I'll start the "other way around": I don't want a Leica Pradovit because I already had one once (as a "wall-screen-type" -- I think it was a 2002 or something -- but I threw it away). It always raised problems. I am now thinking of a Kindermann Magic Screen IR (the type with its own tabletop screen; article number 8008) because I now want this type, I used to use our institute's old Kindermann AV 100 and never had any problems with it. Leica is always (well, often) unbelievably expensive but this is IMHO of course justifiable if the article we want is of the quality we want. That new Kindermann above would cost me exactly one-third of the price of the very most inexpensive Leica comparitive combo. The question here is whether that new Kindermann above is "okay" or whether it should be a Leica.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 15, 2001

Answers

Michael

I don't know what you are talking about - so maybe I am not the person to answer your question, but in my opinion the Pradovit 2002 is streets ahead of any other projector made past or present -certainly superior to any Kindermann projector (and Kindermann made projectors for Leica). I suspect you are asking something else? Perhaps you can explain more fully?

I maintain that only the true Leica-designed projectors (Color 250s 2500, 2502, P2002 etc.) are really worth having - the other Leica types (produced by Kindermann) are inferior. This is less of an issue if you use glass mounted slides though.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 15, 2001.

I can't imagine anyone *throwing away* a Prodovit 2002! I have a Prodovit Color that's been working fine for more than 25 years despite sitting on a dealer's shelf for several years before that.

Nothing else comes close in optical performance and build quality.

-- Bud Cook (budcook@attglobal.net), October 15, 2001.

Robin and Bud, thanks for your comments. Now being at home, I found that the receipt reads 2502. I got rid of it because (a) there was continually a jamming of the slides (of any thickness) perennially requiring their withdrawal by tweezers, (b) focusing was usually out of hand (auto here being not even selective), and (c) light intensity difference or variation often cropped up. Occurrence of any of these shortcomings had nothing (I think) to do with any over-abundance of glass or non-glass mountings.

Same question, new announcement: "Can anybody recommend me the Kindermann Magic Screen IR, or would you prefer to call it a lemon?". Thanks. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 15, 2001.

Michael

Interesting. I have a 2502 projector too and I like this quite as much as my P2000. I use Gepe mounted slides, but do not use LKM magazines -- perhaps this is the problem? The LKM trays do not allow Gepe mounts in them and I think that the LKMs are more prone to jamming due to the finer tolerances required when advancing the magazine. In terms of image quality though I find the 2502 and the P2000 to be identical (in fact internally they are, optically). Did you align the projector bulb properly - Leica provide a dummy "slide" for this, or you can make one yourself. If it was badly aligned then even illumination problems could be due to this. As for the autofocus it focuses the slide depending how you have set the focus (by twisting the lens in the mount) each time a slide enters the gate and then switches off - you then do often manually refocus, or change the focus - but in my experience this is much superior than any other system where you often end up "fighting" the focussing system. The autofocus system basically is there to ensure that when the slide first appears in the gate it is pretty sharp - due to film curvature it may not be perfect for each slide or to your taste, but it is much better than no AF. If you are using glass mounted slides then it should be perfect.

It is also of course possible that the gate is out of alignment or damaged in some way. I did hear that some people did have problems with the more complex gate of the 1500/2500/2502 series and this may be why the simpler gate was put into the later P2000s. Personally, I never found this, but it is quite possible that the introduction of the LKM mount (around 1982) caused problems with this gate. The solution is to use the regular 36 or 50 magazines.

I still maintain that you will not get a better projector optically or mechanically than this line of projectors. They are not perfect, but no projector is. They are "perfect" if you use glass mounted slides - but this has other issues connected with it that are a pain in practice.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

Robin, thanks again for the really extensive help and information. I'll confess that I may not always have had the right magazines for the right slide mountings. I did use several different types of both, especially slides, as these were sometimes Kodaks, sometimes thick glass ones, sometimes thin cardboard ones etc etc. I'm afraid I may not have aligned the projector bulb properly since I never had any dummy "slide" for this either. Oops number 3: maybe I occasionally didn't set the focus right in the first place. But manual refocus never peeved me, and if that ever helped me to make a good pic even better, then that was okay.

I think that everything you have said is absolutely right. And no, I don't feel you're trying to force me into getting a new Leica projector, but yes, before buying any old brand (frigzample the Kindermann one) I'm certainly going to look at a Leica one too. Thanks.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 16, 2001.