Jump to content

pgk

Members
  • Posts

    14,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Photographer
  • Location
    A Scottish Island
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Converted

Recent Profile Visitors

3,214 profile views
  1. Its 1214 which I'm dating to the early 1860s, perhaps 1862/3. there must have been an upsurge in demand around then becaue 1066 (A3) and 1089 (A2) are also Petzvals. The design was maintained and even in 1875 the Petzvals were still nearly identical even to the flange threads.
  2. As stated in the "What did you buy today" I won this Grubb A3 in an auction (see Willeica's post above). It came with Waterhouse Stops and for those interested a photo and their 'Imperial' aperture sizes are included! Both photos were taken using another 1860s Grubb lens designed for stereo photography.
  3. If you are referring to Flange focal distance, details are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
  4. Very occasionally I do shoot scenes with the 35mm Summilux (asph., pre-FLE) wide open. M9.
  5. There are others. I've used Newton Ellis on an 1895 TTH lens: https://www.newtonellis.com/leica/ and they do do Leica servicing. Aperture are a well known dealer who offer in house Leica repair: https://www.apertureuk.com/our-services/camera-repair/ There are others but its well worth asking about experiences here because someone here will have used most of the repairers who will service a Leica. Be warned, many will have a long waiting time - demand is high and there are few repairers experienced in Leicas.
  6. It might be the camera which has a rangefinder roller which sticks for some reason with this particular lens. Difficult to check on a digital camera (you would have been able to set the shutter on a film camera to B, and then check through the back. Do other lenses work correctly with both cameras? 1/3 feet (~10cm) is a lot! If you have no other problems with either camera or other lenses then I'd suggest carefully comparing this lens at the back with others as you change aperture, which may cause the whole internal lens barrel to move, just in case there is a discrepancy where the ramp engages with the roller and this is exacerbated by setting those apertures, when on the M10-R. It is possible that, as jaapv, says, the tolerances could be to blame and it is possible that something needs to be adjusted.
  7. If you never learn to 'see' a composition how can you 'fix' it later?
  8. May be for a specific purpose requiring a fixed focus. When I was a student I was part of the team who photographed the first London Marathon. We used Canons with 100mm lenses. We marked a line on the road at a specified distance from where we took photos, focussed the lens on that line, then taped the lenses up so that they could not move from that focus distance. From then on it was about waiting until a runner hit the line and shoot. So it may be that someone used this lens for an application where a fixed focus was desirable and it was modified so that the focus could be 'locked'. A threaded hole and screw would have been a great solution.
  9. To me the essence of this discussion is quite simple. The Mrf is a system limited in its scope. Within its viable parameters it works very well but it is a compromise. An Mevf would be a compromise in other ways and whilst it could extend some of the Mrf's scope (closer focus distances would be possible for example) it would be more difficult to use in other ways, so wide angle focus would be more difficult/slower. It would replace one set of compromises with another. The Mrf has a heritage of viable use, an Mevf would not have. Whether Leica will find sufficient sales for a compromised, speculative design is THE question because the bottom line is that such a design would require investment and more importantly, a return on this investment. I'm still really dubious about sales numbers because, whilst some here on the forum may buy an Mevf, they will almost certainly not be a sufficient number to make it viable. So Leica will either have to do some careful research and act on it, or take a gamble (not always a good business strategy). Given the complaints about the M11 and its flaws, I would suggest that Leica has other things to think about and deal with than a concept camera at the moment.
  10. Well, its viscosity won't change so the only thing that could happen in order to change the stiff focus would be to force some of the grease out and of course the excess woud have to go somewhere. Less viscous grease is more likely to run that thicker grease, so you pays your money and takes your choice. I would guess that Leica engineer helicoils and their tolerances for a specific viscosity. I can't see them building a helicoid and then just applying any old grease of whatever viscosity. FWIW you can try stiffening up a helicoid by dropping the lens, unfirtunately it works but is not recommended .....
  11. I have a 50/1.4 asph. It focuses exactly as I would expect - accurately from infinity to MFD regardless of the focus position I start from. I would expect no less. If such a lens does not do so it is in need of appropriate adjustment (which includes the 'floating group' which is intended to maintain image quality at closer distances). If it cannot be adjusted to correct focus at all distances it is faulty.
  12. Yes, this is the way some Zeiss manual focus lenses work on Sony cameras and it helps but the Zeiss lenses are auto aperture so faster in operation anyway.
  13. Problem with EVF is the need to zoom in then select the point of focus, manually focus, switch from zoomed to full view, compose and take picture. It is not that fast a way of focusing. With a bit of practice it can get a bit quicker but it cannot be as quick as RF (I do use both methods). I see no advantages using an EVF for lenses designed for RF myself as I find them quicker and easier to focus using the rangefinder. However EVF does offer advantages with fast (and obviously longer) lenses although there are the usual drawbacks of moving subjects. In all honesty I find that different systems have their strengths and weaknesses however a hybrid system has, in my experience, more weaknesses. At times (adapted lenses) an EVF manual focus system is the appropriate solution though. This topic has been done to death. Yes and EVF M might suit a few people but most of its advantages are at best marginal IMO. Having shot a lot of different lenses on EVF cameras, I can accept that they do work ok but not that they are as easy to use as would be preferable. If this is acceptable then fine, but to me the RF remains a better solution for rangefinder lenses (and I do use them on EVF cameras although usually (not exclusively) on a tripod. Handheld I find that the best way to operate is using MF lenses stopped down when they are mounted on an EVF camera. Others will, of course disagree, convinced that their experience is different.
×
×
  • Create New...