Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Friends I just got back from Chiangmai, Thailand where I spent three days with a hill tribe which live about three hours drive away from the city. Throughout the three days it was dry and dusty and I was sitting at the back of an open 4WD whenever we travelled from village to village. I had with me an M3 with only one lens - a 50 Summilux (which I think is the best focal length to carry around if you have to choose just one lens). The 4 wheeler kicked up a lot of dust from the dirt road and whenever it slowed down the dust would catch up with us. We were covered with fine dust most of the time. In no time the M3 and lens (slung around my neck) was also covered with a fine layer of brown dirt and dust. Ditto with the UV filter. While I would agree that under clean controlled conditions, there is doubtful reason in using a UV filter on the lens, but under the circumstances that the summilux was subjected to, I think it made perfect sense to have a filter on all the time. Photographic opportunities abound in the midst of the friendly Karen tribespeople and I had, on numerous occasions, just wipe the front of the filter with my hanky to clear the dust before an exposure. I just did not have any time to bring out my trusty blower brush or lens cleaning fluid to do a better job. I would have missed too many good shots. On the other hand I would hate to wipe with such abandon if the dust had settled on the front element. These fine dust make excellent abrasives. I also discovered that the M3s dust proofing qualities are perfect. At the end of the trip when I removed the lens to look into the innards of the camera, I could hardly see any trace of the fine dust. Ruggedness? The M3 was banging around throughout the three days, with nary a blemish. Was the filter scratched? Yes, slightly. There was lots of wiping. Better on the filter than the lens. Dan K.