Contax G1-Am I insane?
John Stafford
Marc David Miller <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:x2Pb5.78$w3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control, and
> that looks sexy. [...]
You want sexy, then carry your camera in your pants or something.
Sorry. I just don't get that sexy bit. Cameras are sexy?
John Stafford
McEowen <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000714224433...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> 1.) Non-slr cameras such as the G1 are not really ideal for filter use
Why, and what have I been missing for 35 years?
AJP
If you are happy with the quality of photos from and the convenience of your
Prego, and I own one so I am familiar with it, then the G1, G2 or Leica (I
own of these too) will be cumbersome. It will have the advantage of
technically superior optics and a faster F-stop. The Contax has auotfocus,
but has a fixed focal length lens which is limiting for causal tourist
snapshots and a separate flash unit.
Get an SLR if you want to take the next step up in picture making.
Marc David Miller
I am thinking of supplementing my trusty P&S-Rollei Prego 28-90 with
something more serious-a Contax G1.
I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control, and
that looks sexy. I feel that an SLR will be too cumbersome to travel with.
A Leica (or a G2) is WAY beyond my budget.
Any thoughts?
--
Marc David Miller, New York, NY
MarcDav...@msn.com
Marc David Miller
and the G2 is that the G1 has flash TTL metering from ASA 100-400, and the
G2 from ASA 100-800. Does this mean that I can't get accurate metering if
I'm using ASA 800 film?
Thanks!
--
Marc David Miller, New York, NY
MarcDav...@msn.com
Marc David Miller <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:x2Pb5.78$w3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
McEowen
that looks sexy. I feel that an SLR will be too cumbersome to travel with.
A Leica (or a G2) is WAY beyond my budget.
Any thoughts? >>
A couple . . .
1.) Non-slr cameras such as the G1 are not really ideal for filter use
2.) A used Leica wouldn't cost much more than a new G1
3.) You should read the Contax Users Page website before taking the plunge
rob...@my-deja.com
rangefinders, although polarising filters can be somewhat problematic,
because the viewfinder does not look through the taking lens.
Regardless of the relative costs of used Leicas and new G1s (an absurd
comparison,) the lenses for Leica Ms can cost more than a G1 with lens.
And finally, the G1 is an outstanding camera, but it has a few
limitations which are addressed in the G2. The lenses for the Gs are
astonishingly good, and when you see the results, you may never want to
use your Prego again.
In article <20000714224433...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony Polson
rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Hogwash! Of course you can use filters on the G1 and other
>rangefinders, although polarising filters can be somewhat problematic,
>because the viewfinder does not look through the taking lens.
>Regardless of the relative costs of used Leicas and new G1s (an absurd
>comparison,) the lenses for Leica Ms can cost more than a G1 with lens.
>And finally, the G1 is an outstanding camera, but it has a few
>limitations which are addressed in the G2. The lenses for the Gs are
>astonishingly good, and when you see the results, you may never want to
>use your Prego again.
I only recently sold my Leica M outfit and currently use Nikon FAs, an
F3 and a selection of Nikon's finest lenses.
I also own a Rollei Prego 28-90mm and can confirm that it has one of the
most sharp and contrasty lenses I have ever used, bar none. For a point
and shoot it is superb. For a zoom lens it is brilliant. For a zoom
with such a range of focal lengths it is outstanding.
Don't assume that all point and shoot cameras have mediocre lenses.
Without the limitations of a mirror box, lens manufacturers can achieve
greatness for far, far less money than you might think. And a good
point and shoot lens is *infinitely* better than most SLR "consumer
zooms".
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Harvey Mace
wrote:
>
>Marc David Miller <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:x2Pb5.78$w3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
>
>> I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control, and
>> that looks sexy. [...]
>
>You want sexy, then carry your camera in your pants or something.
>Sorry. I just don't get that sexy bit. Cameras are sexy?
Maybe your subjects are more likely to smile with a camera that looks
comical, don't know if any you mentioned are in that category though
>
McEowen
I guess I was mainly thinking polarizers. Also, if this fellas idea of filters
includes all of the so-called "creative" filter systems, he better off with an
slr so he can see the effect . . .
McEowen
comparison,) the lenses for Leica Ms can cost more than a G1 with lens. >>
Why is that an absurb comparison? For some of us, the two cameras, although
quite dissimilar seem to fill the same niche role, i.e.: the "quiet camera"
(which entails a lot more than just shutter noise).
It doesn't matter to me new or used -- just whether the tool does the job. The
AF, auto exposure and bells and whistles are just a different approach to
acheiving the first (and really most basic) end of photography -- the setting
of exposure and focus. For anyone who's been at photography for a couple of
decades or more those functions are nearly automatic anyway -- regardless of
camera controls. WHen it comes to the important thing -- making the photos both
cameras have a viewfinder as opposed to a ground glass. That's what makes them
both suitable for the niche -- not the operating controls.
As for the lenses I beg to differ: Have you priced the 24mm for the Contax G
lately? Or how about the fast lenses: the 35mm f 1.4, 50mm f 1.4 (or f 1.0),
the 75mm f 1.4 and 90mm f 2.0. Yeah, they are expensive for the Leica but
totally out of sight for the Contax. And I do mean out of sight -- literally.
You know, some people look beyond price to what it is they really need or want.
If all you care about is price then get an Olympus Stylus Epic and be done
with it. Sure that's an extreme example but that's the other end of the road
you go down when all you care about is cost.
What does the original poster need in a camera? What is he going to do with it?
What does he really want? Maybe the Leica is really the BEST choice for HIS
needs. Maybe it's not. Maybe the Contax G is. That's one reason I suggested he
read the Contax G pages. These are written by users and do a better job of
explaining the strengths and weaknesses than anything he's likely to read in
this newsgroup.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
The advantages of going to the Contax G system will be that the lenses
are faster and you'll have full manual control. You can buy lenses from
16mm to 90mm. The Zeiss lenses are probably a little sharper and better
corrected than the Schneider zoom as well, but the difference there will
likely be small; the speed is more significant. The ability to use
filters, lens hoods, etc is definitely worthwhile, just remember that
the filters which are a pain on non-SLR cameras are graduated types,
polarizers and close up lenses. What you'll be giving up is some of the
ease of use (no program mode, primarily), built-in camera functions
(intervalometer, for instance), the built-in flash convenience, and the
zoom lens (there is a 35-70 zoom for the Contax G system but it will not
work on the G1, only the G2).
It's something to consider. I think were I considering a major
improvement to the Rollei Prego 90, I'd go the extra bux and buy the G2
body instead of the G1 if I could manage it. The G2 has improved
focusing system performance, a better control layout and greater options
in fill flash and shutter speeds.
As to whether you should go to an SLR instead, and whether that would be
more cumbersome, it depends. If you take a look at the Contax Aria
you'll find that the Aria is as light and as small as a G1, you get
access to the superb Zeiss lens line, and overall SLRs are more flexible
than rangefinder cameras: they're more useful for close-up work, for
telephoto lenses, and easy to use with close-up lenses, polarizers and
graduated filters. The list of accessories is much greater, the price is
quite similar to the G1.
But there is a very different feel to working with an SLR compared to a
rangefinder camera. Only you can tell whether it suits you better. Find
a dealer and handle both for a while, see if you can get them to let you
take a short roll of pictures with each.
Enjoy making your decision! One thing you can rely upon is that with a
Contax G or Contax Aria, the Zeiss lenses will be on par with the
quality of your Rollei's Schneider.
best,
Godfrey
Marc David Miller wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am thinking of supplementing my trusty P&S-Rollei Prego 28-90 with
> something more serious-a Contax G1.
>
> I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control, and
> that looks sexy. I feel that an SLR will be too cumbersome to travel with.
> A Leica (or a G2) is WAY beyond my budget.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
rob...@my-deja.com
USED G1 vs an NEW Leica. And the cost of comparable lenses for the Ms
is generally much higher than for the Gs. I can't believe that someone
is actually contending that Leicas are an economical choice. True,
Leica offers far more lens options at this point in time, but most users
will limit themselves only to a basic few. The G lenses are of equal
quality and are much more affordable. Some of the supposedly "out of
sight" expensive Contax lenses mentioned in the last post do not even
exist in the G lineup. I think that the writer was misinformed and may
have been referring to Contax SLR lenses.
As for the ongoing debate about the relative merits of the Ms and the
Gs, I prefer not to get caught up in it. Both systems are capable of
producing fabulous images. The Gs offer automation and more advanced
technology at a much lower price. The Ms offer greater "involvement" in
the photographic process and a greater selection of lenses. The
prospective buyer has to know what his own wants and needs are before
embarking down either path, and he must constantly remind himself that
cameras are tools, not objects to be worshiped. Fortunately, the Contax
Gs have not yet become collectors items, as have the Leica Ms, which is
a major factor in their ridiculously high prices.
In article <20000715085625...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
rob...@my-deja.com
are more versatile, but they are also much heavier and more cumbersome
than the higher quality, fast prime lenses for the Gs. Believe me, I've
tried it both ways. I can carry my G2 on my shoulder all day without
the slightest sense of fatigue. I can also carry two or three other
lenses, flash and various paraphenalia in a small waist pack. Try that
with any SLR system.
