contributed many fine articles, pictures and coments to the forum. He has shared his extensive body of Leica knowledge with us and I directly benefitted. He not only uses his Leica gear, keeps it in mint condition, but has created special applications for his Leica equipment that is beyond what Leica ever put on the market. Paul and his comments are a large reason I continue to vist this forum. Unfortunately age and physical issues are catching up to not just Paul but many of us and limiting our ability to go out and capture the images that exist in our imagination. There are two sides to this: Paul wants to place his equipment where the items will be appreciated and used for hopefully years and for so long as 35mm film is made. We can both help him with this goal and continue the use of some very nice and unique Leica items. Secondly, Paul may have discussed this with his family members and there may not be any individuals in his next generation that share his enthusiasm and love for Leica photography. This is unforunate so he is taking another direction and giving us first choice. Paul researched and amassed a collection of items we rarely see. If I am fortunate enough to buy something special from Paul, it will only be on the condition he can buy it back at any time. I hope this works out the way Paul intends.</p>

<p>I have a "No Name Kiev" Russian clone of the Contax 4 which was apparently made in 1963 and matches your description. Check out Gordon Yee's list of web sites. My dad purchased mine in the 60's through a Popular Photography magazine ad for around $60-70 when Russia was hard up for US currency. The camera came with a Zeiss F2 50 and both seem well finished. The markings on mine are as you have described on yours. For the year of manufacture, see if the serial number begins with a 63 or 64. No instruction manual came with the camera, but again, search the web for an instruction manual for the Contax 4. Later on dad bought a Nikon rangefinder with a sun burned shutter just so he could acquire the Nikon 50 f1.4 to use on the Kiev. I use the Nikon 1.4 on mine and like the results. Comments on spotty Kiev quality may be accurate, but mine works fine, with a good rangefinder though a bit dim and even the slow speeds and the self timer train work fine. The camera has a two part body with the back and bottom that come completely off. The "Z" and "A" stand for "Zu" and "Auf"in german, something like "on" and "off" in english. My only negative comments are the shutter is notchy which I fixed with a Tom Abrahamsson Softie release button and the rangefinder window rim which scratched my glasses, but an "o"ring on the rim fixed that. Best feature is the very quick, accurate focusing. As for price, I'd insist on shooting a test roll before making any offer on the camera and lens. It was not made to anywhere near the production standards and tolerances of a genuine Zeiss Contax.</p>

<p>Regarding Reid & Sigrists' choice of duplicating the IIIb rather than the IIIc, it may have been influenced by the IIIc series use of precision miniature ball bearings in the redesigned IIIc shutter assembly. The bearings may have all been metric in measurement, which would have made the conversion to Imperial Standard even tougher if they chose to accomodate metric bearings into the camera body. Does the Reid series of shutters have miniature precision ball bearings or standard plain bushings like the IIIb?</p>

<p>The M5 meter reads exactly what is in the meter spot with a 50 mm lens. The 50 mm lens on a 35 camera has a horizontal field of view of 39.6 degrees. The horizontal field of view for the 25 mm lens is about 76 degrees so 36 degrees total or 18 degrees on either side of the field of view are outside the M5 meter reading area. Close up ithe meter reading may be accurate, however the further the object is away from the camera, the greater horizontal (and vertical) footage that is outside the meter reading area and the greater potential for M5 meter reading error. If the M5 and 25 mm lens are going to be used for distance as well as close in work, a spot meter is probably a good idea. </p>

<p>My understanding is the M5 meter captures only an 8mm diameter circle through the mounted lens. The actual lineal width and height captured by the meter will vary greatly by the mounted lens's focal length and your distance from the metered object. As the meter is very close to being what is known as a "spot" meter and not a "weighted average" meter biased to the middle of the entire viewing frame like an SLR, an M5 user needs to remember that what is being metered is just what is in the spot, not the entire frame. The meter will capture a great deal of what you see through the accessory shoe mounted 25mm finder, considerably more than what you see M5's meter reading in the camera viewfinder. The M5 meter is accurate only for the metered area, but a 25mm lens is actually metering a much wider area that you can't see in the 50mm frame lines of the M5 viewfinder. Metering works, but you need to recognize and adjust for the wider metered area you aren't seeing in the M5 viewfinder.</p>

<p>Bearing in mind your earlier post about the Canon IV BS2, I'd rather see you put your money into the M3, it is a much better camera for the money you have to spend. Finding a "shooter" M3 in good operating condition should be possible at a reasonable price. Yes, Leica lenses are expensive, even used, but you do get what you pay for if they are in good condition. For alternatives, see what cameraquest has in it's offerings. If you are interested in doing close up work, despite the cost, the dual range Summicron is a great lens but you also need the close up attachment goggles to go with it. My best results lately have been with an M3, it's viewfinder eye relief lets me keep glasses on while I am shooting. Take a look on line for an M3 owner's manual, that will give you a good overview on M3 features.</p>

<p>Chris, is the asking price in AUS or US dollars? $450 AUS is $421.97US, which is still high. The suggestion of a test roll is essential. As for the rangefinder test, alignment can be checked for both vertical and horizontal with a large object having strong vertical and horizontal lines like an overhead garage door. Alignment for infinity can be similarily done with objects like a flag pole or bridge a good distance away. Again look for test objects with strong vertical and horizontal lines you can easily see in the rangefinder. If the rangefinder is dim compared to the outside light, it needs cleaning.<br> This camera and lens set (which should include a lens cap) although cosmetically in good shape for it's age is in serious need of a complete CLA. If the shutter speeds are sluggish, they'll stay sluggish and repeated tripping of the shutter will not "fix it". A test roll will tell you alot about the camera's faults, I wouldn't buy it without seeing the test roll results. I bought a Leica IIIc with 50 Elmar 3.5 that looked in really good shape. The test roll showed otherwise; the speeds were off, there were shutter pinhole streaks in the pictures and the haze indicated the lens needed cleaning. If you have access to a slide projector, take slides and project them, problems really show up with good sized images. Otherwise have the print negatives scanned. For correct exposures you'll need to purchase or borrow a good light meter. You may wish to check around in Melbourne to see if you can get repair quotes for a full CLA, new shutter, clean and lube for the lens. Canon made quality rangefinder cameras and lenses and this is a good example, $400 AUS-less total CLA costs is a fair negotiating point. If the seller won't let you run a test roll or it cannot be done due to an absent take up spool, take Bill Mitchell's advice and decline the purchase.<br> This forum recently had a discussion on selling or buying cameras and lenses with or without a CLA. Worth reading, especially with this specific camera and lens in mind. <br> We wish you well with your project, please keep us informed.</p>

<p>Chris, is the asking price in AUS or US dollars? $450 AUS is $421.97US, which is still high. The suggestion of a test roll is essential. As for the rangefinder test, alignment can be checked for both vertical and horizontal with a large object having strong vertical and horizontal lines like an overhead garage door. Alignment for infinity can be similarily done with objects like a flag pole or bridge a good distance away. Again look for test objects with strong vertical and horizontal lines you can easily see in the rangefinder. If the rangefinder is dim compared to the outside light, it needs cleaning.<br> This camera and lens set (which should include a lens cap) although cosmetically in good shape for it's age is in serious need of a complete CLA. If the shutter speeds are sluggish, they'll stay sluggish and repeated tripping of the shutter will not "fix it". A test roll will tell you alot about the camera's faults, I wouldn't buy it without seeing the test roll results. I bought a Leica IIIc with 50 Elmar 3.5 that looked in really good shape. The test roll showed otherwise; the speeds were off, there were shutter pinhole streaks in the pictures and the haze indicated the lens needed cleaning. If you have access to a slide projector, take slides and project them, problems really show up with good sized images. Otherwise have the print negatives scanned. For correct exposures you'll need to purchase or borrow a good light meter. You may wish to check around in Melbourne to see if you can get repair quotes for a full CLA, new shutter, clean and lube for the lens. Canon made quality rangefinder cameras and lenses and this is a good example, $400 AUS-less total CLA costs is a fair negotiating point. If the seller won't let you run a test roll or it cannot be done due to an absent take up spool, take Bill Mitchell's advice and decline the purchase.<br> This forum recently had a discussion on selling or buying cameras and lenses with or without a CLA. Worth reading, especially with this specific camera and lens in mind. <br> We wish you well with your project, please keep us informed.</p>

