I finally got a Leica

[michaelbsc]

They may be supposed to have the same same (to quote you exactly) focal distance, but the question is whether the Russian manufacturing processes were capable of working (or chose to work) to the necessary tolerances to achieve the desired result.

Without trying to start a war, let me pass on some things I've learned, and I believe to be true. Clearly I wasn't in the Soviet Union when these things were occurring, so I can't be totally certain, but the details of the lenses match the story I've heard.

First, the Soviet knock offs were superb, and I have a few. I cannot afford a REAL Leica, and I promise you that in my hands not a person on this board could tell when I was using a real Leica, my knock offs, or my old Yashica. I'm just not good enough that the build quality of the stuff, so long as it's not plastic Holgas, matters. In my case the photographer is the limiting factor, not the equipment.

But the arguments come up all the time about Leicas and LTM mount FEDs, Zorkis, etc.

First, the Soviet lenses were very good glass, and build quality of the shipped lenses varied from superb to so-so. This differs from Leica build quality. At Leica, if it got out the door, it was right. But if you get the Russian lenses serviced properly they're excellent. This is an artifact, so I'm told, of the fact that the lens craftsmanship was tied to the Soviet satellite imaging, and they spend money on it to make it good glass.

Second, the Soviet LTM lenses will screw in to a real Leica perfectly, but they don't focus properly without adjustment. Likewise, a perfectly adjusted FED will accept a real Leica lens, but it won't focus properly. And this is the tricky part.

The Soviets usurped two sets of lens technology after the war, Contax and Leica. But they got far more parts and manufacturing machinery for Contax. The Soviet LTM lenses use a Contax helix pitch standard (instead of the Leica helix pitch) as a way to consolidate manufacturing and reduce costs. The two are close enough that you can fit them into the lens, but they are *NOT* the same. Ergo, the rangefinder cam on a FED or Zorki is shaped to match a Contax helix pitch instead of a Leica helix pitch. Consequently, while they screw together, the rangefinder doesn't work right if you mix the Leica and Industar lens. (Unless, of course, you have the lens modified to work with your Leica.) So everyone complains - unfairly - that the Soviet lenses are junk.

Like I said, some details may be wrong. I wasn't there. But this is the basic story I got from a Ukrainian guy.

MB

[Steve Roberts]

Thanks Michaelbsc (above).
This is the kind of helpful and constructive post that I'd hoped my own first post on this thread would prompt.
Best wishes,
Steve

[furcafe]

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html


Without trying to start a war, let me pass on some things I've learned, and I believe to be true. Clearly I wasn't in the Soviet Union when these things were occurring, so I can't be totally certain, but the details of the lenses match the story I've heard.

First, the Soviet knock offs were superb, and I have a few. I cannot afford a REAL Leica, and I promise you that in my hands not a person on this board could tell when I was using a real Leica, my knock offs, or my old Yashica. I'm just not good enough that the build quality of the stuff, so long as it's not plastic Holgas, matters. In my case the photographer is the limiting factor, not the equipment.

But the arguments come up all the time about Leicas and LTM mount FEDs, Zorkis, etc.

First, the Soviet lenses were very good glass, and build quality of the shipped lenses varied from superb to so-so. This differs from Leica build quality. At Leica, if it got out the door, it was right. But if you get the Russian lenses serviced properly they're excellent. This is an artifact, so I'm told, of the fact that the lens craftsmanship was tied to the Soviet satellite imaging, and they spend money on it to make it good glass.

Second, the Soviet LTM lenses will screw in to a real Leica perfectly, but they don't focus properly without adjustment. Likewise, a perfectly adjusted FED will accept a real Leica lens, but it won't focus properly. And this is the tricky part.

The Soviets usurped two sets of lens technology after the war, Contax and Leica. But they got far more parts and manufacturing machinery for Contax. The Soviet LTM lenses use a Contax helix pitch standard (instead of the Leica helix pitch) as a way to consolidate manufacturing and reduce costs. The two are close enough that you can fit them into the lens, but they are *NOT* the same. Ergo, the rangefinder cam on a FED or Zorki is shaped to match a Contax helix pitch instead of a Leica helix pitch. Consequently, while they screw together, the rangefinder doesn't work right if you mix the Leica and Industar lens. (Unless, of course, you have the lens modified to work with your Leica.) So everyone complains - unfairly - that the Soviet lenses are junk.

Like I said, some details may be wrong. I wasn't there. But this is the basic story I got from a Ukrainian guy.

MB

[Jeff L]

Enjoy your Leica. Later you can move up to a Contax...
I running to hide under the desk now.

[michaelbsc]

Enjoy your Leica. Later you can move up to a Contax...
I running to hide under the desk now.

And the nice thing about the Soviet Contax clones is that the Zeiss cameras and lenses fit and work properly, but you can't put some of the older Soviet lenses on the newer Contax II. [Not that I have a real (german manufactured) Contax body or lenses for it. But I do have a Yashica made Contax body and lens, and they're excellent.]

[michaelbsc]

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

This is pretty good. Clearly the same story line, but more detail. I thought the Nikon connection was pretty interesting, too. I've ever even seen one of those Nikons.

[Ian Grant]

[quote=Jeff L;913663]Enjoy your Leica. Later you can move up to a Contax...
I running to hide under the desk now.[/quote

Jesus, what are you on, happy pills :D

More seriously I had to try get a Contax sorted out for a friend 3-4 years ago, what a pile of garbage, to be fair as soon as anyone knew it was the original model they just said forget it, they were terrible and unreliable .but the II and III were fine far easier to service etc.

Were they better than Leica's yes in superficial ways a better Range-finder (longer) and View finder, faster high speed (marginal), but far less reliable and bigger. Ultimately less desirable.

Ian

[darkosaric]

I have Leica minilux with summarit 40/2.4. Can I be considered as part of Leica club :) ;) :) ?

[mhcfires]

Hmm… I've never had a Contax, probably never will, I have a hard enough time using the cameras I have. The Topcon and Nikon SLR's sit on the shelf with the Nikon D80. most of the time I have a Speed or Baby Speed or a 3x4 Graflex in hand. This Leica is a fun camera, it is so small and light.

I hope I'm not starting a war. Film cameras are film cameras, and these old babies don't need no stinking batteries!:p

[Steve Roberts]

After nearly fifty years in photography, I have a Leica! It is a wonderful little Screw mount Leica IIIa with Summitar 5 cm lens and Elmar 9cm f4 lens. Haven't yet used the Elmar, but have run a roll of tri-x with moderate success. Love the quiet shutter and the small size of this thing. It fits my hand so well, is like a feather compared to the old Topcon RE Super I carried for so many years. :p

Having bought a Leica III with f2.0 Summitar at about the same time as Michael, I finally managed to find the time (and weather) to put it through its paces. These (for better or worse) are my thoughts after the first roll:

1) Film Loading - I'd read about this issue long before I even considered getting a Leica. There's so much advice about loading on the web, yet I thought "how hard can it be to stick a film in a camera?" Pretty hard, it turns out. Despite having cut the extra long leader, this was an operation akin to keyhole surgery, though I succeeded on the fourth attempt. In trying, I noted that some previous owner had opened the shutter and tried to tease the film down with a sharp object, thereby scratching the pressure plate. I awarded 0/10 to Herr Barnack for his film loading system and 10/10 to Robert Capa for changing films under fire in the Spanish Civil War.

2) Focussing - Very positive, especially with the 1.5X magnified image. No problem shifting from the focus finder to the viewfinder, as few subjects of my photos ever move! Only tiny niggle was the distance at almost infinity, where the infinity lock assembly becomes an issue, though perhaps at that distance "almost infinity" is close enough to "infinity" not to matter under most circumstances.

3) Film Advance - Knob wind not an issue, again because I rarely need to rattle off photos quickly and even then the knob advance can be surprisingly quick and done at eye level with a stroke of a finger (a tip I picked up from a recent episode of Poirot!)

4) Shutter - Though the Leica was reknowned for its quietness in its day, my Pentax MX isn't that much more noisy. Perhaps the difference becomes more discernable where it matters, such as in live music performances.

5) Lens - Easy to use, silky smooth focussing, aperture ring a little loose on mine and easy to change accidentally. The post-war lens is coated, and produced a very nice-looking set of negs, though I've yet to print them and enjoy all those intermediate tones.


I've now sent the camera off to Malcolm Taylor to cure a slight roughness on the 1/30th, 40th and 60th speeds, tighten the aperture ring and to investigate a small fungal growth on one of the lens elements.

Have a good weekend,

Steve

[maddoc2003jp]

I am waiting for my Summarit 50/1.5 to come back from Sherry Krauter and then give my IIIf another try. :) I bought the camera in summer 2007 and now have also a 5cm Elmar red-scale, a 3.5 cm Summaron, and a 9cm Elmar. All very fine lenses and everything including a VIOOH finder fits into two pockets. Leica cameras are fine machines.

Enjoy your new toy !

Cheers,

Gabor

[elekm]

The three Zeiss Ikon Contax models almost have to be viewed separately.

The first Contax was an answer to the Leica and wasn't a great camera. No slow speeds, a very boxy body and a dodgy shutter. I believe that Hubert Nerwin got involved with the Contax I and made some modifications to make it more reliable. He also made changes to the rangefinder.

The Contax II was a much improved camera. A new body shape, a unified rangefinder/viewfinder and a more reliable shutter. The Contax II uses a swinging wedge prism for the rangefinder that is extremely accurate and rarely falls out of calibration. The Contax III added a selenium meter.

The postwar Contax IIa was again a new camera. The body is smaller -- neither as wide nor as tall as the Contax II. The Contax IIa uses a version of the swinging wedge prism. None of its parts are interchangeable with the Contax II. The Contax IIIa added a selenium meter.

You can't apply blanket statements to the Zeiss Ikon Contax, because each model was very different from the others.

And you also can't compare the Zeiss Ikon Contax to the Yashica/Kyocera Contax. Aside from the name, they share nothing in common. Well, not nothing. Both were made to accept Carl Zeiss lenses -- but those aren't interchangeable.

The Leica LTM is an excellent camera although not without its own shortcomings:

- Quirky film loading system. I've heard of some people sliding a playing card, business card, index card or some other piece of thin card-like material into the area above the shutter to assist with film loading. I've also heard of some people locking the shutter open on B.

- Two shutter speed dials. Easy to understand once you get the hang of it. But why?

- Two eyepieces. By the mid-1950s, it was clear that this should have been solved decades ago.

- A shutter-speed dial that spins when the shutter is released. Again, understandable in the 1930s. Not understandable in the 1950s. I've had a problem with this when shooting in the winter with gloves.

Still, it's a small, very sturdy camera. Reliable and fun to use. Workmanship is excellent.