I won't argue with people who feel that life is not worth living if they
can't have their zoom lenses. Doubtless, few of them have ever tried to
see photographically with a single focal length, and they have no idea
how creativity can blossom as a result. My travel photos became
immediatlely better when I switched from my Nikon system with zooms to
the G2, and I'm having much more fun too.
The same holds true for P&Ss, by the way. The quality of images from a
Minilux or T2, with their fixed focal lenses, will equal that of the
finest SLR lenses.
In article <cSRb5.122$UA6....@news.pacbell.net>,
McEowen
USED G1 vs an NEW Leica.>>
Because the relevent question is "I have X dollars to spend on a camera. How do
I spend it?" A used Leica M4-P or M4-2 is about the same as a new Contax. It's
a realistic dilemna a shooter might face.
<<And the cost of comparable lenses for the Ms
is generally much higher than for the Gs. I can't believe that someone
is actually contending that Leicas are an economical choice. >>
I don't believe anyone DID contend that Leicas are an economical choice. I
certainly didn't. What I did contend is that the Leica and Leica lenses might
actually be the system that best meets a particular shooters needs --
regardless of price. They might not, but they might. If the Contax doesn't fill
the bill then price is irrelevant
<<Some of the supposedly "out of
sight" expensive Contax lenses mentioned in the last post do not even
exist in the G lineup. I think that the writer was misinformed and may
have been referring to Contax SLR lenses. >>
Well, duh?! That was exactly the point. Contax offers no faster lenses than f
2.0 and apparently never will. That could be a pretty big factor if you NEED
fast lenses.
I'm not saying Leica is "better" than Contax. I'm not saying anyone should buy
Leica. All I'm saying is that a shooter needs to evaluate what his needs are
and which system meets those needs. Cost is just one factor in that
examination.
Ken
> ...stuff removed... The Ms offer greater "involvement" in
> the photographic process ...
Oh pulleeeezze . . . what nonsense.
Dwight L. Brown
I have a G1 with 45, 35, 90, and flash. Right now you can get a G1 body,
35mm and a flash (mine came with a 200, some are promising a 140) for about
$799 most places (I use B&H). This is a bargain compared to Leica. I do
not know anywhere you could get a clean M4 body for $800 bucks let alone a
lens. Leica's are fine cameras, and I have owned and used them. I think
however that the G1 is a more useful camera for me. The lenses are as good
as any and are very nicely made. I have used lots of SLRs and working with
a rangefinder is different. There are times and situations that people
would feel very uncomfortable with my EOS1n w/28-135 USM stuck in their
face, but are fine with the Contax. The SLR on the other hand is good for
lots of other things. The good part is that this does not have to be your
last camera, and you can get other stuff later on. Who knows, you may end
up working best with an 8x10 view camera!!!
Have Fun,
Dwight
"Marc David Miller" <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:x2Pb5.78$w3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
danebr...@hotmail.com
mce...@aol.com (McEowen) wrote:
>You know, some people look beyond price to what it is they really need or want.
>If all you care about is price then get an Olympus Stylus Epic and be done
>with it.
As someone who just bought a G1 and am happy as a clam with it, I can
say that's not true. Price was certainly a consideration in that I was
able to get a boatload of quality for a reasonable sum.
There's no shame in saving money if the gear will do the job for you,
and, in real world circumstances, few are going to be dissappointed
with the image quality of the "G" series.
Dane Brickman
"You should learn to live
like you don't exist"
McEowen
and, in real world circumstances, few are going to be dissappointed
with the image quality of the "G" series.
>>
I couldn't agree more. If the Contax (or any other camera) makes you want to go
out and make photos more power to you. In fact, the price of the camera ought
to have NOTHING to do with it. If it's what makes you happy who should care? .
. . but that applies to the Leica as well, you know?
McEowen
35mm and a flash (mine came with a 200, some are promising a 140) for about
$799 most places (I use B&H). This is a bargain compared to Leica. I do
not know anywhere you could get a clean M4 body for $800 bucks let alone a
lens.>>
That does indeed seem quite affordable and certainly the G camera packs a lot
of features for the money. But just in case anyone is looking for something
more traditional you can, in fact, get a Leica body for $800. No, it won't be
an M4 (one of the most desirable and collectable M cameras made) but certainly
an M4-2 or an M4-P. These are the current "best buys" in a user Leica body
these days, IMHO. I have two M4-P bodies, both purchased in Ex-minus condition
(i.e. "users") for less than $700 each. And you are quite correct, that figure
does not include a lens. BTW, I also bought a user double stroke M3 on ebay for
$500 but spent nearly $300 on a CLA and having modern synch posts installed so
effectly I spent $800 for that body. It's virtually as good as new now, though.
<<Leica's are fine cameras, and I have owned and used them. I think
however that the G1 is a more useful camera for me. The lenses are as good
as any and are very nicely made. >>
That's what it's all about -- getting the photographic tool that meets YOUR
needs and inspires YOU to make photos. If the Contax does it for you that is
wonderful. If it's a Canon EOS, that's great too. Why, if it's a Quaker Oats
box with a pinhole that's cool too. It's just a matter of finding the tool that
makes you want to go out and make photos.
My only point is that for SOME people, that all-inspiring camera is a Leica M.
And you know what? That's OK in my opinion. There is no shame in owning an
expensive camera system. But for those of us who aren't loaded it is quite
possible to buy a Leica system for a LOT less than new prices. Yes, bodies will
run $800 each and lenses from $400 to $800 each (yes, there are a couple of
exceptions that you'll have to pay more for).
I guess I'm harping on this but I read so many people posting things that
suggest you CAN'T own Leica unless you're rich and it's just not true. If you
really want to own and use a Leica M camera -- for whatever reason -- it's
quite do-able. In fact, because the system has been around for so long and
because there are so many used lenses out there it may be actually easier to
put together a great system of previously-owned gear.
Here's an hypothetical system:
used M4-P . . . . . $800
used 28mm Summicron . . . $850
used 50mm Summicron . . . $450
used 90mm Elmarit or older Summicron . . . $500
That's $2,600. That's a whole boat load of money but really not that much more
than a lot of people spend for a small EOS or high-end Nikon system (not to
mention a jet ski or a motorcycle or a couple of nice guitars). It's quite
do-able for the serious shooter. And what do you have? One of the finest 35mm
cameras ever made and one that will keep serving you well as long as 35mm film
is available.
Back to the Contax for a second: I'm sure it's a wonderful camera but do you
think you'll want to be using it in 40 years? A lot of people use (and actually
prefer) 40-year-old Leicas. In that context, which is the better "bargain"?
bachch...@my-deja.com
lenses.
Andrew
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:35:06 -0700, "AJP" <apqu...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Yes.
>If you are happy with the quality of photos from and the convenience of your
>Prego, and I own one so I am familiar with it, then the G1, G2 or Leica (I
>own of these too) will be cumbersome. It will have the advantage of
>technically superior optics and a faster F-stop. The Contax has auotfocus,
>but has a fixed focal length lens which is limiting for causal tourist
>snapshots and a separate flash unit.
>
>Get an SLR if you want to take the next step up in picture making.
>
Peter A
same size, or even smaller.... The feeling of the cameras are great though....
/Peter A
rob...@my-deja.com
with the G2. Some photo mags have rated it the finest zoom lens that
they have ever tested.
In article <3971d5b9...@news.vol.net>,
rob...@my-deja.com
Leica. But the fact of the matter is that 40 years hence, photographic
technology will have advanced to the point that all of today's cameras
will be of interest only to collectors and afficionados. Few real
photographers will have any use for them as tools. Personally, I have
no desire to own a camera today because it will be an heirloom tomorrow.
This gets back to the issue of Leica worship, which is what fuels the
absurd collector's market for Leica equipment. Of course, there will
always be folks who love to own and play with antiquated machinery, like
Model T Fords. These old cars can be kept in working order, and can
serve as a means of basic transportation. But would anyone claim that
they are the equal of modern automobiles? The same is true of early
cameras. They may work fine, but few serious photographers would
consider them up to modern standards, even if the photographs they take
are excellent. They appeal to people who want to look backward to a
time when life and technology were simple and understandable. That's
fine with me, but they should please stop telling the rest of us that
Leicas are great because you can grow old with them. Not many people
buy a camera or anything else with that in mind.
In article <20000716111105...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
JETman
>
> I don't see why someone would not want to use a Contax for as long as a
> Leica. But the fact of the matter is that 40 years hence, photographic
> technology will have advanced to the point that all of today's cameras
> will be of interest only to collectors and afficionados. Few real
> photographers will have any use for them as tools. Personally, I have
> no desire to own a camera today because it will be an heirloom tomorrow.
>
> This gets back to the issue of Leica worship, which is what fuels the
> absurd collector's market for Leica equipment. Of course, there will
> always be folks who love to own and play with antiquated machinery, like
> Model T Fords. These old cars can be kept in working order, and can
> serve as a means of basic transportation. But would anyone claim that
> they are the equal of modern automobiles? The same is true of early
> cameras. They may work fine, but few serious photographers would
> consider them up to modern standards, even if the photographs they take
> are excellent. They appeal to people who want to look backward to a
> time when life and technology were simple and understandable. That's
> fine with me, but they should please stop telling the rest of us that
> Leicas are great because you can grow old with them. Not many people
> buy a camera or anything else with that in mind.
>
>
As a long time Leica user, (yes, two M-2's that are OVER forty years
old, I take issue with comparing a Leica to a model t. "Tin Lizzy's"
would seldom get to arrive at their destination without a breakdown.
You don't have to listen, but the facts are there. Considerable numbers
of photographers use forty year old Leicas and have been doing so for
many years. While the "tin lizzy" is quite undependable, Leica's are
rock solid in dependability, performance, and results.
And to close, while a "tin lizzy" was considered basic transportation,
Leica hardly can be associated with basic photography. Just continue to
use your box brownie for that!
--
Regards,
JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
and, Other Things Weird!
Just a few of my favorite things. . .
‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
‘65 Honda 305 Dream
Leica M2 Range Finders
Rich
the photo mags and which issue so I could read the reviews?
Thanks. Ri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
McEowen
time when life and technology were simple and understandable. That's
fine with me, but they should please stop telling the rest of us that
Leicas are great because you can grow old with them. Not many people
buy a camera or anything else with that in mind.
>>
You would have a point IF you were correct in your assumptions but you are not.
The Leica M remains a viable camera -- even 40 year old specimens -- because
they are the absolute best camera ever made for quiet documentary
photojournalism. They are a TOOL that inspires quality, thoughtful photography.
No other photographic tool has ever equaled the M camera for the things it does
really well.
Curtis Leeds
> But the fact of the matter is that 40 years hence, photographic
> technology will have advanced to the point that all of today's cameras
> will be of interest only to collectors and afficionados.
That's not a fact at all. That's your speculation.
You might be interested to know that 40 years ago many
people thought the same thing.
Edward Craft
> The same is true of early cameras. They may work fine, but few serious
> photographers would consider them up to modern standards, even if the
> photographs they take are excellent. They appeal to people who want to
> look backward to a time when life and technology were simple and
> understandable.
If your point is that current Leicas are *early* cameras, you couldn't be
more wrong. I've never seen anyone who wasn't a *serious photographer*
shoot a Leica M. It takes a certain skill. My guess is that their appeal -
and that newly-found one of rangefinders in general - has very little if
anything to do with people looking backward. I think it has more to do with
people wanting to separate themselves from the idiot-mode herd by producing
the highest quality images they can. That might also explain the increasing
move to medium format. Care to call a Hasselblad a Model T?
Regards,
Edward Craft
carbon...@yahoo.com
"Marc David Miller" <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am thinking of supplementing my trusty P&S-Rollei Prego 28-90 with
> something more serious-a Contax G1.
>
> I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control,
and
> that looks sexy. I feel that an SLR will be too cumbersome to travel
with.
> A Leica (or a G2) is WAY beyond my budget.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
couldn't focus myself or even know for sure what is being focused
on. Another possible option you *might* consider is the Voigtlander
Bessa-R with the screwmount Voigtlander lenses. The advantage would
be a greater degree of manual control. For myself, cameras like
this keep me in the loop. With a camera designed to work
automatically, it's must too tempting to use that mode and stop
thinking. That's just me though, you might be different. Good
luck.
R. Saylor
>I've always been attracted to the G's but was put off because I
>couldn't focus myself or even know for sure what is being focused
>on.
Can someone please explain the degree to which the G2 spot focusses?
When focussing on a nearby object, such as a flower, using shallow
DOF, I may want to focus on a single petal, or perhaps even a single
stamen in the center of the flower. It is easy to do with the Leica M,
but is it possible with the G2? Precision of focus is one of the
reasons I use Leica, however someday my vision may too challenged to
use an optical rangefinder, so I'm interested in alternatives.
Richard
McEowen
shoot a Leica M. It takes a certain skill >>
In all fairness to the "Leicas are just for snobs" camp, I bet they're quite a
few folks over on the LUG who aren't serious photographers. Kinda like people
who can't play guitar collecting old Strats and Les Pauls. But also like
guitars that does not diminsh the desirability of the object at hand. People
collect Leicas for a reason you know . . .
David Littlewood
<ecraft...@optonline.net> writes
experienced true photographer" school of thought which would argue that
the Leica is an example of sheer self-indulgent luxury (the film winds
on? *and* cocks the shutter at the same time? wow, and you don't need a
focussing cloth). Not that I agree, I happily use whatever is available,
from 35mm compact to Lihhof 5x4 (non-adjustable p&s is the only thing I
try to avoid). I think it is a matter of how much *you* are prepared to
impose yourself on the process, not how much the camera *lets* you.
--
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer
Stefan Miltchev
Stefan
-- ---------------------------------- Stefan Andreev Miltchev 3600 Chestnut Street, Box #1214 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
Man Ninh
"R. Saylor" wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:34:50 GMT, carbon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I've always been attracted to the G's but was put off because I
> >couldn't focus myself or even know for sure what is being focused
> >on.
>
> Can someone please explain the degree to which the G2 spot focusses?
> When focussing on a nearby object, such as a flower, using shallow
> DOF, I may want to focus on a single petal, or perhaps even a single
> stamen in the center of the flower. It is easy to do with the Leica M,
> but is it possible with the G2? Precision of focus is one of the
> reasons I use Leica, however someday my vision may too challenged to
> use an optical rangefinder, so I'm interested in alternatives.
>
> Richard
Richard,
Quoting from the Kyocera/Contax site G1 FAQ (but this applies to the G2
also)
Q. How can I do macro with the G1?
A. The G1 is a rangefinder camera offering higher performance in the
"normal"
photographic range. Macro photography belongs more properly into a
specialized
range of subjects. This application is more easily accommodated by the
single lens
reflex category of camera.
. . . . . . . .
That being said, the G cameras "spot focus" to the extent of the relative
size of the focus brackets to your subject ..... if you're close enough to
have a single stamen fill those brackets and still within the close
focusing range of the lens you are using, you should achieve sharp focus
(of course, depending upon the DoF, subject and camera non-movement). btw,
remember the up close DoF of the 45 mm and 90 mm Zeiss Contax lenses wide
open is next to nil! Stop down if you want any sort of usable DoF
but really, it is so much easier and effective to save the macro stuff for
the SLR system. Even with SLR macro, you'll need to stop down as far as
possible.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
close range does have an effect, you have to work with a G2 for a while
to learn exactly what it's seeing. Overall, I found the camera to focus
very accurately in all circumstances.
Godfrey
rob...@my-deja.com
change today, it's a pretty safe bet. The world 40 years hence will
almost certainly have changed radically in ways that none of us today
can even imagine.
In article <39730A53...@idt.net>,
JETman
>
>
snip
Care to call a Hasselblad a Model T?
>
> Regards,
> Edward Craft
Naw, that would hafta be at least a Packard v12......
rob...@my-deja.com
lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been that
they do not embody current technology, which is undeniably true. This
technology, by the way, is not necessarily a bad thing, and many
outstanding photographers use it to advantage. If other outstanding
photographers eschew technology in favor of a more "pure" style, that is
their business. My complaint is with purists who look down upon
non-purists as being incapable of thoughtful photography. This is a
theme, stated or unstated, which runs through much of the commentary
which comes from Leica users. If you don't believe it, read some of the
statements in this thread.
In article <39733500...@optonline.net>,
Edward Craft <ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote:
> rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The same is true of early cameras. They may work fine, but few
serious
> > photographers would consider them up to modern standards, even if
the
> > photographs they take are excellent. They appeal to people who want
to
> > look backward to a time when life and technology were simple and
> > understandable.
>
> If your point is that current Leicas are *early* cameras, you couldn't
be
> more wrong. I've never seen anyone who wasn't a *serious photographer*
> shoot a Leica M. It takes a certain skill. My guess is that their
appeal -
> and that newly-found one of rangefinders in general - has very little
if
> anything to do with people looking backward. I think it has more to do
with
> people wanting to separate themselves from the idiot-mode herd by
producing
> the highest quality images they can. That might also explain the
increasing
> move to medium format. Care to call a Hasselblad a Model T?
>
> Regards,
>
rob...@my-deja.com
well designed and functional. Are you a serious photographer or do you
just like to play with toys?
In article <3973C7...@worldnet.att.net>,
JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Edward Craft wrote:
> >
> >
>
> snip
>
> Care to call a Hasselblad a Model T?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Edward Craft
>
> Naw, that would hafta be at least a Packard v12......
>
> Regards,
>
> JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
> and, Other Things Weird!
>
> Just a few of my favorite things. . .
>
> ‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
> ‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
> ‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
> ‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
> ‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
> ‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
> ‘65 Honda 305 Dream
> Leica M2 Range Finders
Dave
I had some reluctance about the G's focusing mechanism, too. (I've
posted other notes about this in the dim, distant past -- last week or
so -- so I'll keep this very brief. With rangefinder cameras, you're
not directly observing the focusing you're doing. This is true
regardless of whether you have a mechanism such as a split image
rangefinder employs or the electronic focusing mechanism that the G's
use. Even knowing this, I was a bit reluctant about my G1 when I
bought it. I've learned that my reluctance has been misplaced.
Whether I'm focusing "manually" w/ the G1 or using autofocus, this
thing is dead-on accurate. Absolutely amazing. The G2 focuses even
faster -- but not better -- than the G1. If there's anyway you can
bring yourself to trust this electronic focusing mechanism, you'll get
fantastic results. I took a couple of hundred pictures at my folks'
50th wedding anniversary celebration not too long ago. The restaurant
was so dimly lit, my other cameras were very hard to focus. (The
other cameras were an optical type rangefinder and a medium format
SLR.) I had to use flash, by the way. No option in that sort of
light. The shots I struggled to make with the optical stuff came out
ok, but they weren't as fun and spontaneous as the shots I took with
the G1. They were utterly beautiful. There was barely enough light
in the restaurant to compose the shot, muchless focus. All I had to
do is aim the G1 enough to get the composition I wanted, and the G1
focused perfectly everytime. I'm so glad I had this type of camera to
get these shots. They're precious to my whole family and wouldn't
have been easy -- maybe on the verge of not possible -- without the
electronic focusing mechanism. It's certainly proven itself to me. I
hope that helps you with your decision. -Dave
>>
>I've always been attracted to the G's but was put off because I
>couldn't focus myself or even know for sure what is being focused
>on. Another possible option you *might* consider is the Voigtlander
>Bessa-R with the screwmount Voigtlander lenses. The advantage would
>be a greater degree of manual control. For myself, cameras like
>this keep me in the loop. With a camera designed to work
>automatically, it's must too tempting to use that mode and stop
>thinking. That's just me though, you might be different. Good
>luck.
>
>
Dave
G series camera focusing mechanisms. Of course, my enthusiasm -- and
my having overcome my reluctance about this electronic gizmo --
overtook me, and I posted a longer message than I'd intended. For
closeup work, as much as I like rangefinder cameras -- optical or
electronic gizmos -- I'd have to give the nod to an SLR with a macro
lens. If you plan to use a rangefinder, though, and you're OK with
the 1/2 meter minimum focusing distance of the G series lenses (35mm
or 50mm ... the 90mm's min. is 1 meter), the spot you select in the
focusing area of the G camera will let you -- by a simple half press
of the G1/G2's shutter release (or the separate focus lock button on
the G2) lock your focus and then recompose your shot. Is that at all
helpful to what you're trying to accomplish? I can certainly
appreciate your concern about challenged vision. The older I get, the
more different focusing areas my glasses have, and the more
accommodations I try to discover and use to simulate what was easy
when my eyes were much younger! -Dave
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:39:30 -0400, R. Saylor <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:34:50 GMT, carbon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>I've always been attracted to the G's but was put off because I
>>couldn't focus myself or even know for sure what is being focused
>>on.
>
Dave
the philosophical conversation a bit, I'd have to say that in 40 years
-- provided I'm still around -- I'll still be using some of the old
stuff I have in my arsenal of photographic tools. My view camera has
a great, sharp lens. The mechanical shutter will continue to work, no
doubt, as do so many leaf shutters on cameras that are 100 years old.
I'll continue to use both purely mechanical cameras and the highly
modern, electronic cameras as the tools they are intended to be. I
suspect that my mechanical stuff will continue to be serviceable long
after my electronic wonders have crapped out. My Kodak Retina IIa
works like it was fresh from the factory. My speed graphic amazes me
with perfect working parts everywhere. The focal plane shutter is
fine, and so is the leaf shutter. My electronic cameras continue to
eat batteries and do their jobs fine. The true antiques I have are
capable of capturing some great images, too. I anticipate an
accelerated rate of change and innovation in the future, but I doubt
that in 40 years today's cameras will be merely the stuff of
collectors and the curious. -Dave
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 03:18:55 GMT, rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I don't see why someone would not want to use a Contax for as long as a
>Leica. But the fact of the matter is that 40 years hence, photographic
>technology will have advanced to the point that all of today's cameras
>will be of interest only to collectors and afficionados. Few real
>photographers will have any use for them as tools. Personally, I have
>no desire to own a camera today because it will be an heirloom tomorrow.
>
>This gets back to the issue of Leica worship, which is what fuels the
>absurd collector's market for Leica equipment. Of course, there will
>always be folks who love to own and play with antiquated machinery, like
>Model T Fords. These old cars can be kept in working order, and can
>serve as a means of basic transportation. But would anyone claim that
>they are the equal of modern automobiles? The same is true of early
>cameras. They may work fine, but few serious photographers would
>consider them up to modern standards, even if the photographs they take
>are excellent. They appeal to people who want to look backward to a
>time when life and technology were simple and understandable. That's
>fine with me, but they should please stop telling the rest of us that
>Leicas are great because you can grow old with them. Not many people
>buy a camera or anything else with that in mind.
>
>
>
>
Dave
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:57:22 +0100, David Littlewood
<da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
David,
I agree with about 99.9% of your note, but I have to toss in a quick
thought about the p&s thing you'd mentioned. Like you, I resisted the
p&s stuff thinking that to do useful photography, I had to shoot with
a camera that was all manually adjustable. (The view camera is my
greatest joy for this kind of work.) I even avoided anything smaller
than a medium format camera for what I considered serious work. I
bought a Yashica T4 Super for my wife and loved the spontaneous
picture taking capability it offered, so I bought one for myself. I
bought my daughter a Nikon N70 as a Christmas present -- after she
lobbied heavily for it for months on end. Then I decided I needed a
more adjustable 35mm camera to carry around on photo expeditions with
her, since my medium format stuff was too heavy, my view camera was
way too heavy, and my adjustable 35mm cameras were really old... as
old as I am, in fact! So I bought a Contax G1. Yup, I use it
(generally with manual settings), but -- even in my most reluctant to
admit it type moments -- I have to admit, I use the T4 Super even
more! Unless the picture taking situation calls for the rare
something that the T4 can't handle, I can get it out, flick it on,
compose and shoot in less time than I can tug my G1 out for a shot.
The compactness, accuracy and sharpness of the T4 has changed my mind
about using completely automatic p&s cameras as viable photographic
tools. Let me know your follow-up thoughts if you please. -Dave
R. Saylor
>I have never said that Leicas are not fine cameras or that they do not
>lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been that
>they do not embody current technology, which is undeniably true.
This is true, but the mechanics of producing an image on film remains
EXACTLY the same with the current technology as with the Leicas. Only
the user interface is different. One is indirect, the other is direct.
Some of us (minimalists?) prefer the direct approach. It is simply a
matter of personal preference, nothing more.
Richard
R. Saylor
focussing. Apparently it is as accurate as the Leica M but not quite
as "specific." Of course, for closeups, an SLR with a macro is the way
to go.
Richard
carbon...@yahoo.com
rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have never said that Leicas are not fine cameras or that they do not
> lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been
that
I'm not so sure that is true. After all, if we're talking about
technology that actually contributes to image quality, leica's
optics embodies the latest and greatest (even if it does take
them a while to revise a design). If we're talking about computer
technology in cameras then no. But lack of AF or color matrix
metering just means the camera isn't designed for that kind of
photography. I would claim that the modern design of the optics
is just as deserving of the "current technology" label as a camera
with the latest electronics.
carbon...@yahoo.com
Stefan Miltchev <milt...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
...
> When focusing on a nearby object using shallow depth of field you
should
> not be using a rangefinder. Using a rangefinder for macro shots of
> flowers is like using an F5 & 80-200 AF-S for unobtrusive low profile
> work, i.e. using the wrong tools for the job. For the kind of shots
you
> desribe SLR's are clearly superior.
> Stefan
>
Macro is tough with a rangefinder, but you can go pretty close.
I think my Leica 50 focuses down to about 18 inches with it's
close-up "eyes" (DR Summicron). Between that and the depth of
field scales on fixed focal length lenses, non macro closeups
are quite feasible.
So, if he plans to take a lot of closeups, you're probably
right. If he wants to just take the occasional flower picture,
then a rangefinder would probably be quite adequate.
McEowen
non-purists as being incapable of thoughtful photography. This is a
theme, stated or unstated, which runs through much of the commentary
which comes from Leica users. If you don't believe it, read some of the
statements in this thread. >>
Well let's try it this way then . . .
My "other" camera is a Nikon F4. Not the latest and greatest by any means but
certainly no technilogical laggard. Still, I do find that using the Leica
rangefinder DOES encourage, promote and somehow produce more "thoughtful"
seeing. But your assumption is incorrect. It is not the lack of technology that
causes this, it's the viewfinder. FWIW, I have stated many times that I long
for an AE M-body with TTL flash and 1/250 synch. I WOULD want it to retain
manual wind and the tradtitional rangefinder, though . . .
McEowen
metering just means the camera isn't designed for that kind of
photography. >>
And what kind of photography IS "that kind of photography"? Someone else just
posted that the gee-whizz cameras are just as condusive to thoughtful
photography . . . So does the camera influence the shooter in the way he/she
works or the images he/she produces? If so, we might ask ourselves what style
of photography we want to pursue and chose a tool accordingly. If this is true,
then IS there a difference between brands of cameras?
