Marc, I know I should be saving this for Friday, but if you are looking for a III screwmount, I have a IIIc converted to a IIIf with self timer. It actually looks like a IIIf rd with self timer, pretty sweet. with 5cm/f3.5 collapsable elmar, Glass is clean RF is bright and clear as well as the viewfinder, ALL SHUTTER SPEEDS ARE ACCURATE, EVEN DOWN TO THE 1 SECOND, SPOT ON. Anyway, I have it FS @ 399 OBO. MIKe... littlwing5@xxxxxxxxx contact off list if interested --- "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jerry,=20 > > The Pentax *ist 35mm SLR is shorter in length (4.8 v > 5.3), equally as > tall, but a tad thicker at 2.5 v. 1.5. Then again it > also has a built > in motor, can rewind itself, has faster sync speeds > and shutter > speeds, has automated flash, and most importantly, > you will not cry if > you drop it. ;-) > > Peter K > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:15:36 -0800, Jerry Lehrer > <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wro= > te: > > Peter, > >=20 > > Marc and I may take exception to your comment re: > Jupiter > > lenses. I don't own any but I have tried a few > and they are > > superb! > >=20 > > BTW, which FULL FRAME SLRs are smaller than M > Leicas? > > Include a normal lens with your choices. They > gotta be 35mm > > cameras with 50mm lenses. Remember, the Olympus > Pen is > > half frame, > >=20 > > I await your selections. > >=20 > > Jerry > >=20 > >=20 > > "Peter K." wrote: > >=20 > > > Jupiter lens on a Leica? Ugh! Marc, Carl and > Ernst are rolling in > > > their graves after you typed this. The only > reason to use the archaic > > > Leica M is to use take advantage of the M > optics. Other than that > > > there is little reason. Even SLRs these days are > as small. > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:10:11 -0500, Marc James > Small > > > <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > At 11:56 PM 3/28/05 -0500, Ardeshir Mehta > wrote: > > > > >Yes, you are right about a Leica III (I was > thinking of getting one = > =3D3D2=3D > > > 0 > > > > >myself on eBay), but they are more properly > paired off with =3D3D20 > > > > >Rolleicords, not Rolleiflexes. > > > > > > > > > >But try getting an M3 or higher - M4, M6, > etc. - on eBay for anythin= > g =3D > > > =3D3D20 > > > > >less than $1,000! I got a Rolleiflex D, > equipped f/2.8 Xenotar, in = > =3D3D20 > > > > >almost perfect working condition (only the > sports viewfinder mirror = > is =3D > > > =3D3D20 > > > > >missing) for US$255 plus shipping. I WISH I > could get an M3 that =3D= > 3D20 > > > > >cheaply - I'd JUMP at the chance! > > > >=3D20 > > > > Apples to apples, again. > > > >=3D20 > > > > The IIIc Leica equates to a Rolleiflex Automat > in terms of vintage an= > d us=3D > > > e > > > > at the time they were produced, both being > then professional cameras.= > An=3D > > > d > > > > a IIIc with its standard Summitar will run > about as much as an Automa= > t in > > > > equivalent condition. =3D3D20 > > > >=3D20 > > > > In today's market, an M6 equates to a 2.8GX. > See which is cheaper in= > the > > > > used market! > > > >=3D20 > > > > Your issue about lenses for the M6 is a bit > misleading: a solid Jupi= > ter-=3D > > > 3 > > > > will run around $100 and a Leitz LTM to M > adapter will run around $70= > , so > > > > add $170 (or more, if you wish to use a Leica > lens) to the price of t= > he M=3D > > > 3 > > > > or M4 or M6. > > > >=3D20 > > > > The M4 does have an inflated price, one that I > regard as improperly > > > > inflated, as I find it a weak sister in the > Leitz line and a camera w= > hich > > > > lives much more on reputation than on > performance. The M3 and M6 are > > > > substantially superior cameras. > > > >=3D20 > > > > Marc > > > >=3D20 > > > > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D3D20 > > > > Cha robh b=3D3DE0s fir gun ghr=3D3DE0s fir! > > > >=3D20 > > > >=3D20 > > > > > > --=3D20 > > > Peter K > > > =3DD3=3DBF=3DD5=3DAC > >=20 > >=20 > > > --=20 > Peter K > =D3=BF=D5=AC > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs