M6 and Summi 2/50 - get a little bit closer?

M

M like Leica M6

Guest
My standard camera and lens are wonderful, but sometimes I would like to get a little bit closer without carrying an SLR or a Visoflex.

What is a reasonable way get a little closer and overcome parallax problems? Is there something like the old "Auto-ups" from Canon's RF age?
 
That sounds reasonable and though it is an extra lens it saves a lot of weight because I don't have to carry so much money in my pocket any more... :D
 
IN the meanwhile I found that "Auto-ups" and "Super Nookys" were made for Nikon, Konica, Contax and Canon RFs, even for the Yashica Electro - but I cannot imagine that nobody ever made such accessories for M-Leicas. Who knows more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
Or use a 90mm, which at 1 metre or less gives around 1/8th to 1/10 life size.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Not too bad, but at that focal length I need to stop down to have a little bit depth of field. Then, because of the longer focal length I will more often need a tripod.
 
M like Leica M6 said:
Not too bad, but at that focal length I need to stop down to have a little bit depth of field. Then, because of the longer focal length I will more often need a tripod.
Click to expand...

At a given magnification on the film, d-o-f does not depend all that much on focal length, nor does the optimum shutter speed vary, i.e. you'll have much the same d-o-f and optimum shutter speed whether you're using 50mm at 55cm (DR Summicron) or 90mm at 100cm (almost any 90mm lens).

The reason smaller formats have more d-o-f is that the magnification on the film is smaller. The reason shorter lenses have more d-o-f at a given focused distance is, once again, because the magnification on the film is smaller.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Now, I followed your idea and tried it. Unfortunately my 100mm f2 Canon LTM is my only lens in that focal length. I can close up to 1 Meter, that will fill the frame with a close portrait. Well, a little bit closer would be fine...
 
M like Leica M6 said:
Now, I followed your idea and tried it. Unfortunately my 100mm f2 Canon LTM is my only lens in that focal length. I can close up to 1 Meter, that will fill the frame with a close portrait. Well, a little bit closer would be fine...
Click to expand...

I think you're on to a loser here.

The DR Summicron goes down to approx. 50cm, which is the same magnification as a 100mm at 1m -- a bit better than 1/8 life size (image area 20x30cm or thereabouts).

The choices are therefore Makro-Elmar, BOOWU-M 16526 'Spider', or Viso.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The DR Summicron goes down to approx. 50cm, which is the same magnification as a 100mm at 1m -- a bit better than 1/8 life size (image area 20x30cm or thereabouts).

The choices are therefore Makro-Elmar, BOOWU-M 16526 'Spider', or Viso.
Click to expand...
Not to rain on anybody's parade but closeups are really SLR territory. Finding a 50 for an SLR that goes down to 35 or 40 cm is no problem, with dedicated macro lenses you can get even closer. If the alternative is walking around with a Visoflex, which by definition is at least as big as an SLR, or taking pictures with a reproduction stand, the rangefinder camera has no advantage at all.

Philipp
 
Depending on which lens you have. There are close focus devices for both the collapsible and the rigid I Summicron (I am assuming you have one of those since the rigid II already goes down to .7m).

For the collapsible you can use the SOMKY, aka SOOKY-M, aka 16507. For the rigid I, you can use the UOORF/16508 in combination with the 16507. The 16507 has "eyes" in combination with increasing the lens to flange distance. You should also be able to use the helicoid of a DR with the lens barrel of a rigid I.

Best,

Roland.
 
Unfortunately the SOOKY-M goes no closer than a DR Summicron, c. 1:7.5.

Philipp has it: you need a Viso, though to be fair, a Viso is only about half as big a a small SLR: the front half, obviously.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
you need a Viso, though to be fair, a Viso is only about half as big a a small SLR: the front half, obviously.
Click to expand...
Add the necessary Leica, and you get a big clunky box the size of a biggish SLR with no return mirror, stop-down operation and no metering. Also, it's an equipment nightmare getting the right combination of lens heads, focusing helicals and all sorts of extra bits and pieces. IMHO it's interesting only from an engineering quirk point of view.

If you insist using Visoflex lens heads, get a Cameraquest adapter and use them on a proper camera instead of bothering with a mirror box. If all you want is a close-up 50, any 1970s SLR with macro lens is going to do a better job.

Philipp
 
rxmd said:
Add the necessary Leica, and you get a big clunky box the size of a biggish SLR with no return mirror, stop-down operation and no metering. Also, it's an equipment nightmare getting the right combination of lens heads, focusing helicals and all sorts of extra bits and pieces. IMHO it's interesting only from an engineering quirk point of view.

If you insist using Visoflex lens heads, get a Cameraquest adapter and use them on a proper camera instead of bothering with a mirror box. If all you want is a close-up 50, any 1970s SLR with macro lens is going to do a better job.

Philipp
Click to expand...

Dear Philipp,

I think you're being a bit unfair. I'm assuming you are carrying the Leica anyway, so the Viso is smaller than carrying a Leica and an SLR; the Viso III, which is what I have, has an instant-return mirror; and the setup I use most (Viso III + focusing mount + 65/3.5 Elmar) is hardly an equipment nightmare. You can even meter if you like, by flipping the mirror out of the way.

I cheerfully concede that it's not perfect, but I find it better (and more compact) than carrying an SLR as well. This is all the more true if I am shooting both mono and colour, and would therefore need four bodies (two Leica, two SLR) or endless film swapping. Both the 65 Elmar and the long lenses (I've had 200-280-400) are compact and of good quality, and -- this is the important part -- I don't need them often, and I don't need to use them quickly.

Cheers,

Roger
 
...and I was just looking for some kind of Auto-up. Carrying a Visoflex with me and an extra lens is something that I would never do, because I could also grab my EOS, the 50mm glass and a cheap close-up lens.

Today, an Auto-up gadget for an old Canon RF costs 10-30$ for a standard lens. Isn't there something similar for the Leica M? I can hardly imagine that nobody ever filled that gap.
 
Dear Roger,

I will readily admit that I'm somewhat biased against the Visoflex; I consider it awkward and clunky, and it took up a lot of development effort in the 1950s and 1960s that Leica could have used for producing better SLRs. In my opinion the Visoflex is a demonstration that sometimes you shouldn't leave strategic business decisions to engineers. While it's a fairly good solution to the engineering problem how to fit a mirror box with long lenses to an existing rangefinder camera, it's not a good solution to the underlying social problem that people don't want mirror boxes and adapter rings. They want easy-to-use cameras. If you make them use a rangeinder camera for the heck of it and force them to ditch the rangefinder and choose from the OCLOM, OTDYM, OTYDO and OUCLO mirror boxes, and from the various OUAGO, OTZFO, OUBIO, OUFRO, OTSRO, ZOOAN and ZOOEP focusing accessories before they even buy a lens, they will just as likely buy a Nikon instead. :)

That said, I've seen some nice pictures taken with it, especially the longer lenses. In my eyes the only justification for using a Visoflex (well if you're not just a Leica collector) is if you have time, you don't mind stopdown operation or flipping the mirror up and down for metering through a different eyepiece, and you want to have rangefinder and SLR shots on the same roll of film.

I think one of the points of rangefinders is not carrying lots of gear. A Visoflex means that you need a bag. If you have a bag for the Visoflex unit plus lenses anyway, you might just as well put an OM-2 in there instead which takes up a few more cubic centimeters, but gives you significant advantages such as open-aperture, through-the-lens metering.

Philipp

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Philipp,

I think you're being a bit unfair. I'm assuming you are carrying the Leica anyway, so the Viso is smaller than carrying a Leica and an SLR; the Viso III, which is what I have, has an instant-return mirror; and the setup I use most (Viso III + focusing mount + 65/3.5 Elmar) is hardly an equipment nightmare. You can even meter if you like, by flipping the mirror out of the way.

I cheerfully concede that it's not perfect, but I find it better (and more compact) than carrying an SLR as well. This is all the more true if I am shooting both mono and colour, and would therefore need four bodies (two Leica, two SLR) or endless film swapping. Both the 65 Elmar and the long lenses (I've had 200-280-400) are compact and of good quality, and -- this is the important part -- I don't need them often, and I don't need to use them quickly.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...
 
Hi Clemens,

M like Leica M6 said:
Today, an Auto-up gadget for an old Canon RF costs 10-30$ for a standard lens. Isn't there something similar for the Leica M? I can hardly imagine that nobody ever filled that gap.
Click to expand...
there was an RFF thread (link) once about Auto-ups for the Nikon RF. With this huge prism those might fit the Leica as well? Maybe you can try and look for one.

Philipp
 
I had a Serenar 50/1.8 with Auto-Up that was not so accurate on a VT Deluxe and wildly inaccurate when I tried it on an M3. To my knowledge, Leitz made only different kinds of extension tubes and rings, never any device with a supplementary lens.

Now that the relatively obscure items in question are no longer being made, it may well be a nightmare finding what you need.
 
rxmd said:
In my eyes the only justification for using a Visoflex (well if you're not just a Leica collector) is if you have time, you don't mind stopdown operation or flipping the mirror up and down for metering. . .
Click to expand...
Dear Philipp,

I wouldn't argue strenuously with you, and I fully take your point about Leicaflexes: no argument there. For me -- with the considerations we have both listed above -- the argument is marginally in favour of the Viso, but I can easily see how for others it might tip the other way.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom