Jump to content

I Love My M6!


Recommended Posts

I asked this question in the Historic thread and the answer is all of the actual Millennium series, 2500001 to 2502000 were made with .72 finders.  There are special editions, made after the  initial production run ended, which have the same features as the Millennium bodies (brass top plate, post rewind knob, classic top plate engraving) but were made with either the .58 or the .85 finders.  Look at both the Dragon and 999 cameras.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked this question in the Historic thread and the answer is all of the actual Millennium series, 2500001 to 2502000 were made with .72 finders.  There are special editions, made after the  initial production run ended, which have the same features as the Millennium bodies (brass top plate, post rewind knob, classic top plate engraving) but were made with either the .58 or the .85 finders.  Look at both the Dragon and 999 cameras.

 

Thanks a lot for your swift answer , will look into these !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news Gary.

Really it is broken or what are pieces that are only poorly placed  ?

Have you a CS in NZ for the scanner ?

If not,  try to get a Nikon scan second hand if it's possible

It costs around 400- 500 Euros

http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=75171

Rg

Henry

Hi Henry,

No CS as far as I know, not here anyway. There exists a possibility that there is one in Germany, but the economics will outweigh the advantages I fear.

I'll cool a bit (I was annoyed with myself for causing this in the first place), and re-look at it later. Right now it is stashed away and out of sight.

It isn't dead, it just doesn't work as it used to, if you follow me.

Regards

Gary

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sorry to hear this Gary. I haven't used a Minolta scanner ever but, and fwiw, I did open the lid on my Coolscan 9000 to clean the mirror and lens. And when I put it all back together it wouldn't pass the self-test/calibration routine. It turned out that one of the cables I had removed had become unseated as I fiddled about inside the scanner. All I can hope is that something similar applies to your scanner. I see you've already discovered one out-of-socket connector but perhaps there are other ones? I hope you'll find the solution.

 

br

Philip

 

Ah, what a difference a day makes. Wet New Years Day, so no flying for me.

Bugged by the white lines across the scans when using my Minolta 5400 I removed the top cover again (I did this a few weeks back, with small success).

Plan was to use the blower brush again to see if I could shift/remove the pieces of dust that were giving me white lines across my scans.

Slipped the cover back on after a bit of blowing, and tried it. Powered up, but didn't complete the calibration routine and won't talk now to Vuescan.

Off with the top cover again, and see what is causing this. I had knocked off one small connector near the front, where a foot from the cover attaches. I think I have also crimped the wires near this connector.

On with the connector, but still no progress, it powers up, but won't finish the calibration process.

I'm stumped, and fresh out of ideas. Plus I don't think there is any repair facilities in this area, if at all.

Might be a throw away item now, parts or similar.

Darn.

Gary

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All these dying scanners is very sad. For some reason I find scanning a creative link in the digital process. It allows some further control in the imaging chain. So far my three scanners are serving well (Coolscan 5000, Coolscan 8000 and Epson V700). When they falter, I fear I too will falter.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily there are still a few scanners being made in various price ranges. There's also an interesting project reported over at RFF, and time will tell what will come of it, but if the specs as described turn out to be true (and the price reasonable-ish) then it'll be a very competent scanner, I think.

 

All these dying scanners is very sad. For some reason I find scanning a creative link in the digital process. It allows some further control in the imaging chain. So far my three scanners are serving well (Coolscan 5000, Coolscan 8000 and Epson V700). When they falter, I fear I too will falter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When they falter, I fear I too will falter.

 

Why? I photograph my slides using my Canons with macro lenses but anything which can use a good macro lens and deliver a decent file should be ok. To get decent (RAW) file sizes I short 2 or 4 overlapping images at 2x or 4x (ish) magnification and then stitch the images in PS. Works surprisingly well. I have a set-up which uses an old microscope slide stage over a lightbox to move the slide around rather than adjust it myself and everything works fine though its all a bit mechanoish. About the only downside is the amount of dust that y old transparencies have acquired over the years - spotting ties an age sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

I would love to see the result of such a stitch. I am considering adding a Canon dslr for this purpose when my scanners fail. I used to own a 5D2 and experimented with my 100L (which I still have and use with my 1N) but I didn't try stitching for even better results.

Br

Philip

 

Why? I photograph my slides using my Canons with macro lenses but anything which can use a good macro lens and deliver a decent file should be ok. To get decent (RAW) file sizes I short 2 or 4 overlapping images at 2x or 4x (ish) magnification and then stitch the images in PS. Works surprisingly well. I have a set-up which uses an old microscope slide stage over a lightbox to move the slide around rather than adjust it myself and everything works fine though its all a bit mechanoish. About the only downside is the amount of dust that y old transparencies have acquired over the years - spotting ties an age sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

I would love to see the result of such a stitch.

Philip

 

 

Here's an example - original was a very crisp Kodachrome shot on a Nikkormat with a rather hammered 28/3.5 Nikkor (I was studying at the time and was loaned the lens from the store - someone had snapped the AI prong off). My mother has a Valachrome (an actual physically unsharp-masked Cibachrome) print on her living room wall from when it was taken which still looks very good despite its age. But the slide is now dusty and I wanted to reprint it, which I have - on a watercolour paper which looks lovely. It was produced from 4 RAW images of just over a quarter of the slide and stitched together in Photoshop. Cleaning it up took a couple of hours. Actually shot on a Canon. I have a 60mm macro-Elmarit which can be used to do this with extension tubes - don't use a modern IF macro lens - they really won't give good image quality if used with extension tubes due to their design. Manual focus macro lenses with good focus helicoids which are stable even pointing downwards are ideal - hence the Elmarit. Whilst the small jpeg doesn't really do it justice, the PSD file that I created is excellent and at 6000x4000 pixels clearly shows the grain. I have been given a Coolscan 5000 but actually think that copying via RAW files gives more flexibility and a 'better' result.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by pgk
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation Paul. That looks like a very good result, indeed, which I bet can be printed very large. 

 

Which connectors do you use to attach the 60 macro Elmarit to the Canon?

 

One can get used fullframe EOS cameras for rather little these days (at mpb.com for instance) so building a digitizing rig can be done for reasonable money (which makes me wonder about this contraption - the Film Toaster. The price point is, well, interesting).

 

br
Philip

 

Here's an example - original was a very crisp Kodachrome shot on a Nikkormat with a rather hammered 28/3.5 Nikkor (I was studying at the time and was loaned the lens from the store - someone had snapped the AI prong off). My mother has a Valachrome (an actual physically unsharp-masked Cibachrome) print on her living room wall from when it was taken which still looks very good despite its age. But the slide is now dusty and I wanted to reprint it, which I have - on a watercolour paper which looks lovely. It was produced from 4 RAW images of just over a quarter of the slide and stitched together in Photoshop. Cleaning it up took a couple of hours. Actually shot on a Canon. I have a 60mm macro-Elmarit which can be used to do this with extension tubes - don't use a modern IF macro lens - they really won't give good image quality if used with extension tubes due to their design. Manual focus macro lenses with good focus helicoids which are stable even pointing downwards are ideal - hence the Elmarit. Whilst the small jpeg doesn't really do it justice, the PSD file that I created is excellent and at 6000x4000 pixels clearly shows the grain. I have been given a Coolscan 5000 but actually think that copying via RAW files gives more flexibility and a 'better' result.

 

attachicon.gifChesil Slide © Paul Kay.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

so building a digitizing rig can be done for reasonable money (which makes me wonder about this contraption - the Film Toaster. The price point is, well, interesting

 

 

I'm also thinking that I might want to scan this way at some point fairly soon. If you already have a DSLR (which many of us do), the purchase of a decent macro lens and the other bits strikes me as cost effective versus buying a higher end scanner like a new Plustek 120 or used 9000. Being very space constrained, I like the idea of a self-contained unit like the Film Toaster which I can put away in a cupboard when I'm not using it – and I don't even mind the quite high cost if it is built to a very high standard and uses an easily replaceable light source – but I'm slightly dubious about the wisdom of attaching the camera/lens by the filter ring.

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also thinking that I might want to scan this way at some point fairly soon. If you already have a DSLR (which many of us do), the purchase of a decent macro lens and the other bits strikes me as cost effective versus buying a higher end scanner like a new Plustek 120 or used 9000. Being very space constrained, I like the idea of a self-contained unit like the Film Toaster which I can put away in a cupboard when I'm not using it – and I don't even mind the quite high cost if it is built to a very high standard and uses an easily replaceable light source – but I'm slightly dubious about the wisdom of attaching the camera/lens by the filter ring.

 

Ian, I have scanned 35mm, medium format and 4x5 negatives for some time with DSLRs and macro lenses ( I used a Nikon D3 + 60/2.8 AF-D lens and later a Leica S2 + 120/4 Carl Zeiss APO-Makro).

 

You know what - I stopped scanning 120 film this way the moment I got myself a 2000 EUR worth of vintage Konica Minolta scanner (and my Konica Minolta 5400 scanners are equally fantastic for the 35mm film negatives).

 

The reason is this: the DSLR method works truly fantastic to get very fast and really high resolution digital files (much, much quicker than even a super fast Imacon scan).

But: the files completely lack depth and tonality.

 

The strength of a dedicated professional film scanner (that doesn't include Plustek offerings and low bit consumer grade scanners) is that you can scan single negatives at unbelievable quality (and loooooong scan times, running all those multi pass scans for finest detail and multi exposure on the negative to amazingly enhance the dynamic range and squeeze every bit of info out of the negative.

 

If quick and dirty and web sharing is needed, the DSLR method beats anything else for fast and convenience (make sure you get a really good light table and some pano rails and brackets to build a solid copy stand).

 

If best quality scan is needed, nothing beats a drum scan, only the finest drum scan will beat an Imacon/Hasselblad scan and only a really good drum scan and Imacon/Hasselblad scan will beat the pro range of vintage film scanners (hence their extreme price increase over the last few years).

 

A Nikon 9000, Konica Minolta Multi-Pro are worth every cent you pay for them - but be prepared to pay for it in servicing and repairs (many parts are unavailable now, rendering perfectly good scanners into the trash bin for as trivial parts as a small plastic bracket, …).

 

Best high end scanner with proper warranty and support is the EPSON high end flat bed range. You won't get the crisp, perfect scans a Nikon 9000 or high end Minolta provides, but you have warranty and current support for what it's worth (+ the flexibility to scan prints and large negs).

 

My only two scanner models I use now still are the latest model Konica Minolta Multi-Pro with glass holders and two Mk I Konica Minolta 5400 scanners for 35mm. I don't use the DSLR method any longer. I am constantly stocking on film holders, spare parts and "defective" scanners for the case my running machines need work - the price to pay when using vintage gear ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which connectors do you use to attach the 60 macro Elmarit to the Canon?

 

I've used various methods - one involves using a Leitax adapter to the male section of a Leitz 14158 or 14134 macro tube with a number of 14135 centre tubes added (sounds messy but is actually quite an elegant solution using original Leica R parts). Once the desired magnification is achieved the system works well - the tubes can be bought quite cheaply - and the Elmarit can be dismounted as an R lens rather than converted. There are other adapters and ways of doing this but the one detailed is very sturdy. Currently I'm using a Leitax converted Elmarit and Canon extension tubes - because I have them.

 

Then its a matter of building a small copy stand. I use an old microscope slide holder to place the transparencies or negatives on and move them around using the microscope controls - again simple and quite easy to sort out once you get your head around what you are trying to do. Currently I place the contraption over a lightbox (daylight balanced), but you can use any diffuse light source including flash and experiment until you get the desired results.

 

FWIW I used to have a Coolscan 8000 and have a 5000 still. I do prefer the results from stitched images using the dSLR but these can be time consuming to post process carefully. The problem with scanners is as commented both support and parts and I doubt that they will remain a long term solution as their numbers dwindle and software becomes less attractive to produce/upgrade. Flatbeds don't seem to scan dense areas too well - I've wondered about using two exposures and experimenting with HDR software to achieve even better tonality but this would take even more time.

 

Actually nothing beats professional drum scans but to get these done well is VERY expensive. I was once offered a drum scanner for free but it needed removal and setting up and would have taken up a whole room. It was operable only on a computer that it came with and unfortunately ended up in a skip I believe - just overly large, old technology. Very sad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I took the print (about 16" x 12" I think) of the stitched imaged I posted above, to a camera club where I was giving a talk this evening. I showed it to a good number of the members who were impressed enough to consider trying it for themselves. Given that, as members of a photographic club, they are interested in photography, they are more critical than most when it comes to the technical quality of a print so I would say that technically the print is very acceptable indeed. No doubt a drum scan may yield a better file to print but I have am satisfied that the print I have rivals anything that I could produce using a Coolscan.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Well guys, its officially here!

I'm incredibly excited. Shooting my first roll of Tri-X today with my Leica M6TTL. Rangefinders are a much different experience but I can see the merits in being comfortable with the system. This is the M6TTL Millennium NSH Special Edition that was featured on Japan Camera Hunter a few years ago. It's absolutely beautiful and I plan on keeping this forever! One day I'll hand it down to someone in my family if they ever love photography as much as I do. Until then, I'm going to shoot the hell out of it. I wasn't planning on getting such a rare Leica but thats just how things played out. It's already brassing nicely from its previous owner and came with all original materials. My SN is 201/400. I also got the the matching Black Paint Leicavit thrown in with the deal. Honestly, I could not be happier with everything. It feels great to be a part of the family and I'll share some images with you guys soon.

This is with the ONA Presidio strap. I added some triangular tug rings to my M6 so the strap would be compatible. 

uTYo3bm.jpg

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...