Another interesting article from VanRiper

Gang, here's another interesting article from VanRiper:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/i

ndex.htm

 

Not intended to start the film versus digital discussion, please!

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm">Working link</a>. (There's a space in the URL above.)

<p><a

href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm">This</a>

(without space) is the correct link. It's an article about somebody who

chooses to photograph weddings in B/W, using available light only, and

via expensive Leica equipment.</p><p>Van Riper makes a big thing of the

price of the Leica equipment; there's not the slightest hint anywhere

that somebody wanting to try such a way of working might try with

marginally slower or inferior (or not) lenses produced by other

companies.</p>

Wrong, Peter, re-read the following part of the article:

 

"Pricey though Jeff's gear may be, I think someone working with

more mundane glass, for example, might still be able to get

good available light results by using faster film, like Ilford's

fantastic Delta 3200, which Judy and I love for low-light

shooting."

<I>"Pricey though Jeff's gear may be, I think someone working with more mundane glass, for example, might still be able to get good available light results by using faster film, like Ilford's fantastic Delta 3200."</I>

<P>

Actually he does say exactly that near the end.

So what about the pics? Nice looking stuff, don't you think? And why should anyone have to apologize for advocating Leica cameras and lenses on the Leica forum?

Correction: yes, he does clearly say that a very similar job

could be done with less costly equipment. (I must have been in a bad

mood when I read the article and thus stopped reading before the end,

which I think is forgivable, and wrote in ignorance about it, which

certainly isn't. Sorryyyyy.)

The photos are indeed excellent, and almost make me think that a

wedding is a sensible way to spend a sizable wodge of money. (And if I

were going to spend a sizable wodge of money on a wedding, I'd spend it

on the photographer rather than on renting, let alone buying, the

conventional high-kitsch

clothing.) And no, there's

nothing wrong about Leica advocacy on this forum or anywhere else; but

Leica advocacy does often seem loony to me when it appears to assume

that Leica equipment is very different to any alternative. (In some ways,

it clearly is very different; in others, such an assumption seems

debatable at

best. Meanwhile, I'm open to reasoned claims that it's very different.)

Why is he so pre-occupied with what the photographers gear costs? Isn't that his affair? Last I checked, Leica gear isn't that much pricier than pro-level Nikon/Canon.

Kevin, are you KIDDING ME?

 

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L - $1119

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux - $2495

 

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 - $275

Leica 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit - $2095

 

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 - $229

Leica 35mm f/2.0 Summicron - $1595 - $1995 depending on finish

 

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 - $420

Leica 21mm f/2.8 - $2495

 

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - $299

Leica 50mm f/1.4 - $1995

 

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - $70

Leica 50mm f/2.0 - $1095

 

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - $320

Leica 90mm f/2.0 - $1995

 

Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 - $280

Leica 135mm f/3.4 - $1995

 

This is for the rangefinder lenses. If anything, the R lenses are a bit more pricey.

 

The entry point for a Leica lens appears to be $1000. For a slow standard lens. For the

price of a Leica M body and three lenses, you could get a nice Canon body and every non-

L prime lens.

So if you want to do that style of shooting and get results close to that, what equipment would you recommend? Right now I have a Contax G2, but don't like the slowness of the lenses, nor the manual focus mechanism. Seems like it would be a manual focus slr like the nikon fm3a or a canon (what would the canon equivalent be?)? are there better choices?

 

Scott

<p><em>I basically use three [Leica] M6TTL's.</em></p><p>Three Bessa

R(2)s, or two Bessa R(2)s and one [old] Canon 7(s). You'll need the M

mount of the Bessa R2 for the 35/1.2 lens mentioned below. The Canon is

big and heavy but has a greater RF length and focusing should be surer

with the 85mm lens, though of course its viewfinder must be in good

condition.</p><p><em>My lenses consist of a 50mm f1 Noctilux, a 50mm

f2 Summicron, 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH, 90mm f2 Summicron ASPH, and

a 21mm f2.8 ASPH....</em></p><p>A CV (Cosina/Voigtländer)

50/1.5 or [old] Canon 50/1.4; CV 35/1.7 or (bigger, heavier, more

expensive) CV 35/1.2; [old] Canon 85/1.8; and CV 21/4.</p><p>NB I'm

not saying either that this pile would be better than the SLR equivalent

or that it's as good as Leica, but at least it's worth consideration.</p>

Funny how nobody said anything when Van Riper raved over the ability of a Panasonic 2MP

digicam to make "outstanding" 8x10" prints.

 

Ever hear the term 'Cafeteria Catholic'?