Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - --MS_Mac_OE_3026019914_483498_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Well my second posting in just one week! I hope you will forgive me as I pick up various threads you all thought dead and buried; however, you must remember that this is now an internet resource and will probably one day be used as research for some poor unfortunate's doctoral thesis. The depth of field indicators in the viewfinder were for f5.6 and f16 not f11 (one small stop for a leica, one giant stop for.....) and , of course, only worked with the 50mm lenses (source M2 manual). Now, I have always laboured under the impression that the depth of field indicators originated with the M2 and were then subsequently added to the M3. One of you chaps or chappettes quoted an earlier start for the M3 and I was wondering the source of the info. I have no doubt of its veracity, I am just curious. The reason I am not emailing the person in question is that the posting was accidentally erased. Oops sorry. A really out there question is if a M3 or M2 with a goggled 35mm, which of course uses the 50mm viewfinder frame, would give correct depth of field indications? As I can hardly string the letters together to ask the question, I must defer to greater minds than mine; in other words, I do not have a goggled lens to try. When another newbe was enquiring about the various advantages and disadvantages of the 0.72 and 0.85 finders, ( I wish I had the funds to so preoccupied) the question arose as to whether any lens shorter than 35mm could be used on a 0.85. I am afraid this triggered such silly picture in my mind that I only just stopped giggling inanely. Imagine, if you will, the next Harrison Ford picture: Dutch Putts and the Camera of Doom! To keep the suspense to a minimum, and the email short, we will go straight to the scene before our hero goes off with the stunning, barely clad person of his choice. Our villain (who could imagine anyone worse than AA who took Leica funds and then did slander), through various nefariously vilianous ways, has secured the fabled, long thought lost, HM Leica and is about to couple a 21mm lens to it! Our hero begs him not to go contrary to the instruction book; but, alas it is too late. As AA clicks the lens home he starts to slowly and agonizingly dissolve, feet first of course, and just before his mouth disappears forever he cries out "Help me Erwin!". Perhaps on that moving note I should say goodbye. John Collier - --MS_Mac_OE_3026019914_483498_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Vague Meanderings of a Digester and Budding Screenwriter</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Hello <BR> Well my second posting in just one week! I hope you will forgive me as I pi= ck up various threads you all thought dead and buried; however, you must rem= ember that this is now an internet resource and will probably one day be use= d as research for some poor unfortunate's doctoral thesis. The depth of fiel= d indicators in the viewfinder were for f5.6 and<U> f16 </U> not f11 (one sm= all stop for a leica, one giant stop for.....) and , of course, only worked = with the 50mm lenses (source M2 manual). Now, I have always laboured under t= he impression that the depth of field indicators originated with the M2 and = were then subsequently added to the M3. One of you chaps or chappettes quote= d an earlier start for the M3 and I was wondering the source of the info. I = have no doubt of its veracity, I am just curious. The reason I am not emaili= ng the person in question is that the posting was accidentally erased. Oops = sorry. A really out there question is if a M3 or M2 with a goggled 35mm, whi= ch of course uses the 50mm viewfinder frame, would give correct depth of fie= ld indications? As I can hardly string the letters together to ask the quest= ion, I must defer to greater minds than mine; in other words, I do not have = a goggled lens to try. <BR> When another newbe was enquiring about the various advantages and disadvant= ages of the 0.72 and 0.85 finders, ( I wish I had the funds to so preoccupie= d) the question arose as to whether any lens shorter than 35mm could be used= on a 0.85. I am afraid this triggered such silly picture in my mind that I = only just stopped giggling inanely. Imagine, if you will, the next Harrison = Ford picture: <U>Dutch Putts and the Camera of Doom!</U> To keep the suspens= e to a minimum, and the email short, we will go straight to the scene before= our hero goes off with the stunning, barely clad person of his choice. Our = villain (who could imagine anyone worse than AA who took Leica funds and the= n did slander), through various nefariously vilianous ways, has secured the = fabled, long thought lost, HM Leica and is about to couple a 21mm lens= to it! Our hero begs him not to go contrary to the instruction book; but, a= las it is too late. As AA clicks the lens home he starts to slowly and agoni= zingly dissolve, feet first of course, and just before his mouth disappears = forever he cries out "Help me Erwin!". <BR> Perhaps on that moving note I should say goodbye.<BR> <BR> John Collier </BODY> </HTML> - --MS_Mac_OE_3026019914_483498_MIME_Part--