Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters & Fuji

I have a -3.0 eyepiece correction lens which I bought for the M3 originally,
my recollection is that the M3 was -0.5 to start with so as well as being
the most Leica could supply it was near my prescription.  The M6 instruction
book actually says that it is -0.5.  Unfortunately I have quite a lot of
astigmatism so the correction lens does not give a very sharp image,
although to me it seems equally unsharp on both M3 and M6!.  Originally
Leitz would supply a lens matched to your prescription, but this doesn't
seem to be available now, and I can't see a way of easily getting the lens
out of the adaptor to replace it with one made to the right prescription,
does anyone have any experience of this?
I "solved" the problem by getting some new specs. with smaller lenses which
are nearer to my eye to start with, and can be pushed into the eye socket a
bit so that I can see more of the viewfinder, with this I can see the M3
50mm frame OK, but still need to "look round the corners" to see the 35mm
frame on the M6. The 28mm frame is completely invisible.

On another subject, I am contemplating deserting Kodachrome after 40 years
due to the dusty and slow processing we are getting here in the UK now (it
goes to Switzerland and takes 7-9 days!).  Does anyone have any practical
experience of the various Fuji slide films? I know Velvia is VERY colourful,
and I have used some Sensia 400 which I found a bit green, but what is the
comparison between Sensia and Provia, or even Astia!  The Fuji process paid
service here in UK seems good, usually 3 days and good mounts.

Gerry Young

> From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:21:15 -0400
>
> Everything I have read refers to the same diopter value in the various M
> cameras, up to and including the M6.  And I assume it has not changed for
> the M7 and MP.  I can't explain the differences you perceive in your M's,
> but I'll wager it's not related to eyepiece diopter differences.  Dave
> Elwell in Leica Parts Dept. can confirm (or refute) this, if you give him
a
> call.
>
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> Thanks Julian.  This is the exact diopter number that has worked well on
my
> Minolta SLRs and my Bronica ETRS.  So it would seem that it should work on
> the Leica Ms too.  My original question was "is the old Leica M3 the same
> diopter built in as the the M4-P and M5.  They seem a bit different to my
> eye but not by much.
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> > My understanding is that the M viewfinder has a minus 0.5 diopter built
> > in.
> > So, if your aging eyes require a plus 1.0 for clear distant vision, then
> > you
> > would want to put a plus 1.5 into your eyepiece.  They do screw into the
> > existing eyepiece frame, so no "surgery" is necessary.
> >
> > This has been a subject of some confusion, so you may well get some
> > opinions
> > that differ from my own.
> >
> > Julian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:16 PM
> > Subject: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >
> >
> > As my eyes get older along with the rest of me, I have had to add
> > corrective
> > diopter lenses to the eyepieces of my other SLR cameras.  My Leica Ms
seem
> > to still work fairly well for me though.  One thing I have noticed is
that
> > on my two M3's the view is not quite as sharp as on my M4-P and M5.  All
> > cameras have been CLA'd fairly recently so they are quite clean and
> > bright.
> > But I am wondering if the diopter value on the M3's may be a bit
different
> > than on the newer version Ms.  Also does the corrective diopter eyepiece
> > from Leica screw onto the old eyepiece or does it replace it completely.
> > In
> > either case I need to know what the factor spec is on the aforementioned
> > Ms
> > I have.  Anyone have the answer here?
> >
> > Mucho takk,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe'
> > in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> > replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to
> > unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> > receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> > Web interface to unsubscribe.
>
>
> =========================================================
> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe'
> in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to
> unsubscribe.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:21:19 -0500
>
> Thanks, Julian.  I will call Dave Elwell.  I wish I could try some
different
> value diopters before committing to the $80 each.  I don't have any local
> shop that carries Leica products.
>
>  Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> > Everything I have read refers to the same diopter value in the various M
> > cameras, up to and including the M6.  And I assume it has not changed
for
> > the M7 and MP.  I can't explain the differences you perceive in your
M's,
> > but I'll wager it's not related to eyepiece diopter differences.  Dave
> > Elwell in Leica Parts Dept. can confirm (or refute) this, if you give
him
> > a
> > call.
> >
> > Julian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >
> >
> > Thanks Julian.  This is the exact diopter number that has worked well on
> > my
> > Minolta SLRs and my Bronica ETRS.  So it would seem that it should work
on
> > the Leica Ms too.  My original question was "is the old Leica M3 the
same
> > diopter built in as the the M4-P and M5.  They seem a bit different to
my
> > eye but not by much.
> >
> > Dave
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >
> >
> >> My understanding is that the M viewfinder has a minus 0.5 diopter built
> >> in.
> >> So, if your aging eyes require a plus 1.0 for clear distant vision,
then
> >> you
> >> would want to put a plus 1.5 into your eyepiece.  They do screw into
the
> >> existing eyepiece frame, so no "surgery" is necessary.
> >>
> >> This has been a subject of some confusion, so you may well get some
> >> opinions
> >> that differ from my own.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:16 PM
> >> Subject: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >>
> >>
> >> As my eyes get older along with the rest of me, I have had to add
> >> corrective
> >> diopter lenses to the eyepieces of my other SLR cameras.  My Leica Ms
> >> seem
> >> to still work fairly well for me though.  One thing I have noticed is
> >> that
> >> on my two M3's the view is not quite as sharp as on my M4-P and M5.  Al
l
> >> cameras have been CLA'd fairly recently so they are quite clean and
> >> bright.
> >> But I am wondering if the diopter value on the M3's may be a bit
> >> different
> >> than on the newer version Ms.  Also does the corrective diopter
eyepiece
> >> from Leica screw onto the old eyepiece or does it replace it
completely.
> >> In
> >> either case I need to know what the factor spec is on the
aforementioned
> >> Ms
> >> I have.  Anyone have the answer here?
> >>
> >> Mucho takk,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========================================================
> >> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'unsubscribe'
> >> in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> >> replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface
to
> >> unsubscribe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========================================================
> >> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >> receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> >> Web interface to unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe'
> > in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> > replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to
> > unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> > receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> > Web interface to unsubscribe.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:24:27 -0700
> From: Steve Barbour <kididdoc@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Nathan's PAW 42: NY/NJ/PA
>
> Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> > Once in Princeton, there was not a Bush/Cheney sign to be seen,
> > certainly not on the campus of the university, where this sign is much
> > more representative of the political climate:
> > http://www.nathanfoto.com/paw/2004/2004_42alt1.jpg
> things have changed a good bit since I was there...
>
>
> > In Philadelphia, the highlight of the day was having lunch with Jim and
> > Kyle (unfortunately, Kyle did not bring any of his girlfriends):
> > http://www.nathanfoto.com/paw/2004/2004_42alt2.jpg
>
> wonderful, can we put this on the leica
> photopgraphers photo site ?
>
> > Finally, a couple of more benign canine pictures, both snapped in
> > Manhattan:
> > http://www.nathanfoto.com/paw/2004/2004_42alt6.jpg
>
> it appears that this fellow ( and Kyle) got recent
> haircuts...
>
>
> > The complete PAW index is at:
> > http://www.nathanfoto.com/indexpaw2004.html
> > and comments/critique are as always welcome and appreciated.
> > Nathan
>
> thanks Nathan, I always enjoys your travels and
> photos of couleur locale...especially of this part
> of the country that I know well...
>
> Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:46:18 -0700
> Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
> From: Doug Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> on 10/27/04 6:19 AM, Gary Pinkerton at gpinkcp@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Hey Doug
> > A chrome R8 + motor, sure would look pretty behind this baby !
> > GaryP
>
> Yep it would. A chrome SL behind it looks pretty good too.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Gary Pinkerton" <gpinkcp@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:24:31 -0500
>
> Actually, anything that would take a photo with it would be just fine.
> How much do you think that sucker weighs?
>
> >From: Doug Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
> >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:46:18 -0700
> >
> >on 10/27/04 6:19 AM, Gary Pinkerton at gpinkcp@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Doug
> > > A chrome R8 + motor, sure would look pretty behind this baby !
> > > GaryP
> >
> >Yep it would. A chrome SL behind it looks pretty good too.
> >
> >Doug Herr
> >Birdman of Sacramento
> >http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> >
> >
> >
> >=========================================================
> >To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
Web
> >interface to unsubscribe.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Peter Klein <pklein@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
> Dave:  Just so you know you're not alone. . .
>
> I have two .72x bodies, an M4-P and an M6TTL. I also have the 1.25x
> magnifier, which gives them M3-ish magnification.  I'm nearsighted, and I
> wear either bifocal glasses or "monovision" contact lenses. The contacts
> give me distance focus in my right eye, and computer/reading focus in my
> left.
