wilt
Well-known
I got my first Leica some weeks ago. Time for some reflection.
It is an M3, DS, recently CLA:d and with a 6 months warranty from a reputable Swedish dealer. (By coincidence, the serial number is close to, 7 numbers from the M3 bought recently by Solares Larrave.)
The camera works great! The handling is really good, I kind of like the user interface of the camera, it fits my hands. I could write lyrically about butter-smooth film advance mechanics, but that is not really the point of photography - I am a user, not a fondler. I wanted a camera that was discreet, quiet, stripped of unnecessary technology, good tactility (or what one should call it). The M3 fits most of this. Film loading is not so problematic as I thought it would be.
An added bonus with the Leica is that most people don't see me as a 'serious' photographer compared to what would happen with a modern SLR or digital SLR (I mostly do street photography and non-studio, natural environment portraits). A couple of middle aged photo enthusiasts have recognised the Leica in the street and made comments, but to the general public the camera is just any old camera.
My economy does not allow Leitz optics at the moment, so I have to make do with a set of Soviet glass. And they are quite good. However, I've been having close focus problems. After reading a lot about this issue here on this excellent forum, on photo.net and on various pages such as Dante Stella's, there seems to be different schools of thought. Some users report no focus problems when using Russian glass on Leicas/Bessas/Canons, some do.
After several shots in close range (1-2 meters) and on large apertures turned up fussy, I suspected there might be a systematic error, not just my focusing mistakes. So I did a controlled test where I shot at c. 1 meter and had a ruler laid out beside the object photographed. I shot 2 pictures each with my Industar-61, Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 9, all on maximum aperture.
All pictures were backfocused, about 10 centimeters at 1 meter. Now, it could be a misadjusted rangefinder on the camera (I haven't tried it yet with Leitz, Canon or CV glass), it could be six focus mistakes on my part in a row or it could be a systematic focus shift when using Russian lenses on the Leica. At the moment, I suspect the last hypothesis. My experience using the Jupiters on my FED 3 (no focus problems) points in the same direction. The testing will continue.
There is quite a lot written about the Jupiter 8 here on this forum, it generally gets good press. I am not sure I agree with all this.
It is a quite good lens, and the bokeh/SOFA is really nice. The price is right. But if I can't focus the lens at 2 or 2.8 and 1-2 meters, it is of limited use and I will have to look around for some other 50 lens.
Also, I could compare the lens to the three lenses I have extensive experience with (thousands of pictures): the MC Minotar 35/2.8 (Minox 35 GT-E), the Carl Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 (Hasselblad 500C) and the Zuiko 50/1.8 MIJ (Olympus OM2). While the Jupiter 8 has a pleasant look to it, I can't really say that it is better than these three lenses. Add to this the possible focus issues, and I will look for another 50.
It is an M3, DS, recently CLA:d and with a 6 months warranty from a reputable Swedish dealer. (By coincidence, the serial number is close to, 7 numbers from the M3 bought recently by Solares Larrave.)
The camera works great! The handling is really good, I kind of like the user interface of the camera, it fits my hands. I could write lyrically about butter-smooth film advance mechanics, but that is not really the point of photography - I am a user, not a fondler. I wanted a camera that was discreet, quiet, stripped of unnecessary technology, good tactility (or what one should call it). The M3 fits most of this. Film loading is not so problematic as I thought it would be.
An added bonus with the Leica is that most people don't see me as a 'serious' photographer compared to what would happen with a modern SLR or digital SLR (I mostly do street photography and non-studio, natural environment portraits). A couple of middle aged photo enthusiasts have recognised the Leica in the street and made comments, but to the general public the camera is just any old camera.
My economy does not allow Leitz optics at the moment, so I have to make do with a set of Soviet glass. And they are quite good. However, I've been having close focus problems. After reading a lot about this issue here on this excellent forum, on photo.net and on various pages such as Dante Stella's, there seems to be different schools of thought. Some users report no focus problems when using Russian glass on Leicas/Bessas/Canons, some do.
After several shots in close range (1-2 meters) and on large apertures turned up fussy, I suspected there might be a systematic error, not just my focusing mistakes. So I did a controlled test where I shot at c. 1 meter and had a ruler laid out beside the object photographed. I shot 2 pictures each with my Industar-61, Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 9, all on maximum aperture.
All pictures were backfocused, about 10 centimeters at 1 meter. Now, it could be a misadjusted rangefinder on the camera (I haven't tried it yet with Leitz, Canon or CV glass), it could be six focus mistakes on my part in a row or it could be a systematic focus shift when using Russian lenses on the Leica. At the moment, I suspect the last hypothesis. My experience using the Jupiters on my FED 3 (no focus problems) points in the same direction. The testing will continue.
There is quite a lot written about the Jupiter 8 here on this forum, it generally gets good press. I am not sure I agree with all this.
It is a quite good lens, and the bokeh/SOFA is really nice. The price is right. But if I can't focus the lens at 2 or 2.8 and 1-2 meters, it is of limited use and I will have to look around for some other 50 lens.
Also, I could compare the lens to the three lenses I have extensive experience with (thousands of pictures): the MC Minotar 35/2.8 (Minox 35 GT-E), the Carl Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 (Hasselblad 500C) and the Zuiko 50/1.8 MIJ (Olympus OM2). While the Jupiter 8 has a pleasant look to it, I can't really say that it is better than these three lenses. Add to this the possible focus issues, and I will look for another 50.
Thomaspin
Member
Wilt - get a second mortgage on your home and buy a 50mm Summicron to go with that Leica to see what it can do. Then before you know it 35 years will have elapsed and you will still wonder at its utility, just as I do. The mortgage will have long been paid off by then.
A good user Summicron will last that long and continue to give pleasure and results long after poorly made imitations have failed. The cost difference over a lifetime is insignificant.
Congratulations on a fine purchase.
A good user Summicron will last that long and continue to give pleasure and results long after poorly made imitations have failed. The cost difference over a lifetime is insignificant.
Congratulations on a fine purchase.
kiev4a
Well-known
Question:
How much did the Planar cost?
How Much did the Jupiter 8 cost?
Subtract the cost of the J8 from the Planar and factor the fact that the Planar is on an MF camera.
Using that equation the J8 is a pretty decent lens.
How much did the Planar cost?
How Much did the Jupiter 8 cost?
Subtract the cost of the J8 from the Planar and factor the fact that the Planar is on an MF camera.
Using that equation the J8 is a pretty decent lens.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I don't know much about prices abroad, but a good 'cron for the M3 may run between US$200 and $400. A collapsible one is a bit less... and fits wonderfully.
As a M6TTL user, I find the M3 viewfinder a relief; I've been testing one camera's handling against the other, and, while both are a nice fit for my hands, the VF in the M3 is surprising. Never did I think of my 'cron as a wide lens, but in the M3, it looks like it. Check the 50mm framelines in the M6TTL and they look narrow. Then, again, the magnification is a big factor... my M6TTLs are both 0.72.
In general terms, I like my M3. In fact, even though there's no difference in mechanical terms, I dare say the M3 shutter is a tad quieter than the M6. But just a tad...
Metering, however, is a completely different league. I have an MR meter, with button on top. In tricky situations I can trust it and I know that in shadows it'll be necessary to open the lens a notch or two. However, the exposures I got in slide film do not belie this... mostly because of my lack of experience. Gotta work more on this side.
Buttery film advance, relatively easy to load (as opposed to other loading mechanisms, in this one there's simply NO room for a misload) and nice handling.
Did I mention the viewfinder?
As a M6TTL user, I find the M3 viewfinder a relief; I've been testing one camera's handling against the other, and, while both are a nice fit for my hands, the VF in the M3 is surprising. Never did I think of my 'cron as a wide lens, but in the M3, it looks like it. Check the 50mm framelines in the M6TTL and they look narrow. Then, again, the magnification is a big factor... my M6TTLs are both 0.72.
In general terms, I like my M3. In fact, even though there's no difference in mechanical terms, I dare say the M3 shutter is a tad quieter than the M6. But just a tad...
Metering, however, is a completely different league. I have an MR meter, with button on top. In tricky situations I can trust it and I know that in shadows it'll be necessary to open the lens a notch or two. However, the exposures I got in slide film do not belie this... mostly because of my lack of experience. Gotta work more on this side.
Buttery film advance, relatively easy to load (as opposed to other loading mechanisms, in this one there's simply NO room for a misload) and nice handling.
Did I mention the viewfinder?
BjornR
Newbie
wilt, consider checking out the LP-foto auctions that are held twice a year. I've visited several times, last year I got myself a nice 1960 DR-Summicron for 1200 SEK - almost no bidders on that one. No eyes, though. The auction is in Stockholm but you can pre-bid by mail, etc.
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
Sorry to hear about your focusing difficulties with the Russian lenses.
The Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-9 are well known for not coupling properly to Leicas (and to Soviet rangefinders for that matter). It seems to be a general quality issue with those two particular lenses.
Focus problems of this type are much less common with the Jupiter-8; I have several and all of them couple properly to my Leica IIIf. It is possible that you have a bad example. The price of the Jupiter-8's is relatively low and it might be worth risking the price of a second J-8 to obtain a good one.
You might also consider a Jupiter-12 (35mm/f2.8) These also do not usually have focus coupling problems and are sharp, relatively fast lenses. You don't really need an auxiliary finder. The entire field of view (outise of the 50mm frame lines in a M3 corresponds to about a 38mm lens - close enough for most puposes.
The Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-9 are well known for not coupling properly to Leicas (and to Soviet rangefinders for that matter). It seems to be a general quality issue with those two particular lenses.
Focus problems of this type are much less common with the Jupiter-8; I have several and all of them couple properly to my Leica IIIf. It is possible that you have a bad example. The price of the Jupiter-8's is relatively low and it might be worth risking the price of a second J-8 to obtain a good one.
You might also consider a Jupiter-12 (35mm/f2.8) These also do not usually have focus coupling problems and are sharp, relatively fast lenses. You don't really need an auxiliary finder. The entire field of view (outise of the 50mm frame lines in a M3 corresponds to about a 38mm lens - close enough for most puposes.
I will agree with the "get a mortgage and a Summicron" suggestion! With the FSU lenses you're fighting two problems: One is the possibility of dimensional errors in the screw-mount adaptor, a recent subject in another RFF thread. This seems to affect wide angle lenses more. Second is that the Jupiters were made with a different specification for the mounting flange to film distance. The resulting focus errors are usually more noticeable at close distance, and when the lens is shimmed for close-distance accuracy it's off at infinity.
I use my Jupiter lenses on the FSU cameras they were made for. For your Leica, Leica lenses are ideal... I bought my M2 when it was 10 years old, and I had saved to buy at the same time a new 35 Summicron. That's been a wonderful combination that I still use, 38 years later! If that's just not financially feasible for you now, then at least you have another attractive option in the current Voigtlander lenses.
I use my Jupiter lenses on the FSU cameras they were made for. For your Leica, Leica lenses are ideal... I bought my M2 when it was 10 years old, and I had saved to buy at the same time a new 35 Summicron. That's been a wonderful combination that I still use, 38 years later! If that's just not financially feasible for you now, then at least you have another attractive option in the current Voigtlander lenses.
R
Roman
Guest
wilt said:
That's pretty much the same systematic error I got fronm testin 3 J8s and 2 I61L/Ds on my Bessa R!
Roman
Uncle Bill
Well-known
Hi Wilt, to throw Gasoline on the fire
Hi Wilt, to throw Gasoline on the fire
I too have a Leica M3 that recently came into my possession it came with a Summacron 50/2 collapsable and Canon 50/1.4 "leica" screwmount with a M bayonet adapter. The Canon lens takes scary good pictures that blows away those who see my pictures. Another option is go Voightlander with their Nokton 50/1.4 lens. Leica lenses can get scary expensive but they are worth it, same goes with the aftermarket options. The pricing of the Canon which is vintage and the Voightlander should not bankrupt. I say if you can have only one, go for the Canon lens and get an M Bayonet adapter. Hit Eprey and sit and wait for the right lens or if you are traveling just keep an eye out in different camera shops with decent used departments.
Bill
Hi Wilt, to throw Gasoline on the fire
I too have a Leica M3 that recently came into my possession it came with a Summacron 50/2 collapsable and Canon 50/1.4 "leica" screwmount with a M bayonet adapter. The Canon lens takes scary good pictures that blows away those who see my pictures. Another option is go Voightlander with their Nokton 50/1.4 lens. Leica lenses can get scary expensive but they are worth it, same goes with the aftermarket options. The pricing of the Canon which is vintage and the Voightlander should not bankrupt. I say if you can have only one, go for the Canon lens and get an M Bayonet adapter. Hit Eprey and sit and wait for the right lens or if you are traveling just keep an eye out in different camera shops with decent used departments.
Bill