christopher_junker1

<p>In Paul Neuthaler's 1/1/2014 New Year's Greeting, I opened a side discussion on sub-zero Leica usage. As the subject is of interest due to our current winter weather, I thought a separate thread might be of interest, especially with additional suggestions for best cold weather usage practices.<br>

On 9/4/2005 there was a post "Leica R6 for Cold Weather" in which several aspects of cold weather usage were reviewed. In addition to camera bodies and lenses, the post also discussed film issues, static, batteries and condensation. I had an unfortunate incident of severe internal lens fogging when I brought my unprotected very cold IIIg and 50 f2.8 Elmar into a warm, moist winter home. Fortunately I was able to have it refurbished before any mold appeared. </p>

<p>Anthony's request brought a smile since my home is under snow and ice and upstate NY and PA is just coming out of a deep freeze of below 0 weather for almost a week. Actually in good weather my home is similiar to Paul's, even to the pachysandra plantings. I don't think any of my cameras, Leicas or otherwise, should be used in sub zero weather with wind chill factors taking the effective temps down to -20. However my Leica notes include a discussion with Leica Rockleigh that Leica could prepare cameras and lenses for sub zero usage. I would guess Leica's preparation would address use of special lubricants or no lubricants depending on the intended use and climate.</p>

<p>I found Paul's 2008 PN forum comments on his M with R adapter and the 21 3.4 Super Angulon. The Leitz 22228 R to M adapter resulted in a smaller and lighter setup than staying with the Leicaflex Standard. I'm hoping it is a usable setup as the Leicaflex Standard is a heavy camera body to carry all day and I want to get additional use from the 21 Super Angulon.</p>

<p>Happy New Year Paul. May you continue to enjoy shooting as Leica film images are so special. My film freezer needs to be restocked as two new grandhildren made picture taking a joy.<br>

Do I recall that you have an adapter so you can mount a 21 f3.4 Super-Angulon R on an M body? If so has the setup worked well?</p>

<p>Mukul, actually your technique worked very well, the slightly blurred hands leading to the main subject who blanks out most of the girl next to her, then to the blurred background is effective. Jeff, your two Arlington shots make a great story, thank you.</p>

<p>I am aware that some of the WWII IIIc Leica bodies had modified shutters and internals that added ball bearings (K marked for kugellager) and were used by the Luftwaffe. When post civilian Leica production commenced with the IIIc's did they upgrade the production so that all post war IIIc's had ball bearing shutters or did that have to wait until the IIIf's went into production in 1950? And do all IIIf's have ball bearing shutters? Do the ball bearing shutters hold shutter speds to a closer tolerance than shutters without the bearings?</p>

<p>Lacking tools, experience and skill, GL's description of the work and delicacy indicates this is a job for those with expertise. Which isn't me. John's response is helpful as it is nice to know the beam splitter repair material is available for LTM body repair.</p>

<p>I have a Leica IIIf black dial in mint condition that Leica restored many years ago. I'd like to use it again. However silvering on its rangefinder mirror faded to the point the rangefinder no longer shows a split image. I was given a very battered Leica IIIc with a burned and cracked shutter curtain that could be rebuilt, but would still be visually distressed. However the rangefinder still works well with a good split image. Are the two rangefinder split image mirrors identical so that the IIIc mirror can be used in the IIIf? Or is there a source for resilvered rangefinder split image mirrors so the IIIc doesn't have to become just a parts source?</p>

<p>When it was 30 years old I sent my LTM 50 Elmar f2.8 to John Van Stelten to have it cleaned of condensation and rebuilt. When it came back I compared it to slides I had taken before it was fogged. The images looked good so I compared them on a test roll of slide film with a nice clean 50 Elmar f3.5 and a version 1 50 Summicron. The image contrast appeared improved in the 2.8 compared to the 3.5 from f3.5-f16. Very subjective, but the image corners of the 2.8 at f8-16 really did appear sharper on the screen and comprable to the Summicron. I just wish Leitz had produced their 50 Elmar f2.8 fixed mount prototype in LTM and M versions, it would have been a great lens. There is a reason that Leitz went to a fixed mount 50 Summicron f2.0, the mount was stiffer and probably easier to set to production focus standard. After a while the Elmar and early Summicron mounts can get a little loose and focus can suffer. If you plan to make regular use of the Elmar, you could take a set of pictures to send in when and if you decide to have it checked out and fixed if needed. </p>

<p>On my monitor, Kent's Amish image shows a slight magenta cast in the upper left sky. Does anyone else see it?</p>

<p>Mukul, from what I'm seeing on my monitor you got it just right. Although her new outfit is cute, my attention was drawn to her eyes that are framed by her eye makeup and glossy dark hair. If her personality is accurately presented by her facial expression, I can see her demanding more than just having her picture taken. Subtle, but very expressive, the eyes make the picture.</p>

<p>I still have my Brownie box camera and one roll of 116 Verichrome Pan film. Dad worked for Kodak and was able to get me test rolls free. My Dad's last camera was a Leica M4-2 that I still have. He bought his first Leica, a Standard, used in 1935. At the beginning of WWI the AAF came though Kodak buying up 35mm cameras and was told that Dad had a Leica. The AAF made a fuss when Dad wouldn't give it up as he was doing film testing with it. He shot hundreds if not a few thousands of test rolls throughout the war, sold it as a collector camera with a Hector 50 f2.5 lens and bought a Leica IIIg he gave to me on my 18th birthday. It was CLA's about 15 years ago and I still use it, carefully. Sitting on my display shelf at work is my grandfather's Kodak Vest Pocket III folding camera in perfect shape along with a Weston light meter that still works. I sure miss Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Nice street scene Mukul, even look like the guy is smiling. So how much is a cup of tea compared to a bottle of Coca-Cola?</p>

<p>For more on the Connies, see Lufthansa's website, they are rebuilding one of the last 1649 Lockheed Starliners, the 150' straight wing ultra long range trans Atlantic NYC to Europe Connie built to compete with the Douglas DC-7C Seven Seas airliner. I've been in Auburn, Maine to see the project and it isn't a restoration at all, it is a complete rebuild from freighter back to passenger configuration and systems updating so Lufthansa can actually fly passengers in the restored cabin. Target completion is 2014.</p>

<p>Steve's comments about turning a Soviet lens into a Canon LTM Serenar or later black LTM lens are accurate, it simply wouldn't be worth the time, money and effort to make such a fake. The later Canon LTM lenses especially in black are better in their optical performance than the earlier Serenar series and lighter as they are aluminum rather than the earlier brass. I rarely use a brass/chrome Canon 28 Serenar which is a very well made lens. The black Canon 50 f1.4 is a fine lens very close to early Leitz Summilux 50 in performance and I prefer it's ease of use. If you can find one, the Canon 100 f3.5 is outstanding and very light. Canon P and 7 bodies, although LTM compatible, are closer in size and feel to the Leica M series than the earlier IIIc,f and g bodies. </p>

<p>Although the LTM negative framing is also 24x36, the spacing between exposed images is indeed greater for the M series bodies. If carefully loaded, it was sometimes possible to get image #37 out of a 36 exposure roll from an LTM body. But not always.</p>

<p>I like Robin's comments as I still use both SLR and rangefinder film systems. This forum encourages discussions on a broad spectrum of Leica, rangefinder, digital, film and image making topics. I've just found out that a local photo finisher kept his Instamatic printing equipment so I'll finish off the 1970's Kodacolor cartridge in my Dad's Instamatic 500 just to see what he left in the camera. Hope mine are as good as his.</p>

<p>Good one Mukul. Also nice work with the Canon 1.4. The shot at f4 is very crisp, even with the subject movement. Robin, please keep the K64 images coming, Kodachrome is just so special. Standing where you were, you'd probably need at least a 35 or 28 mm lens to get all of that big MB 600 Pullman in the frame.</p>

<p>Robin's comment is close to what I've done. To shoot 35 lenses indoors I use a rebuilt M4-2 with a Leica MR-4 meter. The meter, being linked to the shutter speed dial is quick to use and reads a 35 field of view. I also use it with a Rapidwinder as an M4-2 is built to take a baseplate winder. An M4-2, even with the meter isn't very noticeable as it is all black. You'll find M4-2s are cheaper than M2s and being newer, may be in better condition. M4-2s are not as smooth as an M3 or M2, but I've had no trouble with mine. However the viewfinder does tend to sometimes flare. For shooting 35 outdoors, I've also used an updated Leica CL with good results. The CL's built in through the lens meter is accurate when the cell is rebuilt and adjusted. The CL has framelines for 40 mm so you have to look a little outside the frame lines with a 35. I stop down as it is a little tough to focus close up. It's black, compact with a bright viewfinder, light, but not as solid as an M body.</p>

<p>The comments on the FED/Industar 50 f3.5 lens are correct. An Industar lens like this one in good shape can be a very good lens, but it isn't a collectible. If this was supposed to be the original lens on the camera and was all chrome, the fact the lens is coated is another give away. The 50 Elmar lens for commercial production first received a lens coating in 1946(unless an early lens had been sent back to Leitz for coating). Note the knob on the lens lock tab. A real 50 Elmar lock tab will have a series of circular grooves, the Industar tab knob lacks the grooves. Of all the fakes we've seen on the Forum, this is one of the better looking ones.</p>

<p>Looking at the items in your picture led me to think this was a nice professional level kit. Zeiss Contax cameras and lenses were never cheap and in some ways better than the contemporary Leicas so whoever first owned this was serious about photography. It might be interesting to know of your kit's history. And yes, with high quality Zeiss lenses and their accurate rangefinders a vintage Contax camera in good condition will take superb images. Here you have some special items that both Contax and Leica collectors will be interested in purchasing. In addition to the camera itself, I also suggest you sell the specialty items like the Biogon 21 and the SBOOI 50 viewfinder apart from the camera.</p>

<p>I've had good results with my CL and it has been reliable, but that was after a CLA and update from Sherry K. The above user comments are accurate, with the two piece body construction, it is just not as solid as the M's. However it is light, compact, inconspicuous, and if working, the meter is accurate (although you said you didn't need it so with a non-working meter it might be cheap). The CL was designed to work with the f2.0 Summicron 40, a fine lens, but the frame lines will work with the 35's. Although the viewfinder/rangefinder is bright enough, the very short rangefinder base makes it difficult to focus close up at f2.0 with 50 lenses. I'm easy on cameras and lenses, so mine doesn't get knocked around. For a truly disposable 35, I have an old Pentax Spotmatic when I know the camera could get damaged. If you shoot primarily with 35 WA you may be able to pick up the unloved stepchild M (the M4-2) at a good price as you don't need a meter. M4-2's being a black body camera, it doesn't look as big as the other M's. If I was shooting with a 50, I'd rather have an M4-2 than a CL.</p>

<p>Your optometrist may be able to determine the diopter + or - eyepiece correction you need for proper focusing. You may be able to remove the eyepiece lens holder and have him make lenses with the correct diopter that can be fit to the eyepiece.</p>

<p>The Canon 100 F3.5 is a real sleeper. Fairly light so it balances well on the LTM bodies. Very sharp with good contrast, images are a little tighter than with the 90's but you can still use a 90 viewfinder. Nice for head and shoulder portraits. Once I saw the 100's image results I put my 90 Elmar in the drawer.</p>

<p>JDM: Outstanding! The guys look like they can't believe what they are seeing. True essence of "rat rod".</p>