Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Of Chromes and Viewfinders.
From: Jeff Moore <jbm@oven.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:50:45 -0500
References: <200103200801.AAA19665@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <3AB7BDB9.A1714C68@t-online.de> <3AB7D2C2.8AFFC75A@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

2001-03-20-16:59:30 Mark Rabiner:
> Yea but your chrome is REAL chrome. The stuff made now is chrome paint!
> 	irrational but completely logical. It's often best to go by feel i think.

And last week I bought one of those current Leica lenses they issued
in genuine screw-mount as a special treat.  A 50mm Summicron, to put
on my cool IIIf so I could get modern-looking pictures even while
fondling that neato old machine.  And it's great, and I got the
Summicron partly because it's much less bulky than the Summilux and
overwhelms the IIIf less, but the chromes are really different
looking.  The new chrome is kind of dull ans satiny;  the old chrome
is brighter, or reflects light with a slightly different color, or
something.  Oh, and the new lens is kind of blocky and
cylindrical-seeming (even though it's less so than the Summilux
would've been).  But still I'm having fun with that lash-up.
Sometimes I'm in a IIIf mood but not a Coated Summar mood, you see.

Oh, about the IIIf's viewfinder: any idea what focal length its field
of view corresponds to?  Because pictures with a 50mm lens end up with
some stuff cut off at the edges, but the VF doesn't seem as wide as a
35mm.  Maybe kind of 40-45mm flavored?  Is that one of the reasons
people are so fond of shoe-mounted viewfinders in that era?

Replies: Reply from "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net> (Re: [Leica] Of Chromes and Viewfinders.)
In reply to: Message from Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de (Re: [Leica] RE: 35 1.4 vs. 35 1.4 asph)
Message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] RE: 35 1.4 vs. 35 1.4 asph)