M3 + Elmar oddities

[BassO]

Right, I got the 50mm/2.8 unlocked following the last thread and by now the tab is eased into action enough to lock it again with a small push. So, it was time to get out there, shoot the pictures and wonder how anyone could ever think up such a crappy bottom-loader.

After this experience and a closer study of the camera, I have a couple of questions though.

The Elmar lens has a zillion-leafed aperture. Watching that thing open and close has something organic to it. However, the individual leafes seem to be soaked in oil. They have a shimmering, oily look to them that would look very suspicious on one of my Nikon lenses. However, the thing works like it should. Is this oil-business the way to go or should I be worried?

The rangefinder is very nice. It's almost like you're looking through a fighter-pilot's helmet, instead of through a 50-year old collection of glass elements. However, focusing with it leaves me with some questions. When aligning the images in the finder, it's not much of a problem to get them to match on the horizontal plane. On the vertical plane, however, the images hardly ever match. When taking a picture of a windowframe, for example, I'd get a 100% match on the vertical plane but the horizontal part would mismatch by putting the overlay just a little below the original. A) Is this something that's supposed to happen, B) am I doing something wrong, C) is it finally time to visit an optrician or D) is the finder mis-aligned?

Well, that's it for now. Waiting to see how the rolls turn out to find out whether I'm any good at this manual thing 🙂

Cheers!
Bas

 

[telenous]

Hi Bass, I wouldn't worry too much about the oil in the aperture blades. As you say, this is more of a problem in SLR's since it can delay the action of the autofocus. But in rangefinders, where you don't have autofocus it's not a problem. What you say about the way your rangefinder matches the images means I think that it needs recalibration. But more knowledgeable folk will be able to advise on this here. Enjoy your camera!

 

[Goodyear]

The blades I don't know about, but as far as the RF goes:

Vertical alignment doesn't actually matter as long as it doesn't make it harder for you to make out the horizontal coincidence of the rangefinder. The action of the mechanism is horizontal, and it's this that you use for focusing.

 

[mountainrivera]

I have some oil on a Leica R lens and it can cause the blades to get sluggish when the aperture defaults to wide open but has to close quickly when taking a pic. As Telenous said it should not be a problem on the M3 since the aperture does not have to move at the time of the pic. If it really bugs you DAG can clean for about $100.00.

 

[FrankS]

Bas, you don't want oil on the aperture blades because it will eventually outgas and coat the lens elements with an oily coating which will affect lens performance. In addition, shimmering oily aperture blades may reflect light inside the lens in such a way as to cause flare, again degrading the image. You should get the lens cleaned.

AS for the rangefinder horizontal registration, while it will not affect focusing accuracy directly, it will make it more difficult for you to see when the camera is focused correctly. When the rangefinder is properly registered horizontally, the viewfinder image and rangefinder image will snap into focus. I have 2 rangefinder bodies: one in perfect register and another just slightly out of (horizontal) register.) The aligned one is much easier to focus, even though they both focus perfectly accurately.

You mentioned that the camera you bought was recently CLA'ed. I suggest contacting the seller and discuss with him these 2 issues, which should not exist in a recently CLA'ed camera and lens.

 

[BassO]

The oiled lens I understand and regret: I liked the strange telescoping design. It had a very pre-WWII science fiction feel to it 🙂

The rangefinder I'm still not sure about. So on with the questions 😀
Say you focus on a line that runs across your field of vision extending away from you (say: a wall that starts right next to you to your left and extends across your field of vision to a point a few dozen meters ahead and to the right of you). Wouldn't the top of the wall always 'ghost' in the overlay? Since any point on the wall is always closer to the viewfinder window (on the left of the camera) than the rangefinder window (on the right of the camera), would the rangefinder image not have a slightly different perspective? It seems to me that'd show up as a slightly ghosted overlay. Or maybe I just shouldn't drink so much coffee this late 🙂

 

[MikeL]

Hi Basso,
I see this occasionally with lines running vertically away from me. The two lines, one from the viewfinder window and one from the rangefinder window (seen on the patch) will not be parallel. This I believe is different from your problem of vertical alignment, where a line that is horizontal will be split, one image from the viewfinder and one seen on the patch. When I bought my M4 I had this problem. If you are handy, you can fix it yourself- M3 rangefinder adjustment .

 

[Les Lammers]

The oiled lens I understand and regret: I liked the strange telescoping design. It had a very pre-WWII science fiction feel to it 🙂

The rangefinder I'm still not sure about. So on with the questions 😀
Say you focus on a line that runs across your field of vision extending away from you (say: a wall that starts right next to you to your left and extends across your field of vision to a point a few dozen meters ahead and to the right of you). Wouldn't the top of the wall always 'ghost' in the overlay? Since any point on the wall is always closer to the viewfinder window (on the left of the camera) than the rangefinder window (on the right of the camera), would the rangefinder image not have a slightly different perspective? It seems to me that'd show up as a slightly ghosted overlay. Or maybe I just shouldn't drink so much coffee this late 🙂

If you decide to keep the M3, buy these two books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579906370/104-6408024-9630350?v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...8024-9630350?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

Anyone new to Leica should get them IMHO.

The older 50 f2.8 is a gem of a lens and it need to be cleaned. The oil is not good and there may indeed be a slight haze and this will not help your images.

Enjoy your M3.

Les

 

[Dougg]

Thanks for the book recommendation, Les; Amazon has them bundled for $47.82 total with free shipping!

 

[Les Lammers]

Thanks for the book recommendation, Les; Amazon has them bundled for $47.82 total with free shipping!

Your welcome Doug,

They answer a lot of questions and are well worth having. The Pocket book covers screw mount bodied too.

Les

 

[BassO]

Indeed, good reading. Unfortunately the deal overseas is less compelling: I pay about 45$ for just one book after p&p.

To be honest, this little camera bothers me quite a bit. I hate having to work with color negatives for the lack of metering, the camera is slow in deployment and use which had me miss a few opportunities and I can't help but feel aware of its age despite the smooth handling.

However, the pictures I got back were nice with the people in them being very natural and unbothered by being photographed. Not something I see often when using my F5. And it's relatively portable, despite my fear of knocking it about (again: compare that with the F5). I just wish there were more digital bodies (and experience with them) than just the D1 out there so I'd know if investing in lenses for this system would prove to be a long-term deal.

Right now, I have 3 different systems and at least one has to go. This one just is harder to part from than I'd imagined 🙂

 

[Dougg]

To be honest, this little camera bothers me quite a bit. I hate having to work with color negatives for the lack of metering, the camera is slow in deployment and use which had me miss a few opportunities and I can't help but feel aware of its age despite the smooth handling.

Lack of built-in metering just gives you more reason to use a better hand-held meter. 🙂 Though it isn't necessary to meter each shot if the light hasn't changed, and one can learn a lot about light and exposure this way. The M3 may be slower to use until one works up methods and techniques that make it very fast indeed, but it does put more of the burden of choices onto the user... also equating to control. For me, it's simpler and more direct to manually operate the photographic instrument than to learn to control the computer that runs the photographic instrument. 😀

 

[markinlondon]

For me, it's simpler and more direct to manually operate the photographic instrument than to learn to control the computer that runs the photographic instrument. 😀

I couldn't agree more, Doug. Automated cameras drive me up the wall as I find I'm always trying to outguess them (or just forgetting to override the "features"). Lately I've found that I've been setting exposure and then checking the meter in my M6 for confirmation. The meter in my head seems to be getting more accurate with age 🙂

I suppose I've talked myself into an M2/3/4 now :bang:

Mark

 

[BassO]

Metering by hand sorta goes against the grain of the unique style this camera has to offer: small size and inconspicuous operation. There's only one thing that says 'Photographer' louder than a F5 with 80-200 and that's "Sorry sir, can I meter you for a second?" 😉

 

[ChrisN]

Ah - the trick is to do your metering constantly, with a small hand held meter, and just transfer the settings to the camera (open a stop, close a stop) as the light changes.

If you are shooting negatives (especially B&W) there's a fair bit of room for error in the exposure, so a stop either way won't be critical. Don't be too fussy about it - you can make it good in the darkroom or in the scanning and post-processing.