My sister gave me... the gift of FILM! (lots of pix)

I just got an email back from Steve's Camera in Culver City, and he identified it as a Leica IIIf (nice eye there Brad) and you're right--it'll take $230 for the body and $120 for the lens, so $350 for the whole kit and caboodle, so now I just need to decide if it's money well spent or not.  Because I'd need to learn how to use it too.  It is awfully cool to find all this stuff out.

I used to shoot almost everything in slides and developed my own. However, I always felt getting prints from slides was way inferior than negatives. I would not recommend it. Slides also don't scan as well as prints if you want to digitize after the fact.

I happen to be an expert when it comes to spending others' money so believe me when I tell you that it's worth it.
 
Seriously, I understand that it's a tough decision.  If the camera's likely future isn't going to include actual use, maybe there are things that can be done for preservation that aren't as costly?  I would think that cleaning and lubrication would be necessary but things like new light seals, shutter calibration, etc. could possibly be skipped.
But the right side of my brain is screaming, "It's a LEICA!!  Use the damn thing!!"
 
Brad

Okay boys here's my decision.  I'm starting my dissertation finally (poor brother Ancient Mariner has heard this one before so he will giggle knowingly) and I'm going to get the camera refurbed as a graduation present, so it will probably be next year.  The thing has sat for 35 years so I'm sure one more isn't going to matter.  I know if I get it done I will want to play with it and I can't until the D is done.

Nancy, I think that's a fine idea!

This morning I opened the freezer and was greeted by a friendly yellow and red box of Kodachrome.  There's only one commercial processing lab left in the entire U.S. and possibly the world (Dwayne's) and Kodachrome's future is very much unknown; my understanding is that Kodak doesn't manufacture it on a consistent basis but instead cranks out a big batch 2 or 3 times a year.  2010 will be its 75th anniversary (and the song's 37th) and the hope is that Kodak will keep it around at least that long, but time will tell.  And if it does get discontinued at some point there's no telling how much longer Dwayne's would continue to develop it.  Apparently K-14 is a nastier process than E-6 (Ektachrome and other positive films).

Something for anyone considering Kodachrome to keep in mind.  I don't think I've ever shot a roll (and if I have it would've been well over 20 years ago) but I'm going to sometime this year, even if it's only to let those nice bright colors give me the greens of summer and make me think all the world's a sunny day...

Brad

:)  Do any of you guys process your own film?  Hell, if I'm gonna learn an ancient art, I might as well learn two.

Not anymore.  When I was younger and living at home I processed B&W in a newspaper darkroom (with a Leitz enlarger, in fact) and later on my dad built me a small darkroom under the basement stairs, but now I have a well and septic system at my house and I'm not keen on the ideas of using a lot of water and putting exhausted chemicals into the septic tank.  I also have pretty hard water and don't use a softener, and that could possibly lead to problems with the chemicals.

Last year I stopped in at a local weekly paper with the idea of maybe renting the darkroom on occasion, but it had already been mothballed and turned into storage.

Brad

For ages I did my own B/W photo processing. It was fun and a great hobby...plus I had the college photo lab available so the equipment and materials were included in my job area. I worked on Cibachrome printing when it was a new process for doing prints , but found it way too expensive for the rank amatuer like myself to practice a lot.
  I agree with Brad, I don't think I would want to put the residue into my septic system these days.