|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-16-2024, 01:21 PM
|
| |
My first SLR was a Honeywell Pentax H1a bought in 1965 for $149. (In college I couldn't afford the H3v or Spotmatic.) For a few years I used it without a meter for everything: sports, snapshots, portraits, etc. Then I moved on to fancier equipment, but always thought the H1a fit my hands better than anything else.
After retiring in 2009 I started picking up the cameras I remembered from the 1950s-1980s, as they were incredibly cheap at the time. This H1a was exactly like my old one. I had Eric do a full CLA (he sent a picture of it completely dis-assembled on his bench), and it works like new. Yet I finally found digital cameras that I could use just like film (Leica M9, M10) so stopped using the H1a. I did use it for a picture of my last VW Beetle (on new Ektachrome) before I sold the car.
I've finally gone back to using the H1a, and it still feels better than any other SLR I've tried. Need to process a film from it tonight.
Attachment 627090 |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-08-2024, 07:24 AM
|
| |
I agree - the MR / MR4 meters are best for M2,3,4 cameras for the coupling to the shutter speed. They do develop problems with age, and I've had to go through a few and repair corroded circuits to keep them working. They have a 90mm FOV, so easy to tell what the metering area is.
The Voigtlander VC Meter II is my favorite for ltm Leicas and other old cameras. It works very well and looks at home on them.
Attachment 626400 |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-07-2024, 06:39 AM
|
| |
Agreed! Especially since the RF coupling only works with 50mm lenses, and there is enough variation in actual focal length of "50mm" lenses that the RF ay not be very accurate on this adapter. There have been other adapters to Leica that had RF coupling for Contax lenses, but this was the first I'd seen for Pentax, and since I've used both Leica and Pentax since the 1960s I was curious about how well it worked. For the cheap price it works better than I expected. It can also be used with other focal lengths on a Leica M10 or 11 with an EVF (Viso 020) attachment - but Leica users get Leica for rangefinder use.
This would have been more popular in the days when there were almost no options for Leica M lenses except from Leitz, but these days there are many more reasonably priced options available.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-21-2024, 07:34 AM
|
| |
Something unusual: Adapting lenses to work on Leica M Rangefinders isn't just a matter of adapting the flange, but in order to use rangefinder focusing the adapter needs to mate with the RF cam and move it appropriately to focus. I found a new one that does that, but only for 50mm lenses. In order to work, you leave the Pentax lens focused at infinity, and the adapter has its own focus helical with cam appropriate for a 50mm lens. So I tried it with a few Pentax 50 lenses. Here's my SMC 1.2. Focus accuracy with the f1.2 is generally OK, but wide open some errors can be seen. Works much better on my lower 50s, but then I'm better off using a Summicron 50.
Attachment 625162 |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-25-2024, 02:57 PM
|
| |
While my Pentax MX body is smaller than the Leica M4 I bought in 1968, the tiny rangefinder lenses make for a more compact travel kit. Here's my M4 (still going strong) with my smallest 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm (Collapsed into camera) and 90mm lenses. Rangefinder cameras are at their best with lenses 90 and under, although I also have a 135mm that works well with it too. I even have a mirror housing (Visoflex III) and 200mm that I've used for sports, but for 135 & longer and SLR is a lot handier. I've carried a Leica M camera and an SLR (Leica or Pentax) together for their strengths for over 50 years.
Attachment 625297 |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-25-2024, 06:49 AM
|
| |
I think you just described on-line forums...
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-24-2023, 08:15 AM
|
| |
That Leitz 200 mounted on a Visoflex II and M2 were used by a friend of mine for sports photos at Michigan Tech in the mid 1960s:
Attachment 619351
I have a Visoflex III that I've used with my M4 for macro work since the 1970s. I've also used it with the Leitz 200 on my M9 digital - but the lens works better on a Sony A7 with adapter.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-23-2023, 09:13 AM
|
| |
By 1935 Leica had been making 35mm film cameras for 10 years. In 1930 they made lenses interchangeable, in 1932 they added a build-in rangefinder claiming it focused "automatically" - as the lens focus on the film adjusted as you aligned the rangefinder images. In 1935 they introduced the model IIIa, with 1/1000 top shutter speed. Yet film wind was still by the knob, so rapid sequence shots were a struggle. So in 1935 they introduced the SCNOO rapid wind accessory. When loading film you just replaced the normal camera baseplate with the SCNOO that had a trigger winding mechanism. Your left-hand forefinger pulled the trigger over, winding the shutter and advancing the film. In 1950 they introduced the SYOOM (also called Leicavit) that had a longer straight trigger, and fit the slightly larger IIIc, IIIf, and IIIg cameras. They later made a version of the Leicavit for Leica M models, and made it until 2003.
The Canon Rapid winder for their RF models was similar to the Leicavit, and in the 1950s they made it integral with several models. But here's the one that started it all:
Attachment 619244
I sent this one to a Leica tech for repair in 2019 - and just got it back this month,
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-12-2023, 05:01 AM
|
| |
BTW - Nice M4 & 90 Elmarit! Looks like a 1970 build. Mine is a 1967 build that I bought in 1968, with a 90 TeleElmarit ("FAT" model) as my first M lens.
Attachment 610865
Yes, the R4 was a nice "right-sized" SLR. I bought one to use instead of my Pentax MX as the R4 had selectable metering patterns, and I still liked a spot meter. But the R series hasn't held up well over the years - I have 3 or 4 with electronics problems, while my MX cameras keep working (with the usual light seal replacements). The Leica tech who has done my repairs for years will no longer service Leica R cameras, as he can't guarantee they won't develop further problems. Leica also completely abandoned the R camera line, and sold off all stock of parts - so hard to get them repaired anywhere now. Meanwhile my Leica RF cameras just keep on going - even the one from 1929 still works fine (OK it didn't have an RF in 1929, but Leica upgraded it in 1932 to add one.)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-27-2012, 06:28 PM
|
| |
Because the M42 lens leaves the aperture control untouched, the body assumes it is at full aperture. (These bodies never know the actual aperture, just how many stops closed the K series lens would go.) So it works fine on the MX.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-11-2023, 03:58 PM
|
| |
I've used Leica rangefinders since the 1960s, starting with a new M4 while in college (after a couple years with a Pentax H1a), and skipped the M5 when it came out due to the comments in magazines (before Internet) about the size. Then picked up a used CL in the '70s and used it as my favorite travel camera with its 40 & 90 compact lenses. Great for bicycle touring, tucked in a handlebar bag. I first heard of the CL project a few years before it came out from a Leica rep. Besides the size and weight I loved the spot meter. In '85 I added an M6 which I still use a lot, but it is really more a center-weighted meter. I finally added an M5 and agree is is an exceptional camera - had years of development to refine it. Again I love its very selective spot meter, but prefer the simple LED arrow readout of the M6 for speed an simplicity. They're all great cameras for lenses up to 90mm where very close focusing isn't needed - which is most photos.
But I always had an SLR as a companion for long lenses and closeup work. Used a Leicaflex SL for a few years until the size and cost of lenses became too much - them Pentax came out with the MX (and later LX) and I switched to those. Still have and use all these cameras.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-13-2023, 08:16 AM
|
| |
Kodak Baby Brownie. My sister and I were each given one in 1949. Fixed lens and shutter speed, size 127 roll film - Verichrome Pan as it had enough exposure latitude for simple box cameras.
I found some Japanese 127 film a few years ago and shot and processed a roll. It still works!
Attachment 608546 |
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
07-11-2012, 09:20 AM
|
| |
I was mainly into photography in the 60s -70s (in terms of buying equipment), when the term "prime lens" wasn't used. Then there were "lenses" and "zoom lenses" - and zoom lenses were frowned on by "serious" photographers. Most lenses were single focal-length, so the zoom lens was called such, to differentiate it from "regular" lenses. Up through 2009 I used mainly my Leica rangefinders, and didn't buy any more equipment. But when I began looking at dSLRs I ran into the "prime" description for non-zooms. I assume when nearly all SLRs and dSLRs came with a kit zoom lens, the term "zoom" became redundant, since most lenses people used were zooms. So I'd guess the term "prime" came into being to distinguish a plain single focal-length lens.
I'm curious if anyone knows when this change in terminology became common. It really isn't correctly used, as it implies a special, select, or premium item. Although single focal-length lenses can be better, there have been a lot of "dogs" and cheap lenses as well, so "prime" isn't a good description - although it has certainly become embedded in popular talk now. It is at least a brief description, while "single focal-length" is clumsier to use. Yet I still think of "lens" as single focal, unless it is described as "zoom" - so to me "prime" is redundant or misleading.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-21-2022, 12:06 PM
|
| |
Leica had a big advantage with their user base, as Leica users are used to manual focus and mechanical rangefinders, so adding a new Leica M6 film needs no new skills. I've used Leica M cameras since 1968, and the Leica M9 was the first digital I enjoyed using as I could use it exactly like my old film Leicas. I haven't bought a new M6, as mine from 1985 continues to work fine. There are still a number of private Leica techs who can keep all the old models in top shape, but the backlog for them is months long.
I've helped younger family members get on film with Pentax MX and ME, depending on how they adapt to manual settings and focus. I think modern versions of these would find quick market.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
01-21-2020, 06:23 PM
|
| |
Flatness of film is an issue for sharpness, even for 35mm. I have both glassless and glass carriers for my V850, but when inserted per directions the curly Kodak fils bulge away from the glass. Flipping the film gives sharper results, then invert the images in software.
The Arista (Fomopan) films lie flattest, and give me the sharpest results even with the glassless carriers. The glassless also hold 24 35mm frames to scan at once, so I normally load 24 exp rolls. It’s nice to click and have it scan the whole batch rather than do a contact sheet. I scan to a LAN drive and can see results as they scan anywhere in the house on my iPad.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-10-2022, 01:47 PM
|
| |
It's 106F here in Texas this afternoon, so the squirrels are gone searching for air-conditioning. But these youngsters found some shade by the bird feeder outside our kitchen window where in place of them.
Attachment 578329
Leica M10, 135 TeleElmar from late 1960s
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-02-2022, 07:18 PM
|
| |
From the internal diagrams I've seen, the Spot-Matic used a CdS cell mounted on a moving arm that would swing out to the center of the focusing screen to meter that area. It would block the view in that area, so would swing back out of the way for focusing. Accurate spot meter, but would interfere with a clear view in the VF. They were wise to wait for the redesign.
Interestingly, Leica later used a CdS cell on a swinging arm in their early 1970s M5 and CL rangefinder cameras. The arm would swing out in front of the shutter curtains when winding film so it could meter a spot dead center in the frame. On the M5, the arm would swing back out of the frame as you pressed the shutter - press slowly it would move slowly, etc. That avoided a harsh snap-back of the cell. On the CL (made for them by Minolta), the arm would snap back just before the shutter tripped. I have both these cameras, and love the spot meters.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-19-2021, 09:58 AM
|
| |
Back in the 1960s - when Leica was still relevant - they released a 400mm f6.8 lens for handheld "snapshots" - used at the 1968 presidential conventions by David Douglas Duncan - where I saw it on TV news coverage. Lightweight lens with "trombone" focusing and removable shoulder support. It was also ridiculed for small aperture at a time when ASA 400 was fast film. But I still remember them showing a shot of Hubert Humphrey enlarged to 16x20, taken hand-held from across the convention hall. D.D.D. said it would not have been possible without that lens. It was not a "telephoto" - just a simple long-focus 2-element lens, but very effective.
It was designed to be used wide-open. I picked one up a while back, and have used it with the shoulder support on an A7, and it is quite effective.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-15-2021, 12:31 PM
|
| |
The ice storm here has broken a ton of trees (Live Oaks and Cedars that still have foliage), then 6" of snow covered the ground feed (and froze our water supply pipes). So these ladies are dining on the fallen treetops that are now within reach. I know they are kinda large for squirrels, but they are also our common backyard denizens!
Attachment 525494 |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-24-2020, 06:11 AM
|
| |
Well, I have Leica M2,3,4,5,6 (& digital 9 & 10) and while the M3 is a classic, I prefer the M2 & M4. In fact, when I bought my first Leica in 1968, M3, M2, & M4 were all available new. I worked at a Leica dealer, talked to the Leica area Rep, and bought the M4 instead of the M3 at the same price. I've never regretted it, and that M4 is still my favorite camera. I got a 90mm lens with the M4 when I bought it, and found the finder fine for it as well.
The M2 had several design changes from the original M3 (which also went through changes during its run, as it had many un-necessary complexities), and while the RF was simplified, it was just as clear and mechanically accurate, and was the basis for all subsequent Leica RFs. I have never had RF flare on M2 through M5 (which is another outstanding design).
However the M6 I added in 1985 did suffer from RF "whiteout" in certain lighting conditions, but I could always work around it by shifting my eye, etc. I finally had the finder upgraded a few years ago (including multicoated elements) and now it is flare free and very bright & clear.
I have always preferred the M2/4 style finders to the M3, even with a 50 mm lens, even though the M3 image is larger. The M3 50mm frame is always visible in the finder, with the 90 or 135 frame added if you mount those lenses. The M2 shows only the frame (35, 50, 90) matching the lens mounted. The M4 added a 135 frame in the middle of the 35 frame (both visible with either lens), but it's easy to keep them separate. In later Leicas with the 50/75 frame combination it can be distracting.
My oldest M3 is from 1955, and it is very carefully made and fitted together, and uses a glass pressure plate, and requires two short strokes to advance the film, while my 1962 M3 is more conventional (metal plate and single-stroke), with many other details simplified.
I don't find quality differences among all my film Leica enough to be a concern.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
11-19-2020, 06:20 PM
|
| |
Sounds reasonable for that combination in exceptional condition. The R8 is quite big and heavy, but is nice in use. No repair parts available. I have one, but prefer my LeicaflexSL2.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
11-14-2020, 01:35 PM
|
| |
Loading Leica and similar cameras was much easier when I started using them, as back then all commercial 35mm film came with a “long leader” (4 1/2”) already trimmed on the roll. Leica was the first (~1924) 35mm on the market, and was about the most popular until after WW2. Many others copied the Leica loading system - including Canon throughout the 1950s, so film was provided that needed no trimming.
I remember when I first bought a roll with the modern short leader: I thought it must have been a manufacturing error.
My oldest Leica was made in 1929. I have others from the 1930s & 40s, and all are still working fine.
|
