Pentax and m42 Leica lenses

[lxdude]

You dont want to be in a japanese car in accident but a Mercedes.

Go to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Look at the crash test results for Lexus and Mercedes.

www.safercar.gov

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Except it doesn't. Aluminum is lighter, and engineers know how to make an aluminum engine strong and tough. Look at F1 engines. They use aluminum and magnesium wherever they can.

The ferric material used for engines blocks is cast iron, not steel.

Horses for courses. Cast iron damps vibrations making for a quieter engine, all things being equal. The piston engines used in the B-36 had magnesium crankcases, and owing partly to the fact that they were buried in the wings were prone to catastrophic engine fires. An aluminium cylinder head cools better, owing to it's superior heat transfer, and allows power outputs which would simply not be possible with iron heads - but that same superior heat transfer means a bit more fuel is used to make the same power. I can go on and on, cast iron pistons in diesel engines have superior flame propogation near the piston crown; but can't be used beyond a certain level of thermal stress, where aluminium takes over (even when the pistons are water cooled).
Any engineering project is an almost endless series of compromises.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Go to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Look at the crash test results for Lexus and Mercedes.

www.safercar.gov

Don't forget Saab and Volvo.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hey! Stop confusing the debate with facts!

There's a movie in the works called "Steel Leicas", its a movie about a bunch of old APUGers who bond together through their delicate love of the Leica cameras and how those not using Leicas are simply wasting many years, time, film and effort producing crap.

Which model Leica did Eddie Weston use?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I can go on and on....

Please do. Way more interesting than than the posts on how nothing but Leicas are garbage. And hey, I have an MP and lovely set of Leica lenses. But think my Contax, Pentax, and Nikon lenses are wonderful too. Just got a Konica Hexar AF....wonder what I'll think of that lens?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My hovercraft is full of eels!

Lucky man! http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/eel

 

[Dinesh]

We are not worthy.

Don't be so hard on yourself Thomas ....................... but no, no you aren't.

BTW, have a great time at Photostock. Drink a beer or two for me!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Don't be so hard on yourself Thomas ....................... but no, no you aren't.

BTW, have a great time at Photostock. Drink a beer or two for me!

I'm disappointed you won't be there, Dinesh. I was looking forward to get DF out of the basement for a while... I will salute you while there, for sure.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Please do. Way more interesting than than the posts on how nothing but Leicas are garbage. And hey, I have an MP and lovely set of Leica lenses. But think my Contax, Pentax, and Nikon lenses are wonderful too. Just got a Konica Hexar AF....wonder what I'll think of that lens?

Rich, I've had two M3s, a IIIG that was too perfect to use so I sold it, the use of an R3 with 28, 50, 135, and some Angenieux zoom; and a CL with 40 & 90mm lenses. I know what Leitz lenses can do, and as a mechanician who works on things like precision timepieces I appreciate the sheer gorgeousness of Leica construction. But guess what? I look at the slides and negatives I took with the Leicas and while sometimes I can see a difference, the pictures are no better. I use SLRs because they will do things no rangefinder will do. I use Nikon SLRs because I like their features and handling best, the construction is just about impeccable, and the optics are just dandy. The 50/2 Nikkor H, the 105/2.5, and a few others of the pre AI era are world class.
But.
When I want grainless enlargements with utterly smooth tonality I reach for the 4x5. When I want a contact print and even smoother tonality I grab the 8x10 and a 100+ year old Dagor.

When I want a small handheld camera with the highest possible quality I take out the Rolleiflex.

 

[Dinesh]

I use Nikon SLRs because I like their features and handling best, the construction is just about impeccable, and the optics are just dandy.

Why on earth would you use a Nikon? Did you not read this quote?

"Use a Toyota , it kills you at an accident with care."

Now you're just putting peoples lives at risk you heartless bastard!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Why on earth would you use a Nikon? Did you not read this quote?

"Use a Toyota , it kills you at an accident with care."

Now you're just putting peoples lives at risk you heartless @#!*% !

Yes, I'm not only risking others' lives, I'm doing it needlessly and for utterly selfish reasons - and I don't care!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Rich, I've had two M3s, a IIIG that was too perfect to use so I sold it, the use of an R3 with 28, 50, 135, and some Angenieux zoom; and a CL with 40 & 90mm lenses. I know what Leitz lenses can do, and as a mechanician who works on things like precision timepieces I appreciate the sheer gorgeousness of Leica construction. But guess what? I look at the slides and negatives I took with the Leicas and while sometimes I can see a difference, the pictures are no better. I use SLRs because they will do things no rangefinder will do. I use Nikon SLRs because I like their features and handling best, the construction is just about impeccable, and the optics are just dandy. The 50/2 Nikkor H, the 105/2.5, and a few others of the pre AI era are world class.
But.
When I want grainless enlargements with utterly smooth tonality I reach for the 4x5. When I want a contact print and even smoother tonality I grab the 8x10 and a 100+ year old Dagor.

When I want a small handheld camera with the highest possible quality I take out the Rolleiflex.

Right there with you across the board! Love that old Nikkor glass! Those two you mention are in particular my fav Nikon lenses. Using them with my F2 is sheer joy...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Why on earth would you use a Nikon? Did you not read this quote?

"Use a Toyota , it kills you at an accident with care."

Now you're just putting peoples lives at risk you heartless bastard!

Ha ha ha!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Right there with you across the board! Love that old Nikkor glass! Those two you mention are in particular my fav Nikon lenses. Using them with my F2 is sheer joy...

I use an F, and a Nikkormat FTN. Another lens I use quite a lot is the 35/2 Nikkor-O, and while I wouldn't put it in the category of the other two, it's an excellent lens and I see no need to "upgrade".
Another lens I have is the 20/3.5 Nikkor UD, which is a real handful both physically and in angle of view. I haven't used it a lot, but it's an impressive lens. The only real flaw I find is falloff, this is gone by f:5.6 or so and it's a stunning lens for the right subject. The 50/2 (I have one for each body) compares very favorably with the Summicron-R I used, there's nothing much to choose from between them. The Summicron-M was visibly better at f:2 and 2.8, but not by a wide margin and not unless you projected or enlarged the film.

 

[Dinesh]

I'm really confused. Mustafa clearly said a steel Leica would make me better than da Vinci and Rembrandt combined. Now you guys are saying I can keep using my Nikon. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Mustafa was very clear.

"Use a Toyota , it kills you at an accident with care."

Keep using those Japanese cameras and tragedy will ensue, do you hear me, tragedy!

I've done all I can do.

 

[lxdude]

Don't forget Saab and Volvo.

Well, I was responding to the aspersions being cast at Japanese cars. (I don't know if they were cast iron aspersions or cast aluminum aspersions)

 

[Dali]

I live dangerously.... I use Japaneses cameras and lenses. How long will I survive to a predicted disaster???

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'm really confused. Mustafa clearly said a steel Leica would make me better than da Vinci and Rembrandt combined. Now you guys are saying I can keep using my Nikon. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Definitely do not listen to me!

 

[lxdude]

Horses for courses. Cast iron damps vibrations making for a quieter engine, all things being equal. The piston engines used in the B-36 had magnesium crankcases, and owing partly to the fact that they were buried in the wings were prone to catastrophic engine fires. An aluminium cylinder head cools better, owing to it's superior heat transfer, and allows power outputs which would simply not be possible with iron heads - but that same superior heat transfer means a bit more fuel is used to make the same power. I can go on and on, cast iron pistons in diesel engines have superior flame propogation near the piston crown; but can't be used beyond a certain level of thermal stress, where aluminium takes over (even when the pistons are water cooled).
Any engineering project is an almost endless series of compromises.

Correct.
I was in particular addressing the notion that steel (or cast iron) makes for a better engine. So many engines these days are made out of aluminum because of its lightness, whether for performance or fuel economy. Engineers have resolved the shortcomings of aluminum engines, and they are tough and durable. High-performance motorcycles have had aluminum cases and heads for many decades now, and car makers like Subaru were well ahead of others in producing tough and reliable engines with aluminum heads and cases. The Buick 215 was a great all-aluminum engine but GM had yet not learned how to make them without a high scrap rate. The engine's Olds variant won an F1 championship.

It really comes down to the application and demands to determine what is the best material to use. One notable screw-up I can think of is the aluminum-bore Chevy Vega engine, which had no cylinder liners or coating like Nikasil, just the aluminum of the casting, and which wore rapidly. Then they topped it off with a cast-iron cylinder head. I think some of their engineers must have been on drugs or drunk when they came up with that fiasco.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm really confused. Mustafa clearly said a steel Leica would make me better than da Vinci and Rembrandt combined. Now you guys are saying I can keep using my Nikon. I don't know what to believe anymore.

No, you need a forged (not cast) steel Leica. However, it will only make you better than Cellini.

 

[lxdude]

Yes, good as Leicas are, the cast steel ones will never be as good as the forged ones. Some say the ones made of stainless are just as good, but I keep thinking, "Which will protect me better in an accident?"

 

[Dan Fromm]

Correct.
The Buick 215 was a great all-aluminum engine but GM had yet not learned how to make them without a high scrap rate. The engine's Olds variant won an F1 championship.

The 1966 SOHC Repco-Brabham engine with which Jack Brabham won the 1966 F1 drivers' championship was built around a highly modified GM block but was far, far from the pushrod GM engine. The 1967 SOHC Repco-Brabham engine used Repco's own block. GM derived, not GM.

My Rover P6B had a Rover-made 215 GM V8. I think the big difference between Rover's version and the original was carburation, the Rover version used SUs. My example was very problematic.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yes, good as Leicas are, the cast steel ones will never be as good as the forged ones. Some say the made of stainless are just as good, but I keep thinking, "Which will protect me better in an accident?"

I don't think about this enough.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, good as Leicas are, the cast steel ones will never be as good as the forged ones. Some say the made of stainless are just as good, but I keep thinking, "Which will protect me better in an accident?"

For protection, you want the very very rare Kruppstahl Leica, a limited series made for high Nazi officials.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The 1966 SOHC Repco-Brabham engine with which Jack Brabham won the 1966 F1 drivers' championship was built around a highly modified GM block but was far, far from the pushrod GM engine. The 1967 SOHC Repco-Brabham engine used Repco's own block. GM derived, not GM.

My Rover P6B had a Rover-made 215 GM V8. I think the big difference between Rover's version and the original was carburation, the Rover version used SUs. My example was very problematic.

Dan, IIRC the original Repco was based on the GM block, with a short-stroke crankshaft for 180 c.i. and Repco's own SOHC heads (and a host of other mods). As power levels climbed there were durability problems with the blocks.