Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The other question for the OP, is: "do you have experience and tools to successfully repair and adjust a camera?"
ONCE in my life, I did a deep repair on my Leica M4, but I was in Fallujah, Iraq and there isn't any Leica repair service within a few thousand miles. I had dove down onto my camera and stripped the winder shaft. I happened to be a part of a Navy Combat Engineering unit and we had a machine shop handy. I used channel locks, a small set of craftsman screwdrivers, and my swiss army knife. The job got done but it wasn't pretty.
That said, I already knew how to do some basic top-cover-off work on a Leica. Also, that was one of my personal cameras, not my issued camera, so in spite of the perceived "need" for a second Leica, it really was a "want", a luxury. My other personal camera was an M2.
If I had to do it again, I would have taken a pair of Nikon F2 and a single F3, along with the Nikon digital.
Moral of the story is do not do your own repairs unless you are out in east BFE and a month away from a city.
This is why I recommended Barnacks. However, you can't have it all. I have a few years experience in still and motion picture camera repair, yet I still send gear out to people much more experienced and wiser than I, with all of the appropriate tools and lubricants.
If you want an awesome camera that will blow away anything you can get from a Leica, AND is fully repairable, get a restored Speed Graphic and a couple nice lenses with newly serviced shutters.
Really this is all just forum fodder conjecture. Money is no object, as the OP wants a spare camera, but wants to be able to repair it. Repairing a camera is something one does by yourself when you both need the money from the camera providing income (hence the spare) AND you are a working photographer who knows thirty different ways to flavor beans and rice.
If you can afford the spare camera, you can afford to have it repaired by a qualified, experienced tech.
Phil
ONCE in my life, I did a deep repair on my Leica M4, but I was in Fallujah, Iraq and there isn't any Leica repair service within a few thousand miles. I had dove down onto my camera and stripped the winder shaft. I happened to be a part of a Navy Combat Engineering unit and we had a machine shop handy. I used channel locks, a small set of craftsman screwdrivers, and my swiss army knife. The job got done but it wasn't pretty.
That said, I already knew how to do some basic top-cover-off work on a Leica. Also, that was one of my personal cameras, not my issued camera, so in spite of the perceived "need" for a second Leica, it really was a "want", a luxury. My other personal camera was an M2.
If I had to do it again, I would have taken a pair of Nikon F2 and a single F3, along with the Nikon digital.
Moral of the story is do not do your own repairs unless you are out in east BFE and a month away from a city.
This is why I recommended Barnacks. However, you can't have it all. I have a few years experience in still and motion picture camera repair, yet I still send gear out to people much more experienced and wiser than I, with all of the appropriate tools and lubricants.
If you want an awesome camera that will blow away anything you can get from a Leica, AND is fully repairable, get a restored Speed Graphic and a couple nice lenses with newly serviced shutters.
Really this is all just forum fodder conjecture. Money is no object, as the OP wants a spare camera, but wants to be able to repair it. Repairing a camera is something one does by yourself when you both need the money from the camera providing income (hence the spare) AND you are a working photographer who knows thirty different ways to flavor beans and rice.
If you can afford the spare camera, you can afford to have it repaired by a qualified, experienced tech.
Phil
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
You said in a previous post that you don't like the look of SLR images.
Phil
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You should, perhaps, do just a little research and learn the various Leica M film models. As an extremely capsule summary:
- from original (1954) to present - M3, M2, M1, M4, (M5), M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6TTL, M7, MP, M-A, M6 (newly released 2023)
plus many special editions and minor variants all along the way.
I parenthesize the M5 because it represented a complete break from the M3 line, both stylistically and mechanically, which was abandoned for lack of sales. It had built-in metering and a completely different body design.
The M7 is also a bit of an outlier as it is the only film M model with an electronically controlled shutter and integrated metering with aperture priority exposure automation.
All the others have mechanically timed shutters, derivative of the original M3 design; the M6 models and MP have built in metering, all the others are meterless bodies.
G
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes. For ultimate reliability, the M4-P. For a built-in meter, and for ability to see comfortably to the edges and corners, M6 with .58 finder.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Differences in the way that out-of-focus blur is rendered (or, another way to say it that is often mis-used, different bokeh), and the illumination across the field of view is more variable than the later lens with greater light falloff at edges and corners of the frame. I didn't do any duplicate exposures with both lenses to prepare an analytic study of its characteristics, but there are many nuances of rendering quality that distinguish them.
Is the Summaron-M 28 better or worse than the Summicron-M 28 ASPH? That's a personal judgement call, not something I can address with objective data. However, I prefer how photos made with the Summaron look: it suits my notions of what I want better.
G
piero2025
Established
Thanks, I have to start delving into the subject.
pseudobreccia
Member
I recommend going with a Zeiss Ikon ZM or a Leica M6.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
And here I am, thinking my ancient Rolleiflex T is getting a tad heavy for me...
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
I have a well-used 35/3.5 Summaron for my iif, but I paid more for this lens than I did for the camera. The CLA costs for both were about the same.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
The CL, the M5 & the M7 were by far the most interesting film Leica's to me. But then, I also love my M 240 too so obviously, I am an utterly irredeemable heretic < insert Warhammer 40k spacemarine here >
Hilmersen
Established
Heaxar RF rangefinder alignment is doable. You just have to remove the top of the camera. The problem seems to be that glue that holds the prism can loosen. By fixing that and using locktite on the alignment wheels it should hold for a long time. Mine had a crushed prism after I catapulted into to floor.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I agree 100%. I use RF cameras and SLRs; IMO for these two focal lengths a 35mm SLR is a natural.
Chris
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Heh. My uncle had an M5 for a time, loaned it to me once. I was put off by its size and angular shape compared to the M4 I had at the time. Which is, I suspect, what doomed it in the hands of the then-current Leica users. No disparagement of its build quality and the fact that it had all the modern features of built-in meter, more ergonomic controls, etc. It had the same features as the CL did (a collaborative design done with Minolta) but in a larger, more robust package.The CL, the M5 & the M7 were by far the most interesting film Leica's to me. But then, I also love my M 240 too so obviously, I am an utterly irredeemable heretic < insert Warhammer 40k spacemarine here >
The CL was my darling for a time, twice in my photo history. I had one back in the later '70s and another in the middle 1990s up to the early 2000s. It was blocky and square-cornered like the M5 but far more compact and "handy". This limited its RF accuracy due to its very short rangefinder baseline, but used with a modest speed 90mm, and fast 28 or 40, set of lenses, the accuracy was fine and the size/weight/shape were very nice, particularly for travel. I sold it somewhere in the middle '00s to fund some digital gear, and went 'back' to Leica M for some film fun with an M4-2 in ~2012, which at the time cost me $720 from KEH (plus the required viewfinder clean/service/collimate/calibrate for another $110) ... Still have that M4-2 and use it regularly. It needs a shutter refresh, same as it did a decade ago, but it's not off far enough to be a problem so far. It was also the camera that I bought my first modern Voigtländer lens for, a Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5, which I also still have (and is a stunning little lens!).
The M7 came out in 2002, when I was already transitioning to primarily digital equipment. And it was simply way more money for a film camera than I had any interest in spending at that time. I'd had an M6TTL with 0.72x finder sometime in the 1999 to 2002 time frame, obtained through some trading, and liked it a lot; but it succumbed to my need for cash for other things. So last year I picked up a nice clean M6TTL with 0.85x finder, and that is a wonderful improvement for me. Just right for 35, 50, and 75 mm as is, my most used lenses, and I use 21 and 28 mm accessory finders when needed; it's meter is perhaps the most accurate in-camera meter I've ever had.
G
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I loved the CL I had and should not have sold it. I used it with a Canon 28/3.5 (whole frame, works good enough once you're used to it, it's RF framing), a Leica 50/2 Summitar & a Leica 90/4 Elmar. Perfect kit for that camera. Meter was dead so 1) I could close the Summitar without worry & 2) I had a VC shoe meter for it. Burned lots of Fuji Reala 100 in that camera as it was the best at handling my son's skin tones (adopted from Vietnam) nothing from Kodak was right. But I was never happy in those days and too soon traded it on for, IIRC, a IIIf that was Ok, but nowhere near as nice.
If film weren't so expensive, I'd probably go trolling for a mint CL & a mint Summitar.
Roastchestnuts
Established
I love shooting my m3 with a 28mm and an external finder. also 50mm is perfect on the finder of the m3 as well. One of my favorite rangfinder lens combos is the leica m3 and 28mm summraon f5.6.
Personally my favorite 28mm M frameline, bar none, is the Minolta CLE.
For me no other 28mm frameline is even a close 2nd.
Of course the CLE does not have a 50mm frame, but it does have a good 40.
Its a no brainer to imagine a 50 frame inside of the 40.
IF the OP is not familiar with the CLE its most definitely work the look.
For me no other 28mm frameline is even a close 2nd.
Of course the CLE does not have a 50mm frame, but it does have a good 40.
Its a no brainer to imagine a 50 frame inside of the 40.
IF the OP is not familiar with the CLE its most definitely work the look.
Archiver
Veteran
The Minolta PG Rokkor 50mm f1.4 and W Rokkor 28mm f2.8 produce images that I'd put against their Leica rangefinder contemporaries. I'd certainly be hard put to tell the difference between them and the Summilux M 50 and Elmarit M 28 of that time.
CMur12
Veteran
I agree with this.
A 28mm lens with an external finder would work perfectly for me. With this wide-angle focal length I don't focus on a subject; I'm looking for coverage of an area. So, I invariably focus the lens with the DOF (depth of field) scale. I wouldn't even bother to look through the VF/RF for focus assist.
- Murray
Richard G
Veteran
I had the new 28 Summaron M on my M2 two days ago. Such a light and compact rig compared to my M9-P with that lens. I forgot to take the external finder. Never mind.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Summaron-M 28/5.6 is a lovely lens! It makes any body lighter and handier. I've used it most on the M10 Monochrom, a little on the M10-R. It took a bit of work to find the proper 34mm green filter for it...
While I zone focus with it quite a bit (easy with a 28mm lens @ f/8), at close up distances (~6 feet or less) I always use the rangefinder.
G
While I zone focus with it quite a bit (easy with a 28mm lens @ f/8), at close up distances (~6 feet or less) I always use the rangefinder.
G