Re: [Leica] Lugrumpiness and LTM

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

Mike,
ME TOO!! Last Thursday I was in Penn Camera in DC and they had a Leica 111G
in the case, so after fondling and haggling for about an hour I bought it.
Reasonable low price with no lens, but, the vulcanite is pretty rough and
the top shutter speed dial just spins around. So got home and put a call
into Sam Shoshon at Classic Connection and Friday AM (thanks to Fed x
priority) I had a 50mm Summitar (1950 vintage) in Excellent+++ condition.
The thought of loading film into it just scared me to no end until Saturday
morning I gave it a shot. Big surprise! It worked on first try. So with my
walking shoes the 111G and my faithful two M2s, all loaded with Ilford
Delta, I spent the day walking around town shooting pictures. With the 111G
I had to guess at the shutter speed so I settleled on 250th. I was really
very surprised at how warm and fuzzy the 111G is, and, I thought the twin
eyepieces would be a big drawback but it was'nt. So now I will send the 111G
off to Sherry to CLA and fix whatever it needs. But mostly I am starting to
wonder about myself as I get older; old wooden sailboat, 2 old Alfa Romeos,
3 old Leicas while the 5 Nikons mostly just sit in their bag.
Steve
Annapolis

- ----------
>From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us, Nicholas Hartmann
<polyglot@execpc.com>, Oren Grad <Oren_Grad@compuserve.com>, Phil Davis
<phildavi@earthlink.net>
>Subject: [Leica] Lugrumpiness and LTM
>Date: Sun, Nov 14, 1999, 11:52 AM
>

>New term: Lugrumpy, adj., someone who is made surly, peevish, or grumpy
>by nonsense, pomposity, or disputation on the LUG. <g>
>
>Antidote: LTM, Leica Therapy Mode.
>
>To change the atmosphere to something warm and pleasant, I just wanted
>to report my gratifying initial experiences with my new/old IIIf and
>recently arrived 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, coated, SN 1M+, with cap and hood.
>
>I got the lens yesterday morning, and by early this morning had my first
>"short stack" of workprints in hand. Shooting LTM may not be practical,
>but boy, is it fun. Impressions: I had one bizarre misloading problem,
>but then, I expected there to be a learning curve. Everything else,
>positive. Wierdly, I *like* the two little windows; I didn't expect
>that. Also weirdly, I like the minified, black-surrounded viewfinder.
>Maybe it's just because I'm still in "tryout" mode with it--a mode I've
>become altogether too comfortable with--but I found it very relaxing and
>easy to visualize pictures that way. Makes me worry less about what's in
>view and just fire away. Knob wind is zero problem: it's a very nice,
>hands-on .4-fps winder. Rewind's pretty slow, but as Stephen says, no
>pain, no gain.
>
>Of course I was shooting with no meter.  I imagine if I were doing this
>"seriously" I would dutifully carry a meter. But everything "came out,"
>no problem.
>
>I may be nostalgic for my year with the M4 and collapsible 50mm
>Summicron, but it was very relaxing to get out on the town with the LTM.
>It sure drew some attention. A guy in a '57 Thunderbird was pleased by
>the fact that my camera was older than his car; a fan of the original
>(real) Voigtlaender cameras stopped me to talk about it, and I handed
>him the IIIf to "fondle"; and my son and I had our picture taken by the
>town's septuagenarian local photographer, Barney DeWane, who still
>remembered how to work the Leica's controls despite not having used one
>since the '60s. (I live in the town where the Bill Murray movie
>"Groundhog Day" was filmed, and yes, WE ARE AMERICANA). It was the first
>time the two young ladies in the local 24-hour lab (a Wolf Photo) had
>ever seen a Leica.
>
>Another surprise: this lens is a honey. I like Tessar-types (and
>apologies to Max Berek, but this lens is Paul Rudolph's baby--the reason
>the very early ones were called "Anastigmat" was that Zeiss changed the
>name of theirs from Anastigmat to Tessar but made everybody else stick
>with the older name for a while...Marc, please do correct me if I'm
>wrong here, and I do mean please). I've used Contax's version, and the
>new Elmar-M, and seen pictures made with the Nikon and Pentax versions
>as well as some medium-format iterations and a point-and-shoot lens or
>two. The Elmar is to the manner born: plenty sharp, and not very flarey,
>although of course it didn't stand up to the "sun in the picture" test
>all that well (although it's not the worst I've tried, either, by quite
>some). If anything, there is simply not much old-timey character to the
>lens (...I mean in the pictures! In appearance and operability it is
>about as old-timey as you can find in a fully functioning lens). The
>prints look very nice and sharp as I need. I ran my typical "bokeh" test
>and it passed with flying colors, ranking a solid a 8.5 or even a 9 for
>bokeh on Mike's Totally Indefensibly Subjective Comparison Chart, which
>is better than most lenses do. I shot the marquee of the town movie
>theatre at night and a picture of the girl in the Wolf's, both wide
>open, and both pictures look fine for what they are.
>
>Furthermore, at the Wolf's, I found a Lowepro point-and-shoot case that
>fits the IIIf like a GLOVE. Like it was made for it. No, it's not a
>Kameraleder case, but then it only cost $4.59. I've got it on my belt
>right now. I'm thinking about a slightly larger Tamrac point-and-shoot
>belt pack--one with a tiny extra pocket--as my "big" camera bag. I
>admit, that tickles my funny bone.
>
>Anyway I don't see how I can keep this as a mere curiosity; I may have
>to continue to shoot with it, at least for a while. Take this with a
>grain of salt, though, as one of my pleasures is trying new cameras, and
>this one, like every other one, won't stay new for long.
>
>But for now, I can start giving some of you guys hell for shooting with
>those crazy, newfangled modern M cameras, instead of with a REAL Leica.
><g> (Kidding! Down boys!)
>
>Lugrumpy no more,
>
>--Mike
>