Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: dead of Cartier-Bressson

Subject: [OM] Re: dead of Cartier-Bressson
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:47:11 +0100
My hat off to you both.  I should stick to on-topic cameras! 

Piers 

-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Roland Ruehl
Sent: 05 August 2004 01:01
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: dead of Cartier-Bressson

Bill,

yes you are right, an M3 or an M2 (introduced in 57). There are modified M1s
with a rangefinder but they appeared later. No idea why he needed the aux
finder. Must have had another lens in his pocket (which points back to the
M3 ...)

Thanks,

Roland.

Bill Stanke wrote:

>Roland:
>
>I would guess Leica M3 (I thought M1 was introduced in 1959).  I'm 
>drawing a blank on the lens (first version Summicron f/2?) and why he 
>has the VIDOOM auxilliary finder fitted.  The M1 had no rangefinder or 
>viewfinder, and this body appears to have a rangefinder window.
>
>Bill Stanke
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Roland Ruehl" <roland.ruehl@xxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:41 PM
>Subject: [OM] Re: dead of Cartier-Bressson
>
>
>  
>
>>Looks to me like an M1. What did you think it was ?
>>
>>Roland.
>>
>>Piers Hemy wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>That (use of Leica) was what I thought too, but if you look at the
>>>      
>>>
>entries
>  
>
>>>for 1957 on this site
>>>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/JaneBown/JaneBown_gallery.swf you will 
>>>see him holding what I think is NOT a Leica (and not a Kiev either, 
>>>but I may
>>>      
>>>
>be
>  
>
>>>wrong!).


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz