New M2 + 5cm Elmar + BW400CN - amazed with results

[briandaly]

While waiting on a new scanner to arrive to print some of my first home-developed negatives, I ran a roll of C41 BW400CN through my new M2 with 5cm Elmar.
I had the C41 roll developed, printed and scanned at my local pharmacy chain and was amazed at the detail and lack of grain.

Also, I got 38 and a half frames from the roll - is this normal?

 

[sockeyed]

I'm glad you're enjoying your new acquisition, Brian. If you like C41 B&W films, I really recommend trying a roll of Ilford XP2, a far better film than the Kodak offering. The Ilford is actually designed to be able to print in a traditional wet darkroom (it doesn't have the orange mask the Kodak does), and it's a sharper-looking film with excellent tonality, especially when exposed at 250-320.

 

[Florian1234]

Looks like you have a slightly red tint in there, but not much.

I had 38 frames on a APX 400 roll some time ago. So this could happen once in a while, I guess. But I'm still a newbie, too. 😎

Your posted photo looks good. Curious to see some more.🙂

 

[literiter]

The only thing better than a M2 would be another M2 to go along with it for company perhaps with another lens, say 35mm.

Yes XP-2 may be a little better choice but this pic looks fine.

 

[BillP]

Ah, another convert to the dark side 🙂

Unlike Sockeyed, I love 400CN; I find it sharp and contrasty, with a beautiful rendition of flesh tones and metallic surfaces. I expose at 400 every time. In contrast I find XP2 flat and muddy. To each their own 😉

Get yourself a yellow filter - it makes blue skies zing.

Regards,

Bill

 

[briandaly]

Florian, just added a few more to the flickr collection - one wide open and a few closed right down.

Sockeyed, I've heard that about the XP2 and I plan to make my wet room debut sometime soon (hopefully next week) with my Tri-X negatives. The only reason I went with the BW400CN was that I wanted to print something quickly and it was on special offer. I expect the Tri-X will have more grain, but we'll see.

And yes, they all have a slight colour cast but I quite like it.

 

[briandaly]

literiter, a 35mm is in my future - just can't decide (and my M2 has a jealous half-brother from Canon that also need some TLC).

Bill, thanks for the tip on the yellow filter. I promised myself I'd keep my rangefinder setup simple, but maybe just one filter...

 

[BillP]

Bill, thanks for the tip on the yellow filter. I promised myself I'd keep my rangefinder setup simple, but maybe just one filter...

You won't regret it...

Regards,

Bill

 

[briandaly]

Ok Bill - now I'm convinced. I see you've got a 50mm Elmar as well. What diameter filter do I need?

 

[hans voralberg]

I think the Elmar take 38mm, I might be very wrong though

 

[BillP]

Ok Bill - now I'm convinced. I see you've got a 50mm Elmar as well. What diameter filter do I need?

A36 push-on. You have to pop it on and off to change aperture, but that is a small price to pay.

Oh, and it fits the 3.5cm and 9cm Elmars too...

See here: http://www.mwclassic.com/acatalog/MW_Classic_Cameras_FILTERS_9.html

Regards,

Bill

 

[raid]

Is your Elmar the first version 50/2.8 or the later 50/2.8-M?
Well done; I like the photos.

 

[BillP]

Ah - hang on - we are at cross purposes.

I have a 5cm Elmar 3.5 and a 50mm Elmar-M

My post above refers to the former - I don't want to mislead you. My 50mm takes 39mm screw-in filters, I'm not sure what the original 2.8 took.

Sorry for the confusion!

Regards,

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

Ah, another convert to the dark side 🙂

Unlike Sockeyed, I love 400CN; I find it sharp and contrasty, with a beautiful rendition of flesh tones and metallic surfaces. I expose at 400 every time. In contrast I find XP2 flat and muddy. To each their own 😉

Get yourself a yellow filter - it makes blue skies zing.

Regards,

Bill

XP2 flat and muddy?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2371476764_90feafba8f_b.jpg

 

[raid]

Ah - hang on - we are at cross purposes.

I have a 5cm Elmar 3.5 and a 50mm Elmar-M

My post above refers to the former - I don't want to mislead you. My 50mm takes 39mm screw-in filters, I'm not sure what the original 2.8 took.

Sorry for the confusion!

Regards,

Bill

No problem, Bill. I have the 5cm/3.5 on my Standard Leica and I have recently added the first version Elmar 5cm/2.8 [because it costs less than the Elmar-M].

 

[briandaly]

Sorry Bill - my fault - I missed the "M" on your tags in your Flickr stream. Mine is the old Elmar 5cm 2.8 collapsible.
Raid, thanks for the compliment. I'm still amazed how well a relatively cheap kit like this performs. At 2.8, 1/30 and ISO 400 I can take shots indoors in reasonable light that I'd have no chance of with an SLR.

 

[Shac]

The original 50/2.8 Elmar takes 39mm filters

 

[Ronald_H]

XP2 flat and muddy?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2371476764_90feafba8f_b.jpg

EXTERMINATE!!!

 

[tomasis]

what the hell. 400CN left me disappointed. No tonalities for the samlpe here. XP2 looks pretty good!! Looks like Ilford beat Kodak at this point. (my main film is trix so im no partial)

 

[Avotius]

I also highly recomend XP2. In the right hands, it will sing songs, but its a very sensitive film, use it with some care. A wander through my flickr will show you some examples of XP2.