Leica M6 Classic
Roxy d'Urban
0.72 version offers. The deal I am contemplating includes 35mm, 50mm and
90mm lenses, so I am assuming that the camera has those framlines, but I
also have a 135mm Leitz Elmarit so I am interested to hear if it will be
compatible with the M6 (0.72).
TIA
--
Be careful what you wish for.
Chris Loffredo
> I am interested in one of these but I can't find out what framelines the
> 0.72 version offers. The deal I am contemplating includes 35mm, 50mm and
> 90mm lenses, so I am assuming that the camera has those framlines, but I
> also have a 135mm Leitz Elmarit so I am interested to hear if it will be
> compatible with the M6 (0.72).
At the same time:
35 + 135
50 + 75
28 + 90
So your 135mm will be compatible, though the frameline will be a bit
small for accurate framing (the M3 is much better for that).
Roxy d'Urban
Thanks Chris! Extremely helpful as always.
Now I have another dilemma:
I am considering this deal as a swap for some of my top end lenses, namely
the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (practically new, but I seldom use it) and
my rare Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF. Both very good zoom lenses, but a lot
of extra weight to carry around. Seeing as I don't do this professionally
anymore I don't really have a need for them. Do you think this is a fair
swap? He reckons his system is worth somewhere between $2k and $2.5k (US).
One of the reasons I have become so infatuated with the Leica M system is
because it is so easily carried around and unobtrusive. I love available
light photography and the results I got with my solitary roll put through
the M3 showed me that this was the way I want to take my hobby.
BTW, I have found a local guy who is able to repair the M3 finder at a
"reasonable" cost - still bloody expensive, but a lot cheaper and more
convenient than sending it to CRR in England.
Decisions...decisions...
Chris Loffredo
> I am considering this deal as a swap for some of my top end lenses, namely
> the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (practically new, but I seldom use it) and
> my rare Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF. Both very good zoom lenses, but a lot
> of extra weight to carry around. Seeing as I don't do this professionally
> anymore I don't really have a need for them. Do you think this is a fair
> swap? He reckons his system is worth somewhere between $2k and $2.5k (US).
I don't know what is included with the M6...
In Europe an M6 body in good working condition can be found as cheap as
€1,000 (more realistically €1,100) on.
For choices, I can't be much help: I don't like zooms. I'm not very
objective there.
> One of the reasons I have become so infatuated with the Leica M system is
> because it is so easily carried around and unobtrusive. I love available
> light photography and the results I got with my solitary roll put through
> the M3 showed me that this was the way I want to take my hobby.
All I can say is that my own sytems are currently comprised of:
Nikon: Because it's what I started with, but hardly ever use them
anymore: I can't bear to sell my F & F2, so I guess I'll just keep them.
Rolleiflex (3003 & SL35-E): My main 35mm SLR system. Zeiss lenses.
Leicaflex SL: New arrival. Got mainly for the fantastically bright &
accurate focussing screen and the great telephotos. Telephotos are the
main shortcomings of the Rolleiflex & M6.
Leica M6: The ideal travelling camera. Compact, tiny lenses,
inobtrusive. My standard travel kit (21mm, 35mm & 90mm) weighs half as
much as the Leicaflex and considerably less than the rolleiflex equivalents.
Usage: M6 about 50% of the time. Rolleiflex about 40% Leicaflex about 10%
> BTW, I have found a local guy who is able to repair the M3 finder at a
> "reasonable" cost - still bloody expensive, but a lot cheaper and more
> convenient than sending it to CRR in England.
Good to hear that.
Before the M6, I had an M4-2. I would have been satisfied with the
Leicameter instead of the M6's built in meter, but the
Cosina/Voigtländer wides I have (15 & 21) require an external
viewfinder, which meant constantly removing the meter in order to attach
it - PITA!
With the M6 I just leave the viewfinder always attached.
A few thoughts concerning the M3 compared to the M6:
If you don't often need to use an accessory viewfinder, you might find
the Leicameter (i.e. M3) enough. It even has the advantage of being more
discreet - You don't need to bring you camera to your eye for metering.
Though if you have the selenium version, you might lose the (semi-)spot
metering offered my the M6 and CdS Leicameters.
The M3 is better for telephoto lenses. If you don't use lenses wider
than 50mm, you might be happier with the M3 (compared to a 0.72 viewfinder).
The M6 has a better (faster) rewind lever.
The m6 is several decades younger, so probably more reliable.
The M3 has a better "feel".
I find the M3 aesthetics unbeatable - YMMV...
: )
Chris
Andrew Koenig
news:3d44ueF...@individual.net...
> So your 135mm will be compatible, though the frameline will be a bit small
> for accurate framing (the M3 is much better for that).
Leica makes a screw-in eyepiece magnifier that I imagine would be useful for
the 135.
Chris Loffredo
> I am considering this deal as a swap for some of my top end lenses,
namely
> the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (practically new, but I seldom use it) and
> my rare Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF. Both very good zoom lenses, but a lot
> of extra weight to carry around. Seeing as I don't do this professionally
> anymore I don't really have a need for them. Do you think this is a fair
> swap? He reckons his system is worth somewhere between $2k and $2.5k
(US).
I don't know what is included with the M6...
In Europe an M6 body in good working condition can be found as cheap as
€1,000 (more realistically €1,100) on...
For choices, I can't be much help: I don't like zooms. I'm not very
objective there.
> One of the reasons I have become so infatuated with the Leica M system is
> because it is so easily carried around and unobtrusive. I love available
> light photography and the results I got with my solitary roll put through
> the M3 showed me that this was the way I want to take my hobby.
All I can say is that my own sytems are currently comprised of:
Nikon: Because it's what I started with, but hardly ever use them
anymore: I can't bear to sell my F & F2, so I guess I'll just keep them.
Rolleiflex (3003 & SL35-E): My main 35mm SLR system. Zeiss lenses.
Leicaflex SL: New arrival. Got mainly for the fantastically bright &
accurate focussing screen and the great telephotos. Telephotos are the
main shortcomings of the Rolleiflexes & M6.
Leica M6: The ideal travelling camera. Compact, tiny lenses,
inobtrusive. My standard travel kit (21mm, 35mm & 90mm) weighs half as
much as the Leicaflex and considerably less than the rolleiflex
equivalents. Impossible to beat for available light photography.
Usage: M6 about 50% of the time. Rolleiflex about 40% Leicaflex about 10%
> BTW, I have found a local guy who is able to repair the M3 finder at a
> "reasonable" cost - still bloody expensive, but a lot cheaper and more
> convenient than sending it to CRR in England.
Roxy d'Urban
> I don't know what is included with the M6...
There is a Summicron 1:2/35mm; Summicron 1:2/50mm and Elmarit 1:2.8/90mm.
He also has all the original boxes and paperwork, etc. From the pictures
everything except the 90mm looks to be in tip top shape. The 90mm he says
has a fair amount of wear, but the optics are 100%. The body is a black
one.
> In Europe an M6 body in good working condition can be found as cheap as
> €1,000 (more realistically €1,100) on.
Sounds about right.
> For choices, I can't be much help: I don't like zooms. I'm not very
> objective there.
Man, this is proving to be a tough one for me. I got the 17-35mm and the
28-70mm zooms for next to nothing, but last night when I was taking
photographs of them for this chap I started having doubts. My lenses are
practically mint - not a mark on them.
I suppose it's like trading the latest top of the line BMW 3-series for a
classic 1970's Porsche.
> All I can say is that my own sytems are currently comprised of:
>
> Nikon: Because it's what I started with, but hardly ever use them
> anymore: I can't bear to sell my F & F2, so I guess I'll just keep them.
My F2 sits on a wall unit along with the Leica R4 and Canon F-1. Every now
and again I pick it up and fire off a few dry shots. Marvellous piece of
equipment. The other two cameras have film in them so if I suddenly feel
inspired around the house I am ready for action!
> Before the M6, I had an M4-2. I would have been satisfied with the
> Leicameter instead of the M6's built in meter, but the
> Cosina/Voigtländer wides I have (15 & 21) require an external
> viewfinder, which meant constantly removing the meter in order to attach
> it - PITA!
> With the M6 I just leave the viewfinder always attached.
I have actually used the selenium Leicameter on my D70! It needs a bit of
calibrating though - digital is not as forgiving as colour negative film.
> A few thoughts concerning the M3 compared to the M6:
>
> If you don't often need to use an accessory viewfinder, you might find
> the Leicameter (i.e. M3) enough. It even has the advantage of being more
> discreet - You don't need to bring you camera to your eye for metering.
> Though if you have the selenium version, you might lose the (semi-)spot
> metering offered my the M6 and CdS Leicameters.
>
> The M3 is better for telephoto lenses. If you don't use lenses wider
> than 50mm, you might be happier with the M3 (compared to a 0.72 viewfinder).
>
> The M6 has a better (faster) rewind lever.
>
> The m6 is several decades younger, so probably more reliable.
>
> The M3 has a better "feel".
>
> I find the M3 aesthetics unbeatable - YMMV...
> : )
>
> Chris
Yeah, now I have to convince myself all over again that the M6 will be
better to own than the two Nikon zooms! Cripes... ;-)
Roxy d'Urban
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:29:17 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you think this is a fair
>>swap? He reckons his system is worth somewhere between $2k and $2.5k (US).
>
> Sorry, but I missed what the "system" included. A M6 Classic body is
> worth about $1200 or less from a dealer. Check prices in
> www.tamarkin.com; www.keh.com; www.photovillage.com; www.kbcamera.com
>
> I'd say that your 17-35mm f2.8 lens in excellent condition plus about
> $100 USD is about an even swap for a M6 classic.
>
> BTW: I have a M6 classic that was my replacement for a dying M3. My
> favorite lens for the M6 is the 35mm f2.0 ASPH. I also use a 50mm f1.4
> Lux. I wear glasses and I wish my body had a 0.58x viewfinder. If you
> are planning to use a 135mm lens for a lot of your photography, you
> might want to think about a 0.85x body or at least the 1.25x finder
> magnifier for the 0.72x body.
>
> Good luck. You might want to watch prices on the LUG,
> www.leica-users.org. This is a premier leica users group with lots of
> information, a Friday for-sale posting and they maintain their own
> searchable archives.
>
> Regards,
> Roger / lei...@yahoo.com
Thanks Roger. As I mentioned to Chris the deal includes three Leica
lenses, namely the Summicron 1:2/35mm; Summicron 1:2/50mm and Elmarit
1:2.8/90mm.
I was all set to call off the swap this morning but now I am not so sure
anymore.
Gordon Moat
The M6 adds the 28, 75, and 135 to your old M3 35, 50, and 90, giving it
six framelines. When the finder versions changed (mostly applies to the M6
TTL), the .58 got rid of the 135, and the .85 got rid of the 28.
There is a version of the 135 that had goggles. Apparently, that version
might not line up properly on the M6 TTL, but I am not too sure about that.
You could use it without the goggles, if you had that (f2.8 version).
I recently tried out the viewfinder magnifier (1.25x) on an M7 with a 90
mm. The combination really helped the framing and focusing. On the .85
version M7 I tried that on, the extra magnification made the 90 mm
framelines nearly fill the viewfinder. I think it might be a better match
on a .72 viewfinder.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
Actually, that is a very good deal for those two lenses of yours. The f2.8
version of the 90 mm is one of the nicest lenses Leica have produced, and very
good for portraits. The 35 mm f2.0 is not that thrilling, though the 50 mm is
one of the best 50 mm lenses from any company. Overall, I think the swap if
fairly priced.
Chris Loffredo
> Actually, that is a very good deal for those two lenses of yours. The f2.8
> version of the 90 mm is one of the nicest lenses Leica have produced, and very
> good for portraits. The 35 mm f2.0 is not that thrilling,
What's wrong with the 35mm f/2.0 Summicron (last pre-Ash version)?
- Eyebrow sardonically raised -
While the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 beats it (in all-round look - IMHO), there is
certainly nothing at all wrong with it - one of the best 3 or 4 35mm
lenses overall.
Chris Loffredo
> Actually, that is a very good deal for those two lenses of yours. The
f2.8
> version of the 90 mm is one of the nicest lenses Leica have produced,
and very
> good for portraits. The 35 mm f2.0 is not that thrilling,
What's wrong with the 35mm f/2.0 Summicron (last pre-Asph version)?
- Eyebrow sardonically raised -
While the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 beats it (in all-round look - IMHO), it is
certainly one of the best 2 or 3 35mm lenses I've ever used.
Tony Polson
>
>What's wrong with the 35mm f/2.0 Summicron (last pre-Asph version)?
>- Eyebrow sardonically raised -
Probably the world's finest lens for 35mm photography ... outstanding
sharpness and contrast ... rectilinear distortion so low it almost
cannot be measured ... often referred to as the "king of bokeh".
There's just no pleasing some people.
;-)
Gordon Moat
You started to state it yourself, with your Zeiss example. While it is not
a bad lens, there are better lenses out there in the 35 mm focal length,
from Leica, and from a few others. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing to
rave about.
If I did not have an old 35 mm Summicron, and was looking to buy that focal
length for a Leica M body, there are some other choices. A used version of
a newer Leica f2.0, or an f1.4, offer another set of directions. Another
one that gets my current interest is the Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2, which
would be a great low light lens.
Matt Clara
news:426FD59B...@attglobal.net...
> If I did not have an old 35 mm Summicron, and was looking to buy that
focal
> length for a Leica M body, there are some other choices. A used version of
> a newer Leica f2.0, or an f1.4, offer another set of directions. Another
> one that gets my current interest is the Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2, which
> would be a great low light lens.
How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
cameraquest.com.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Ken Tough
>I am considering this deal as a swap for some of my top end lenses,
As a favour, I'll take your 70-200 AF-S 2.8 VR off your hands if
you need to unload it. I could swap for some film & lens cases,
or something..
--
Ken Tough
Matt Clara
news:_z9ce.5800565$Zm5.8...@news.easynews.com...
BTW, I deliberately misspelled Voigtländer so that people with poor spelling
skills will still be able to find what they're looking for when searching
the google archive. That's me, always thinking of those less fortunate
folks...
;-)
Paul Rubin
> > > a newer Leica f2.0, or an f1.4, offer another set of directions. Another
> > > one that gets my current interest is the Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2, which
> > > would be a great low light lens.
> >
> > How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
> > cameraquest.com.
>
> BTW, I deliberately misspelled Voigtländer so that people with poor spelling
> skills will still be able to find what they're looking for when searching
> the google archive. That's me, always thinking of those less fortunate
> folks...
I don't know about the 35/1.2 but some of the others have gotten quite
good reviews, especially the 15mm.
Tony Polson
>
>How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
>cameraquest.com.
They are sharp, but with harsh bokeh. Obviously they vary between
focal lengths, but sharpness and harsh bokeh is something they all
have in common. I have tried them all, and was unimpressed by their
performance.
I happily use the 12mm and 15mm focal lengths because bokeh is of
little importance and they are very cheap for what they offer. I
cannot justify spending more because I use these focal lengths so very
rarely, especially the 12mm.
However, I am aware you use Nikon lenses, so you may find the bokeh
acceptable.
Gordon Moat
I know a few people using these for magazine and editorial work. Overall, I am
very impressed by the image quality. Mostly I see images from the superwides,
though the images from the 75 mm f2.5 also were very nice. Look at these in
person, and the quality of mechanical construction is very nice, making them
seem rugged.
While I have yet to see the 35 mm f1.2 in person, I have seen a few images. At
f1.2, it works quite well, and could be quite useful under low light.
Considering that it costs less new than any used Leica M f1.4 version, it seems
like quite the bargain. Of course, if you had the money for a Leica 35 mm f1.4,
then that might be the one to get.
Tony Polson
>
>While I have yet to see the 35 mm f1.2 in person, I have seen a few images. At
>f1.2, it works quite well, and could be quite useful under low light.
>Considering that it costs less new than any used Leica M f1.4 version, it seems
>like quite the bargain. Of course, if you had the money for a Leica 35 mm f1.4,
>then that might be the one to get.
I have been faced with precisely these choices. The Voigtländer 35mm
f/1.2 has excellent sharpness when stopped down, but is unsharp wide
open, particularly in the corners. It has harsh bokeh, typical of
Cosina-Voigtländer lenses.
There are three versions of the Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4. The first
and second have superb, smooth bokeh but good sharpness is lacking
until well stopped down (f/5.6). The third version is the ASPH, which
has stunning sharpness, even wide open, and performs well even in the
corners. However, bokeh is neutral rather than smooth.
If ultimate sharpness at all apertures is the aim, regardless of
price, the Leica ASPH is the one to go for. If smooth bokeh is the
aim, either of the Leica non-ASPH versions is a good choice, at a
price not so much higher than the Voigtländer, which is not a cheap
lens. If cheapness is the aim, or f/1.2 is a must (regardless of
performance) the Voigtländer is king.
Anyone who is content with a maximum aperture of f/2 should choose one
of the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicrons - for ultimate sharpness choose the
ASPH, for ultimate bokeh choose the 8-element (early) version and for
the best all-round performance choose the last pre-ASPH version.
Stopped down to f/4 and smaller apertures, its sharpness matches the
ASPH version's and the bokeh is incomparably smooth. That is the lens
I chose.
None of Voigtländer's 35mm (or 40mm) lenses even come close to the
performance of the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicrons. There is simply no
comparison. Unfortunately, the Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 for the Contax G
Series is the weakest performer of all G Series prime lenses so that
doesn't come close either.
I will be interested to see the results from the Carl Zeiss lenses for
the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera. They are made by Cosina for
Hasselblad, who have commissioned the Zeiss Ikon series, and are
designed to Zeiss principles, but as far as I know their specific
optical designs are not based on the Zeiss lenses for Contax G.
Paul Rubin
> I have been faced with precisely these choices. The Voigtländer 35mm
> f/1.2 has excellent sharpness when stopped down, but is unsharp wide
> open, particularly in the corners. It has harsh bokeh, typical of
I wonder whether this bokeh stuff can be fixed with a suitable
Photoshop macro.
Tony Polson
Yes, you can fix absolutely anything with a suitable Photoshop macro.
Of course the best Photoshop macros enable you to produce superb
photographs without ever needing to use a camera. Oh Yes.
;-)
Chris Loffredo
> Matt Clara wrote:
>>>How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
>>>cameraquest.com.
I have the 15mm & the 21mm.
I find the 21mm excellent; as good as any 20/21mm I've used (but no, I
haven't used the Leica Asp. or the Zeiss ones). By 5.6, it is very sharp
in the corners. It has been judged by some as being as good as the
Leica/Schneider pre-Asph 21mms (haven't tried them myself, apart from
the R version).
The 15mm is "only" a very good, as it does vignette visibly until at
least f/8. But for it's focal length, its performance is remarkable.
Certainly better than any 15mm for SLRs (except possibly the 2-3 usual
incredibly expensive suspects).
Both lenses are tiny and, back to back, fit confortably in a single lens
pocket with lots of space to spare.
Another advantage is that the 21mm viewfinder is very similar in
coverage to the 15mm one, with bright lines for 21mm added. So in
practice I only use the 21mm viewfinder for both lenses.
As 21mm is one of my most used focal lengths, I'll probably experiment
with the few possibly better ones in the future - when I can afford it!!
Not that I have any real complaints about the Voigtländer.
I use the 15mm less often and will probably stick with the
Cosina/Voigtländer, as any better results will be VERY expensive.
> While I have yet to see the 35 mm f1.2 in person, I have seen a few images. At
> f1.2, it works quite well, and could be quite useful under low light.
> Considering that it costs less new than any used Leica M f1.4 version, it seems
> like quite the bargain. Of course, if you had the money for a Leica 35 mm f1.4,
> then that might be the one to get.
I haven't used it, but a Chasseur d'Images test rated it as feeble at
full aperture, never reaching stellar values at any point...
Anyway, I thought that you were putting down the Leitz 35mm 2.0
Summicron because the 35mm 1.4 was better - and now you want the Cosina?!?
; )
Chris
Chris Brown
Matt Clara <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
>
>How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
>cameraquest.com.
I like my 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar. Has produced nice results at all aperture
settings, including wide-open.
Matt Clara
news:7xbr7yl...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
Yeah, that's what I want to do, spend even more time in Photoshop.
Matt Clara
bad bokeh without putting money down on lenses that aren't any better
in any regard, and every time I look at Leica used or new I say out
loud, I'll never own a Leica (I can't justify the expenditure). Lately
I've been eyeballing a used Contax slr with the Carl Zeiss
lenses--still not cheap. Still, at the price, the 12mm is tempting.
I've a 17-35 afs, so the 15mm doesn't tempt me.
Matt Clara
the best lens ever made by Nikon, and almost certainly the best wide
angle zoom lens ever made by anyone anywhere anytime. When I'm
shooting the D70 with SB800 flash, it's my primary lens.
Paul Rubin
> That's the point of my question. I have enough Nikon's with neutral to
> bad bokeh without putting money down on lenses that aren't any better
> in any regard, and every time I look at Leica used or new I say out
> loud, I'll never own a Leica (I can't justify the expenditure).
Nikon has been paying more attention to this issue in recent years.
Pentax has traditionally been good, even in the old days.
Paul Rubin
Do you like the 18-70 kit lens?
Matt Clara
Oh yeah, I still have several pentax screwmount lenses and a spotmatic.
Hope they're doing ok in that closet...
;-)
Pat OBrien via PhotoKB.com
I want?
Also, and this is a stupid question, what do the different viewfinder
decimal point values mean. I doubt that I will be in the market for a
Leica, but I would like to keep track of who is who, and who is right.
Another also: I checked out the Zeiss M system, and it says that the lenses
are standardized for color and resolution. Does that mean that all the
lenses will have the same personality? If so, that may make choosing a
lens simpler, but it might make these discussions boring.
--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Roxy d'Urban
I find the 18-70mm kit lens is so good I never have a need for the
17-35mm. It's very bulky and unbalanced on the D70, which is why I am not
emotional about letting it go.
--
Be careful what you wish for.
Roxy d'Urban
Err...think I'll pass thanks, Ken.
;-)
Roxy d'Urban
> Depending on version, some people would pay a premium for the 35mm
> f2.0 Summicron. If it's the last version before the latest ASPH lens,
> it's a valued lens. Priced at about $1200-1300 in excellent condition.
> If it's an earlier edition the value is about $800. The 50mm f2.0
> Summicron is an excellent performer in just about any recent version,
> e.g. 1980s and later. It's valued roughly at about $750 unless the
> very latest versions where it may push $1000 USD.
>
> The 90mm Elmarit f2.8 is a bit more problematic. If named correctly
> and a bit more worn, but good glass - I'd say about $550 USD. There
> are several versions of the 90mm lens. I'd suggest you look at
> www.cameraquest.com for some of the history and some suggestions on
> versions. The 90mm lenses are easy to miss-name.
I will check up on that, thanks.
> So IMO the value sounds close enough to consider the motives. IMO the
> only reason to give up the excellent Nikkors is if you have to do some
> of the following.
> 1) You must for medical reasons pare down your kit :-).
LOL! No, I can manage it okay, but I still have some pretty good glass
left for my 4 Nikons (18-70mm DX, 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, 35mm f/2 (pre-AI),
105mm f/2.5 AIS, 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S). Put them all into one pack and I do
have a helluva weight to carry.
> 2) You are willing to trade the versatility of the SLR system
> (regardless of the zooms) for the niche capability of the rangefinder
> system.
Still have 3 Nikon SLR's and one DSLR.
> 3) You are gaining low-light capability, do you need it?
I was so impressed with the low light results I got from the M3 that RF
photography is what I need to do the kind of concert photography I want to
establish myself with.
> 4) You are willing to learn how to wring out every bit of quality
> possible from the M system. It's a taskmaster. It will tax your ability
> to expose properly especially with transparence materials.
That's a good thing, isn't it? ;-)
> 5) It's
> exposure system is dead-on once you understand it - it is not a matrix
> metering system - you do the compensation.
Funny you should mention that. I was looking at some photos I took at my
last rugby assignment in October last year. I had the F4s on matrix and
IMO it got a lot of the exposures where the background was bright and the
foreground (where the action was happening) wrong. My bad, not the
cameras. Interestingly I have never had any of my photos taken with the
centre-weighting of the Nikon F2, Canon F-1 or Leica R4 come out with poor
exposures.
> I have a small M6 kit with 35mm and 50mm lens. I also have a bunch of
> Nikon bodies and Nikkors (but alas, not your zooms). I'm starting to
> carry the M kit more because:
> 1) I travel for business a lot and the larger SLR is just too large. 2)
> I really appreciate the quality of the prints from my 35mm f2.0 ASPH
> lens.
These are two reasons why I like the M system so much.
> 3) I've taken entire trips and used only a 35mm lens (or a single lens,
> not just with the M6) - it fits my style. I've missed the versatility of
> something wider and longer, but managed and haven't regretted the
> contents of the final album. 4) I documented 15 years of my children's
> youth with only a 50mm lens on my M3. 5) I'm amazed at the speed and
> quality of an AFS lens on my Nikon F5. It gives me results that I could
> never get with a manual focus M system. And I do know about zone
> focusing. I don't regret ever, carrying a manual focus lens on my M6.
> 6) I do very much miss some of the versatility I could have had with a
> SLR but know that for travel, street and long outings I physically cant
> manage a F5 with 80-200 all day. A F5 with 45mm f2.8 AIP is sometimes on
> the heavy side but then I might as well go for the better optical
> quality of the M lenses. 7) The lack of strobe capability on the M6
> drives me nuts. The Nikon strobe integration is about as good as it
> gets. Anything else for me is a step backwards. The M6 strobe capability
> is the dark ages. I've learned to do without but I do know I could do
> better.
I don't think I would ever use a camera like this in the studio-lit
environment. It sort of defeats the purpose of low-light capabilities,
doesn't it? What I would like to do is find an adaptor to use the lenses
on my Nikon D70.
> 8) I'd rather work with wide angle lenses than telephoto lenses.
> 9) I wish my body were a 0.58x VF instead of a 0.72x VF.
>
> Regardless of the neck-jewelry arguments - In the 35mm and 50mm focal
> length lenses, the M lenses beat any Nikkors - but you have to value
> shadow detail, bokeh, micro detail, edge/corner sharpness at full
> aperture for the preference to still be with the M. If you can overlook
> those improvements over Nikkors then don't bother with the optical
> quality advantage.
>
> The M-system is a poor manager of strobe lighting. If you need it there
> are likely better solutions.
>
> The bokeh is so good with the summicrons that you are talking about that
> you will be looking for ways to use these lenses at full apertures. Even
> out to f5.6 with controlled focus.
>
> There are many things an SLR does better than a rangefinder. There some
> things a rangefinder does better than a SLR. IMO the things that a Leica
> M does better are worth the limitations. But then, I have both systems.
> I could live by the "M" alone. I could live by the "SLR" alone. If only
> one, I'd be happier with the SLR. However, I'm much happier having both.
> There are some prints when enlarged from the M system that knock my
> socks off. I'm pleased with the enlargements from my Nikkors. I'm amazed
> at the enlargements from my "M". The really good ones from either camera
> are few and far between. Neither camera will improve my results when I'm
> at the height of my mediocrity.
>
> Anyway - my dose of reality, YMMV.
Thanks for that very informative post, Roger. Much appreciated.
Paul Rubin
> I was so impressed with the low light results I got from the M3 that
> RF photography is what I need to do the kind of concert photography
> I want to establish myself with.
Do you think you'll do better in low light with the M3 and 35/2 than
you'd do with (say) a D2H and a 35/1.4 Nikkor, or maybe the 28/1.4 AF
which is aspheric?
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
> > Matt Clara wrote:
> >>>How good are those voightlander lenses? I keep eyeballing them on
> >>>cameraquest.com.
>
> I have the 15mm & the 21mm.
> I find the 21mm excellent; as good as any 20/21mm I've used (but no, I
> haven't used the Leica Asp. or the Zeiss ones). By 5.6, it is very sharp
> in the corners. It has been judged by some as being as good as the
> Leica/Schneider pre-Asph 21mms (haven't tried them myself, apart from
> the R version).
> The 15mm is "only" a very good, as it does vignette visibly until at
> least f/8. But for it's focal length, its performance is remarkable.
> Certainly better than any 15mm for SLRs (except possibly the 2-3 usual
> incredibly expensive suspects).
I was under the impression from those I know who use the 15 mm (and 12 mm), that
unless you stop down a centre filter is advised. Of course, that is something true
of quite a few superwide lenses.
>
> Both lenses are tiny and, back to back, fit confortably in a single lens
> pocket with lots of space to spare.
> Another advantage is that the 21mm viewfinder is very similar in
> coverage to the 15mm one, with bright lines for 21mm added. So in
> practice I only use the 21mm viewfinder for both lenses.
>
> As 21mm is one of my most used focal lengths, I'll probably experiment
> with the few possibly better ones in the future - when I can afford it!!
> Not that I have any real complaints about the Voigtländer.
>
> I use the 15mm less often and will probably stick with the
> Cosina/Voigtländer, as any better results will be VERY expensive.
Other than a few that I see used often for skateboard photography, I just don't see
that many superwide images. It would surprise me if these were used as often as
other focal lengths, though there must be some people who have that imaging bias.
>
>
> > While I have yet to see the 35 mm f1.2 in person, I have seen a few images. At
> > f1.2, it works quite well, and could be quite useful under low light.
> > Considering that it costs less new than any used Leica M f1.4 version, it seems
> > like quite the bargain. Of course, if you had the money for a Leica 35 mm f1.4,
> > then that might be the one to get.
>
> I haven't used it, but a Chasseur d'Images test rated it as feeble at
> full aperture, never reaching stellar values at any point...
I thought Reponses Photo had a better review, and I doubt I would trust much from
Chasseur d'Images. Anyway, check out this short review to get an idea of what I
meant about using the 35 mm f1.2:
<http://www.nemeng.com/leica/029bb.shtml>
>
>
> Anyway, I thought that you were putting down the Leitz 35mm 2.0
> Summicron because the 35mm 1.4 was better - and now you want the Cosina?!?
> ; )
>
> Chris
No . . . still rather have a true Leica lens. However, recall that I do quite a bit
of low light imagery, so that extra half stop would be nice. Since we are also
talking ultra slow shutter speeds, any extra from an f1.4 would likely be softened
by the hand held shooting technique.
Okay, so the old 35 mm f2.0 looks nice on paper, but the two I have tried out did
not do that well at close range. The paper tests are at * (infinity) focus, so maybe
there is something about that. The ASPH version is an improvement, but almost any of
the f1.4 are better (and cost more).
I actually like the Nikon 35 mm f1.4 AIS better for low light, and the old 35 mm
f2.8 shift lens (unshifted) for more normal use. Overall, my favourites in the Leica
range are the 90 mm f2.8 and the 50 mm f2.0 (almost any of those in the last twenty
years production, especially the latest).
Gordon Moat
Since focusing is not needed on the 12 mm, almost any Leica thread mount
body would work. In fact, I see nothing wrong with getting a Voigtländer
Bessa-L just for the 12 mm. The cost of the Bessa-L is now so low you
could just throw it out if it broke.
I don't agree with Tony on the defocus assessment. Maybe it is the
difference of San Diego sunlight compared to the UK (EV17+ compared to
EV12), but unless you are a complete hack, you cannot really f*(k up an
image taken with some of the better Voigtländer lenses. Definitely, there
are some better choices, like the 50 mm and 75 mm, though the 21 mm is
capable of nice results.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . If cheapness is the aim, or f/1.2 is a must (regardless of
> performance) the Voigtländer is king.
If I had your money Tony, I would buy myself the latest Leica 35 mm f1.4. ;-)
>
>
> Anyone who is content with a maximum aperture of f/2 should choose one
> of the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicrons - for ultimate sharpness choose the
> ASPH, for ultimate bokeh choose the 8-element (early) version and for
> the best all-round performance choose the last pre-ASPH version.
> Stopped down to f/4 and smaller apertures, its sharpness matches the
> ASPH version's and the bokeh is incomparably smooth. That is the lens
> I chose.
Funny that you would like the older lens at all over the newer version. I have been
mostly in favour of the older lenses in most focal lengths, but after seeing some
images from the latest 35 mm f2.0 ASPH, it changed my mind. The other Leica lenses
are a different story . . . . . .
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> I will be interested to see the results from the Carl Zeiss lenses for
> the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera. They are made by Cosina for
> Hasselblad, who have commissioned the Zeiss Ikon series, and are
> designed to Zeiss principles, but as far as I know their specific
> optical designs are not based on the Zeiss lenses for Contax G.
Hasselblad were chosen based on distribution networks. Anyone can confirm that by
directly contacting Zeiss, but it is an easy mistake to think Hasselblad had
something more to do with the Zeiss Ikon. A quick check of the optical designs,
elements, and physical construction reveals that the Zeiss Ikon lenses are made
differently than G series lenses. It would have been easy to just repackage the G
series, but Zeiss chose to offer a new design for each lens. I particularly like
their choice to use Distagon over Biogon.
I am on the preview list for the new Zeiss Ikon. While I have not handled it yet, I
think they have quite a bit to live up to, in order to impress many people (or just
enough people). Glad to see this development. Of course, I just tried out an M7
last week, so that is also tempting.
Roxy d'Urban
Focussing.
I haven't used a D2H, but I would imagine that AF in a smoky, dimly-lit
nightclub is going to be tricky. Manually focussing an AF camera is not an
option.
There is also the element of hand holding slow shutter speeds. With the
rangefinder there is no mirror-slap and what I found is that holding the
camera at shutter speeds as low as 1/15th gave me pretty acceptable
results. I've tried doing that with my D70 and F4s - no dice, unless I
have a VR lens fitted (I'm not going to go out and re-kit myself with all
VR lenses - although I did see a 24-120mm going pretty cheap the other day).
Using a rangefinder (not necessarily a Leica) brings a completely new
dimension to picture taking, one that I truly enjoy.
Chris Loffredo
No mirror slap. More accurate focussing. Brighter viewfinder. Better
lens (certainly in the case of the 35mm f/1.4). Smaller. More discreet.
Quieter?
But, wow! The D2H is high tech!
Chris Loffredo
No mirror slap. More accurate focussing. Brighter viewfinder. Better
lens (certainly compared to the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4). Smaller. More
discreet. Quieter? Practically no shutter lag.
High tech isn't always better!
Paul Rubin
> > Do you think you'll do better in low light with the M3 and 35/2 than
> > you'd do with (say) a D2H and a 35/1.4 Nikkor, or maybe the 28/1.4 AF
> > which is aspheric?
>
> Focussing.
>
> I haven't used a D2H, but I would imagine that AF in a smoky, dimly-lit
> nightclub is going to be tricky. Manually focussing an AF camera is not an
> option. There is also the element of hand holding slow shutter speeds.
I don't know what manually focusing a D2H is like, but AF works
remarkably well even in low light. If you're willing to be somewhat
obtrusive (probably not), there is also the Speedlight AF illuminator
which flashes a red light (nowhere near as annoying as a white light)
that the AF locks onto. You of course wouldn't use the actual flash,
just the AF assist beam.
> There is also the element of hand holding slow shutter speeds. With the
> rangefinder there is no mirror-slap and what I found is that holding the
> camera at shutter speeds as low as 1/15th gave me pretty acceptable
> results. I've tried doing that with my D70 and F4s - no dice, unless I
> have a VR lens fitted (I'm not going to go out and re-kit myself with all
> VR lenses - although I did see a 24-120mm going pretty cheap the other day).
The idea is the 35/1.4 Nikkor (MF) or 28/1.4 AF is a full stop faster
than the 35/2 Summicron, and that the D2H gives reasonably clean
results at ISO 1600. What film would you use with the Leica? If you
shoot at 800 with the Leica, then the D2H+28/1.4 at 1600 would give
you two extra stops of shutter speed.
> Using a rangefinder (not necessarily a Leica) brings a completely new
> dimension to picture taking, one that I truly enjoy.
Yes, I bought a Canonet QL17 for that purpose, though never used it
much and some other comparable cheap RF's of the same era might have
been better choices.
Gordon Moat
> Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> writes:
> > > Do you think you'll do better in low light with the M3 and 35/2 than
> > > you'd do with (say) a D2H and a 35/1.4 Nikkor, or maybe the 28/1.4 AF
> > > which is aspheric?
> >
> > Focussing.
> >
> > I haven't used a D2H, but I would imagine that AF in a smoky, dimly-lit
> > nightclub is going to be tricky. Manually focussing an AF camera is not an
> > option. There is also the element of hand holding slow shutter speeds.
>
> I don't know what manually focusing a D2H is like, but AF works
> remarkably well even in low light. If you're willing to be somewhat
> obtrusive (probably not), there is also the Speedlight AF illuminator
> which flashes a red light (nowhere near as annoying as a white light)
> that the AF locks onto. You of course wouldn't use the actual flash,
> just the AF assist beam.
You never know until you try. Nightclubs are tough environments. There are moving
dance strobes that alter the lighting, often faster than you will see it.
Autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast. With moving and changing
lighting, the autofocus tends to continue moving as well. Manual focusing is one
option, and another is zone focusing. Sometimes a combination of both works well.
Also, people do not always like having a focus assist light suddenly appear on
their body.
There are the obvious posed portraits that can happen with flash. However, when
you want to catch some action, slow shutter speeds and manual focus can go a ways
to capture the excitement of a club. These would not be technically great images,
since lots of motion would occur, and even some softness would appear in many
images.
>
>
> > There is also the element of hand holding slow shutter speeds. With the
> > rangefinder there is no mirror-slap and what I found is that holding the
> > camera at shutter speeds as low as 1/15th gave me pretty acceptable
> > results. I've tried doing that with my D70 and F4s - no dice, unless I
> > have a VR lens fitted (I'm not going to go out and re-kit myself with all
> > VR lenses - although I did see a 24-120mm going pretty cheap the other day).
>
> The idea is the 35/1.4 Nikkor (MF) or 28/1.4 AF is a full stop faster
> than the 35/2 Summicron, and that the D2H gives reasonably clean
> results at ISO 1600. What film would you use with the Leica? If you
> shoot at 800 with the Leica, then the D2H+28/1.4 at 1600 would give
> you two extra stops of shutter speed.
Nightclubs are often very dark, and I would be surprised if ISO 1600 worked much.
I more commonly shot at ISO 2000 to 2500, and sometimes at ISO 6400. Few films
choices for Dallas in that realm. I would think that the 35 mm f1.4 would be a
good choice, but people shots mean getting within arms length. I don't agree with
rangefinders being the best solution, though it can help to have that continuous
view through the viewfinder. A well balanced SLR with very short shutter release
timing could work well with the proper techniques.
A D2H has a somewhat dim viewfinder, and I think would be tough to use. However,
the viewfinder on an F4, especially with a fast lens, should be fairly easy to
use in low light. Shutter lag is another issue.
>
>
> > Using a rangefinder (not necessarily a Leica) brings a completely new
> > dimension to picture taking, one that I truly enjoy.
>
> Yes, I bought a Canonet QL17 for that purpose, though never used it
> much and some other comparable cheap RF's of the same era might have
> been better choices.
Some of the old fixed lens rangefinders work quite well in low light. Also, if
you go somewhere with lots of drunk people, then risking a lesser camera is not
much of an issue. After denting one SLR for that reason, I started to question
doing much nightclub work, unless the situation was more controlled.
Roxy d'Urban
> You never know until you try. Nightclubs are tough environments. There are moving
> dance strobes that alter the lighting, often faster than you will see it.
> Autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast. With moving and changing
> lighting, the autofocus tends to continue moving as well. Manual focusing is one
> option, and another is zone focusing. Sometimes a combination of both works well.
> Also, people do not always like having a focus assist light suddenly appear on
> their body.
This is true. Also, the smoke from those machines affects AF quite
adversely.
> There are the obvious posed portraits that can happen with flash. However, when
> you want to catch some action, slow shutter speeds and manual focus can go a ways
> to capture the excitement of a club. These would not be technically great images,
> since lots of motion would occur, and even some softness would appear in many
> images.
Interestingly I have a Leica M6 TTL brochure and one or two of the photos
in it are of nightclub action.
> Nightclubs are often very dark, and I would be surprised if ISO 1600 worked much.
> I more commonly shot at ISO 2000 to 2500, and sometimes at ISO 6400. Few films
> choices for Dallas in that realm. I would think that the 35 mm f1.4 would be a
> good choice, but people shots mean getting within arms length. I don't agree with
> rangefinders being the best solution, though it can help to have that continuous
> view through the viewfinder. A well balanced SLR with very short shutter release
> timing could work well with the proper techniques.
This is a bit of a problem for me because it's very difficult to find
films that are faster than 800 around here. I am going to have to try
pushing some films a couple of stops. Any suggestions?
Paul Rubin
> > 1600 worked much. I more commonly shot at ISO 2000 to 2500, and
> This is a bit of a problem for me because it's very difficult to find
> films that are faster than 800 around here. I am going to have to try
> pushing some films a couple of stops. Any suggestions?
TMZ (T-max 3200) used to be the standard choice. Neopan 1600 was
another possibility, and some people pushed Tri-X to ridiculous
speeds. Is there something better now?
I never really felt rangefinder focusing in low light was that much
easier than manual SLR focusing. Although, I haven't used
rangefinders that much. A lightweight SLR (e.g. Nikon FG20) weighs
less than an M6 as well. The Leica is quieter, of course.
Matt Clara
with a 1.6 crop factor digi--but that's besides the point. The 17-35
is markedly sharper than the 18-70, particularly wide open, not to
mention a stop faster. But if all you're going to use it on is a D70,
then the chip is unlikely to resolve more detail from the one to the
other, and the 18-70 is a very good lens at a very reasonable price.
Gordon Moat
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:28:18 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > You never know until you try. Nightclubs are tough environments. There are moving
> > dance strobes that alter the lighting, often faster than you will see it.
> > Autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast. With moving and changing
> > lighting, the autofocus tends to continue moving as well. Manual focusing is one
> > option, and another is zone focusing. Sometimes a combination of both works well.
> > Also, people do not always like having a focus assist light suddenly appear on
> > their body.
>
> This is true. Also, the smoke from those machines affects AF quite
> adversely.
>
> > There are the obvious posed portraits that can happen with flash. However, when
> > you want to catch some action, slow shutter speeds and manual focus can go a ways
> > to capture the excitement of a club. These would not be technically great images,
> > since lots of motion would occur, and even some softness would appear in many
> > images.
>
> Interestingly I have a Leica M6 TTL brochure and one or two of the photos
> in it are of nightclub action.
I think a good SLR with bright viewfinder should work well, though there is a slightly
different way of working with a rangefinder. The continuous view of your subject
changes the way you capture images. While it only made a slight difference in
nightclub photography, it had a great affect on stage photography. Leica understand
why photographers use these cameras, even if they seem to have lost touch with some
professionals recently. It is very sad that the collectors had so much influence on
the cameras, and I hope the latest CEO gets back to the core competencies of Leica.
>
>
> > Nightclubs are often very dark, and I would be surprised if ISO 1600 worked much.
> > I more commonly shot at ISO 2000 to 2500, and sometimes at ISO 6400. Few films
> > choices for Dallas in that realm. I would think that the 35 mm f1.4 would be a
> > good choice, but people shots mean getting within arms length. I don't agree with
> > rangefinders being the best solution, though it can help to have that continuous
> > view through the viewfinder. A well balanced SLR with very short shutter release
> > timing could work well with the proper techniques.
>
> This is a bit of a problem for me because it's very difficult to find
> films that are faster than 800 around here. I am going to have to try
> pushing some films a couple of stops. Any suggestions?
The Kodak rep just told me that Portra 800 was reformulated. Then he gave me a few
rolls to try out under low light conditions. Apparently a push two setting can be
used, giving you a working setting of ISO 3200. I have not tried this yet, though I
was not that happy with it last year (prior to film changes). My guess is that it
should be better than Ektachrome P1600 at ISO 3200. Obviously, you have to ask your
lab about push processing negative films. Some labs will not do that, and try to tell
you that it is fine to just normal process and correct in printing . . . doing that
will ruin your shots under these conditions. Anyway, I am not a fan of negative films,
except B/W films.
Forget about P1600, since the pricing is at crazy levels. Much better is Ektachrome
E200 (not EliteChrome). I have developed some far settings allowing ISO 2000 or ISO
2500 working settings, though a great deal of compensation is needed. The bad thing is
that E200 does not work as a linear push. if you want some settings to try, e-mail me
off group.
You could also use Fuji Provia 400F, and push your settings to ISO 1600. The Fuji reps
claimed that you could use settings of ISO 3200 as well, though it was suggested to
figure out the exposure compensation first. I have not tried that yet, though I hope
to test that.
With B/W films, you can use Kodak TMX400 at ISO 1600 settings, and it is slightly
better than Ilford Delta 3200. Of course, Ilford Delta 3200 could allow working
settings of ISO 6400, though you need to be careful which developer you use. You can
also use Kodak TriX at higher ISO settings, but I think TMX400 is better.
The weird option is Kodak Ektachrome 320T, which is a tungsten film. The images under
dance strobes will be a little more blue than using E200. The grain is much more
noticeable than with E200. This film is almost a linear push to settings of ISO 1250,
but needs compensation beyond that working setting.
What specific films do you have locally? Will your main lab push negative films? How
are prices for E-6 push processing? Hopefully I can help you find some choices that
work.
Paul Rubin
> With B/W films, you can use Kodak TMX400 at ISO 1600 settings, and
> it is slightly better than Ilford Delta 3200. Of course, Ilford
> Delta 3200 could allow working settings of ISO 6400, though you need
> to be careful which developer you use. You can also use Kodak TriX
> at higher ISO settings, but I think TMX400 is better.
What happened to TMZ3200? It's been a while since I did any shooting
like this. I love shooting in that kind of environment but I've never
liked any color shots I've taken because the lighting in those places
tends to be so orange. Black and white has given much better looking
shots. With TMZ3200 at 3200 processed with the T-max developer per
directions, grain hasn't been too bad but contrast was awfully low.
Matt Clara
Yes. I undoubtedly have undue faith in my 17-35mm lens, though it is faster
and sharper wide open.
Tony Polson
>That's the point of my question. I have enough Nikon's with neutral to
>bad bokeh without putting money down on lenses that aren't any better
>in any regard, and every time I look at Leica used or new I say out
>loud, I'll never own a Leica (I can't justify the expenditure).
You might be surprised how reasonable Leica prices are if you avoid
the latest gear. If you also choose those focal lengths (and maximum
apertures) that sell at lower prices, you can probably assemble a good
Leica outfit for a lot less than you might think.
For example, choose 50mm f/2 or f/2.8 instead of 35mm f/2 and you will
pay less than half the price of the latter. Choose a 90mm f/4 Elmar-C
instead of a 90mm f/4 Summicron and pay much less than half. Or
choose a 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit for just over half the price of the
Summicron. Instead of the 21mm or 24mm f/2.8 ASPH, choose a 28mm
f/2.8 Elmarit and save a small fortune.
In bodies, forget the M7 and M6TTL and choose an M4-P, M4-2, M4 or M2
instead. Avoid the M3 which is a beautiful camera, a true classic,
but overpriced in most markets compared to these bodies. Even the M6
(without TTL flash metering but still with the truly superb TTL
ambient metering) is selling for about half the price of a used M7.
>Lately
>I've been eyeballing a used Contax slr with the Carl Zeiss
>lenses--still not cheap.
Me too. I was agonising over an RX with 25mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses
but Pentax won - for reasonable used prices and much better service
back-up here in the UK, where Contax service for working photographers
was a complete joke. Contax UK have now been liquidated so things can
only improve. <g>
>Still, at the price, the 12mm is tempting.
>I've a 17-35 afs, so the 15mm doesn't tempt me.
It is worth buying a new or used Voigtländer Bessa L or Bessa T to go
with the 12mm lens, even if you never buy another LTM or M bayonet
lens for the rest of your life. The Bessa L and T bodies are
available at silly low prices, and they are perfectly adequate for
those lenses that are used only with accessory viewfinders.
Tony Polson
>
>Nikon has been paying more attention to this issue in recent years.
If by "more" you mean minimal, instead of zero, you would be about
right. Nikon's "paying attention to bokeh" seems to be limited to
providing iris diaphragm openings that are formed with curved blades,
and maybe more blades rather than less.
But that doesn't alter the bokeh, which can only be done by changing
the optical design. All it does is alter the shape of the
out-of-focus highlights. The lenses still suffer from unpleasant
bright ring bokeh whether the highlights are perfectly round, or are
formed by a series of tangents, being the straight edges of the iris
diaphragm blades. Perhaps Nikon's optical designers think that
perfectly round bright rings are acceptable. I don't.
Of course there are two exceptions, the 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC
Nikkors, whose designers took bokeh so seriously that they allowed you
to alter it while looking through the viewfinder ...
;-)
Tony Polson
>I have PS Elements. I'm sure I can't do everything, but can I do all that
>I want?
Only you know what you want.
>Also, and this is a stupid question, what do the different viewfinder
>decimal point values mean. I doubt that I will be in the market for a
>Leica, but I would like to keep track of who is who, and who is right.
If you are unlikely to be in the market for a Leica, I suggest you
don't waste any more of your valuable time worrying about viewfinder
magnifications. Surely your time would be much better spent learning
how to apply bokeh in Photoshop.
;-)
Tony Polson
>Funny that you would like the older lens at all over the newer version. I have been
>mostly in favour of the older lenses in most focal lengths, but after seeing some
>images from the latest 35 mm f2.0 ASPH, it changed my mind. The other Leica lenses
>are a different story . . . . . .
It's not funny at all. The majority of Leica users (as distinct from
Leica collectors or badge snobs) agree that the last pre-ASPH version
is by far the best choice for all round use. The ASPH version is
apparently a slow seller, and there are many almost new ASPH versions
for sale on eBay. The availability of late used pre-ASPH versions is
much lower, and they are fetching high prices - almost as much as the
ASPH versions, in spite of the ASPH version's much higher new price.
Perhaps your history as a Nikon user indicates why you would prefer
the ASPH. It has some of the key optical characteristics of a typical
Nikkor - overcorrected spherical aberration leading to great apparent
sharpness but a much harsher OOF rendition than the pre-ASPH.
My history as a Nikon user who rejected the brand (precisely because I
disliked some of the key optical characteristics of typical Nikkors)
probably indicates why I strongly prefer the last pre-ASPH version.
It is the same reason why I chose Pentax lenses over Nikkors - all the
Pentax lenses in my outfit render images closer to the "Leica Look"
than the results obtainable with typical Nikkors.
Of course there are some (atypical) Nikkors that have both excellent
sharpness and good to excellent OOF rendition. However, it was not
possible to make a complete Nikon outfit that suited my needs from
this limited selection of Nikkors, hence my choice of Pentax kit.
Alan Browne
> I have PS Elements. I'm sure I can't do everything, but can I do all that
> I want?
I use elements and I do everything I want to do. I doubt I use 5% of
its overall capability, however. It is fine for cropping, adjusting
size, color, hue, tone, brightness, etc., sharpening via USM filter,
etc., etc., etc. You can do somewhat sophisticated layer work (masking,
separations, etc.)
The 3.0 version has a "healing brush" which makes short work of doing
dust spotting (scans from prints, negatives, slides) removing blemishes,
etc. It (3.0) can also work with 16 bit/color files for some functions.
So do initial color/bright/contrast corrections at full size and at 16
bit prior to resizing and converting to 8 bit/color.
The 3.0 version also has a RAW importer, so best for digital cameras
that support it.
You might hang out at the photoshop newsgroup to get an inkling for what
PS CS can do v. Elements.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Funny that you would like the older lens at all over the newer version. I have been
> >mostly in favour of the older lenses in most focal lengths, but after seeing some
> >images from the latest 35 mm f2.0 ASPH, it changed my mind. The other Leica lenses
> >are a different story . . . . . .
>
> It's not funny at all. The majority of Leica users (as distinct from
> Leica collectors or badge snobs) agree that the last pre-ASPH version
> is by far the best choice for all round use. The ASPH version is
> apparently a slow seller,
Quite expensive for what you get.
> and there are many almost new ASPH versions
> for sale on eBay. The availability of late used pre-ASPH versions is
> much lower, and they are fetching high prices - almost as much as the
> ASPH versions, in spite of the ASPH version's much higher new price.
>
> Perhaps your history as a Nikon user indicates why you would prefer
> the ASPH. It has some of the key optical characteristics of a typical
> Nikkor - overcorrected spherical aberration leading to great apparent
> sharpness but a much harsher OOF rendition than the pre-ASPH.
Sure, that overcorrection works well on the 105 mm f2.5 AIS. Defocus only becomes harsh
if point light sources are in the defocus areas, in other words shooting into light
sources. I know it is not always possible to avoid that, but I have enough control of
most of my scenes to make that possible. Control of lighting will affect defocus
rendition, but you knew that.
>
>
> My history as a Nikon user who rejected the brand (precisely because I
> disliked some of the key optical characteristics of typical Nikkors)
> probably indicates why I strongly prefer the last pre-ASPH version.
I think you used many of the not so good lenses. While I have gone through some lenses,
I have a good collection at this moment from carefully picking and choosing. I think
the images that are available for viewing on my web site indicate the care I put into
my imaging, though seeing my images on exhibit, or in a publication, would be a greater
indicator.
>
> It is the same reason why I chose Pentax lenses over Nikkors - all the
> Pentax lenses in my outfit render images closer to the "Leica Look"
> than the results obtainable with typical Nikkors.
I barely ever mention it, but I made an early switch from Pentax and Leica to Leica and
Nikon. I liked the Pentax lenses, but I hated the camera bodies. As both of us know, if
the ergonomics are working for you, the shots just will not happen. The last few years
I have been more of a mix with medium format gear, than 35 mm, but better scanning gear
has me doing a little more 35 mm lately.
>
>
> Of course there are some (atypical) Nikkors that have both excellent
> sharpness and good to excellent OOF rendition.
It is hard to find those few, and tough to find a version in good condition. The 50 mm
f1.4 AIS is a perfect example of this, especially since I went through four of them
before finding a fifth one that I liked. Of course, you recall our many discussions on
this, and know that I am picky, and have chosen very carefully. I rented four of the
180 mm f2.8 lenses before I bought one of them from the rental house.
> However, it was not
> possible to make a complete Nikon outfit that suited my needs from
> this limited selection of Nikkors, hence my choice of Pentax kit.
>
Apparently, you use more lenses than I do. I have been considering simplifying my 35 mm
gear more. After using medium format a while, and having few lenses due to high costs,
I am finding some merit in having less gear. Doing a variety of work can dictate having
many prime lenses for 35 mm, though as I define my creative direction a bit more, I
find I use some of those lenses much more than others. I probably would not get rid of
an SLR system, but a rangefinder and a couple lenses is a compelling limitation.
Gordon Moat
I think you just stated it ". . . contrast was awfully low." The contrast
with the Ilford Delta 3200 was a bit better, though admittedly not by
much.
Colour film in nightclubs, especially dance clubs, actually works quite
well with little filtration. While the bar could appear more orange, the
dance strobes are near daylight in colour. Add in the usual gels the
clubs place over the lights, and the strobe colour will appear on the
film. Some care is still needed, and careful film choices.
David Dyer-Bennet
> The Kodak rep just told me that Portra 800 was reformulated. Then he
> gave me a few rolls to try out under low light
> conditions. Apparently a push two setting can be used, giving you a
> working setting of ISO 3200. I have not tried this yet, though I was
> not that happy with it last year (prior to film changes). My guess
> is that it should be better than Ektachrome P1600 at ISO
> 3200. Obviously, you have to ask your lab about push processing
> negative films. Some labs will not do that, and try to tell you that
> it is fine to just normal process and correct in printing
> . . . doing that will ruin your shots under these
> conditions. Anyway, I am not a fan of negative films, except B/W
> films.
>
> Forget about P1600, since the pricing is at crazy levels. Much
> better is Ektachrome E200 (not EliteChrome). I have developed some
> far settings allowing ISO 2000 or ISO 2500 working settings, though
> a great deal of compensation is needed. The bad thing is that E200
> does not work as a linear push. if you want some settings to try,
> e-mail me off group.
Interesting. That must take rather critically exact exposures to look
decent!
> You could also use Fuji Provia 400F, and push your settings to ISO
> 1600. The Fuji reps claimed that you could use settings of ISO 3200
> as well, though it was suggested to figure out the exposure
> compensation first. I have not tried that yet, though I hope to test
> that.
>
> With B/W films, you can use Kodak TMX400 at ISO 1600 settings, and
> it is slightly better than Ilford Delta 3200. Of course, Ilford
> Delta 3200 could allow working settings of ISO 6400, though you need
> to be careful which developer you use. You can also use Kodak TriX
> at higher ISO settings, but I think TMX400 is better.
I never developed TMX400 in my own darkroom (which I haven't bothered
to set up in this house), but with "what my lab does to it", the Delta
3200 produces much better results for me.
Some of my better old low-light pictures were on Tri-X developed in
HC110 replenisher, rated at EI 4000. High base fog, high curl level,
but printable and, it turns out, scannable too.
> The weird option is Kodak Ektachrome 320T, which is a tungsten
> film. The images under dance strobes will be a little more blue than
> using E200. The grain is much more noticeable than with E200. This
> film is almost a linear push to settings of ISO 1250, but needs
> compensation beyond that working setting.
One of my big problems with high-speed color film is that I
essentially always need it in tungsten, and they make it almost
entirely in daylight. I've shot some 3m 640T over the years, but
never got good at it; the rating was optimistic or I was too sloppy or
something.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Matt Clara" <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>That's the point of my question. I have enough Nikon's with neutral to
>>bad bokeh without putting money down on lenses that aren't any better
>>in any regard, and every time I look at Leica used or new I say out
>>loud, I'll never own a Leica (I can't justify the expenditure).
>
> You might be surprised how reasonable Leica prices are if you avoid
> the latest gear. If you also choose those focal lengths (and maximum
> apertures) that sell at lower prices, you can probably assemble a good
> Leica outfit for a lot less than you might think.
>
> For example, choose 50mm f/2 or f/2.8 instead of 35mm f/2 and you will
> pay less than half the price of the latter. Choose a 90mm f/4 Elmar-C
> instead of a 90mm f/4 Summicron and pay much less than half. Or
> choose a 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit for just over half the price of the
> Summicron. Instead of the 21mm or 24mm f/2.8 ASPH, choose a 28mm
> f/2.8 Elmarit and save a small fortune.
But, for me, that completely ruins the point of owning a Leica. Which
is to be able to shoot handheld in low-light conditions without
disturbing people. The 90mm Summicron was the big win of my buying an
M3, back when. (Then again, I got the M3 + 5cm Summicron collapsible
for $250 used, the 90mm Summicron for $360 new, and the 35mm Summicron
for $240 new; in the 1973-1975 timeframe. I think that's part of why
I haven't been able to seriously consider getting back into Leica,
before I saw the handwriting on the wall about film.)
> In bodies, forget the M7 and M6TTL and choose an M4-P, M4-2, M4 or
> M2 instead. Avoid the M3 which is a beautiful camera, a true
> classic, but overpriced in most markets compared to these bodies.
> Even the M6 (without TTL flash metering but still with the truly
> superb TTL ambient metering) is selling for about half the price of
> a used M7.
I think the M4-2 would be the perfect choice for me. I don't care
about the meter anyway. I liked the M3, but as you say, the damned
collectors have ruined that one. And, oh wow, it's much more than
twice as old now as it would be when I got my first one. Excuse me,
I'll dodder off now!
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> > The Kodak rep just told me that Portra 800 was reformulated. Then he
> > gave me a few rolls to try out under low light
> > conditions. Apparently a push two setting can be used, giving you a
> > working setting of ISO 3200. I have not tried this yet, though I was
> > not that happy with it last year (prior to film changes). My guess
> > is that it should be better than Ektachrome P1600 at ISO
> > 3200. Obviously, you have to ask your lab about push processing
> > negative films. Some labs will not do that, and try to tell you that
> > it is fine to just normal process and correct in printing
> > . . . doing that will ruin your shots under these
> > conditions. Anyway, I am not a fan of negative films, except B/W
> > films.
> >
> > Forget about P1600, since the pricing is at crazy levels. Much
> > better is Ektachrome E200 (not EliteChrome). I have developed some
> > far settings allowing ISO 2000 or ISO 2500 working settings, though
> > a great deal of compensation is needed. The bad thing is that E200
> > does not work as a linear push. if you want some settings to try,
> > e-mail me off group.
>
> Interesting. That must take rather critically exact exposures to look
> decent!
There is about 1/3 to 1/6 stop accuracy needed. With the lights constantly
changing, the exposure will also vary a bit. I tried using an aperture priority
set-up, and shooting full manual settings based on my Sekonic readings. After a
few tries at this, you find settings that work, meaning that you could use manual
settings. However, the aperture priority was easier. Lots of examples here:
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/Strobe02/>
and
<http://www.bigtimeoperator.com/Jazz2003/> all files with "E200" in the name are
pushed Kodak E200. This is also a good location for comparison, since the files
with "P800" in the name are Kodak P1600.
>
>
> > You could also use Fuji Provia 400F, and push your settings to ISO
> > 1600. The Fuji reps claimed that you could use settings of ISO 3200
> > as well, though it was suggested to figure out the exposure
> > compensation first. I have not tried that yet, though I hope to test
> > that.
> >
> > With B/W films, you can use Kodak TMX400 at ISO 1600 settings, and
> > it is slightly better than Ilford Delta 3200. Of course, Ilford
> > Delta 3200 could allow working settings of ISO 6400, though you need
> > to be careful which developer you use. You can also use Kodak TriX
> > at higher ISO settings, but I think TMX400 is better.
>
> I never developed TMX400 in my own darkroom (which I haven't bothered
> to set up in this house), but with "what my lab does to it", the Delta
> 3200 produces much better results for me.
>
> Some of my better old low-light pictures were on Tri-X developed in
> HC110 replenisher, rated at EI 4000. High base fog, high curl level,
> but printable and, it turns out, scannable too.
I haven't tried to use TriX that far up on ISO settings. The results are
predictable from TMX400 and Delta 3200, so I never experimented further.
>
>
> > The weird option is Kodak Ektachrome 320T, which is a tungsten
> > film. The images under dance strobes will be a little more blue than
> > using E200. The grain is much more noticeable than with E200. This
> > film is almost a linear push to settings of ISO 1250, but needs
> > compensation beyond that working setting.
>
> One of my big problems with high-speed color film is that I
> essentially always need it in tungsten, and they make it almost
> entirely in daylight. I've shot some 3m 640T over the years, but
> never got good at it; the rating was optimistic or I was too sloppy or
> something.
The biggest problem I found with the Tungsten films was that they did not scan
well. The exception is 64T, but you cannot push it more than two stops. Your other
choice is blue filtration. What I found was that usually an 80A was too strong a
blue. It was often better to use a slightly less strong blue filter, which helps
skin tones.
Paul Rubin
> I haven't tried to use TriX that far up [4000] on ISO settings. The
> results are predictable from TMX400 and Delta 3200, so I never
> experimented further.
Anyone remember Diafine?
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> writes:
>> > Forget about P1600, since the pricing is at crazy levels. Much
>> > better is Ektachrome E200 (not EliteChrome). I have developed some
>> > far settings allowing ISO 2000 or ISO 2500 working settings, though
>> > a great deal of compensation is needed. The bad thing is that E200
>> > does not work as a linear push. if you want some settings to try,
>> > e-mail me off group.
>>
>> Interesting. That must take rather critically exact exposures to look
>> decent!
>
> There is about 1/3 to 1/6 stop accuracy needed. With the lights
> constantly changing, the exposure will also vary a bit. I tried
> using an aperture priority set-up, and shooting full manual settings
> based on my Sekonic readings. After a few tries at this, you find
> settings that work, meaning that you could use manual
> settings. However, the aperture priority was easier. Lots of
> examples here:
>
> <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/Strobe02/>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.bigtimeoperator.com/Jazz2003/> all files with "E200" in
> the name are pushed Kodak E200. This is also a good location for
> comparison, since the files with "P800" in the name are Kodak P1600.
Thanks. The "strobe02" batch have a very strange look, which
apparently was based more on the lighting than the film, since the
other set doesn't have it at all. Some actual posterization, too, I
think.
>> > You could also use Fuji Provia 400F, and push your settings to ISO
>> > 1600. The Fuji reps claimed that you could use settings of ISO 3200
>> > as well, though it was suggested to figure out the exposure
>> > compensation first. I have not tried that yet, though I hope to test
>> > that.
>> >
>> > With B/W films, you can use Kodak TMX400 at ISO 1600 settings, and
>> > it is slightly better than Ilford Delta 3200. Of course, Ilford
>> > Delta 3200 could allow working settings of ISO 6400, though you need
>> > to be careful which developer you use. You can also use Kodak TriX
>> > at higher ISO settings, but I think TMX400 is better.
>>
>> I never developed TMX400 in my own darkroom (which I haven't bothered
>> to set up in this house), but with "what my lab does to it", the Delta
>> 3200 produces much better results for me.
>>
>> Some of my better old low-light pictures were on Tri-X developed in
>> HC110 replenisher, rated at EI 4000. High base fog, high curl level,
>> but printable and, it turns out, scannable too.
>
> I haven't tried to use TriX that far up on ISO settings. The results are
> predictable from TMX400 and Delta 3200, so I never experimented further.
Makes sense; when I did it, TMX and Delta 3200 didn't exist yet (at
least when I *started* doing it; I may have continued the practice
past the appearance of more modern materials). I don't seem to have
any examples scanned and online, though.
>> > The weird option is Kodak Ektachrome 320T, which is a tungsten
>> > film. The images under dance strobes will be a little more blue than
>> > using E200. The grain is much more noticeable than with E200. This
>> > film is almost a linear push to settings of ISO 1250, but needs
>> > compensation beyond that working setting.
>>
>> One of my big problems with high-speed color film is that I
>> essentially always need it in tungsten, and they make it almost
>> entirely in daylight. I've shot some 3m 640T over the years, but
>> never got good at it; the rating was optimistic or I was too sloppy or
>> something.
>
> The biggest problem I found with the Tungsten films was that they
> did not scan well. The exception is 64T, but you cannot push it more
> than two stops. Your other choice is blue filtration. What I found
> was that usually an 80A was too strong a blue. It was often better
> to use a slightly less strong blue filter, which helps skin tones.
Interesting, I'd been wondering about a weaker blue filter for
tungsten light. Even with a digital camera it's not *completely*
irrelevant.
This is probably another reason I've gone so thoroughly digital -- it
handles artificial light so much better.
David Dyer-Bennet
Probably a missed opportunity for me.
I used Acufine a lot, and for quite a while Autofine (regular speed,
replenishable) was my normal develope for Plus-X and Tri-X.
But I never really got on well with Diafine, for whatever reason.
Probably something in my exposure or processing; I've seen enough good
examples that I think whatever was wrong was me somehow.
Roxy d'Urban
Thanks Gordon, I will have to get back to you on a lot of this. I haven't
used the local pro lab in a long time and I don't know what they stock
w.r.t. fast films. I doubt I would be using tranny on a first time out
with the M6, so I will in all likelihood try a neg. The lab I speak of
does do push processing (at a premium). Sadly they don't offer traditional
B&W anymore because of a lack of demand - can you believe that? Some of my
favourite pictures from thegreats have all been done in Tri-X and I can't
get that film here either.
--
"My beef about digital is that you see certain images out
there, and things are so digital and retouched that you lose
the person in the process - lose the rawness and the
touchability because it is just too perfect." ~ Tony Duran
Gordon Moat
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:52:55 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:
> . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> > What specific films do you have locally? Will your main lab push negative films? How
> > are prices for E-6 push processing? Hopefully I can help you find some choices that
> > work.
>
> Thanks Gordon, I will have to get back to you on a lot of this. I haven't
> used the local pro lab in a long time and I don't know what they stock
> w.r.t. fast films. I doubt I would be using tranny on a first time out
> with the M6, so I will in all likelihood try a neg. The lab I speak of
> does do push processing (at a premium). Sadly they don't offer traditional
> B&W anymore because of a lack of demand - can you believe that? Some of my
> favourite pictures from thegreats have all been done in Tri-X and I can't
> get that film here either.
Wow . . . that sucks! While I don't shoot much B/W compared to transparency films, I still
get requests for it on some music shoots. It is a good thing that doing your own processing
is fairly easy, though I never liked developing negatives. Best of luck.
Roxy d'Urban
> Wow . . . that sucks! While I don't shoot much B/W compared to transparency films, I still
> get requests for it on some music shoots. It is a good thing that doing your own processing
> is fairly easy, though I never liked developing negatives. Best of luck.
Yes, it does suck. I am thinking that I should start looking at developing
my own B&W too. I recently moved into a new home and there is a lot of
space for me to do this now.
Also need to look at getting a decent film scanner.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:07:45 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>> Wow . . . that sucks! While I don't shoot much B/W compared to transparency films, I still
>> get requests for it on some music shoots. It is a good thing that doing your own processing
>> is fairly easy, though I never liked developing negatives. Best of luck.
>
> Yes, it does suck. I am thinking that I should start looking at developing
> my own B&W too. I recently moved into a new home and there is a lot of
> space for me to do this now.
If you're going to shoot B&W, then it's definitely worth developing it
yourself. Real B&W, not the C41 B&W that Ilford (XP2) and now Kodak
have. Real B&W *doesn't* need the .1 degree temp control, and *does*
give you a lot of useful ability to control the results with time,
dilution, agitation, and developer changes.
I mostly used D76, with some HC110. I used Acufine to push a little.
Agfa Rodinal has a cult following, as does Diafine, and I'm sure it's
worth learning what those can do (I used both, but neither became a
standard for me).
(Nothing against the C41 B&W, just that there doesn't to me seem to be
much benefit to developing that yourself.)
> Also need to look at getting a decent film scanner.
And if you're going to do digital printing from B&W, look at quadtone
inkjet printing.
Paul Rubin
> I mostly used D76, with some HC110. I used Acufine to push a little.
> Agfa Rodinal has a cult following, as does Diafine, and I'm sure it's
> worth learning what those can do (I used both, but neither became a
> standard for me).
Rodinal was great for low speeds but Acufine/Diafine were for pushing.
Do you remember Perfection? I never used it but heard good things
about it.
Much as I hate to say it, low light black-and-white shooting is
another area where digital will kill film, if someone starts making
monochrome high-speed digicams. CCD's are simply much more efficient
than film at recording low numbers of photons, which is why
astronomers use them in telescopes.
The closest camera to this so far, though, has been the Kodak
DCS-660M, a huge, F5-based tank that cost around $15,000 before it was
discontinued. I like to think there should be a version in the D70
price class. It could be made today and would record cleaner
monochrome images at EI 6400 than any 35mm film can.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>> I mostly used D76, with some HC110. I used Acufine to push a little.
>> Agfa Rodinal has a cult following, as does Diafine, and I'm sure it's
>> worth learning what those can do (I used both, but neither became a
>> standard for me).
>
> Rodinal was great for low speeds but Acufine/Diafine were for pushing.
Yep.
Well, Rodinal gave recipes for everything. People used it for Tri-X a
lot, but more for rated speed than pushing, as I recall.
> Do you remember Perfection? I never used it but heard good things
> about it.
No, I don't. Who made that? Oh, wait, do you mean Perfection XR-1?
Then I still don't think I used it, but I *have* heard of it.
> Much as I hate to say it, low light black-and-white shooting is
> another area where digital will kill film, if someone starts making
> monochrome high-speed digicams. CCD's are simply much more
> efficient than film at recording low numbers of photons, which is
> why astronomers use them in telescopes.
Yep.
However, compensating developers and such may handle brightness ranges
more usefully than non-cryogenic CCDs for a while yet.
> The closest camera to this so far, though, has been the Kodak
> DCS-660M, a huge, F5-based tank that cost around $15,000 before it was
> discontinued. I like to think there should be a version in the D70
> price class. It could be made today and would record cleaner
> monochrome images at EI 6400 than any 35mm film can.
I can't find a record of an Ebay transaction on one, either. So
either they've all died, or there were only 15 made...or everybody who
has one is *keeping* it. (The color version seems to go for around
$1000 still).
I'd love a monochrome body option. I also want the IR-blocking filter
removable, then. So much higher B&W sensitivity and *MUCH* higher IR
sensitivity when wanted. (And probably slightly higher monochrome
*resolution*, too, as measured by photographing charts instead of just
counting pixels).
Pat OBrien via PhotoKB.com
most by reading your posts. I've been saving them so as to print them up
and carry them around with me. So, I figure that if a topic is worthy of
your wisdom than it must be worthy of my full attention. PhotoShop seems
more like work than fun, but I'll persevere. I'm sorry that I snuck off to
the Leica page and found some info on their viewfinders.
--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Tony Polson
>> Perhaps your history as a Nikon user indicates why you would prefer
>> the ASPH. It has some of the key optical characteristics of a typical
>> Nikkor - overcorrected spherical aberration leading to great apparent
>> sharpness but a much harsher OOF rendition than the pre-ASPH.
>
>Sure, that overcorrection works well on the 105 mm f2.5 AIS. Defocus only becomes harsh
>if point light sources are in the defocus areas, in other words shooting into light
>sources.
It is not over-corrected, and that is very well known. The basic
optical design of the 105mm f/2.5 dates from a period long before
"optimising" lens designs for ever higher MTF became fashionable.
That is probably the reason why it performs so well. ;-)
>I know it is not always possible to avoid that, but I have enough control of
>most of my scenes to make that possible. Control of lighting will affect defocus
>rendition, but you knew that.
In my work I frequently have little, or no control over lighting, or
the nature of the background. In the real world, always being in
control of lighting and backgrounds is not realistically achievable,
hence the importance of selecting optics that cope well with adverse
lighting and difficult backgrounds.
>> My history as a Nikon user who rejected the brand (precisely because I
>> disliked some of the key optical characteristics of typical Nikkors)
>> probably indicates why I strongly prefer the last pre-ASPH version.
>
>I think you used many of the not so good lenses.
On the contrary, I mostly used the best Nikkors, having tried a great
many. The problem is that, while there are some optically outstanding
lenses in the Nikon range, there are not enough of them with the
characteristics I seek to cover the focal lengths I use. There is a
particular weakness in the 35mm focal length, where other lens
manufacturers seem to be able to produce some very fine optics, alas
not Nikon.
>While I have gone through some lenses,
>I have a good collection at this moment from carefully picking and choosing. I think
>the images that are available for viewing on my web site indicate the care I put into
>my imaging, though seeing my images on exhibit, or in a publication, would be a greater
>indicator.
I don't think web sites say very much about anyone's imaging. Your
postings here say rather more about you, in particular that you so
appear to pay great attention to detail in many areas.
Perhaps one day we will be able to buy monitors with a resolution that
does justice to our work. However, as long as we are limited to
displays of less than 2 megapixels, web sites will be (at best) only
very poor indicators of what we can achieve.
Roxy d'Urban
> I don't think web sites say very much about anyone's imaging. Your
> postings here say rather more about you, in particular that you so
> appear to pay great attention to detail in many areas.
>
> Perhaps one day we will be able to buy monitors with a resolution that
> does justice to our work. However, as long as we are limited to
> displays of less than 2 megapixels, web sites will be (at best) only
> very poor indicators of what we can achieve.
Here's a serious question:
Is photography about the detail or the composition or a good measure of
both?
--
"I have discovered photography, now I can kill myself"
~ Pablo Picasso
Gordon Moat
Nice to hear fro you again.
Tony Polson wrote:
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps your history as a Nikon user indicates why you would prefer
> >> the ASPH. It has some of the key optical characteristics of a typical
> >> Nikkor - overcorrected spherical aberration leading to great apparent
> >> sharpness but a much harsher OOF rendition than the pre-ASPH.
> >
> >Sure, that overcorrection works well on the 105 mm f2.5 AIS. Defocus only becomes harsh
> >if point light sources are in the defocus areas, in other words shooting into light
> >sources.
>
> It is not over-corrected, and that is very well known. The basic
> optical design of the 105mm f/2.5 dates from a period long before
> "optimising" lens designs for ever higher MTF became fashionable.
>
> That is probably the reason why it performs so well. ;-)
There is a nice article on the 105 mm f2.5 at:
<http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n05_e.htm>
There is a mention of a switch in design from the previous 105 mm, from Sonnar type to a
Xenotar type. This is credited with improving aberration and coma, especially at close
ranges. As we both know, MTF charts rarely show close range performance; indeed, this lens
is not as good at infinity.
>
>
> >I know it is not always possible to avoid that, but I have enough control of
> >most of my scenes to make that possible. Control of lighting will affect defocus
> >rendition, but you knew that.
>
> In my work I frequently have little, or no control over lighting, or
> the nature of the background. In the real world, always being in
> control of lighting and backgrounds is not realistically achievable,
> hence the importance of selecting optics that cope well with adverse
> lighting and difficult backgrounds.
>
> >> My history as a Nikon user who rejected the brand (precisely because I
> >> disliked some of the key optical characteristics of typical Nikkors)
> >> probably indicates why I strongly prefer the last pre-ASPH version.
> >
> >I think you used many of the not so good lenses.
>
> On the contrary, I mostly used the best Nikkors, having tried a great
> many. The problem is that, while there are some optically outstanding
> lenses in the Nikon range, there are not enough of them with the
> characteristics I seek to cover the focal lengths I use. There is a
> particular weakness in the 35mm focal length, where other lens
> manufacturers seem to be able to produce some very fine optics, alas
> not Nikon.
Okay, I will agree with you on the 35 mm. The best one I have found is the f2.8 shift lens.
Unfortunately, it is not user friendly for normal (unshifted) photography, even when only
used at f2.8. The f1.4 is good under low light conditions, but expensive enough that other
companies lenses start to make more sense.
>
>
> >While I have gone through some lenses,
> >I have a good collection at this moment from carefully picking and choosing. I think
> >the images that are available for viewing on my web site indicate the care I put into
> >my imaging, though seeing my images on exhibit, or in a publication, would be a greater
> >indicator.
>
> I don't think web sites say very much about anyone's imaging. Your
> postings here say rather more about you, in particular that you so
> appear to pay great attention to detail in many areas.
>
> Perhaps one day we will be able to buy monitors with a resolution that
> does justice to our work. However, as long as we are limited to
> displays of less than 2 megapixels, web sites will be (at best) only
> very poor indicators of what we can achieve.
True, we are limited by our monitors. Shame that you cannot see some of my work in print,
though perhaps I will make it to exhibiting in the UK in the future. Nice talking to you
again.
Gordon Moat
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 09:48:56 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>
> > I don't think web sites say very much about anyone's imaging. Your
> > postings here say rather more about you, in particular that you so
> > appear to pay great attention to detail in many areas.
> >
> > Perhaps one day we will be able to buy monitors with a resolution that
> > does justice to our work. However, as long as we are limited to
> > displays of less than 2 megapixels, web sites will be (at best) only
> > very poor indicators of what we can achieve.
>
> Here's a serious question:
>
> Is photography about the detail or the composition or a good measure of
> both?
I come from a fine art background, specifically oil painting. With that in
mind, my opinion is that it is solely composition. There are a group of
individuals, some of whom call themselves "pictorialists", that place more
importance on the level of detail, but I am not one of them.
My reply to Tony about my website was to give an indication of composition.
Considering how variable and poor most monitors are (compared to prints) in
rendering details, a website gives more of an idea of composition than any
other qualities of the images. The funny thing is that the compositions,
and the creative ideas behind them, are what will get you work.
Tony Polson
>Good morning Tony,
>
>Nice to hear fro you again.
Sorry about the delay in replying, Gordon. I was in Devon and
Cornwall for a few days including shooting a wedding. Thankfully, the
weather was excellent and the outdoor shots worked particularly well.
>> >Sure, that overcorrection works well on the 105 mm f2.5 AIS. Defocus only becomes harsh
>> >if point light sources are in the defocus areas, in other words shooting into light
>> >sources.
>>
>> It is not over-corrected, and that is very well known. The basic
>> optical design of the 105mm f/2.5 dates from a period long before
>> "optimising" lens designs for ever higher MTF became fashionable.
>>
>> That is probably the reason why it performs so well. ;-)
>
>There is a nice article on the 105 mm f2.5 at:
>
><http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n05_e.htm>
>
>There is a mention of a switch in design from the previous 105 mm, from Sonnar type to a
>Xenotar type. This is credited with improving aberration and coma, especially at close
>ranges. As we both know, MTF charts rarely show close range performance; indeed, this lens
>is not as good at infinity.
Here is an interesting sentence from that article:
"The Xenotar-type lens design with the ideal aberration correction
made it the perfect lens for portraits."
The key words are "the ideal aberration correction" - ideal meaning
that it is *not* over-corrected. ;-)
>> On the contrary, I mostly used the best Nikkors, having tried a great
>> many. The problem is that, while there are some optically outstanding
>> lenses in the Nikon range, there are not enough of them with the
>> characteristics I seek to cover the focal lengths I use. There is a
>> particular weakness in the 35mm focal length, where other lens
>> manufacturers seem to be able to produce some very fine optics, alas
>> not Nikon.
>
>Okay, I will agree with you on the 35 mm. The best one I have found is the f2.8 shift lens.
>Unfortunately, it is not user friendly for normal (unshifted) photography, even when only
>used at f2.8. The f1.4 is good under low light conditions, but expensive enough that other
>companies lenses start to make more sense.
The f/1.4 has unpleasant OOF rendition. My final attempt to continue
using Nikon equipment included using a 35mm f/1.4 AI. Sharpness was
good, and the lens had an interesting rendition all of its own, but
the bokeh was ultimately not acceptable to me. The improvement gained
from using an SMC Pentax K 35mm f/2 was substantial.
The further improvement from using a Leica 35mm f/2 (last pre-ASPH
Summicron) is less, except when both lenses are used wide open or
stopped down by up to 2 stops, when the Summicron is clearly sharper.
From f/5.6 to f/16, there is little to choose between them.
I use the 35mm focal length for a high proportion of my work on 35mm
film - probably 60-65% of the shots I keep. The optical performance
of my 35mm lens is therefore of paramount importance, and no Nikkor is
good enough, except possibly the 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor, but as you say,
that lens is not best suited to everyday use. A pity, because it is
optically a superb performer, as is its 28mm sibling. I now use a
28mm PC Super-Angulon which is optically no better despite costing
rather more.
I had some very satisfactory results from the long end of a 20-35mm
f/2.8 AF Nikkor, but the maximum aperture was too limiting.
Roxy d'Urban
> I come from a fine art background, specifically oil painting. With that in
> mind, my opinion is that it is solely composition. There are a group of
> individuals, some of whom call themselves "pictorialists", that place more
> importance on the level of detail, but I am not one of them.
>
> My reply to Tony about my website was to give an indication of composition.
> Considering how variable and poor most monitors are (compared to prints) in
> rendering details, a website gives more of an idea of composition than any
> other qualities of the images. The funny thing is that the compositions,
> and the creative ideas behind them, are what will get you work.
This echoes my opinion too.
Of course it does help to have the best possible equipment to accompany
the composition, but to state that the web is not a suitable place to
display one's work is a bit daft.
All the world's greatest photographers have websites and the pictures you
see on those sites, while dumbed down, are far from unpleasing.
Gordon Moat
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:59:03 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > I come from a fine art background, specifically oil painting. With that in
> > mind, my opinion is that it is solely composition. There are a group of
> > individuals, some of whom call themselves "pictorialists", that place more
> > importance on the level of detail, but I am not one of them.
> >
> > My reply to Tony about my website was to give an indication of composition.
> > Considering how variable and poor most monitors are (compared to prints) in
> > rendering details, a website gives more of an idea of composition than any
> > other qualities of the images. The funny thing is that the compositions,
> > and the creative ideas behind them, are what will get you work.
>
> This echoes my opinion too.
>
> Of course it does help to have the best possible equipment to accompany
> the composition, but to state that the web is not a suitable place to
> display one's work is a bit daft.
This was the common thinking up until quite recently. Most advertising and
publication creative directors, art buyers, photo editors and art directors
still want a physical "book" of sample images. One part of that request is due
to a desire to see how a prospective photographers images will print, since most
of these people are involved in having images printed. However, given the lack
of time many of these people now have, many of them are finding new talent by
looking at examples on the internet. Quite often that can lead to them asking a
photographer to send in a "book", but sometimes work can be directly generated
by viewing a web site of images.
The danger of showing on the internet is that you (as a photographer) must guess
at a range of display conditions, and somehow come up with images that still
work under variable viewing set-ups. The other problems that come up is the very
busy people viewing this work will not spend time downloading anything, which
basically means that you would be better off avoiding flash. Navigation is
another issue, with simpler being better, and your web interface should not
overshadow your images. It is tough to get it right, but worth the effort. Be
careful when developing a web presence, but be aware that it is becoming
increasingly necessary for a great deal of commercial work.
>
>
> All the world's greatest photographers have websites and the pictures you
> see on those sites, while dumbed down, are far from unpleasing.
Sure, but that does not make it any easier. The key is developing your own
unique look that best shows the styles and ranges of work that you can do. This
can often be more than you would place in a physical "book", and often might be
images not in your "book". Developing a good visual web presence can be tougher
than developing a portfolio.