Re: [Leica] Hello and plea for guidance

[John <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

Bob Keene/Karen Shehade wrote:
> 
> Hello Andre! I remember you from when I lurked and lunged on the Rollei-List.
> 
>         Welcome to the diasastrous world of Leicaphelia! Beware, it's a
> slippery slope. Cancel your credit cards NOW- before it's too late! ;)
> 
>         Now, I'm guessing that where you come from medium/large format
> work, that you're pretty used to using a hand held meter- if so, then you
> could be very happy with an M3/M2/M4/M4-P..... depends on the lenses you
> will be mainly using. The different models have different framelines
> etc....
>         I recently acquired an M2 in 'nice' condition- it's a great thing!
> I think it's the perfect "user" body if you don't want on-board metering.
> Of course, I've found an MR-4 Leicameter for it, so this makes for a very
> usable unit. If you're not familiar with it, the MR-4 meter "mates" to the
> shutter speed dial, you set your shutter speed and press a button on the
> meter, it gives you a recomended f stop. It reads an area equivelant to the
> 90 frameline in the viewfinder. I usually use it to take a reading off the
> palm of my hand, I open up one more stop (Zone 6) and I shoot away,
> reasonably sure that I've got a reading for skin tones.
>         Now, once you have a body; and mind you, there are some good deals
> out there for screwmount bodies as well- Canon 7/7s/7sz, are nice for the
> easy loading systems and you can use older screwmount lenses- that's how I
> started and now have the M6/M2 and bunch of lenses ( I use combination of
> 'M' bayonet mount and screwmount lenses with adapters)
>         If you're going to start with one lens, my recomendation would be a
> 35mm... personally I find it a nice choice, wide enough but still usable as
> a standard... although I've not used one, lots of folks love the 35
> Summicron; I personally have the 35 Summilux (pre-ASPH) which I love- but
> if you can do with f2 vs. f 1.4........
>         As I understand it the CL has a shorter rangefinder base, so use it
> with the 50 and shorter lenses- it might be touchy to focus a 90 in low
> light.
> 
>         Again, 'welcome aboard'; but be warned- lots of people on this list
> will be filling your head with nonsense about this lens and that lens- I
> firmly believe that this is a 'cult' that will never rest until your bank
> account is wiped out and your marriage is on the rocks!!!!! :)
> 
> Bob (maybe I *need* a 90 ASPH???) Keene
> >
> >Date: 9 Feb 00 13:20:10 EST
> >From: Andre Calciu <a.calciu@usa.net>
> >Subject: [Leica] Hello and plea for guidance
> >
> >Hi there LUGgers,
> >
> >My name is Andre Calciu and I am a collector/user of Rolleiflex and Large
> >Format gear. I subscribe to a number of camera related listservs and thanks to
> >MJ Small I just subscribed to the LUG.
> >
> >I was recently offered the opportunity to buy a Leica CL and when I asked for
> >guidance from the other lists I received answers that were very useful and
> >informative, but I was also told that I should seek help from this group, so
> >here I am.
> >
> >Having shot medium/large format for the past few decades, I am not very much
> >up to speed with the 35mm gear. I know Leica has many variations and feature
> >differences from one camera to another, even within the same model. Some of
> >the differences are good, others just add collectible value. I am not looking
> >for a collectible piece, rather I want a user. More precisely, a rangefinder
> >of the M persuasion.
> >
> >Here is what I want to know:
> >
> >1.- which body to pick (M6 seems to be the most recommended one, but price is
> >always an issue :-))
> >2.- affordable good performing lenses (15mm Heliar came up a lot, but one
> >cannot live only by wide angle alone).
> >3.- what I should beware of (defects that are hard to spot by a neophyte,
> >etc)
> >4.- good sources of equipment with low (as defined by the brand) prices and
> >good reputation.
> >5.- recommended service providers for CLA, etc.
> >6.- which child should I sell first to pay for all that :-)
> >
> >Note: the camera will NOT be my main piece of photo gear.
> >
> >Thanks for the help and sorry if this has been repeated over and over on this
> >list. I could go to a FAQ if available.
> >
> >Andre
> >
> >
The CL is adiquate in focusing a 90 at f4 or above according to Leitz.  The
cam slopes seem different on the lenses made for the cl.  Any way when I used
a 90 elmar m it seemed to ratate fore ever to get from the closest focusing
distance and made focusing diffacult because the secondary image moved so
slowly.  On of the experts here could tell you what the differences were.
John