Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/10/31

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

Subject: [Leica] Auxiliary VF on the M3?
From: frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE)
Date: Fri Oct 31 08:33:57 2008

Hi Marc, the Ektra has a wide physical base but the detail of the design is 
poor and it is unlikely to remain in calibration for long, also the 
adjustment method was crude, either filing down a finger, or making it 
longer by squashing it with pliers.
Most of the canera i rather like, though the design would be expensive to 
make.
Frank


--- On Fri, 31/10/08, Marc James Small <marcsmall@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@comcast.net>
> Subject: [Leica] Auxiliary VF on the M3?
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: Friday, 31 October, 2008, 6:26 AM
> At 02:17 AM 10/31/2008, Frank Filippone wrote:
>  >I agree with the improvement using the 1.25 ( I do not
> have a 1.4, but
>  >believe it will work as well....)
>  >
>  >However, the 1.4 costs as much as almost any other
> manufacturer's SLR 50mm
>  >lens.... !
>  >
>  >I guess glass is glass at Leica...
> 
> Frank
> 
> I would have to do the math to be certain, but I 
> believe that you still get a better effective RF 
> baseline with an LTM camera than with even an M3 
> with these klutzy add-ons.  No miniature-format 
> RF camera came close to having the extraordinary 
> effective base-line of the Kodak Ektra.  The CZJ 
> Werra is another with an exceptional reach.
> 
> A Contax II remains a grand instrument for the 
> taking of pictures, albeit I shouldn't say that on a
> Leica List!
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> msmall@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information