<p>Eddie L. I really enjoy your everyday slice of life pictures. Great stuff. And Jim Trahan's shots with the IIIc, Summitar and close up attachment make me chuckle. That camera/lens combination and the NOOKY-HESUM could be from the late 1940s. Wonder how many digital cameras will be working 65 years from now. Digital imaging back in the 40's-50's was just Dick Tracy's Wrist Camera watch.</p>

<p>The many decade images HM took with her various film Leicas would make a great album. Family and horse racing were favorites. Although I doubt you'd see either a film or a M9 "selfie" from HM.</p>

<p>Although Queen Elizabeth's M3 may have been a bit beaten up, she was a long time M3 user. It wouldn't have been hard to identify her M3, it is serial #919,000 and has HRH and the royal crest engraved on the top plate. She upgraded over the years and the last I read was she was up to an M6.<br> Until Kodak developed safety base film, nitrocellulose film was a estremely hazardous product to manufacture. The process begins with disolving pure cellulose in concentrated nitric acid which generates heat and the process can and has "run away" resulting in very rapid burning or explosions. Too bad as nitrocellulose base made possible absolutely clear emulsions. Early movies were kept in refrigerators and were projected from fireproof booths. The last use I heard of was nitrocellulose emulsion coated on thin plate glass for extended time telescope exposures.</p>

<p>Carl, I can't turn my watch off, it's a self wind. As for sending the camera with film though the X-Ray machine, wasn't there a PN post indicating fogging except for high speed film wasn't an issue?</p>

<p>The fine watch analogy that needs a CLA is closer to the dormant Leica. Another factor involves updates to early models of Leicas that were applied to later versions. If I knew I was buying an early version of a Leica CL, I would buy it "as is" as chaeply as possible and send it Sherry Krauter requesting an update of the internals. The same applies to early versions of M3's with the glass pressure plate, I'd rather have it updated with the later metai version. Incindently, a Hamilton Railroad Grade 992 movement will do considerable damage to itself if wound and run without proper adjustment and lubrication.</p>

<p>Steve, I prefer the sharp portrait if you use it as the image of a earky 1900's suffragette. The face and body language is that of a confident woman of the time with a possible sense of humor.</p>

<p>Steve, I prefer the sharp portrait if you use it as the image of a earky 1900's suffragette. The face and body language is that of a confident woman of the time with a possible sense of humor.</p>

<p>Same answers as Rick van Nooij. Although the Contax between frame spacing appears a litle wider than from my Leica IIIc, it is consistent and I've never had a spacing or winding problem. I can't speak to image size variation as I only use a Sonnar 50 with mine.</p>

<p>Mukul, Good shot and crop. The arm extension/hand holding the leaf gives a connection to the story content.</p>

<p>Interesting choice trade off with 50 lenses, the convenience of the M6TTL metering v. the M3's .92 magnification, bright and no clutter viewfinder. I do use a shutter speed linked external Leica MR-4 meter and with it's dual range metering it works well in lower light conditions.</p>

<p>Your requirement of a built in meter restricts your M series choices. Year ago I wanted to move up from the Leica LTM cameras to the later M series. I found that I could buy a very good hand held meter, a very good used M3 and a late model 50 Summicron f2.0 for a lot less than the M6 with Summicron. For the 50 lenses the M3 has worked out very well and it might for you as it matches your other 4 requirements. The M3 has worked out so well that I use it just with the Sumicron 50 and a later Summilux 50. I bought a user, rebuilt M4-2 for the wide angle 35. You are going to receive interesting opinions on this question.</p>

<p>From experience I've found Stephen's comment about keeping the eye centered very helpful. As for the Leica LTM rangefinder/viewfinders, the IIIg has a parallax corrected bright line 50/90 viewfinder that is vastly superior to the earlier LTMs, framing seems accurate and is usable with glasses.</p>

<p>Surviving real Leica cameras used by the Luftwaffe or other arms of the military are rare enough. Even rarer are the Zeiss Contax II cameras used by the Kriegsmarine. They exist but again, it takes a real expert to validate the camera as genuine. Probably a good number went down with destroyed U-Boats.</p>