Re: [Leica] M-3 > M-6 0.85??? Help! to Art P

["Steven Blutter" <sblutter@earthlink.net>]

art, thnx yr response - i dont think i'm listening to the group too much -
more concerned with long range useability of m3 type camera.

i take great advantage of the bi-nocular ability of .90 viewfinder, coupled
with the fact that i'm starting to treat my m3's like the fragile elders
they are invariably becoming - the 0.85 seems perfect.  new, with warrenty
etc.  new tech isn't always bad - my smith corona typewriter can't do this
for instance...

i'm confusing myself for sure - todays job is a Complete lens/body
compatibilty test; 4 bodies x 10 lenses (am going to use a LUGer's advise
with pencil, acute to background) should (groan here) focus things for me...

having poor results the other day 'freaked me out' (a 3 with the 40C and
another with 3 summi 50 collapsable combo).  maybe its my eyes?? (with a
rangefindr?)

so this situation has me wanting the 0.85 with the new elmar 50 collapsable
(if you can use the SOOKY-M)

my new art work requires blowing up into grainy images (1/5th or so of the
image) to 16 X 20" (web sight in about 2 months).  if the initial image
isn't razor sharp i'm sunk (4 X 5 is too cumbersome but may be the way i
have to go)

i do have a scanned image if you guys want to see it (370k)...and help me
with this quandry

maybe get the 0.85 and sell stuff off at best prices, but i've got to get
this series underway.  (or work on my $ side harder...)

i'm rambling - sorry

steven

btw, what is the magnification of the m2/4's?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil <Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] M-3 > M-6 0.85??? Help!


>
>     If, as you say, you "CAN but [just] don't want to afford all of it,"
>     why not put off trading anything in, and go ahead and get the M6 0.85,
>     and then LATER sell whatever equipment you find yourself using least
>     (i.e., liking least, needing least)?  That way you'd wind up with the
>     cameras and lenses that suit YOU best, rather than those that suit the
>     preferences of LUG members from whom you'd now take advice.
>
>     Just a thought!
>
>     Art Peterson
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: [Leica] M-3 > M-6 0.85??? Help!
>Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet
>Date:    1/30/98 8:20 AM
>
>
>Morning all,
>
>i'm contemplating modernizing, trading some m-3's for the m-6 0.85 and
>probably get some new lenses too (the aspheric article in the society mag.
>i.e.).
>
>i've recently been stung, 40mm C incompatible with one body (which?), some
>terrible results with a summi 50 collapsible recently obtained...
>
>so i'm thinking of shrinking what has become a 'collection' and get back to
>a tight 'kit', 28 > 135 w/ the m6 085, and either the CL or 1 m3 if i can
>afford it.
>
>means de-acquiring 2 3's and a bunch of lenses -
>
>i'm 44 yrs old, are the 3's going to last another 40 yrs???  maybe.....
>
>what would you guys do? (i can but don't want to afford all of it, and--
>how is the new collapsible elmar and does it fit the old Sooky-M or is the
>new summi 50 any good <i still think the DR is sweet w/ or without eyes?>)
>