Re: [Leica] Screw mount in the modern world

[Jeff S <4season@boulder.net>]

Peter, it sounds to me like you regret selling Leicas in general! Maybe
consider putting the IIIf aside for now, getting the lenses cleaned and
using them with a secondhand M6 body or even a Konica Hexar RF--the
complete Hexar RF outfits are quite a deal on eBay right now. The M6
"classic" is too old to be the latest-and-greatest but too new to be
much of a collectable, so prices are at about their lowest point ever. I
like the older Leica M cameras too, but I wouldn't consider them the
most economical buys unless you score a deal on one that's been totally
freshened-up recently. I think some of the best buys are for cameras in
the Ex+ to M- range though rarely I encounter a well-used gem that's
gotten top-notch maintenance. There seems to be a strange bit of
psychology at work here in which lots of folks think beater Leicas are
the best buy, so they bid the prices of ugly gear (often with dim RFs,
iffy shutters) up too high, and collectors mostly want like-new gear
with boxes and paperwork, leaving Ex+ to M- gear in kind of a grey zone.

I haven't tried the Bessa-R, but I have seen the Bessa-L and the Nikon
FM10 variants and thought they were lightweight and a bit clattery
though not without a certain charm (which seems iffier at the Bessa-R's
$600+ price). Most obvious annoyance with the Nikon variant was a light
meter which shuts off as soon as you take your finger off the shutter
release, but the Nikon sells for under $300 and that includes a
transparent body cap (aka cheap zoom lens)

Jeff Segawa

no archive

"Peter A. Klein" wrote:
> 
> Hi, all.  I'm new to the list (digest).  I've been a Leica user since about
> 1970. Looking for a little advice on how to upgrade my stuff without going
> totally broke in the process.  Here's my photo-history:
> 
> 1969-76:  After a brief fling with a Canon SLR, which I didn't care for, a
> camera store owner turned my on to Leica. I had an M-2, 50mm f/2 Dual Range
> Summicron and 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit, and this is my standard for image
> quality.  I stupidly sold this outfit after college when I was
> socio-economically deprived--a decision I've regretted ever since.
> 
> In the early 80s, I later tried a couple of SLRs, but never liked them, and
> I prefer rangefinder focusing.  But the collecting orgy had already driven
> M Leicas out of my reach.  So I ended up with what I call my "1950
> Eisenstadt outfit", which I still have:
> 
> Leica IIIf red dial, no self-timer
> Immarect finder (SQUINTY, and that's not a Wetzlar acronym!)
> 35mm f/3.5 Summaron
> 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor
> 90mm f/4 Elmar
> 
> All 3 lenses are in good shape 1950s-vintage user lenses (postwar, coated).
>  They work smoothly.  The 35 Summaron is getting cloudy inside.  The 90
> Elmar seems particularly sharp despite some hairline scratches.  The 50/1.4
> Nikkor is a great lens, albeit heavy.  All 3 lenses have some oil on the
> diaphragm blades, but no binding so far.
> 
> The IIIf is also in good shape, but the RF is getting dim and the shutter
> seems to lose adjustment every year (right now it's got an accelleration
> problem, and one side of the picture ends up darker than the other).  I'm
> beginning to think that the IIIf is not worth maintaining as a shooter camera.
> 
> Aside--I also have an Olympus OM SLR with a few lenses.  Which I like, but
> it's not an available-light people-picture taker like the Leicas are.  But
> then again, neither is a IIIf any more, especially for a glasses wearer.
> 
> Up to now, I have believed that even my old LTM lenses were at least as
> good as, maybe a little better than, all but the best SLR lenses.
> Certainly they take good Kodachromes.  But they are getting a bit long in
> the tooth.  I still have a lust for an "M," but they are still hideously
> expensive.
> 
> So what do I do?  Are these lenses worth giving a CLA so they can be
> maintained as shooter lenses?  I've been thinking of a number of alternatives:
> 
> 1. Get a Voigtlander Bessa R, CLA the lenses and continue to use them.
> Maybe replace the 35 Summaron with the Voiglander 35/1.7, which even Erwin
> Puts admits is almost as good as a pre-aspherical 35/2 Summicron.
> 
> 2. Do the same thing as #1, but get a shooter M with some cosmetic defect
> that brings the price down to mid-three rather than 4 digits .  Get
> non-Leitz M adapters for the screw-mount lenses.
> 
> 3. Forget RF cameras, store my Leica stuff to help fund my retirement, and
> continue to shoot with my OM stuff.
> 
> I'd like to hear what others on the list might do in my place.  What does a
> CLA of old lenses like mine cost? And is it worth doing, or have I reached
> a point of diminishing returns where the money would be better spent on
> newer lenses.
> 
> Other relevant info:  I wear glasses, so an M-3 is not such a good option.
> I've always been much better at rangefinder focusing than SLR focusing.  I
> tend toward two kinds of photos--existing-light decisive moment people
> pictures, and more conventional documentation of the natural beauty around
> me.  I used to take B&W for people and Kodachrome for nature.  These days I
> mostly take color prints, but that could change.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --- Peter
> /\:     ________     __     =========     ,  ,  ,  ,   ,  ,  |'  ,      ,
>  / b   |  |  |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |  |  |   |  |   |  |  ~|' |
> / b b ,| ,| ,| ,|  ,| ,|  '  ,|   | ,|   |__|__|__|   |__|   |  |   |  |
>                                 ~'                            =========