>
> Wearing either my glasses or contacts, I can see the viewfinder image
> quite comfortably with my "distance" prescription.  But when I use the
> magnifier, I see a clearer image if I use my "near" left eye when wearing
> contacts, or the bottom (reading) portion of my bifocals.
>
> I first realized this while shooting a classical concert with a 90
> Summicron and the 1.25x magnifier. So I became a left-eyed shooter for the
> evening.
>
> So it appears that the higher magnification needs a different correction,
> at least for middle-aged eyes.  Can one of our optical experts explain
> why?
>
> --Peter
>
> "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > As my eyes get older along with the rest of me, I have had to add
> > corrective diopter lenses to the eyepieces of my other SLR cameras.  My
> > Leica Ms seem to still work fairly well for me though.  One thing I have
> > noticed is that on my two M3's the view is not quite as sharp as on my
> > M4-P and M5.  All cameras have been CLA'd fairly recently so they are
> > quite clean and bright.
>
> > But I am wondering if the diopter value on the M3's may be a bit
> > different than on the newer version Ms.  Also does the corrective
> > diopter eyepiece from Leica screw onto the old eyepiece or does it
> > replace it completely.  In either case I need to know what the factor
> > spec is on the aforementioned Ms I have.  Anyone have the answer here?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:15:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
> From: Doug Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> on 10/27/04 8:24 AM, Gary Pinkerton at gpinkcp@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > How much do you think that sucker weighs?
>
> The Canon Museum
> (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html) says it's
5.35
> kg.  Informal comparisons I've seen between the newer EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS
> and the non-modular Leica 400mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt show the Telyt has an edge
> at full aperture.  The EF lens is supposed to be better than the FD lens
so
> the Telyt will perform better but for the difference in cost I can live
with
> Canon L performance.
>
> Last night I peeked inside to figure out what had to be done to get the
> auto-diaphragm working.  The Leica aperture control lever rotates
clockwise
> and the Canon diaphragm controls operate counter-clockwise, at different
> angular rates per f-stop.  The technician who did the work added a pivoted
> linkage to reverse the direction, with arms on either side of the pivot
> having lengths proportional to either side's angular rates - very solid,
> simple, well implemented.  I'm impressed.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:08:07 -0500
>
> Thanks, Peter, good to know that there are more odd people out there like
> me. ;-)   I really don't have a problem focusing the rangefinder patch now
> but the viewfinder image is not  perfectly in focus as it is in my diopter
> corrected SLRs.  My optician said the good news is my eyes have probably
> settled in and will stay this prescription for  a while now.  So all those
> corrective diopters I bought for my SLRs should be useful for a while.  I
> may just buy a +1.5 diopter for my M and see if it is better for me.
Since
> the M3s seem worse for me at this time, I will just correct them and leave
> the M4-P and M5 as they are.  Sherry put a new viewfinder  assembly in my
M5
> a couple of years ago and it is very nice and bright.
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Klein" <pklein@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:43 AM
> Subject: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> > Dave:  Just so you know you're not alone. . .
> >
> > I have two .72x bodies, an M4-P and an M6TTL. I also have the 1.25x
> > magnifier, which gives them M3-ish magnification.  I'm nearsighted, and
I
> > wear either bifocal glasses or "monovision" contact lenses. The contacts
> > give me distance focus in my right eye, and computer/reading focus in my
> > left.
> >
> > Wearing either my glasses or contacts, I can see the viewfinder image
> > quite comfortably with my "distance" prescription.  But when I use the
> > magnifier, I see a clearer image if I use my "near" left eye when
wearing
> > contacts, or the bottom (reading) portion of my bifocals.
> >
> > I first realized this while shooting a classical concert with a 90
> > Summicron and the 1.25x magnifier. So I became a left-eyed shooter for
the
> > evening.
> >
> > So it appears that the higher magnification needs a different
correction,
> > at least for middle-aged eyes.  Can one of our optical experts explain
> > why?
> >
> > --Peter
> >
> > "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > As my eyes get older along with the rest of me, I have had to add
> > > corrective diopter lenses to the eyepieces of my other SLR cameras.
My
> > > Leica Ms seem to still work fairly well for me though.  One thing I
have
> > > noticed is that on my two M3's the view is not quite as sharp as on my
> > > M4-P and M5.  All cameras have been CLA'd fairly recently so they are
> > > quite clean and bright.
> >
> > > But I am wondering if the diopter value on the M3's may be a bit
> > > different than on the newer version Ms.  Also does the corrective
> > > diopter eyepiece from Leica screw onto the old eyepiece or does it
> > > replace it completely.  In either case I need to know what the factor
> > > spec is on the aforementioned Ms I have.  Anyone have the answer here?
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
receive
> MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web
> interface to unsubscribe.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:36:44 -0700
> From: Mark Bohrer <lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
>
> Current EF 400mm f/2.8L IS weighs 13+ pounds, so I'd guess the FD lens at
> around 11 or 12.
>
> At 08:24 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote:
> >Actually, anything that would take a photo with it would be just fine.
> >How much do you think that sucker weighs?
> >
> >>From: Doug Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Reply-To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: Re: I need a bigger tripod
> >>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:46:18 -0700
> >>
> >>on 10/27/04 6:19 AM, Gary Pinkerton at gpinkcp@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Doug
> >> > A chrome R8 + motor, sure would look pretty behind this baby !
> >> > GaryP
> >>
> >>Yep it would. A chrome SL behind it looks pretty good too.
> >>
> >>Doug Herr
> >>Birdman of Sacramento
> >>http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>=========================================================
> >>To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >>'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >>receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> >>Web interface to unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> >
> >=========================================================
> >To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> >Web interface to unsubscribe.
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:45:37 -0500
> From: Harrison McClary <harrison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re[2]: I need a bigger tripod
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 11:36:44 AM, Mark Bohrer
<lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> MB> Current EF 400mm f/2.8L IS weighs 13+ pounds, so I'd guess the FD lens
at
> MB> around 11 or 12.
>
> Yes, the one I just sold was right at 12 pounds.  It is a great lens,
> but to me it was just too heavy to get much use since I quit shooting
> professional sports.  I ended up selling it and getting a Nikon 300
> 2.8 and the Nikon to EOS thing from Steve Gandy and now use that Nikon
> 300 2.8 on my EOS 1DII.  The 300 is less than 1/2 the weight of the
> 400 and this makes it easily hand holdable, esp with a pistol grip.
> ALso the Nikon to EOS adapter is simply a piece of meata, the FD to
> EOS adapter lost a stop of light, much less usefull...IMHO
>
> --
> Harrison McClary
> Harrison McClary Photography
> http://www.mcclary.net
> harrison@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:43:40 -0700
> From: Mark Bohrer <lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re[2]: I need a bigger tripod
>
> It's $$, but for handheld sports, birds and mammals the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS
> is excellent - chromatic aberration nearly absent, fast focusing, light at
> 4.3 lbs, and f/4 - the biggie! Love mine, especially on EOS 10D.
>
>
> At 09:45 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 11:36:44 AM, Mark Bohrer
> ><lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >MB> Current EF 400mm f/2.8L IS weighs 13+ pounds, so I'd guess the FD
lens at
> >MB> around 11 or 12.
> >
> >Yes, the one I just sold was right at 12 pounds.  It is a great lens,
> >but to me it was just too heavy to get much use since I quit shooting
> >professional sports.  I ended up selling it and getting a Nikon 300
> >2.8 and the Nikon to EOS thing from Steve Gandy and now use that Nikon
> >300 2.8 on my EOS 1DII.  The 300 is less than 1/2 the weight of the
> >400 and this makes it easily hand holdable, esp with a pistol grip.
> >ALso the Nikon to EOS adapter is simply a piece of meata, the FD to
> >EOS adapter lost a stop of light, much less usefull...IMHO
> >
> >--
> >Harrison McClary
> >Harrison McClary Photography
> >http://www.mcclary.net
> >harrison@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >=========================================================
> >To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> >Web interface to unsubscribe.
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:12:03 -0700
> From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: I need a bigger tripod
>
> Mark Bohrer said:"
> > It's $$, but for handheld sports, birds and mammals the EF 400mm f/4 DO
IS
> > is excellent - chromatic aberration nearly absent, fast focusing, light
at
> > 4.3 lbs, and f/4 - the biggie! <<<<<<
>
> Hi Mark,
> Unfortunately it isn't worth a damn for shooting indoor sports events. :-(
> Too slow!
> However, great for the wide open sky stuff.
>
> ted
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:49:56 -0700
> From: Mark Bohrer <lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: PAW: Utah wild 1
>
> They're overshadowed by southern Utah's red rock desert but the scenery
and
> wildlife of northern Utah's Wasatch Front are hard to beat. Start with
> protected elk herds at Hardware Ranch WMA during the recent elk rut
festival:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Antlered/DML-AR-ME0049-5
6.htm
>
> Merriwether Lewis named Great Salt Lake's Antelope Island for the
pronghorn
> herds he saw there during Lewis and Clark's expedition west in 1804.
> Pronghorn run faster than anything but cheetahs and define 'secretive'. I
> saw these guys out of the corner of my eye as I drove by. They stood still
> long enough for me to set up and get a couple shots before another passing
> car spooked them out of a patch of their favorite sagebrush:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/DML-HD-PN0003-57.
htm
>
> And you've watched me struggle with images of these shaggy old men of the
> plains. Monday began with rain and settled into heavy clouds to soften the
> light just enough. Eating's a major passtime for these guys:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/DML-HD-BN0241-5.h
tm
>
> Bison like sagebrush too:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN02
93-5.htm
>
> When one of these giants shambles over your way you get a little nervous:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN03
11-5.htm
>
> Are they lovable? You decide:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN03
28-5.htm
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:02:15 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> From: Douglas Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: PAW: Utah wild 1
>
> > Are they lovable? You decide:
> >
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN03
28-5.htm
>
> Very nice portrait.  I like the tuft of grass in front.
>
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:18:48 -0700
> From: Mark Bohrer <lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: PAW: Utah wild 2
>
> Utah's Wasatch Front scenery is hard to beat. I watched the clouds roll in
> to make this October the wettest in a decade:
> http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Utah/DLC-UT-Wsatch0030.htm
>
> Sometimes evening brought some clearing with great light:
> http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Utah/DLC-UT-Wsatch0041-5.htm
>
> Shorebirds ignore fall clouds and sunset colors and keep eating:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Birds/Sandpiper-like_BS/American
_avocet/DBS-AA0595-6.htm
>
> Crows squawk overhead and ride the thermals anytime:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Utah/Antelope_Isl/DLC-UT-AntIsl0083-56.ht
m
>
> The threat of rain drove everyone away from Antelope Island's west coast.
> They missed great light and scenery:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Utah/Antelope_Isl/DLC-UT-AntIsl0069-5.htm
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:32:03 -0700
> From: Steve Barbour <kididdoc@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: the latest pole...
>
>
> http://www.leica-gallery.net/barbour/image-76105.html
>
>
>
> just in,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:46:25 -0400
>
> Sometimes they come on a certain auction site for less.  If you knew your
> true distant vision correction, you could just apply +0.5 to that and be
> pretty certain of having it right (providing all my calculations are
> correct.)  I seem to remember there was/is an optometrist in Roanoke, VA,
> who used to frequent the LUG, and he often offered help with this issue.
If
> memory serves, he is Richard Clompus.  I think it would help if you knew
> your actual distant vision correction in ordinary eyeglasses.
>
> If it's any consolation, a few years ago I paid upwards of $250 to have
mine
> custom ground with around a plus 4.5 diopter and a hefty bit of
astigmatism
> correction as well.  Then I found that when I use that without my
> eyeglasses, I can see the viewfinder image but little else  :))  :)).   I
> would have to guess where my M6 shutter speed and f stop were (or
> laboriously count the clicks on the dials).  Now I'm using my eyeglasses
> without the viewfinder add-on and just living with the need to turn my eye
> this way and that to see the whole viewfinder image.
>
> Good luck..........Julian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> Thanks, Julian.  I will call Dave Elwell.  I wish I could try some
different
> value diopters before committing to the $80 each.  I don't have any local
> shop that carries Leica products.
>
>  Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
>
>
> > Everything I have read refers to the same diopter value in the various M
> > cameras, up to and including the M6.  And I assume it has not changed
for
> > the M7 and MP.  I can't explain the differences you perceive in your
M's,
> > but I'll wager it's not related to eyepiece diopter differences.  Dave
> > Elwell in Leica Parts Dept. can confirm (or refute) this, if you give
him
> > a
> > call.
> >
> > Julian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >
> >
> > Thanks Julian.  This is the exact diopter number that has worked well on
> > my
> > Minolta SLRs and my Bronica ETRS.  So it would seem that it should work
on
> > the Leica Ms too.  My original question was "is the old Leica M3 the
same
> > diopter built in as the the M4-P and M5.  They seem a bit different to
my
> > eye but not by much.
> >
> > Dave
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >
> >
> >> My understanding is that the M viewfinder has a minus 0.5 diopter built
> >> in.
> >> So, if your aging eyes require a plus 1.0 for clear distant vision,
then
> >> you
> >> would want to put a plus 1.5 into your eyepiece.  They do screw into
the
> >> existing eyepiece frame, so no "surgery" is necessary.
> >>
> >> This has been a subject of some confusion, so you may well get some
> >> opinions
> >> that differ from my own.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Dave Saalsaa" <SaalsD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:16 PM
> >> Subject: Leica M eyepiece diopters
> >>
> >>
> >> As my eyes get older along with the rest of me, I have had to add
> >> corrective
> >> diopter lenses to the eyepieces of my other SLR cameras.  My Leica Ms
> >> seem
> >> to still work fairly well for me though.  One thing I have noticed is
> >> that
> >> on my two M3's the view is not quite as sharp as on my M4-P and M5.
All
> >> cameras have been CLA'd fairly recently so they are quite clean and
> >> bright.
> >> But I am wondering if the diopter value on the M3's may be a bit
> >> different
> >> than on the newer version Ms.  Also does the corrective diopter
eyepiece
> >> from Leica screw onto the old eyepiece or does it replace it
completely.
> >> In
> >> either case I need to know what the factor spec is on the
aforementioned
> >> Ms
> >> I have.  Anyone have the answer here?
> >>
> >> Mucho takk,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========================================================
> >> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'unsubscribe'
> >> in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> >> replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface
to
> >> unsubscribe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========================================================
> >> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> >> receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> >> Web interface to unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe'
> > in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> > replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to
> > unsubscribe.
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then
> > receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the
> > Web interface to unsubscribe.
>
>
> =========================================================
> To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe'
> in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be
> replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to
> unsubscribe.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:14:28 -0700
> From: Mark Bohrer <lurchl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PAW] PAW: Utah wild 1 w/241-5 correct link
>
> (Here's the corrected link for BN241-5.)
>
> And you've watched me struggle with images of these shaggy old men of the
> plains. Monday began with rain and settled into heavy clouds to soften the
> light just enough. Eating's a major passtime for these guys:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN02
41-5.htm
>
> Bison like sagebrush too:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN02
93-5.htm
>
> When one of these giants shambles over your way you get a little nervous:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN03
11-5.htm
>
> Are they lovable? You decide:
>
http://www.mountain-and-desert.com/Wildlife/Mammals/Horned/Bison/DML-HD-BN03
28-5.htm
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
> Mark Bohrer
> www.mountain-and-desert.com
> Adventure travel and wildlife photography
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:30:01 -0700
> From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: the latest pole...
>
> At 04:32 PM 10/27/2004, Steve Barbour wrote:
>
> >http://www.leica-gallery.net/barbour/image-76105.html
> >
> >
> >
> >just in,
> >
> >
> >
> >Steve
>
>
>
> This looks like one of the frames you get (frame 0) when loading and
> advancing film to frame #1.
>
> :-)
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:53:40 +0200
> From: Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Soccer Girls
>
> John Black wrote:
>
>
> >     Uh....er....  How do you score 1 point in American football?
> >
> >     JB
> >     Sorry that's 47-17
> >
> >
> >     Whew.... I thought I'd missed something really important there!
> >
> >     For those of you unfortunate enough to live outside the American
> >     South, Football is on an equal par with religion and family in our
> >     culture.
> >
> >     JB
> >
> >
> Indeed. I just spent a week in Gainesville, FL, and our Gators lost
> 38-31 to Mississippi State, the doormat of the SEC, last Saturday. The
> expressions of shock and disbelief around town were amazing. On Monday
> the head coach was fired.
>
> As we used to say at U of Florida: the job of the academics is to create
> a university that the football team can be proud of :-)
>
> Nathan
> --
> Nathan Wajsman
> Almere, The Netherlands
>
> General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
> Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of leica Digest V1 #219
> ***************************
> To Unsubscribe: send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the Subject field OR by logging in to the Web interface.
>



=========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in 
the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be replied to 
per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to unsubscribe.

Other related posts: