Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rangefinder Forum' started by BradS, Feb 23, 2018.
You’re right, I didn’t think of it. Old habits never die, I’m a movie cameraman.
Ha! Rackover cinema cameras were the cinema standard for decades, especially the Mitchell Standard, NC, BNC in the States. The Arri II was the game changer.
Why not the Arriflex of 1937? The Arriflex II was post-war.
Yes, of course you are correct, I am too Hollywoodcentric. The Arri reflex was used after WWII in the US studios. The IIc really came into its own as a location production tool for the studios when they hard-fronted them (no turret) with a BNCR or Panavision mount in the late '60's.
My take on the screwmounts: small, built-in diopter, 1.5x rf magnification (from the Leica III onwards) ... in my experience easier to load than an M.
I have two screw Leica on my desk and often I ask myself why I don’t take these beauties out.......
Because then I see my Fujifilm x100f and before I know I’m out shooting the Fuji.
How do you think that Fuji will be working when it is 80 or more years old?
What is being made today that will last 25 or more years? I have a friend who uses a 1931 A model Ford as a daily driver during summer. Durability and maintainabilty seem to be very low on the list of virtues; consumers have allowed themselves to be trained by the marketeers into some sort of bipedal magpie, bringing home an endless stream of shiny crappy things to clutter the nest.
Go to any flea market or junk yard and you will see 80 year old detrius - and that's the good stuff that hasn't rusted, rotted, or just been thrown away. There has always been crap and bipedal magpies. It is not a new phenomenon as some would have you believe.
True, absolutely true. But that was not part of the question.
I had Leica's from M2 op to M6, only the M5 I didn't own or use. Absolutely magnificent pieces of mechanical photographic equipement
But, before the digital swap, I preferred to shoot my Contax G2 over the Leica M's, probably the convenient A priority did it. (Never got my hands on a M7)
There was something over the screw Leica's however that made me keep those little gems. Compact, understated, and the magic that happen when you shoot the old collapsable Summicron on a pushed TRIX, I guess.....
I guess it will be almost as death as I will be
No that's not true. Industrial revolution tilled the land, marketing made it bloom. There's no point making things that cannot be sold.
I was out shooting with my IIIa today, it slips in a pocket, it's fun to use and that little Elmar is amazingly sharp.
Because it's fun using a camera that's as old as I am and still works! Bought my first Leica (a IIIc) when I was a college freshman over 50 years ago and still enjoy using it. Have an M3 too but the little Barnack is just plain fun to use.
It is small in the pocket.
It is fun to use.
It is cheaper than the M series cameras and lenses.
Many LTM lenses are available at a wide range of prices.
The owner wants to use it.
No, I do not have this camera and I have never owned this camera.
1. Though my Leica III is 80 years old it is still a reliable, modern, camera.
2. It is small so I have it with me more often than I don't.
3. Its settings are very precise and very accurate.
4. I am more aware of the light, the camera settings and my surroundings when I carry it.
5. It makes me feel good to use it.
6. Though I am normally a shy person, this camera attracts people and conversations, which I do enjoy.
7. It is repairable.
If your Leica LTM is in good condition you can advance film just as quickly as with a lever by stroking the knob with the side of your finger (assuming right-handed).
Even the external ones?
Last week had a IIIa with me when I went to shoot a two-alarm woods fire. Used a pre-war uncoated 35 Elmar and one of the worst auxiliary viewfinders ever made - a Tewe. As I expected, everything worked well and the black and white prints were easier to make thanks to lower contrast - black fire gear and white smoke are a challenge for any film. I have, and shoot, Ms, but I can get anything with a Barnack that I can shoot with an M.
They're truly great tools and hark to a time when one was expected to take time and think about what one was doing.
I don't have a Barnack, a III is near the top of my list; for now I have a Canon IIb with a coated Summitar, the magnifying integrated vf/rf is a very useful improvement and otherwise the camera is every bit as well made.
I've wondered the same myself, until I owned a number of different models.
It depends on what you use them for, what results you want and/or how comfortable you feel using them.
The screw mount bodies are great for their light weight/pocketability, but you also must consider whether or not you are happy wiih using a hand-held light meter.
The pre-war (uncoated) lenses generally have a lesser amount of contrast than the post-war (coated) lenses, but in my opinion, both have a "unique" quality, which I cannot describe other than it is unable to be matched by digital.
M cameras are easier to use, with more convenient finders and later coated and further developed lenses.
Having said that, my last 2 holidays had me taking an M6, canon 25, leica 35 and 50, plus canon 135 lenses.
This was pure practicality.
My next holiday (a cruise) may include a Nikon F2, etc.
I prefer M4-2 or Zorki to Bessa R2M, which is backup camera for first two then they needs service.
I'm not so sure how practical TTL metering is for me. I like take pictures during daylight and it works fine by S16, including E6 films.
At night I have to measure only once, comparing to sun, lights are very consistent light sourse.
This comment is on topic because it pertains to the lenses that a thread-mount Leica user will come across. I always wonder why the ePrey sellers of old lenses even add this inane platitude to their listings.
1. A sophisticated buyer will not pay any attention to a stupid comment like this.
2. An uninformed or new camera buyer will be looking for 50+ year-old lenses??
3. The sellers almost never show actual photographs taken with the exact lens or camera, so how do they know it has no effect?
4. If the haze does have an optical effect, the sellers have made themselves vulnerable for a PayPal claim for money back.
It must be feel-good crap for camera/lens sellers - not for the benefit of the customers.
It's ignorance. Plain and pure. I have a ca. 1906/8 9 1/2" Dagor with a 9mm gouge in the rear surface, right across the middle. Also, I have a perfect example of the same lens, pristine glass. I blacked the gouge with india ink, and in general use I can see no issues from the "bad" lens - however, if I set up a test using both lenses, the gouge becomes very apparent.
I am quite sure we could amass a very long list of the stupid shit that eBay sellers say about cameras and lenses.
one of my favorites is: "an easy fix"
Better is "shutter sounds accurate at all speeds".
"Excellent condition for it's age" (could be said of Tut's mummy).
"Meter seems accurate".