lookupinwonder

Yes, a Leica is nothing more than a light proof box. I never got it, so I bought one, a 1963 M2. Got a similar vintage Summicron DR as well.

 

The combo takes great pics. Better than the ones I made with my old Nikons? Yes and no. My Nikons are SLRs and the quietness and absence of mirror slap of the Leica is welcome. The 'cron is also quite amazing wide open. But it has no light meter and the shutter is only moderately accurate. Ok, it works smoothly, but more so than my Nikons? No.

 

But the real appeal is the sheer build quality. Mine's old and a bit worn, but it's a jewel you don't want to part with.

When I bought my M2, exposure was way off. I had the shutter overhauled and only then I found that not only my M2 had been at fault, but also that my Gossen Digiflash was off by 1 1/3th of a stop. Oh the fun I had finding that out!

 

Anyway, if you are an experienced photographer and remember Sunny 16, coupled with the generous latitude of print film, you probably won't even need a meter, at all.

 

There are many handheld and clip on meters out there, but for an M2 a Voigtlaender VC II sure looks tempting. I also found a Gossen Lunasix 3 second hand for next to nothing. Got some battery adapters for it and it will probably last me the rest of my life. The Digiflash has been calibrated and works too, but it feels and looks very cheap for something that really isn't.

 

Anyway, with a meterless camera you will very soon learn how to 'read the light' in advance. I'm still thinking about the VC II for my M2, just for a little more convenience and speed, but usually one reading with the Digiflash and adjusting a bit where needed (guesstimating) will get me trough a roll.

Read the post from the guy who shoots film expired in the 1950's?

 

Just use and process as normal, rate it very slightly lower if you must. My own experiences go no further than a roll of Tri-X, expired 18 years before. Ok, it was a bit fogged and grainy, but I managed to get a few pics published from that roll nonetheless.

 

A few weeks back I processed two rolls of Ilford FP4+, one fresh, one expired a year ago (and stored at room temperature). I couldn't tell the difference.

The oldest I ever used was Tri-X with an expiry of 1989. Almost 20 years old. It was grainy and base fog was quite high, but I actually got some pics published from that roll ;-)

 

I would try as suggested, just for fun.

What Greg said. Maybe you are tired of doing it yourself, fair enough.

 

But don't be daunted by it. I started less than one year ago with a changing bag (you don't need a dark room), a few second hand tanks and reels and assorted stuff. Equipment and chemicals are very cheap. The hardest thing is getting your film onto the reel in a changing bag.

 

You'll be amazed.

Keep your film gear. All of it. Maybe you can get a few good bucks for fairly recent lenses and flashes, but is it really worth it? I was in the same situation four years ago when I went from Minolta to Nikon. I sold all my Minolta gear, but even then the body, the excellent Dynax 7, was unsellable.

 

After a few years digital I realised that I still could not make pictures look like classic B/W. So I got an FM and bought a few rolls of B/W. Now I have 7 film cameras I use regularly, and develop my own B/W for the first time in my life. My digital P&S gathers dust an my dSLR wonders what the hell has happened.

 

Digital has its place, and lets face it, is better than 35mm for most practical purposes. But it can't match Tri-x in a Leica M2.

Actually it could be considered pretty sad that the Leica M8 bumper sticker had me roaring with laughter. How many people in the world, or even on this forum, would actually get it?

I owned both. The f1.8 is sharper.

 

As an available light shooter (concerts) I am going to tell you that half a stop really doesn't matter much. Save yourself a bit of money and get the f1.8. If you later really feel the need for a f1.4, you can always sell it.

 

In my opinion the 50mm f1.8 is the best lens I have ever used for the Nikon system. Strangely enough, it was also the cheapest...

I am sorry, but you have a Leica M6 and a Nokton 35/1.4 and you don't know that they will work together? And you are asking this AFTER you have bought the lens?

 

Anyway, your Nokton 35mm f1.4 is M-mount, it will fit and work perfectly on any M-mount camera, be it from Leica or from anybody else.

 

There is also a 50mm f1.5 Nokton. This is only available in Leica Thread/Screw Mount. This would need an adapter.

