cpj

<p>Well, that's good question but I am uniquely qualified to measure sound. You first have to understand that I don't hear much at all. In fact, I'm what the ADA law defines as a "hearing impaired person" due to a near medical disaster following major surgery in 2005. I have zero hearing in my right ear and very little frequency range response in my left ear. With a my $3200 hearing aid in the left, I have an 11-step range of adjustment of sound level. So if I set it to "just perceive" the quietest sound, then it is quite easy to click it up to match the loudest sound. Since 11 steps is just one short of 12, I estimate 3 steps as one-quarter volume. Crude and imprecise, yes, but better than anybody else can do without instruments. <br>

The only other advantage to my disability comes when buckling my seat belt on an airplane. I switch to "off" and don't even hear the engines. Having had two normally functioning audio nerves until a little over three years ago, I know well what a devastating loss of hearing can do to the psyche. So one has to resort to all kinds of rationalization and mental compensation. Or, as a former classical music aficionado, I could just sit around and cry a lot.]<br>

You don't want my ability to differentiate 1/4 sound values. Believe me. </p>

<p>I don't know. The photo is too small for me to see it. Do you have a vernier caliper? Measure across the inside of the cap. If it is for the Summicron it should be 41.87 mm or 1.6 inches--at least that's what my old silver cap from the 1960's measures. it has Leica impressed on the front, is made of aluminum, and has a felt like liner on the insider rim to hold it onto the lens. . . . or maybe that's the cap for the 35 mm Summicron of the 1960's ?</p>

<p>To Stephen Lee: Your camera is broken; return it asap. <br>

I have three cameras--my M7, my M8 and my one month old M8.2 in my hands right now and have compared the shutters at different speeds. Whether it is 1/2000th or 1/8th the M8.2 is LESS than one-quarter as loud as the M8--the comparison is so obvious that you can't miss it. The 8.2 is EQUAL to the M7 at 1/30th second and at 1/1000th you can just detect the re-cocking sound on the 8.2 but it is no louder than the shutter when released.</p>

<p>Go to a good hardware store--the old fashioned type-- and buy a small tube of LocTite #609. Put a drop on each screw and replace the screw and forget about it for the next 20 years. (If you need to remove the screws, use a precisely-fitting screwdriver like the kind used by gunsmiths, and it will break the seal without trouble and the screws will easily come out. (You can even buy a precisely fitting screwdriver for a few $$ from Brownells.com.)<br>

One tube or small bottle of Loctite is enough for about 500 to 600 screws, so save it for other uses. It's about $15 but a lot cheaper than sending the lens to Leica which will do exactly the same thing. #609 is the "standard" strength. You can use a stronger strength but it is not necessary. #609 will hold tritium inserts in .45 cal. pistol sights during recoil which is slightly more shock than your lens will ever see.</p>

<p>Expanded Comment: I have had an M8 for two years and I just traded it for an M 8.2 and that cost me about $1500 in the swap, but I think the M 8.2 is very well worth it. The new almost noiseless shutter and the new non-scratch glass on the back will be well worth it in the long run. The M 8 shutter goes "Clunk!" at all speeds while the 8.2 shutter sounds like the M7. I also own an M7 (and I've owned all the M's over 40 years.)</p>

<p>YES, YES, and YES. Return the M-8, go to Popflash Photo (popflash.com) and buy an M8.2 with International Warranty vs. US Warranty and save $600 over the US price. You get the camera for $5200 net and it is one great buy. (Write me off-line to learn about registering with Int'l Warranty if you have to make a claim. cpj@firemagazine.com)</p>

<p>And I think 700 Euro is about 20% too high (at $982 U.S.) for rolleinar 3 with some coating defect. . .a prism attachment with some defect in the mirror . . .AND SERIAL NUMBER REMOVED. The latter just screams "Stolen Camera."</p>

<p>I don't think you can tell ANYTHING about a camera when used with a Rolleinar close up lens. You are introducing and extraneous factor that can have a 100% negative effect. This is like saying "what do you think of this photo shot with my camera lens looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle?"</p>

<p>I have had an M8 for two years and I'm planning to sell it. (I have to pay for my M8.2 that just came in.) Does that answer your question about whether or not I wold recommend you buy the M8 (or 8.2) ? By the way, I've owned EVERY M model that ever came out and I still have my M7.</p>

<p>The serial number should be on the top edge of the plate that holds the light meter diffuser OR it will be at 5'oclock on the plate the surrounds the taking lens.<br>

The camera is one that was wired for a light meter but the meter not installed or subsequently removed. The meters were selenium type anyway and are often dead this many years later. The knobs don't "do" anything whether or not the light meter is installed, except act as reminders for yourself. The light meter, if working, couples to the wheels that set the aperture and shutter speed.</p>

<p>As one of the "old guys" on this forum who went into photojournalism in 1960, that lens was legendary. Everybody who used it on the early Nikon rangefinders or with an adapter on the M2 or M3 considered it the best lens you could buy anywhere on Earth! 'nough said.</p>

<p>If you move up to an M8 or 8.2 the SF20 won't work correctly and you must have the SF24. I believe the M7 similarly takes full advantage of the auto features when using the SF 24. That's why I switched on advice of my dealer.</p>

<p>Get a Domke F2 bag. It's the #1 professional bag of the National Association of Press Photographers for a reason. It has done the job for all types of cameras in all kinds of conditions for more than 20 years and is still the most popular and best selling pro bag available.</p>

<p>The Yashica Mat had the reputation for being the best twin lens camera for the least amount of money, and it still is. No other Japanese or German camera could compare and a $125 spent for a Yashica now will be well worth it if you get one in good operating condition. You'll always be able to sell it for close to what you paid.</p>

<p>The 35 mm Summilux is one of the best lenses available for the Leica and you pay for it--actually overpay at something more than $3000.  But supposing without the Leica name, it was sold for $2400,that's still 300% of the price of a Nokton 1.2.  It all depends on whether or not you can "see" the difference and if you can see it, whether or not it's worth $1600 to you.</p>

<p>Folks: <br>

I want to thank Vic and Michael for coming to my defense with regard to re-cropping someone's image and offering the comment that I felt it looked better that way.<br>

This forum isn't the place on Photo.net where you submit photos for the "Gallery of my Best Work" type of thing. The very purpose of this forum is to present opinions--and photographers--for comment and to ask questions of other members.  This is also not a personal bulletin board for Travis and Ray and Barry to exchange personal messages back and forth.  You should be using direct emails for that purpose and not generating "alerts" to the personal email of others by mentioning a manufacturer or camera by name.<br>

For what it is worth, I have a degree in photojournalism and more than 30 years of professional experience cropping photos for public presentation in newspapers and magazines. So my approach is from the point of view that tries to answer "Hows is the best way to present this image so that the reader (viewer) receives the message the sender (photographer) is trying to convey?"  When the photographer says, essentially, "This is a face photo," and has failed to crop out the distracting elements or crop to draw the viewer's eye toward the face, I believe it is appropriate to offer suggestions and a re-crop. <br>

Someone suggested "you might as well have taking the top of the subject's head off."  Well, you actually hit on one of the basic elements taught in classes on photographic presentation. It's called "creating dynamic tension" and by doing so you reinforce the eye's concentration on the desired area--the face in this instance--by pulling the eye away from the POA--Primary Optical Area.  If you aren't familiar with the POA, forget the whole thing--you are just a bystander in the world of photography and have a lot of study ahead of you.  Sorry.<br>

As Michael pointed out THIS IS THE AREA where any photographs you post are EXPECTED to be commented upon, altered or reformatted.<br>

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; line-height: 15px;">

<p style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-family: georgia, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 160%; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;">But here on pnet, our Terms of Use include this:</p>

<p style="outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-family: georgia, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 160%; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;"><< ... <em>You grant to other photo.net members permission to download a copy of images contained in your User Content, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach the modified images to their comments ...</em> >>

</p>

</span><br>

When someone has made a living for more than 30 years in cropping photographs for publication, you'd do better to analyze his changes rather than flame him.<br>

Thank you all for your attention. <br>

See the dynamic tension in the photo version below.</p>

<p>CPETER</p><div></div>

Doesn't anybody see the need for cropping in photographs? If this is truly a "face photo" why not cut down on the distracting

elements and draw the eye to the face while still preserving some "atmosphere" of the place.<div></div>

Pumpkin photo cropped properly!<div></div>

Also, better start now with the Classified Section under both Leica/Rangefinder and under "35mm non-SLR" since the

Moderators will soon eliminate your "posting" here as I believe it is not permissible to sell stuff on the Forum section.

 

FYI, if all the lenses were bought in 1959 or so, they are all far out-dated. The Summilux has undergone at least 4 upgrades I

believe, the most recent being two years ago. The current one with asph elements sells for more than $3500 but a 1959 one

would bring far less, perhaps $500 or $600.

 

As a Leica owner I can say you should get a lot of response from the classifieds here.

The fellow who asked the original question was describing the Zeiss Super Ikonta--of which there are several versions0--or the

Agfa Super Isolette, both 6x6 folding cameras available with 4-element Tessar coated lenses and made up until the late 1950s.

For one in recently CLA'd shape, these cameras will go from $350 to $450 and they produce excellent results. They will fit into a

suit coat pocket or anything about the same size as they are about 1-inch thick by 3.75 inches wide by 4.5 inches long.

Look on the front, left side, and it should have a self-timer lever. The early M2 had no self timer and the later ones did. I believe

the ones with the self timer were called the M2 S. What is the "rapid load system" to which you refer? All M2's should have the

removable base plate, take up spool and flip-away back center door.

The CL is an excellent choice to hang on a shoulder strap and keep inside your jacket or coat, ready for immediate use.

 

If the metering seems off--an it sounds like you've taken care of this anyway--just adjust your ISO up or down a bit to produce

the desired exposure. Since the mercury cells for which it was built aren't available in the US, you may find that the

replacement battery is a bit short on voltage and thus gives a half-stop lower reading. Just a warning to check this first as the

compensation with the ISO setting is easy.

 

I wouldn't put a 21mm on it or even a 24mm without being careful to check that at the infiinity setting the rear of the lens mount

doesn't interfere with the shutter.

 

The photo quality relates more to the ability of the photographer and the lens, not the camera body. You will find the CL's 40

mm Summicron is excellent for a single, general purpose lens,

 

I've owned several CL's over the years and I keep itching to buy another just to have it around, but I find it hard to justify since

I have an M-8.2 and an M-7 with the M-7 not getting much use these days. The CL is, however, the best solution for taking

advantage of the Leica glass (I have several lenses) and being both lightweight and very handy.

From a "compact photo" standpoint without considering audio or video, a good bet would be the Canon G9 or G10 (the newest

model) and the cost is $400 to $450. Results are excellent.

Well, I am a Leica binocular fan and I currently have five of them. First a pair of 20 year-old 8x40 BA Trinovids, the 8x20's

Trinovid, a relatively recent 7x42 BA Trinovid, and my recent acquisition, the 8x32 Ultravid HD. The new Ultravid HD's also

come in 10x32 as well which gives a bit more magnification but the 8x32s are better in low light levels.

 

All of these are expensive and the new Ultravid HD's are clearly superior to the older models and a lot more compact and

lighter than say, a 7x42. If you get into binoculars you have to decide on compromises between exit pupil size and relative

light transmission vs. magnification. Overall the roof prism with a "6" exit pupil (7x42) is probably going to give you the most

light transmission for the money, but the new HD 8x32's with a "4" supposedly has light transmission of about a "5"and I

believe it from comparison.

Here's a more specific answer to your exact question.

The Contax G2 is a very nice camera but silent it is NOT. Certainly not when compared with an M-6 or M-7. I owned one for

years and as I recall it is even louder than the M-8. And the loud shutter is what they supposedly fixed with the M 8-2.

 

It is never a bad choice to "invest" in an M-6 because it will always hold its value, especially on the person-to-person sale

market. At this time the M-6 and all prior M cameras have a pretty much "settled" value on the used market. That concept of

settled value when it comes to paying for the utility and durability of something rather than the name or collector value, is why

you see M-3s and M-2s always within a certain price range today, 50 years after they came out. The $ value only relates now

to adjustments for inflation and, if buying abroad, the exchange value of the dollar.

 

An M3 ss, M2, and all the M4s today are going to be somewhere in the $600 to $900 range depending on condition. An M6

will run in the next bracket, $1000 to $1300. It is best to buy from a person you have a reason to trust more than an on-line

dealer. I'd stick to Photo.net members with a long history and recommendations from others.

 

All that said, your best bet in a Leica with a silent shutter for the price range you mention is the M-2. And if you find one

without the self-timer (which you'll hardly ever use) you'll save $75 to $100. I owned an M-2 for 35 years and it was perfect for

street work or even shooting in a courtroom or a board meeting.