McEowen
modern, electronic cameras as the tools they are intended to be. >>
Perhaps the electronic stuff doesn't age so well because it gets passed by so
quickly. Today's Contax G2 will be tomorrow's G6. Will you still want to use
the G2? It seems like the mechanical stuff is a bit more timeless . . .
David Littlewood
<Da...@nospam.com> writes
I fully agree with you that a decent p&s camera is very nice to use for
uncomplicated shooting. My comment was aimed specifically at the kind of
p&s where you have no opportunity to override the exposure if you choose
to do so. I use transparency film almost exclusively, and many p&s
cameras have exposure systems which are not sophisticated enough to know
when a bright sky or whatever is going to fool them into overexposure. I
know I am not perfect either, but I know enough to be able to override a
simple exposure meter and at least reduce the number of wrongly-exposed
slides.
I therefore expressed a (purely personal) wish to avoid using simple p&s
cameras with no user control. There are plenty of decent p&s cameras
with this facility that I can use instead - as an example, we have been
very pleased with the 2 x Ricoh GR1s we bought for my daughter and wife
a couple of weeks ago. I agree entirely with you: it's nice to take a
picture in 2 secs. But sometimes it's worth taking 4 secs to get the
exposure right, if the camera lets you.
For anyone who uses only colour print film, the ability is not really
essential, and they could equally validly reach a different conclusion.
David Littlewood
<rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:23:54 GMT, rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>I have never said that Leicas are not fine cameras or that they do not
>>lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been that
>
>This is true, but the mechanics of producing an image on film remains
>EXACTLY the same with the current technology as with the Leicas. Only
>the user interface is different. One is indirect, the other is direct.
>Some of us (minimalists?) prefer the direct approach. It is simply a
>matter of personal preference, nothing more.
>
>Richard
I have never used a Leica, but they seem to be finely crafted tools. I
have no problem with that, and would be delighted to own one.
However, I do have a doubt about the minimalist thing. It almost seems
to me to be saying "I am not strong enough to impose my will on a camera
and take the picture I want unless the camera is a totally basic system
and does not offer any intelligent input". I prefer to think that an
assertive photographer could impose his will on any camera which has the
mechanical facility for the user to override and take charge. He will
make use of the help when his experience tells him it will be valid, but
he will "kick ass" when he knows this is necessary.
It's a matter of perception. It also is highly debatable to say one is
more "direct" than the other. Is looking through a dinky little
viewfinder that has no other involvement in the photographic process
more "direct" than looking (albeit with reflections) through the actual
lens that will take the photograph?. (At least if you use a view camera
you can take an extra Brownie point here.)
Please, I am not knocking Leica - I use totally mechanical cameras
myself. It's the "you're not a real photographer if your camera does
anything" view that I am suspicious about.
carbon...@yahoo.com
mce...@aol.com (McEowen) wrote:
> << But lack of AF or color matrix
> metering just means the camera isn't designed for that kind of
> photography. >>
>
Action? Sports? Fast breaking news? Animals? Anything where speed
is of the essence.
>Someone else just
> posted that the gee-whizz cameras are just as condusive to thoughtful
> photography . . . So does the camera influence the shooter in the way
he/she
> works or the images he/she produces?...
This tends to be highly personal, but super fast AF systems,
motor drives, and good matrix metering are not that useful to
me while doing landscapes. There are always exceptions, but
I don't miss these features in my (admittedly amateur)
photography. For me, the manual nature of a camera can slow
me down and make me think. But even if that isn't a factor in
others, one could make the argument that these gee-whiz features
didn't contribute much to the process, if the process is one
in which speed isn't as important.
So, the camera does influence me, at least I think it does,
and in a positive way. I do also have a Minolta 600si which
is fairly recent, and I like it too because it works well in
manual mode. In other words, the features get out of your way
when you don't need them. But the Leica, by omitting them
entirely, reduces the process to what a lot of people really
need.
Also, it's a matter of what you like to use, right? People like
what they're used to and what they're comfortable with.
McEowen
>essential, and they could equally validly reach a different conclusion.
It's really a matter of "horses for courses." Point and shoot cameras are all
about snapshots. For me, that implies print film . . .
McEowen
>viewfinder that has no other involvement in the photographic process
>more "direct" than looking (albeit with reflections) through the actual
>lens that will take the photograph?.
Yes, actually, it is . . .
JETman
>
> JETman, a collector or a wannabe, fascinated with old machines that are
> well designed and functional. Are you a serious photographer or do you
> just like to play with toys?
>
Been shooting for years in the industrial/commercial field motion
picture included. Also work in other fields on occasion.
...and I don't baby 'em either. CLA every ten years whether they need
it or not......
> In article <3973C7...@worldnet.att.net>,
> JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Edward Craft wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > Care to call a Hasselblad a Model T?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Edward Craft
> >
> > Naw, that would hafta be at least a Packard v12......
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
> > and, Other Things Weird!
> >
> > Just a few of my favorite things. . .
> >
> > ‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
> > ‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
> > ‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
> > ‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
> > ‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
> > ‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
> > ‘65 Honda 305 Dream
> > Leica M2 Range Finders
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
JETman
>
> I have never said that Leicas are not fine cameras or that they do not
> lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been that
> they do not embody current technology, which is undeniably true. This
> outstanding photographers use it to advantage. If other outstanding
> photographers eschew technology in favor of a more "pure" style, that is
> their business.
In 1992, I had the opportunity to use a EOS-1. I loved it. The optics
were not as good as on my Leicas, the the "program" mode was wonderful
for regular photography. I will state that Canon seems to have
developed algorithyms for its program mode, (point and shoot), that are
unequaled.
The problem with this camera, (besides optics), is that it was dependent
on power, (batteries), that using the rule of Murphy's Law, would crap
out at the most in-opportune time. Not only that, they could not take
the abuse and repairs are expensive.
But I was impressed enough with Canon's technology to go out and buy an
EOS for myself. I decided on the RT model since it had a fixed pellical
mirror with no blackout. I used the camera for five years without
incident then it went bellyup. Seems that oil got on the shutter which
cost me $168 to fix, (the original RT body cost $250), which was worth
it since I had about $1k invested in the system.
My complaint is with purists who look down upon
> non-purists as being incapable of thoughtful photography. This is a
> theme, stated or unstated, which runs through much of the commentary
> which comes from Leica users. If you don't believe it, read some of the
> statements in this thread.
>
>
It was my "forced" return to using the Leica that refreshed my memory as
to the optical superiority. I will never go back to the modern stuff.
R. Saylor
<da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>However, I do have a doubt about the minimalist thing. It almost seems
>to me to be saying "I am not strong enough to impose my will on a camera
>and take the picture I want unless the camera is a totally basic system
>and does not offer any intelligent input". I prefer to think that an
>assertive photographer could impose his will on any camera which has the
>mechanical facility for the user to override and take charge. He will
>make use of the help when his experience tells him it will be valid, but
>he will "kick ass" when he knows this is necessary.
I was not saying what you say I seemed to be saying. (Try to untangle
that. :-) I merely PREFER the user interface and direct mechanical
control of the Leica M (and Nikon FM2, Pentax MX, etc.). I might be
able to cope with a more sophisticated camera, but I really don't want
the hassle. Call it an ideosyncrasy if you like.
>It's a matter of perception. It also is highly debatable to say one is
>more "direct" than the other. Is looking through a dinky little
>viewfinder that has no other involvement in the photographic process
>more "direct" than looking (albeit with reflections) through the actual
>lens that will take the photograph?. (At least if you use a view camera
>you can take an extra Brownie point here.)
The viewfinder on the rangefinder is like looking directly at the
scene through a window. It does give me a sense of immediacy and
intimacy with the subject. YMMV.
>Please, I am not knocking Leica - I use totally mechanical cameras
>myself. It's the "you're not a real photographer if your camera does
>anything" view that I am suspicious about.
It would be stupid to think that.
Richard
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>
> However, I do have a doubt about the minimalist thing. It almost seems
> to me to be saying "I am not strong enough to impose my will on a camera
> and take the picture I want unless the camera is a totally basic system
> and does not offer any intelligent input". I prefer to think that an
> assertive photographer could impose his will on any camera which has the
> mechanical facility for the user to override and take charge. He will
> make use of the help when his experience tells him it will be valid, but
> he will "kick ass" when he knows this is necessary.
The difficulty not that I cannot impose my will on the most
sophisticated machine, it simply seems to be to be something of a pain
to have to do so all the time. I find that when I have an automated
camera in my hands, I spend an inordinate amount of my time mucking with
the settings looking to see how I want to bend the automation to my
desires.
With a simple manual camera in my hands, I use the meter to read the
light where I want it to and make the explicit settings I know will
produce the results I want, same for the focus. The camera itself
becomes invisible to my use this way ... i'm thinking in terms of focus
zone, exposure and composition not "ok, I want it to focus there so I
tell it that and then lock it, then I know it will misread the scene so
I twiddle the EV comp lever, point there, press this button after doing
that, and now I can arrange my composition and take a picture..."
> It's a matter of perception.
That's for sure. :)
> ... It also is highly debatable to say one is
> more "direct" than the other. Is looking through a dinky little
> viewfinder that has no other involvement in the photographic process
> more "direct" than looking (albeit with reflections) through the actual
> lens that will take the photograph?. (At least if you use a view camera
> you can take an extra Brownie point here.)
An SLR's direct view through the taking lens is more direct than using
any kind of separate optical viewfinder camera, but I thought this
conversation was about the leica M vs contax G universe. 'Direct' in
this conversation stems from people's familiarity with looking through
optical viewfinder/rangefinder systems vs looking at a readout from an
electronic rangefinder in the viewfinder display. It can be argued that
the former is more 'direct' than the latter, but the argument is
somewhat marginal.
Godfrey
rob...@my-deja.com
items, such as maximum and minimum shutter speeds, flash sync speed, TTL
flash metering (only recently discovered by Leica,) shutter speed
precision and variability (stepped vs stepless?) And what about
something as fundamental as changing film without wishing for a third
hand? In all of these areas, Leica is far behind the technological
curve. Of course, with time and experience, one can learn to compensate
for these deficiencies and can come to think that they aren't really
important in the first place. But it is just plain silly to proclaim
weakness as strength, a sort of "less is more" nonsense.
I like what Rich Saylor said earlier about a difference in the interface
between the camera and the user. With the M, it is more direct; with
the G, it is more indirect. Neither is inherently superior. Different
strokes for different folks.
In article <8l1erm$g6a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
carbon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <8l0ijs$shd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I have never said that Leicas are not fine cameras or that they do
not
> > lend themselves to excellent photography. My point is and has been
> that
> > they do not embody current technology, which is undeniably true....
>
> I'm not so sure that is true. After all, if we're talking about
> technology that actually contributes to image quality, leica's
> optics embodies the latest and greatest (even if it does take
> them a while to revise a design). If we're talking about computer
> technology in cameras then no. But lack of AF or color matrix
> metering just means the camera isn't designed for that kind of
> photography. I would claim that the modern design of the optics
> is just as deserving of the "current technology" label as a camera
> with the latest electronics.
>
McEowen
something as fundamental as changing film without wishing for a third
hand? >>
HEY! Now you're messing with the classic Leica M4 loading system! The day Leica
does away with that is the day I get REALLY mad. My Nikon F4 supposedly
autoloads and I have bobbled far more loads with it than I EVER have with an
M4. In fact, I've never messed up a load with an M4 . . . .
David Littlewood
<rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>I was not saying what you say I seemed to be saying. (Try to untangle
>that. :-) I merely PREFER the user interface and direct mechanical
>control of the Leica M (and Nikon FM2, Pentax MX, etc.). I might be
>able to cope with a more sophisticated camera, but I really don't want
>the hassle. Call it an ideosyncrasy if you like.
>
>>more "direct" than the other. Is looking through a dinky little
>>viewfinder that has no other involvement in the photographic process
>>more "direct" than looking (albeit with reflections) through the actual
>>lens that will take the photograph?. (At least if you use a view camera
>>you can take an extra Brownie point here.)
>
>scene through a window. It does give me a sense of immediacy and
>intimacy with the subject. YMMV.
>
>>Please, I am not knocking Leica - I use totally mechanical cameras
>>myself. It's the "you're not a real photographer if your camera does
>>anything" view that I am suspicious about.
>
>It would be stupid to think that.
>
more of an illusion than a reality though (agreed that is what matters
in this context).
--
David Littlewood
R. Saylor
>First you claimed that Leicas are a good value. That, at least, is an
>arguable point. Now you try to tell the world that the Leica M film
>loading system is easier than Nikon's.
I don't think it is easier, but the M4 loading system is no big deal,
although a few people have a devil of a time getting the hang of it.
(Compared to the M2 it is a piece of cake.) In my experience it is far
more foolproof than cameras which load manually from the back.
Presumably bottom loading was inspired by structural integrity
considerations.
Richard
Godfrey DiGiorgi
loading camera I've ever owned. Takes about 20 seconds. (And yes, I have
owned plenty of 'auto-load' cameras too.)
Godfrey
rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> First you claimed that Leicas are a good value. That, at least, is an
> arguable point. Now you try to tell the world that the Leica M film
> loading system is easier than Nikon's. Evidently, your love for your
> camera is so great that you have lost all sense of objectivity. Well,
> true love can have that effect on people, but the rest of us don't know
> if we can take you seriously anymore.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Godfrey
carbon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ...Nikons philosophy is there's always room for another
> feature.
Joe B.
<da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have never used a Leica, but they seem to be finely crafted tools. I
>have no problem with that, and would be delighted to own one.
>
>However, I do have a doubt about the minimalist thing. It almost seems
>to me to be saying "I am not strong enough to impose my will on a camera
>and take the picture I want unless the camera is a totally basic system
>and does not offer any intelligent input". I prefer to think that an
>assertive photographer could impose his will on any camera which has the
>mechanical facility for the user to override and take charge. He will
>make use of the help when his experience tells him it will be valid, but
>he will "kick ass" when he knows this is necessary.
<snip>
There is one consideration about minimalist cameras that makes quite a
difference to me, and this is why I use mostly or entirely manual
cameras as often as I can. The many options and settings on the
electronic af slrs are a hassle for me to check, set and adjust. This
doesn't sound like much, and when I used these cameras all the time it
wasn't so much of an issue since I took it for granted that I had to
do this. But there are various things that I need to check to make
sure thay are doing what I want. Metering pattern, exposure mode,
exposure compensation, focusing setting (auto/manual, focus or release
priority, focusing area/point/s), drive mode, custom functions
selected or not selected; it is quite a lot to have to look at.
Especially when all I wanted was centre-weighted metering, manual
exposure, manual focusing and single frame wind. For me it is a
pleasure and a relief, relatively speaking, to pick up a minimalist
camera and know that the camera is already set to what I want it to
do, since it only does it that way anyway.
>Please, I am not knocking Leica - I use totally mechanical cameras
>myself. It's the "you're not a real photographer if your camera does
>anything" view that I am suspicious about.
>--
>David Littlewood
The concept of the "real photographer" is very strange. Personally,
according to that classification, some of the time I am a "real
photographer" and some of the time I am not. It works fine. I just
have to remind myself that when I am looking at any of my pictures
taken with an Af SLR, that they are not "real photographs". Oh well...
Joe B. (remove glop for email)
carbon...@yahoo.com
rob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Lens design certainly counts as technology. But what about
other basic
> items, such as maximum and minimum shutter speeds,
How often do you really use speeds outside Leica's? I have
1/8000th on a couple of my cameras and I can't remember
the last time I used them.
> flash sync speed, TTL
> flash metering (only recently discovered by Leica,)
True, but Leica's are not adapted well for flash photography
anyway (since they are primarily available light machines
right?)
> shutter speed
> precision and variability (stepped vs stepless?)
Oh come on. Do you really want to use 1/350th of a
second? Even my 600si only shows half stops of
shutter speeds. Maybe the electronic shutter is more
accurate, but how much does that matter? Leica's
shutter speeds are very very good.
> And what about
> something as fundamental as changing film without wishing for
a third
> hand?
Gotta agree with you there.
> In all of these areas, Leica is far behind the technological
> curve. Of course, with time and experience, one can learn to
compensate
> for these deficiencies and can come to think that they aren't really
> important in the first place. But it is just plain silly to proclaim
> weakness as strength, a sort of "less is more" nonsense.
>
Leica's philosophy is to have what you need and not what you
don't. Nikons philosophy is there's always room for another
feature.
rob...@my-deja.com
arguable point. Now you try to tell the world that the Leica M film
loading system is easier than Nikon's. Evidently, your love for your
camera is so great that you have lost all sense of objectivity. Well,
true love can have that effect on people, but the rest of us don't know
if we can take you seriously anymore.
In article <20000718181112...@ng-bg1.aol.com>,
mce...@aol.com (McEowen) wrote:
> << And what about
> something as fundamental as changing film without wishing for a third
> hand? >>
>
> HEY! Now you're messing with the classic Leica M4 loading system! The
day Leica
> does away with that is the day I get REALLY mad. My Nikon F4
supposedly
> autoloads and I have bobbled far more loads with it than I EVER have
with an
> M4. In fact, I've never messed up a load with an M4 .
McEowen
arguable point.>>
Did I actually claim Leicas were a good value? I seem to recall saying that I
WASN'T claiming that. I believe what I said was that for those who find the
Leica is the right tool for them (for whatever reason) that price was pretty
much irrelevant. I also claimed that it's possible to put together a Leica
system without spending new-Leica prices . . .
But speaking of value, there's an old saying about those who know the PRICE of
everything but the VALUE of nothing . . .
McEowen
loading system is easier than Nikon's. Evidently, your love for your
camera is so great that you have lost all sense of objectivity. Well,
true love can have that effect on people, but the rest of us don't know
if we can take you seriously anymore. >>
You are free to take me any way you like. It doesn't matter to me. You'll find
though if you talk to people who actually use the Leica M camera that I am not
alone in my admiration of the M4 loading system. It makes for an incredibly
strong body with enhanced film flatness and IF you know how to use it, is
really quite foolproof.
Am I suggesting that I wish my Nikon's had the same loading system? No. But I
do like it. Of course, as I said in another post I cut my teeth on Nikon F and
F-36 motor drives. Not having automatic film take-up is not a big hurdle for me
. . .
BTW, the secret to the M4 system is to do NOTHING. Just follow the diagram on
the bottom of the camera. DO NOT under any circumstance attempt to wind the
camera before you put the baseplate on. To do otherwise is asking for trouble.
Regarding the Nikon F4 -- unless you get the film leader positioned far enough
across the sprockets the camera will not take up the film. It tells you
instantly this has happened as soon as you close the back and fire the shutter
by the sound it makes. All you have to do is open the back and stretch the film
across a little further. No big deal but I am quite serious when I say this
happens far more often than the Leica M4 refuses to take up the film properly.
And yes, I do prefer the Nikon F4 system to that of the Nikon F3 or earlier
bodies (though it's only relevant to the motorized cameras).
JETman
>
> Hmm, I thought that was Canon's thing... :)
>
> Godfrey
>
> carbon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > feature.
One thing that I have learned over the years is that the Japanese love
gadgets.
And that includes everything from cameras to cars!
McEowen
gadgets.
And that includes everything from cameras to cars! >>
I'm looking at buying a new car and considering the VW Passat. Reading a
VW-enthusiast newsgroup I saw a comment about the lack of good cup holders in
the VW. Someone posted that "a car needs a cup holder like a coffee table needs
a steering wheel." This pretty well sums up the German attitude as manifested
in VWs, Leicas and the like . . . I have an '87 Jetta and it is absolutely
spartan. My Leicas, of course, are the same way. You might guess that I like it
that way . . .
David Littlewood
<rama...@apple.com> writes
>I also find my Leica M6TTL to be as easy to load as any other manual
>loading camera I've ever owned. Takes about 20 seconds. (And yes, I have
>owned plenty of 'auto-load' cameras too.)
>
change in my EOS. I agree one is less likely to use a Leica for a
subject needing a quick change, but I would have thought it might happen
with some candids.
F. Craig Callahan
McEowen wrote:
> This pretty well sums up the German attitude as manifested
> in VWs, Leicas and the like . . . I have an '87 Jetta and it is absolutely
> spartan. My Leicas, of course, are the same way. You might guess that I like it
> that way . . .
Hmm . . . I have a '92 Golf (replaced an '85 Golf), but I like my EOS 3. Am I
caught in a paradox of some sort? :-)
BTW, if the Golf had a decent cup holder, or even some flat place to set a cup, my
cassette tapes wouldn't all be gummed up with dried coffee!
fcc
McEowen
change in my EOS. I agree one is less likely to use a Leica for a
subject needing a quick change, but I would have thought it might happen
with some candids. >>
WOW! If you can change film that fast you must be a REALLY good photographer .
. .
JETman
>
> In article <397530E9...@apple.com>, Godfrey DiGiorgi
> <rama...@apple.com> writes
> >I also find my Leica M6TTL to be as easy to load as any other manual
> >loading camera I've ever owned. Takes about 20 seconds. (And yes, I have
> >owned plenty of 'auto-load' cameras too.)
> >
> change in my EOS. I agree one is less likely to use a Leica for a
> subject needing a quick change, but I would have thought it might happen
> with some candids.
> David Littlewood
> London
> Energy Consultant and Photographer
I just timed it..... It took me 14 seconds to load my M2.
Been doing it for years though......
R. Saylor
>I see your point. Maybe the fact that someone can change film fast doesn't mean
>ANYTHING. Imagine that . . .
Maybe it means that that their camera is better? Nah, then APS would
be the best. I dunno.
Richard
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
><< *Twenty seconds*! Wow, I think 5 seconds is pretty slow for a film
>change in my EOS. I agree one is less likely to use a Leica for a
>subject needing a quick change, but I would have thought it might happen
>with some candids. >>
>
>
>. .
the tyres at a Formula 1 racing event would be in line for the drivers
championship. It could just mean I can produce poor pictures rather
quickly. I take pictures I like (well, I like some of them, anyway) :-)
McEowen
.
>. .
I don't understand the logic of that. If it were so, the men changing
the tyres at a Formula 1 racing event would be in line for the drivers
championship. It could just mean I can produce poor pictures rather
quickly. I take pictures I like (well, I like some of them, anyway) :-)
-- >>
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
I assume you are trying to be provocative. Very well, I will allow my
self to be provoked this once.
What it clearly means is that he will be ready to take another picture
in 5 seconds instead of after the parade has gone round the corner, the
final whistle has blown on the game, or the last scraps of wreckage from
the exploded rocket have disappeared behind the hill. Of course, if
someone were to believe the quality of the resolution is more important
than the subject of the picture, he might be inclined to think this was
of no importance....
McEowen
in 5 seconds instead of after the parade has gone round the corner, the
final whistle has blown on the game, or the last scraps of wreckage from
the exploded rocket have disappeared behind the hill. >>
An experienced photographer does not allow this to happen. Those of us who have
brought home our paychecks and fed our families with our cameras learn to use
two bodies or at least know better than to save the last couple of frames on
the roll after a lull in the action . . . People were covering breaking action
LONG before the camera manufacturers came up with auto load cameras, you know .
. .
McEowen
self to be provoked this once. >>
Not trying to be provocative at all. I just can't take seriously any discussion
that involves comparing cameras by how fast they load film.
When I started in photography it was a given that you should be able to load
your camera while walking down the street. That was before camera makers made
any effort to make it easy to load film. It's just not a very difficult task.
In my day (insert old man's quavering voice here) we learned to load stainless
steel film reels in the dark in under 20 seconds. If you can do that you sure
ain't gonna sweat the camera loading . . .
I use everything from a Leica M3 (separate spool) to a Nikon F4 (auto film
take-up) to a Bronica SQ (with 120 roll film and having to move the take up
spool). They're all equally easy. The Leica M4 system is the SLICKEST/COOLEST
of the bunch though . . .
Fred Whitlock
McEowen <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000721082740...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> << I assume you are trying to be provocative. Very well, I will
allow my
> self to be provoked this once. >>
>
>
> Not trying to be provocative at all. I just can't take seriously any
discussion
> that involves comparing cameras by how fast they load film.
>
Don't feel too bad. I've seen people choose a camera based on AF
speed as though that final tiny fraction of a second in focusing is
going to make a camera more or less useful. I'm still trying to
figure out why AF is useful at all. Take care.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
McEowen
>speed as though that final tiny fraction of a second in focusing is
>going to make a camera more or less useful. I'm still trying to
>figure out why AF is useful at all. Take care.>>
Yeah, what's amazing is that people buy into the lie that all this electronic
gee-whizz stuff makes photography EASIER -- It doesn't. It makes it harder.
But technology aside when it's all said and done photography is about SEEING
and not about doing (settings, focus, etc.) . . .
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>
> But technology aside when it's all said and done photography is about SEEING
> and not about doing (settings, focus, etc.) . . .
I've said this many times and the message is lost on this list.
When I said I can change the film in my M in about 20 seconds, it was
simply a way of saying that I didn't find it hard at all. And I don't
find that changing film in 5 seconds, or 2 minutes for that matter, to
be a limiting factor on my photography no matter what.
If you know your tools and how to use them, you use your brain and don't
depend upon such BS being in the way of your photography. The same
nonsense about changing film in 5 seconds or focusing .05% faster than
the next camera is pervasive and indicates a level of photographic
immaturity which is not worth arguing about.
Learn to see, take a few pictures and show them to the world. If you can
create the emotive experience in your viewers that you felt taking the
photographs, you've succeeded. Everything else is horsepucky.
Godfrey
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
film is 20 seconds not available to take photos. However good your
timing, reloading is going to be needed sometime.
Please do not think I am against slow contemplative photography. I use a
Linhof 5x4, for goodness sake, it does not come much more slow and
contemplative than that. I just thought it was interesting that *some*
cameras take longer to load than others, which matters for *some* kinds
of photography. You can find as many counter-examples as you like, but
the point is valid.
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
><< I assume you are trying to be provocative. Very well, I will allow my
>self to be provoked this once. >>
>
>
>Not trying to be provocative at all. I just can't take seriously any discussion
>that involves comparing cameras by how fast they load film.
>
>When I started in photography it was a given that you should be able to load
>your camera while walking down the street.
...preferably while chewing gum....:-)
> That was before camera makers made
>any effort to make it easy to load film. It's just not a very difficult task.
>In my day (insert old man's quavering voice here) we learned to load stainless
>steel film reels in the dark in under 20 seconds. If you can do that you sure
>ain't gonna sweat the camera loading . . .
>
> I use everything from a Leica M3 (separate spool) to a Nikon F4 (auto film
>take-up) to a Bronica SQ (with 120 roll film and having to move the take up
>spool). They're all equally easy. The Leica M4 system is the SLICKEST/COOLEST
>of the bunch though . . .
(1) Roll film cameras are not really comparable. They are all relatively
slow to load.
(2) This may be true for the systems you have tried. However, if it
takes 20 seconds to reload a Leica it is slow compared to most 35mm
SLRs that I have used, especially recent ones (which was the original
point I was responding to). I therefore disagree with your assertion as
a generally valid point. Perhaps the Nikon F4 is particularly difficult
to load?
Gene Windell
>Yeah, what's amazing is that people buy into the lie that all this electronic
>gee-whizz stuff makes photography EASIER -- It doesn't. It makes it harder.
Cameras are sort of like firearms - there has already been enough of
them manufactured over the years for everybody who wants one to
already have one. Without the inducements of advertising and magazine
editorials, the manufacturers would have no sales and be forced to
produce something else.
When new equipment is "evaluated" by the photo magazines, I notice
that the article is illustrated with mundane snapshots that could have
been taken just as well with a 30 year old camera/lens combo. What I
would like to see is this: When new equipment is "evaluated" in the
magazines and the article includes pictures that were taken with it,
the author of the article should also include pictures of the same
scenes which were taken with something like the Nikon FM2n and the
appropriate fixed focal length lens. Then, the author should explain
how the pictures taken with the new equipment are superior or how the
expense of "upgrading" to the new equipment is justified.
I am reassured by the volumn of E-mails I receive from guys who have
recently inherited something like a Canon FTb, Nikon FE or the sort
from a deceased relative. Invariably, they say they enjoy using it
more and take better pictures with it than the whiz-bang, computerized
camera that they bought just last year.
Gene Windell
McEowen
them manufactured over the years for everybody who wants one to
already have one. Without the inducements of advertising and magazine
editorials, the manufacturers would have no sales and be forced to
produce something else. >>
You hit the nail right on the head. I thought the same thing when I worked
behind the camera counter back in the early 80s and say AE evolve to "program"
modes and then the first rumblings of AF . . .
McEowen
film is 20 seconds not available to take photos. However good your
timing, reloading is going to be needed sometime. >>
I guess I'm just not experienced enough. I've never experienced the need to be
shooting every second . . .
McEowen
And reloading is still not much of an issue -- although we do carry three backs
with us so we can change quickly for convenience and to allow us to keep
shooting while the light is right . . .
<<(2) This may be true for the systems you have tried. However, if it
takes 20 seconds to reload a Leica it is slow compared to most 35mm
SLRs that I have used, especially recent ones (which was the original
point I was responding to). I therefore disagree with your assertion as
a generally valid point. Perhaps the Nikon F4 is particularly difficult
to load? >>
No, the Nikon F4 is not difficult to load . . . quite easy in fact. But it
relies on the machine perhaps a little more than some other systems which rely
on the operator. In my experience the operator is more reliable.
Also, I have no idea whether it takes 20 seconds to load my M cameras. I've
never timed myself but that seems a little long. Like I said, I find loading
the M4-style camera to be very quick and positive. The slowest part of it is
not the loading itself but handling the baseplate. Me, I just stick it in my
hip pocket.
THe M3 is a little tricky because you have to remove the spool to reset the
counter and then stick the leader in the spool and reinsert the whole thing --
cassette+leader+spool -- into the camera. You have to have the right length of
leader and get the whole thing in the grove without the film slipping out of
the spool. -It seemed so imtimidating that it kept me from buying an M3 for
awhile although I really wanted its viewfinder. But after I did it a couple of
times it was a no-brainer. I'd say I can load the M3 in 20 seconds. Incredibly
slow, yes, but worth it because of the high-mag viewfinder.
I'm sorry this is so long winded. The point is that no matter what camera you
use, loading is not that big of deal. In fact, the bigger factor is probably
film handling. How you store your film in your bag and access it is probably
more important than how your camera loads . . .
John G. Silver
> them manufactured over the years for everybody who wants one to
> already have one. Without the inducements of advertising and magazine
> editorials, the manufacturers would have no sales and be forced to
> produce something else.
> that the article is illustrated with mundane snapshots that could have
> been taken just as well with a 30 year old camera/lens combo.
Absolutely.
What is not considered in these groups, at least so far as I can see, is
that each of the manufacturers is just that. A manufacturer. It has a
holding Organisation and it in turn has shareholders. If they are not
getting a return on their shares then they will sell them and buy shares
that DO give them a proper return.
This means that the share PRICE of the manufacturer goes down. So in order
to keep the share price up the manufacturer has to come up with some item
that seems to be more salable than the previous lines.
It is then marketed at the extremes. The fast auto focussing 35 mm with
auto exposure is fine for racing cars and football games. But few of us
spend thousands of dollars to photograph these subjects.
Extreme subjects are used to sell. A photo of an insect, right down its
throat, even. the moon boiling or a space craft landing on it. No matter
how extreme, like using a camera to record man landing on the moon, it will
do.
Mainly we photograph faces and places and times.
You can do that very well and to an acceptable standard with most competent
equipment and some quite basic and easy to learn skills.
Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-)
JS
John G. Silver
who have
> >brought home our paychecks and fed our families with our cameras learn to
use
> >two bodies or at least know better than to save the last couple of frames
on
> >the roll after a lull in the action . . . People were covering breaking
action
> >LONG before the camera manufacturers came up with auto load cameras, you
know .
> >
Absolutely
.
> But an experienced photographer also knows that 20 sec spent reloading
> film is 20 seconds not available to take photos. However good your
> timing, reloading is going to be needed sometime.
The photographer with the level of experience you are talking about will
have three cameras ready to go and all hanging around his neck, usually with
different lenses on them and another couple of bodies loaded for bear in his
bag at his feet. They don't cost much and they don't weigh much. They are
called backups.
JS
Bob Hickey
thought about, but very true. I just expect all advertising to be a
little ridiculous and let it go at that. But beside that, I always
figure the camera cost divided by the number of keepers. With that
system, the Hassys and Rolleis I've had are dirt cheap, while all the
35s, with the exception of the FM2, have cost me. All the Leicas owned
by collectors and yuppies, now they're expensive.
Bob Hickey
Marc David Miller
Thank you! I can't believe the speed that which many of the posters
responded to my query, as well as the quality (and quantity--over 100!!) of
the answers. I bought the Contax G2 with the 45mm Zeiss as my first lens.
I can't believe the quality of the first roll from this machine--I want to
re-take my last three trips that I shot with the Rollei Prego 90 just to
re-photograph all the sites!
I have battled with buyers' remorse a bit (I could have purchased a Nikon F5
for approximately the same price, an N60 with a few decent lenses for about
1/2), but I am proud that I purchased this optical marvel.
I wanted to see how its autofocusing and metering work, so I spent the last
two hours photographing silver cars in my neighborhood--I will post the
results at some point.
--
Marc David Miller, New York, NY
MarcDav...@msn.com
Marc David Miller <MarcDav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:x2Pb5.78$w3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Greetings,
>
> I am thinking of supplementing my trusty P&S-Rollei Prego 28-90 with
> something more serious-a Contax G1.
>
> I want something that will take filters, that gives me manual control, and
> that looks sexy. I feel that an SLR will be too cumbersome to travel
with.
> A Leica (or a G2) is WAY beyond my budget.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Marc David Miller, New York, NY
> MarcDav...@msn.com
Tom Alaerts
F5
>for approximately the same price, an N60 with a few decent lenses for about
>1/2), but I am proud that I purchased this optical marvel.
typically, a G2 (or a Hexar, or a Leica) isn't a replacement for a versatile
camera as the F5, I would rather say that a RF camera has its own qualities,
like compactness, lens design that doesn't have to take mirrors in account,
no image blackout etc etc.
Indeed, cameras like the G2 are expensive luxury items, so it is difficult
to choose between it and a beast like the F5. But would you like to travel
around in baking sun with the F5 around your neck? You will be glad to have
the G2 then.
>I wanted to see how its autofocusing and metering work, so I spent the last
>two hours photographing silver cars in my neighborhood--I will post the
>results at some point.
It features quite classic, "stupid" metering, certainly not comparable to F5
metering. So, if you photograph cars with serious sun reflections in the
paint, without adjustment, the exposure will most likely be less than
perfect.
It is classic light metering for people who know what they do.
>> I am thinking of supplementing my trusty P&S-Rollei Prego 28-90 with
>> something more serious-a Contax G1.
the G2 is really worth the extra money over the G1, you made a good choice.
Tom
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
><< But an experienced photographer also knows that 20 sec spent reloading
>film is 20 seconds not available to take photos. However good your
>timing, reloading is going to be needed sometime. >>
>
>
>shooting every second . . .
But then in your previous post on this thread you explained the measures
needed to ensure you could keep up with fast breaking action.
Not consistent.
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
<mce...@aol.com> writes
><< (1) Roll film cameras are not really comparable. They are all relatively
>slow to load.>.
>
>And reloading is still not much of an issue -- although we do carry three backs
>with us so we can change quickly for convenience and to allow us to keep
>shooting while the light is right . . .
>
Mimiya 6....
--
David Littlewood
Mark Bergman
than I can load my F100. However a long long time ago when I was reloading
in a hurry I put my thumb through the shutter of my M4. Even in the early
80's that was very expensive.
Today if I worry about missing a shot due to reloading I carry two bodies
and have an assistant reload. Works great.
"David Littlewood" <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v9JVdCAV...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk...