Jump to content

pippy

Members
  • Posts

    6,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

5 Followers

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Converted

  • City
    London, UK
  • Hobbies
    The Gibson Les Paul; Claret.
  • Job
    Photographer.
  • Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte
    D-Lux 4; V-Lux 40; 1930 Leica I(A) to I(C) conversion; IIIc Shark-skin; M2; MM1; M-D (Typ 262); Various lenses and associated stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,673 profile views
  1. pippy

    M11-D?

    Not wishing to inflict any pain upon you I will resist the temptation to post its 'portrait'... But yes; I am very happy to own and use such a lovely camera; especially pretty as it had also been enhanced with the addition of the classic top-plate engraving as per your request. Very Happy Bunny here! Philip.
  2. Going back to the angle about whether these FED / Zorki cameras are useable as actual cameras... Although the lenses used by the FSU manufacturers (at this time) resembled the wonderful Leitz 5cm / 50mm f3.5 Elmar they were actually made using an equally wonderful Zeiss Tessar optical design. This brought about a few headaches as Zeiss had access to optical glass formulae not available to FED / KMZ / GOMZ etc so it was neccessary to redesign the FSU 'Tessar' lenses so as to account for the different optical properties of the glasses at their disposal. It should come as no surprise that the results produced by these newly formulated lenses were pretty wonderful. I'm about to head off for a week or so but on my return I will endeavour to take my oldest FED out for a shooting-trip just for fun. In the meantime here's a snap of the wee thing. She is a PEO190 version with serial #15176 which her previous owner had traced back to Dec 1935 to Jan 1936. According to the SovietCams entry; "Different vulcanite which looks finer and feels smoother. The color of vulcanite can range from black to brown or dark grey-green. An earliest so far known camera has s/n #12.557. Serial Number Range: #12.500-#15.700. Quantity: appr. 3.200 units." Philip.
  3. Yes! I do like the design of the 3 (and the 3M) very much! Quite a unique look not totally echoing what was coming out of Wetzlar. One small (but IMO important in use) detail is whether the cameras have a 'balance-foot' connected to the tripod bush. The very early 3 cameras didn't have this feature at all and, according to the SovietCams link (as posted) the earliest known example with the feature bears serial number 01273. By late 1954, however, it seems that the 'balance-foot' is being phased-out (i.e. between models designated PM1260 and PM1265). Similarly the 3M lost the 'balance-foot' (SovietCams) in 1955 in the change from model variants PM 1365 and PM1360. In a similar timeframe (circa 1958) the KNEB / Kiev series of pre-WWII Contax-derived rangefinders also went from a 'balance-foot' base-plate design (as found on actual Contax II / III cameras) to a far less sturdy, far lower quality and poorly-considered unit. This seems to have happened during the transitional years when the Kiev 2a was becoming the Kiev 4a. Philip.
  4. To put a little more flesh on the story as related by William, above, and to show how little details in descriptions can make a big difference... Before Zorki brought out the Zorki 2-C there was an earlier model siimply called the Zorki 2. These were made in relatively small numbers (in FSU terms) and differ from the ubiquitous Zorki 1 in a few distinct areas; notably the inclusion of a 'KNEB / Kiev' style self-timer and - like the 2-C shown by William - the shutter-speed dial has a centre-spindle index mark and the speeds themselves can be set either before or after winding-on the film. Unlike the 2-C and later cameras the Zorki 2 retained the general dimensions and form of the Zorki 1. Here;s a snap which shows my example on the left; Philip.
  5. "Oh! I Do Like to Stroll Along the Prom-Prom-Prom When The Brass Monkey's Balls Go Cling-Clang-Bong..." A Couple Out Enjoying their 'Morning Constitutional' in the Picturesque Seaside Resort of Portobello, an Eastern Suburb of Edinburgh, New Years Day, 1985. M2, 50mm f2.8 Elmarit (M), Leitz Yellow filter. Tri-X @ 320ASA, Developed in Rodinal 1+40(!?)...Digi-Scan from Neg; Philip.
  6. Hmmm.....not sure. Obviously there is no competition for Leica coming from FED / Zorki but as there is no real connection between the two companies I don't see any benefit for the owners of this site were they to sanction such a sub-forum. When I started out trying to discover information - before I knew of the existence of the Sovietcams site - I was a frequent visitor to the RFF forum where there is a long-running group of very knowledgeable and equally helpful FSU folks who are active in a sub-forum specifically for those products so it could be argued that for anyone with a particular interest in these cameras then that would be the best place to go. Philip.
  7. pippy

    M11-D?

    Where can I add? I have an M-D Typ-262. Anything which added to that camera's simplicity was (IMO) Leica heading off in the wrong direction in terms of the '-D' range. Philip.
  8. I have replaced my Leica Red Dots with Black ones which say "Zorki" purely in order to annoy Leica Microsystems... As always if anyone is interested in the history and products produced by the Soviet photographic industry then I can recommend the Sovietcams website (Zorki cameras come under Z subheading); http://www.sovietcams.com/cameras I am utterly fascinated by the FSU 'Barnack' clones. We tend to think that there have been a great many Leitz models made over the years but in terms of model-variation the FSU have Leitz trumped by a landslide and they really only copied one design; the Leica II. I seem to remember counting-up the number of distinct FED 1 versions and it was somewhere in the region of 70 or 80! Just for fun here is a snap with a few of mine. The one which is in focus () is actually a very early (serial #40797 dates to 1935 / '36) example and, as can be seen, is in wonderful condition. The pamplets? One (right) is an instruction booklet. The other is a similar-period membership booklet for the USSR Communist Party! Philip.
  9. pippy

    M11-D?

    😸 I do very much love the historical aspect (100 years! : 1924 - 2024) of the removeable baseplate feature - whether for 'Barnacks', Film M's or Digi-M's - but just 12 hours ago, in response to Borna's 'What if Leica Made a New M?' thread (posted in the film sub-forum) and the question therein asking "What kind of features would you like to see?", my response was this; "Much as I like the removeable baseplate I don't think anyone would argue against a hinged back being, in practice, a far better system. If a removeable baseplate is a superior idea then why does no other camera manufacturer employ this method nowadays?" In truth I was merely suggesting one change which would make a Leica-M film camera more practical in use. Personally, however, I would fight tooth-and-nail to retain the archaic design and Practicallity Be Damned!......😸...... Philip.
  10. The pronounced 'Glow' of the 35 Summilux when used at f1.4 is due to abberations inherent in its optical design; these lenses would have exhibited 'Glow' even when new. There has been quite a bit of sample-variation shown here over the years - concerning the amount of glow - which can differ to a considerable extent even within lenses made during the same time-frame and in the same factories; this is more often seen in the earlier years. What does seem to be a constant is that the later (German-made) lenses suffer less from flare due to their improved coatings. It would be important, of course, for a prospective buyer to ensure that any lens under consideration is inspected thoroughly for both Haze and Fungus. Philip.
  11. Just to add a little bit more information regarding the FSU 'Barnacks'; No FED 1 nor Zorki 1 had a slow speed dial feature (and I seriously doubt it would be financially-viable to convert an existing FED / Zorki). Secondly is that although some of the very earliest (1934-1935 only) FED 1 cameras had a notched viewfinder window frame these cameras are, nowadays, collector's items in their own right and are FAR more valuable than a Leica III. Similarly there were no Zorki 1 cameras produced with a notched finder. Philip.
  12. My 1974 (ELC) v2 works perfectly well on my digi-M bodies. As far as the OP's fourth question goes the reply written by lct in post #4 says it all in a nutshell; "...As far as the (Nokton 35/1.4) SC v2 is concerned, it has less glow, less coma, less flare, more sharpness and more distortion than the Summilux..." One thing which you might not have considered - nor, possibly, even care about - is why the v2 Summilux has remained so popular over the past six decades. AFAICT (from what I've read here) the main attraction of the lens (at least nowadays) is because of the way it can change its rendering-character at different apertures. It seems that it is precisely because it does glow wide-open yet sharpens-up dramatically when stopped-down which is its unique appeal in these modern (and, in comparison, relatively sterile) ASPH/APO/FLE times. If you don't like / want this (in some respects fairly silly) amount of glow at f1.4 / f2.0 then the Voigtlander is a better bet. The only downside to the Voigt. is its barrel-distortion. Philip.
  13. I believe 007/007 is already taken... Philip.
  14. The problem (I believe!) for Leica to adopt the removeable back method was that their main competitor back in the 1930's - Contax - utilised that system so to change from the removeable baseplate idea would be seen as copying their rivals and, by extension, admitting that Leitz had got this detail 'wrong'. Incidentally - and as I'm sure you already know - the removeable back of the Nikon F was, in essence, the very same style as used on their earlier rangefinder cameras which, in turn, had been - essentially - slightly reworked copies of the Contax II of 1936. Philip.
  15. Personally I feel that Leica got it almost correct all the way back in 1954 with only a few of the features found on the later M cameras adding much of an improvement. Two of these features appeared with the M2; these being v/f bright-lines for a 35mm and the whole of the v/f representing, in effect, the angle-of-view of a 28mm. I prefer the angled rewind lever of the M4 to the pull-up knurled knob on the earlier cameras. I also appreciate the convenience of TTL metering brought with the introduction of the M6. That's it as far as the existing models are concerned. Where to go from here? 1) Much as I like the removeable baseplate I don't think anyone would argue against a hinged back being, in practice, a far better system. If a removeable baseplate is a superior idea then why does no other camera manufacturer employ this method nowadays? This would also allow for a more foolproof take-up-spool arrangement... 2) Errmmm.......... Nope. That's it. Philip.
×
×
  • Create New...