Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Where do you get 8" x 12" paper?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
EDIT, sorry - finger trouble with the calculator; and so this is wrong. "A4 paper is usually a fraction (1 or 2mm) over the size it should be and it should be 1/8 inch short of 12" in length and is 8¼" in width. So nearly 8¼ x 12 inches."
Correction: A4 is roughly 11¾" by 8¼" which is almost 12" x 8" with a slight blank to be cut off.
But I don't know if you can get A4 in your part of the world...
Regards, David
Last edited:
narsuitus
Well-known
When I shoot an antique and/or a classic car show, I like to carry at least one vintage camera such an Ansco Speedex, an Argus C3, a Kodak Bullet, a Detrola, a Semi-Leotax, or a Polaroid.
https://flic.kr/p/rJaDxx
https://flic.kr/p/8XWPLh
https://flic.kr/p/8Y711L
https://flic.kr/p/8Y3WaM
https://flic.kr/p/8Y6ZdY
https://flic.kr/p/8XWN8Q
Attachments
goamules
Well-known
I just shot two wholeplate sheets of film with my 1890s Rochester Universal, but I put a newer 1905 Cooke Anastigmat lens on it. I'm taking my M3 on vacation, with a 50mm Summicron, Summar, and Canon 135/3.5. A few year's and maker variation in those.
traveler_101
American abroad
Hi Mr. Fibble,
Never realised that there were reenactors in Europe. In America there are amazing reenactments of Civil War battles; the reenactors made possible the film Gettysburg (1993). Ever see it?
Reenactment is one of several commitments to engagement with the past - a theme that seems pretty popular among us here, even though not all of us engage in it. The camera serves as a kind of portal.
Never realised that there were reenactors in Europe. In America there are amazing reenactments of Civil War battles; the reenactors made possible the film Gettysburg (1993). Ever see it?
Reenactment is one of several commitments to engagement with the past - a theme that seems pretty popular among us here, even though not all of us engage in it. The camera serves as a kind of portal.
Both the Great War and World War 2, yes.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
There's a lot more of it than you'd suspect.
I've seen German (Third Reich) Signal Groups at Bletchley Park, where the Enigma code was broken and a rebuild of the computer that did it. In France last year I managed to get a day at Amiens where there was a dogfight from the Great War with the genuine plans and masses in all the uniforms of the period including a gruesome medical section and Seconney kites and a repro Bleriot. I'm hoping to meet up again with the Bleriot owner later this year at Shuttleworth, where you'll also see a lot of re-enactments. even tins of M&V from the Great War.
Here's a link to a popular one:- http://www.thesealedknot.org.uk/
Regards, David
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I feel it'd be sacrilegious to sell just the Nikon S2 body I have, or just the lens... because they were (apparently) sold together as a kit, and have remained so ever since 1955. That's historical, right?
Same goes for the historical Nikon ER case I tore up not long ago... when I was putting it away. Now... the strap is no longer historical. It was too risky... and unreliable.
Same goes for the historical Nikon ER case I tore up not long ago... when I was putting it away. Now... the strap is no longer historical. It was too risky... and unreliable.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I do have four LTM leitz lenses from the 1950's that I use on occasion with both my film and digital M's. Use newer M lenses with older film M's as well.
I do not worry or care about matching pieces for historical reasons although I certainly can understand folks who do.
I do not worry or care about matching pieces for historical reasons although I certainly can understand folks who do.
veepeedeepee
Newbie
I try to keep my older bodies paired with lenses of the same vintage. For example, my M3 is paired with a Summarit 5cm ƒ/1.5- both manufactured in 1955. Sure, the Summarit is a bit of a crazy lens that people either love or hate, but I like the look and feel of that lens on my M3 better than just about any other.
Pioneer
Veteran
Usually it doesn't matter. Occasionally what I am using will be period correct, or at least look like it. For example, today I am shooting my 1936 Leica IIIa with my 1946 Elmar 90/4. They look good together but are not necessarily period correct.
On the other hand, my favorite camera/lens combo is the Zeiss Ikon and the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5. Now that is certainly period correct but not what would be considered historical.
Of course there are other days when I will use the Zeiss Ikon and the 1946 Elmar 90/4. Doesn't match at all and is certainly not period correct. Does produce some very nice photographs.
On the other hand, my favorite camera/lens combo is the Zeiss Ikon and the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5. Now that is certainly period correct but not what would be considered historical.
Of course there are other days when I will use the Zeiss Ikon and the 1946 Elmar 90/4. Doesn't match at all and is certainly not period correct. Does produce some very nice photographs.
mfogiel
Veteran
I don't care at all. What I usually try to achieve is the combination of the best body and best lens for the task I need. This summer I will finally get hold of my converted Summicron M 90 for Contax 645, Mamiya 110/2.8 for Pentax 67 and Summilux R 50 for Nikon.
rwintle
Scientist by day
I am histrionic with my gear.
robbeiflex
Well-known
Not at all. Any lens, camera combo goes for me on film or digital. For me the special look you can get by an odd combination is part of the fun.
traveler_101
American abroad
Interesting responses. I think we should have a poll on this.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Oh yes, there's quite a big Living History scene in Europe, mainly World War 2. But there are a lot of Medieval and Napoleonic groups as well. American Civil War re-enactment is big in Germany, I hear.
And yes I've seen Gods & Generals and I have Gettysburg on DVD somewhere
GarageBoy
Well-known
As much as I'd like to roll with "period correct gear" - I prefer getting the photos I want-
If that means a 1950s Summicron on a A7s- sure, why not
There are days where I want to play 1980s press photographer with my F3/MD4 with a large tele lens on it
If that means a 1950s Summicron on a A7s- sure, why not
There are days where I want to play 1980s press photographer with my F3/MD4 with a large tele lens on it
BrooklyNYC
Member
I mainly use a Leica M7 with a fairly modern Zeiss 50/2 lens. Not very historic at all.
Monday317
Member
I gots a Zeiss Ercona I with a fixed 105mm f/3.5 Tessar, using a 36.5mm push-on to Series 6 adapter with which to mount goodies. My filters, lens hood, polarizer and portrait lenses are pretty much all Tiffen or Kodak, as a simple matter of availability. I haven't had any problems with online purchases and don't mind the historic blend of brands; I feel very fortunate to have the stuff.This one is for those of us - I guess most of us - who use gear no longer made and is therefore "historic."
My question is do you try to match your camera to your lens(es) on the basis of mount, or brand or period or all three? Is is incongruous, or even just a little odd in your mind, to use a 1936 Summar on a 1962 M2 or a 1940 Elmar on a Bessa R?
Do you enjoy the idea of matching gear or is it something you never think about or are you somewhere in-between?
For this shutterbug, it was either go with great, affordable (God bless Jurgen Kreckel !!), vintage equipment, or sell my kids into slavery and go all-Linhof for my 6x9 habit. Photo gear, like golf, can be an awful addiction if you let it, and I can be an OCD/GAS nut of the foulest order., if left to my own devices, if you will. So my vintage solution has worked on many levels, no need to sweat matching IMHO.
RichardPhoto
Established
I always like to remind myself that a camera is a tool - nothing more, nothing less. Whatever works, works.
All the lenses I use between my M6 and M8 are Voigtlander. I saw absolutely no real world difference between them and Leica's offerings and so I had no hesitation to mix body and lens manufacturer. Some are M mount and some are LTM.
I'm even more eclectic with my Canon 5D (another camera I haven't upgraded to a new 50MP behemoth as it still does the job). I don't even own any Canon lenses. I have 28, 50, 100 zuikos which are amazing and cheap so I use them on the 5D with an adapter. I'll also use lenses like a Helios 44m if I'm after a certain look.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I start with the final image and work backward. Whatever gets me to that image is my choice and I steadfastly refused to pay outrageous sums of money for minuscule pixel-peeping performance upgrades. My key philosophy is that I'm a photographer, not a museum curator or philanthropic financier of extreme engineering.
All the lenses I use between my M6 and M8 are Voigtlander. I saw absolutely no real world difference between them and Leica's offerings and so I had no hesitation to mix body and lens manufacturer. Some are M mount and some are LTM.
I'm even more eclectic with my Canon 5D (another camera I haven't upgraded to a new 50MP behemoth as it still does the job). I don't even own any Canon lenses. I have 28, 50, 100 zuikos which are amazing and cheap so I use them on the 5D with an adapter. I'll also use lenses like a Helios 44m if I'm after a certain look.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I start with the final image and work backward. Whatever gets me to that image is my choice and I steadfastly refused to pay outrageous sums of money for minuscule pixel-peeping performance upgrades. My key philosophy is that I'm a photographer, not a museum curator or philanthropic financier of extreme engineering.
OddE
Recovering GAS addict.
-Quite the contrary - IMHO one of the main advantages of my main systems (Leica M and Nikon F) is that just about everything is compatible with just about everything else, with a few exceptions of course. (G lenses, I am looking at you!)
My 2007 D3 is currently mated with a 1982 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S lens, and they work purrrfectly together. My 1967 M4 currently has a 2002 Summicron 35 on it - same, same.