Jump to content

luigi bertolotti

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by luigi bertolotti

  1. Yes... by principle, it's all about the back.... and that's the issue with LTM... some years ago, when I played with the idea of "modify for digital - is it possible ?" I concluded (provisionally... πŸ˜‰) that my Contarex in theory could be... for the reason that its interchangable back has an abnormal thickness (one of the many abnormities of that camera... πŸ™„) and maybe global volumetrics could be suffcient for sensor + battery + circuitry ,,,
  2. I suppose that, if you love to use your IIIc, you use it with some Leitz lens (Elmar and/or others LTMs) ,,, well, whatever effort at whatever cost, you cannot convert a IIIc in the sense of keeping its body and its lenses : it's physically impossible to position whatever sensor on the focus plane of a Barnack, keeping original body's thickness.
  3. About Summiluxes in those ranges... I think there is something wrong in the Wiki : 2289951 2290950 35mm f/1.4 Summilux (M3+M-ELC+ELW.black) 1968 1000 (and same ELW in 2 other near batches) Afaik, only for the last V2 batches production was in Germany too... or there is some evidence of Wetzlar items in late '60s ? I often tracked V1s (not systematically, though) and don't remember to have seen any.
  4. A collateral question... what about the family name of mother Carolina ? I can just read "geboren Be.... "
  5. Same subject - same country - same lens... πŸ˜‰ --- (but M240 - not M11... πŸ˜‰)
  6. Nice ones !!! What's the location ? I'd say UK-Scotland, but sheeps and puffins and lupines can even suggest Iceland...
  7. In case you want to use it regularly, consider that the last version (*) - new optical cell - is definitely better, at least for my experience. (*) finely knurled focus ring, single-cast goggle unit, single-piece hood, E55
  8. Sorry... πŸ€’ I miswrote... those details do matter in these discussions... the writing is indeed "LENS MADE IN CANADA" . like post #6 above. (I have also a Lux 35 with "Canada" - no capital - like 2nd in #5, but is a very old chrome one)
  9. It looks that almost any batch of Summilux 35 has some small difference... πŸ˜‰ Here is my 2.290.126.... age very close to the 2.167.054 depicted above, but I noticed quickly a small difference : the red dot... πŸ™‚ plastic small bubble in mine, painted on the other. The hood is Canadian ("Leitz Canada" white painted opposite to 12504) and has the two internal screws : different anyway from the "modern" one, which bears also the 1:2/35 spec) The lens barrel has CANADA and LEITZ CANADA
  10. This is the most significant info, I think... as Jerzy said, it's not a trivial modification, but for a good tech of the '60s (maybe working for Leitz NY, or in relation) . with access to parts, surely feasible ; for me too, when many years ago used both M2 and M4, zeroing the counter was a frequent inadvertence.. πŸ˜‰
  11. ... sorry ; E41 must be male too, obviously... πŸ€’
  12. Yes, I think Laney confused 16472 with 16471... an easy mistake : it's clear that such an adapter (ring with E41 female - 42x0,70/0,75 male) is elementary to make (even if unclear if Leitz made and listed one) This of course for the Canadian/chrome Elmar... and for the black Wetzlar ? I am not aware of what exactly means "series VII".. how is the thread to mont the series filter adapter ?
  13. Uli, I think you are on the right track !! πŸ˜ƒ 14172 is surely a typo (is a cap) but 16472 aka OTSRO , not by chance a code so close to 16471, I'd say that surely is fit for function : the male thread engages perfectly on 16464 and on front the thread (made for the lenshead of 135mm lenses) is in the range of 41 mm in diameter : i cannot measure it in detail, but to me is clear that an E41 filter, maybe with a small intermediate ring, can well be engaged into. I almost forgot that I had one.... As you say, it's indeed very long (much more than 16471, and you can even stack the two...) : I'd be curios to verify its focus range with the 65 reversed... with my M240 and EVF, so without the length of the Viso in the middle, surely is more reasonable...
  14. Bah... comparing the Leicashop picture with the 16465 depicted by Lager, apparently the only difference is that Lager's item has the OTZFO* writing... the " * " looks to be absent in the highly priced Leicashop item... and the position different... if this is what qualifies it as a "prototype" I can't say... πŸ™„ Scratching my mind... I am almost sure to have seen, somewhere, a picture with an Elmar 65 mounted reversed... (maybe a page of LHSA Viewfinder mag ?) but don't remember any detail and, vaguely, remember only the typical "conical" shape with the back lens in front... An old discussion on the matter did not clarify the question...
  15. Speaking of Elmar 65 and odd rings... πŸ˜‰ : Laney makes an assessment that looks unclear to me : he says that Elmar 65 could be mounted reversed for better macro performances... and this was achieved through a filter on the Elmar (and this sounds OK - you get a well accessible E41 female thread) and mounting it - reversed - onto the 16471 tube (which in turn fits the 16464/OTZFO) Now, i know well the 16471 : is the simplest way to extend macro capabilities of Elmar 65 without a bellows : ... but it has only its recessed A33 thread to mount the Elmar... its front mouth is "clean"... how can one fit the E41 filter thread ? was there some odd adapter ? The inner diameter of the 16471, anyway, is just 41mm... (btw, if such an adapter exists, it's probably only for the 1st Elmar 65... the black one fits series VII filters and this would make even more complicated the reversing, I think...)
  16. I have had an Elmar 65 1st for years... and indeed wasn't my preferred macro lens for film Ms (the Elmar 135 lenshead was my best choice) ; few years ago (don't remember exactly... but I already was using M240 as "normal" body...) I found a nice black 65 + 16464 and bought... I was surprised by the difference from the old one : it's really a modern sharp lens fully enjoyable on digital : stands up au pair with Elmar 135 lenshead and also with the excellent Elmar R 100 f4 for bellows. About 16464... I have always read that also a 16465 (formerly OTZFO*) does exist... a 16464 with 90Β° rotation facility (with tripod mount OUBIO-style) : not that I have chased for it, but seems to me to have never seen one... do someone have one ? Is it a rare bird ?
  17. Seems that the Elmarit 1st is on its way to become a "heat" item... πŸ˜— look at item 150 at the recent Leitz Auction (Wetzlar, but apart this, it is the same auctioned at Flint's) https://www.leitz-auction.com/auction/en/onlinecatalogue
  18. 127... but not square, maybe (is it the finder, at right ?) ... is it a 3x4 cm / 16 frames vertical?
  19. Damn .. book undeliverable to ItalyπŸ€’
  20. Films, chemicals and printing papers were not as the ones that we darkroomers of '70s/80's did use... πŸ˜‰ I think that at those times the main goal for a Leica user was to minimize grain to achieve, for such a small negative, prints comparable from what one could have from a 6x9 (or even bigger) negative.
  21. Thanks ! Does not look impossible to find (https://www.amazon.com/My-Leica-KARFELD-Kurt-Peter/dp/B000L3K542 ) and looks a fine item of the era...
  22. ... so the Huawei-Leica are well positioned to became collectibles 😁 ... I wonder if my one of 2017 ("Summarit-H 1:2.2 / 27 ASPH"....) is increasing its value... ☺️
  23. I think that Romualdo's hipotesis has sense... Leitz in itself afaik never was in that business...but not strange they made some experiment onto, also considering the complex history of the former Leitz Microscope Division, which was close/related to various other concerns before the final current assesment within the Danaher group.
  24. Seems they like to lick stones... and inclination of the wall isn't an issue (M240 - tele Elmarit 90) A wider view of the tasty wall
  25. with no more pictures, details... is a mistery for me πŸ€’ Is there some optical component ? Is it under the big metal cover at right...?πŸ˜—
  • Create New...