My first Nikon was a D70, now I have a D200. Shot AF Minoltas before that (film of course). I lust after a D700 because of its hi-ISO performance and RAW headroom, something I always wanted.

 

The convenience, and frankly quality, of digital was a no-brainer, but film has its advantages too. So I started looking for a film body that could use my Nikon glass. I wanted simplicity. As has been remarked before, they are soooo cheap. I now have an FM, 2FE's and an EM...

 

Last year I bought a new scanner (after completely wearing out the previous one), after a bit of doubt if I would use it enough to warrant the cost. If it would break today I'd buy another tomorrow.

 

So, for reasons explained in this thread, don't expect a digital FM2n anytime soon. Just go to the nearest camera show / swap meet and take home orphaned film gear. For the price of one dSLR you can buy enough manual Nikons to last you a lifetime.

Voigtlanders are relatively cheap and very, very good. Start out with a 35 or 50 and one type of film. Kodak Tri-X would be great.

 

Leica has made many, many lenses over the last 80 years. The 40mm Rokkor is often cited as very good and not expensive. But a 50mm f2 Summicron is the one to go for. Many versions exist, but the Dual Range version would fit your M2 very well and is outstandingly good. I got mine with goggles, caps and yellow filter for 250 euros.

Hi all,

 

As we all know, used analogue MF gear can be had for very little money. I want to step up from 35mm/digital and I

am looking for my first MF camera system. As usual I looked over the 'net and forums like this one, but I'm still

having a hard time deciding what would suit me. So I decided to make a list of priorities:

 

- Preferably interchangable lens capability. It would be great to have lenses equivalent to 28, 50 and 90mm in 35mm.

 

- I'm leaning towards 645, due to smaller size of equipment

 

- Strong preference for solid, all manual cameras that can be repaired and serviced without breaking the bank. Not

something decades old, unless it is still compatible with something more recent

 

- I have no need for a meter, motorized film transport or any of that kind of stuff

 

I am aware of all the Hasselblads, Bronicas, Fujis and Mamiyas out there, but I have a hard time which system

would suit me best. I really am looking for solidity over sophistication. With MF I will work slowly, but I like to lug my

stuff around.

 

Cost is of secondary importance, because a good fried just bought a Hasselblad kit with body, back, 3 lenses and

finder for 1700 euros... I am not planning on going that far, but an upper limit of 1000 Euros should give me plenty of

possibilities. Any suggestion or link is appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

Ronald

Low price so a cropped sensor is a must. M mount a must. Leica has to swallow a bit of pride and make low cost M-mount 'DX' lenses. Leica glass but 'Japanese' construction. A 28/35 50 90 (equivalent) combo will do nicely. Have them made by Voigtlander with 'Leica specs'. Zeiss does it too!

 

No bomb proof construction, just solid enough. No meter would be silly because the sensor can do that. But the display can be left out. Maybe make two models, one with screen, one without. RAW capture of course. Cloth shutter with usual specs, manual cocking. Would make sense to have the M7 design, the camera will be mostly electronic anyway. Basic functions on monochrome LCD. AA batteries. A few presets for white balance.

 

And all that for 1500$. If they can build it at a decent profit, I think people while whine a lot that it is not a 'real' Leica but buy it anyway.

E)

 

I got a bit bored with digital and bought an M2, four lenses and counting.

 

My D200 is a fine tool, but Tri-X in my Leica thrills me more.

Based on many opinions and my own preferences I bought an M2. It's has obviously seen an eventful life (it looks used though not worn) and needed a CLA but it simply is the finest piece of camera engineering I have ever used.

 

I got a similar vintage Summicron DR with it, results are magnificent. The best I have ever got from 35mm.

 

An M6 would have been twice as expensive and do I really need a built in meter? No, I already knew I really don't. Besides, an M6 does not feel as nice as an M2. Mine does not have the quickload kit and I don't feel I have a need for it. It's no sports camera. If I would need the ability to change films faster I'd get myself a few extra spools.

For street the CL with a 40 may be perfect. The best combo you could possibly get for that kind of work even, anywhere, at any price.

 

I own an M2 because it is a more complete camera and also because it is a classic built to the highest standards.

 

You can't get far wrong with either really. If I had to make the choice I'd probably buy both...

Stephen is Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest.

 

Anyway, I started with a Canonet but bought a Leica M2 a month later. 380 euros and another 200 for a CLA, 200 for a VC 35mm, 250 for a DR Summicron (a bargain). Not to brag or anything, but it gets quickly out of hand. And the M2 is woooonderful.

 

But starting out with an original Leica screwmount would be a wiser decision. As has been said, take care of it and it will last a lifetime. From how many consumer goods can you say that?

Ok, you already found Stephen ;-)

 

Why not go for a Bessa outfit? The only thing against it is that you won't have bragging rights.

 

As for quality, even a half decent Russki will yield extremely good pictures if you know what you are doing. You said you processed yourself, so you know what 35mm can and can't do. Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine is a sheer thrill.

Hmm. Interesting. You might want to check out the RFF (RangeFinderForum). Google and you are there in a wink.

 

You can go for a Canonet at first. Shouldn't be too hard to find one that still works fine (mine was all of 20 euros at a camera show). You can get breathtaking results with it, but it doesn't have the build quality of a Leica. This is something that does matter with cameras this old.

 

Their are many more good cameras in the 'Canonet category' from Olympus, Minolta and Yashica. Little experience with them, but the guys at RFF know a lot about them.

 

Russian Leica copies (FED, Zorki) were made in the millions and are dirt cheap. They tend to need a bit of tinkering to get them to work right. I own a FED-5 which sort of works and the Industar lens is stellar. But the finder is cr*p and it is not worth it to have it cleaned. The 'Leica fakes' & German marking craze started out to fool people they had a real, rare Leica. Now everyone knows better, but they are fun in a warped kind of way ;-) They work just as well (or as badly) as an unmodified FED or Zorki.

 

As for 'real' Leicas, some screw mount (or copies) are not that expensive, and you can use cheap Russian screw mount lenses on them. M-Leica's are expensive no matter what.

 

Have also a look at Stephen Gandy's site (Google again), he has a wealth of info.

 

Hope this helps... but be warned, it's an addictive hobby.

Man, good for an early morning laugh. Fall into the category 'So bad, it's good'.

 

No one is going to fall for that (hopefully). I have seen some marvellous fakes on camera shows. Ok, you KNOW it's just Zorkies and FEDs, but they are sometimes so nice to look at that it makes you wonder why Leica never 'pimped' their cameras.

 

I know of several sites showing fakes, some kitschy (I confess I love them to death), others showing obvious fakes that try to be Leicas, but also now rare (and expensive) Leica copies (Leotax, Reid, Shangai etc.). It really is a fascinating world... just don't get ripped off!

Yes.

 

Right handed, left eyed, big nosed. I don't know any better, but I indeed do have to take my eye from the finder of my film cams (Nikon FM, Leica M2, among others) to advance film smoothly.

 

As a matter of fact, I once went with a friend to s shooting range (his hobby) and people thought it strange. But I'm a pretty good shot all the same. Blame the computer games I play(ed) ;-)

The option of grafting a digital back onto my M2 makes my knees tremble... hopefully it is getting somewhere. Ah well, the fridge is well stocked with Tri-X anyway...

Well, this is a shot of HP5+ at 1250ISO, done in Diafine... but I have no experience with other developers myself.

What I do know though, is that HP5+ is extraordinarily forgiving and flexible. I'm only starting to understand what it

can do:

 

http://members.chello.nl/~r.hogenboom/temp/sarah.jpg<div></div>

Others have pointed out how the relase the ball bearing. It really isn't as complicated as it may sound.

 

Dunno what you payed for it, but as the glass is any good, I would keep it. Have it cleaned by an expert and enjoy.

 

My own DR is quite dirty and used (glass is clean and without scratches though), but mechanically it still works, though not as smooth as you would expect. I had trouble figuring out the goggles and focus ranges too.

 

Try if the advice given here works for you, then shoot some rolls. My Summicron DR is without any shadow of a doubt the best lens I have ever used. Period. A new lens may be better, but outstanding it still is.

Although I went the Leica route (an M2) myself, much can be said for the Voigtlander Bessas. The come in many flavours, all mechanical ones as well, and the lenses are outstanding, for a fraction of Leica cost.