Let's see your Leica M

errorlogin said:
First Film loaded with this combination...

p1020975xfx3.jpg
Click to expand...
what is the adapter? is it rangefinder coupled?
 
They only made 1000 of the UC-Hex? I believe they also made a silver version, right?

Compared to the normal M-Hex, the UC version seems to be a lot smaller, which is always nice.
 
digitaldave said:
Who cares if it's worth any more than a regular M4, it's beautiful camera 🙂.
Click to expand...

Just as curiosity, I've asked DAG how much would the three M3 levers cost (wouldn't bother to change the rewind lever), it'd be roughly $250, considering used parts.

I had an M3 advance lever installed on my M6 (which I later sold) after using an M3 for a while and getting to like the all metal lever. Nowadays I have an M4 and I enjoy the plastic tip lever. my pocket enjoys that too!
 
Wes. said:
They only made 1000 of the UC-Hex? I believe they also made a silver version, right?

Compared to the normal M-Hex, the UC version seems to be a lot smaller, which is always nice.
Click to expand...

Wes, the first LTM 35mm Hex was silver and not UC coated. All the UC versions are black painted. I have never seen a silver one, but I think it would be the same size and have a more vintage look to the images. This lens is very small, on the scale of a 35mm/2,5 Skopar. The M-Hexanon 35mm F2.0 is a lot larger.
 
leicashot said:
Yes but the UC has a min focus distance of 0.9M i believe, whereas the M is 0.7M, which is quite a difference.
Click to expand...

Ah... That would probably be a deal breaker for me.

gdi said:
Wes, the first LTM 35mm Hex was silver and not UC coated. All the UC versions are black painted. I have never seen a silver one, but I think it would be the same size and have a more vintage look to the images. This lens is very small, on the scale of a 35mm/2,5 Skopar. The M-Hexanon 35mm F2.0 is a lot larger.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I look forward to seeing some of your pictures taken with this lens. 🙂
 
It's interesting that a lot of people say that the extra 8" or so of minimum distance is a big deal. I don't think I use a wide angle at such close distances often or at all. In what situations do you guys find it critical to have the closer distance?

Maybe I'll find that it is a problem as I use the lens more, I don't know.
 
gdi said:
In what situations do you guys find it critical to have the closer distance?
Click to expand...
On public transportation like buses for example. Actually any scene where you're cheek by jowl with lots of other people; lines, parties, pubs, sports events, concerts and so on. It's why I sold my UC Hexanon, that and the tiny tab.
 
peter_n said:
On public transportation like buses for example. Actually any scene where you're cheek by jowl with lots of other people; lines, parties, pubs, sports events, concerts and so on. It's why I sold my UC Hexanon, that and the tiny tab.
Click to expand...

I usually don't voluntarily venture into crowds of that density, but it still seems the 8 inch difference would be insignificant. Though, I guess if that is one's specialty a few inches may prove critical.

Anyway, this is OT, thanks for the explanation!
 
Thanks, all I need is the viewfinder cleared of dust, and a new camera leather, probably vulcanit, put on it and I don't think I need any other camera, ever. That camera and lens is just perfect, to me anyway.
 
Here is what I am currently shooting.
M6 which has been CLA'd by Tajika-San in Tokyo. The movement is the smoothest I have ever felt.
Summilux 35mm ASPH final version. Not bad, I would prefer the floating element version though.
 

Attachments

  • _0012418.jpg
    _0012418.jpg
    166.7 KB · Views: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom