new hampshire john

I've used all of the CV adapters, some of the Leica ones, and a couple of generics -- all have been fine (although the accessory kit with the CV ones is impeccable -- rear cap/adapter remover + makeshift body cap).

Xavier -- I'd second the above list of pros and cons. I use the Homestayer for rangefinders, the Harry Palmer Device for combined SLR/RF and some medium format stuff, and have used others in the past, including their laptop cases. They're fantastic bags that're well made and nice looking. The Aussie service is fantastic -- e-mails responded to immediately, generous offers to help with my questions/issues. My only major caveat with the system is that all the bags I've used have large velcro strips -- opening them usually sounds like a tear in the space-time continuum -- not exactly the "quiet rangefinder photography ethos" to which many aspire here. I'm thinking about getting some velcro strips and taping off the bag's velcro in that fashion, then using only the clips to close the bag. It's bad enough that I've had people turn around to see what had happened when I opened the bag on busy, loud streets, but not so bad that I'm not lusting after one of their backpack laptop/camera daypacks at the moment.

 

But I went through a couple early on before settling on the kit I did -- the sizes are hard to judge by the web, so if you can get yourself in front of them to test, that would be best.

I've enjoyed a Summitar for the last few months -- my B&W people images benefit from it a great deal, it definitely has its own fingerprint. I would think it would make a nice complement to the Summilux. Of course, if you think you can plump for the Elmar, just look for a good used Summicron -- I just picked up a penultimate version (focusing tab, no built-in hood) for $500 -- not much more (and maybe less) than you'd pay for a good used Elmar.

Nicholas - thanks for posting, it's interesting stuff to see. That's also a nice shot of Grand Central - captures its cavernous feel, the way the light pours in at certain times/seasons -- nicely done.

Tim - I didn't see that pic on the website, but assume it was there at some point (and depending on their html (I didn't look at it) may be up again if they rotate pics). My suggestion is to meet with a local attorney ("avocat," je pense) if you can. These legal questions often get dangerously incorrect answers on this website. But you probably can enforce some French rights against the theater, and almost certainly some Czech ones -- but again, until you're sitting across the table from someone who is willing to help you enforce the rights in question, take anything anyone says about those rights with a grain of salt. If you're serious about protecting your intellectual property, see a lawyer -- end of story.

Tom - thanks for posting. There's some good stuff in there.

Nick -

 

TX and APX 100 are the only two films I run through Diafine, now (after using a bunch of old-tech films like FP4+, Plus-X, Pan-F 50, etc. and just finding these two to be optimal), and I still do it (despite the removal of the original necessity for diafine -- no temperature controls in a new house).

 

That was a particularly convoluted way of introducing the following:

 

I think it's great stuff and I recommend you try it out. When used with Photographer's Formulary's T4 fixer (I think that's what they call it), you don't end up mixing new chemicals for a long, long time. I picked some up over 1.5 yrs ago and -- assuming it would wear out after I realized how much I enjoyed it and was going to be using it -- picked up another box of it about a year ago. The new box is still on my shelf as I haven't had cause to crack it open (although I think I'm seeing slightly uglier, clumpier grain now, a year into it, and will probably at least test some with a new batch to see if there's a difference).

 

Downsides? No pushing and pulling, one "true" speed for each film. I find that it can be a little grainy, but for the purpose (ease of use and a little speed boost) it's great. When you put it side-by-side with a well-exposed frame of Delta 100, however, you might find it lacks a little bit of contrast and sharpness (and maybe some shadow detail if you've exposed it at all poorly), but you would use those two films for different jobs, anyway.

 

My only major beef with it is that it can render tones in an unusually "flat" way -- it tends toward muddy tones, and although I can "correct" for it on an enlarging easel or in PS, it's not always as easy to get accurate tonal relationships as I find the same films to be in other soups.

 

But I guess the proof is in the pudding: I still use it after about 6 months of using a tempering box to control temperature for other developers -- it's got a nice personality to it.

 

But try it out, it's easy and fun.

It's big(ger), (some folks think) it's ugly, it's different (which some folks object to), and the SLR comment is well met -- surely by that time even the pros (who us lowly amateurs (and the then-nascent "prosumers") followed like lemmings) were flogging the SLRs somewhat more. Plus hadn't AE and programmed exposure become somewhat more available by this point? For Leica to say "Hey, look at us! We got ourselves a meter IN THE CAMERA!" at that point could easily appear to be a day late and a dollar short for the masses.

 

But thank dog it was made, it's easily my favorite M (though I've not used the MP (yet)). It's terribly useable. There were a couple of very pro-M5 posts a while back, search the archives for posts to massage your own opinion of the M5.

 

I get more parenthetical later in the evening; I think the scotch makes my brain work in alternative channels while the main river is flowing. In any case, sorry for the obtuse prose.

...but who invited Eaton to fill the role of Resident Abuse Dispenser?

 

Scott, as history has shown, you know a lot about photography (which makes us hoi polloi glad you're here), and have poor social skills (which is usually an acceptable downside given the value of your wealth of knowledge). But c'mon, Mike's just excited about a new lens (which is natural, knowing that it's a particularly exotic piece of glass); give 'im a break.

 

Mike -- let's see some Nocti shots, it's surely not worse than the bulk of the rest of our work, and we're always interested in seeing this lens in action.

This dude already knows that the M5 was the best M-series camera ever made...

 

Hey, any way my kid could get some kind of employment with your kid? I think that would let us start funneling $$ into their IRAs -- if Greenspan gets his way, they're a-gonna need it.<div></div>

Gina -

 

<br>

<Br>

 

First, hold on to that husband -- he's got good taste (but you knew that).

 

<br>

<Br>

 

I also shoot with a K1000 and PZ-1P in k-mount, and I find them to complement each other nicely. Obviously it was for the PZ that I started picking up AF lenses, but given that I still use the K1000, I try to get AF lenses that have good damping on the focusing to make manual focusing on the K1000 better -- just something to think about. The limited series lenses have good reputations for this, but have a lower price-to-value ratio than other Pentax primes (non-zooms).

 

<br>

<Br>

 

So recommendations. First, check out <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lenstesting/">Digital Imaging Studio's Pentax Lens Tests</a> if that sort of thing matters to you. Be sure to hit Boz' site (referenced above) as well. <a href="http://plg.komkon.org/">Here</a> is a gallery of images made with different lenses, to the extent that this might be useful. My favorite pentax lens page is <a href="http://stans-photography.info/">Stan's pentax page</a>, as it has subjective comments from the PDML folks, who typically know the most about Pentax gear (and aren't afraid to say it over and over again).

<br>

<br>

Personally, there are two lenses on my event horizon for the Pentax: the current-model 24mm or the (relatively new) 24-90 zoom (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=222155&is=REG">here</a> is BH's page for this lens). They're both sharp, about the same price, and each with their own plusses and minuses. If I were you, I'd think about the 24-90 as an everyday walk-around lens -- it expands your current kit by adding on the wide end, and covers the normal range (which you appear to be lacking -- unless that macro is 50mm).

<br>

<br>

You should have enough left over from the 24-90 to pick up a sharp/fast 50, which I would also advise you to do -- the zoom (like many zooms) is slow (has a comparatively small maximum aperture), so if you pick up a 50/1.7 or a 50/1.4 you'll be able to shoot in low light without resorting to flash...

<br>

<br>

Good luck -- it's a great dilemma to have.

I used one for my M5 a while back (the OEM ER case for the M5 seemed impossible to find at a reasonable price), and I have used the ER cases made by Leitz for the M3. The quality is comparable, although the Kameraleder cases are probably marginally the better product. They're also substantially more modern-looking; it emanates a different affect. I found my Kameraleder case to be slightly more rigid than my M3 cases, but (a) I didn't have the Kameraleder case long enough for it to be broken in in any real sense, and (b) the M3 cases were over 40 years old and were quite well broken in.

 

They're pricey, to be sure -- but (a) as lots of Leica owners know, you never regret buying quality, and (b) if it's for a special camera that you'll anticipate keeping for a while, it's likely worth it. Of course, while I got rid of that old M5 in a paroxysm of gear-shedding (together with the case), I don't particularly pine over the case -- though I do so over the M5.

Patrick -

 

I don't know what your subject/output is, but let's assume it would include kids -- the only portrait-f.l. lenses I can get my kids with are autofocus. Like you, I enjoy the pictures the G-series cameras make, but am not particularly enamoured of the system interface -- but the G's 90/2.8 is a handy little portrait lens. You can pick one up for about $200 right now at KEH, and it'll give you the same quality as the other mentioned lenses, although it stops at f/2.8 -- a downside for some in portraiture. If you want to go Zeiss but are looking to transition out of the G, think about the 85 for the N-mount. It's superb -- almost without par (I've not used the current summilux 75 so can't compare), and you can pick up an NX for a song (though the lens can be pricey).

 

Having said all of that, I've been thinking of picking up the 75/1.4 in m-mount for quite some time, now, myself. You've already got access to some excellent systems. Personally, I'd pick up the 90 for the G and be done with it...

Frank, your collage of camera bag / rear view was in the Colorado legislature post, not this one... but still, nicely done.

Hans, your ability to take a joke good-naturedly without becoming (overly) defensive led me to think that a serious response might be in order (I know, this could lead to the thread's deletion).

 

I've found when I'm shooting with view cameras, people come out of the woodwork to chat -- most of them seemingly seeking only to confirm my egomaniacal intuition that most people are morons -- but I've had an interesting chat or two, and since I'm mostly shooting architecture or landscapes, I'm not in a rush and can do what I'm doing while carrying on a conversation or (usually when I'm trying to calculate an extension's effect on exposure or something with my appallingly bad math) I just ask for a moment.

 

I've also been stopped when shooting with older (usually retro-looking chrome) rangefinders (usually by geezers who used to shoot with them, or the kids of such geezers), and since I'm usually shooting on my own free time, and not for pay, I enjoy a good chat about olden times and cameras.

 

I've never been stopped when shooting with SLRs -- as mine are rather pedestrian, I suppose -- but don't think that'd particularly make a difference. So I guess I have the same "problem," but I simply do not find it a problem.

 

And to the rest of you cads, I apologize for the quasi-serious post.

 

John

 

p.s. Frank -- most imaginative use of Jay's camera + bag yet -- well done..

First they take away locker-room cameras, then you can't even get a decent happy ending massage anywhere. What is this frickin' world coming to?

You guys really crack me up (usually I'm shaking my head sadly while I'm laughing, of course).

 

Here Hans tries to get a little sympathy for being a pretty unsympathetic f#cking sod, and gets the righteous flogging he deserves... kudos for standing always ready to take someone down a peg, folks...

I remember a whole exhibit of HCB up-the-skirt shots at MOMA a few years back...

 

Seriously, though -- this is just another over-inclusive, over-reaching, over-reactive groping by a legislators. It happens all the time. The largest part of most legislator's brains is taken up with self-love, and the rest is mildly retarded.

 

...doesn't surprise me at all.

M3, 50/2, XP-2<div></div>

The G 21/2.8 or 28/2.8 are enough (individually) of a reason to own a G1.

<br>

<br>

As an aside, I just picked up a G1 after shooting with a G2 for several years, and have been shooting both lately. I would say that the one thing that bothers me most about the cameras is their noisiness. As you note, outdoors, it's negligible -- most subjects can't even hear it if they're not right on top of you. Indoors it's another story. My mother in law turned around and asked, "what was <b>that</b>" when she heard the G2's shutter at 1/4 second (which involves a wizz-chunk-wizz effect between focusing, opening the shutter, waiting, closing the shutter, and film advancing). They're not quiet enough cameras that you wouldn't be noticed indoors. It's not a terribly objectionable sound, but the subject likely has his/her attention drawn to the fact that you're making a picture. FWIW.

I'd second Andrew's suggestion regarding the Voigtlanders. To answer your questions, though: I shot with an M3 for quite some time using a top-mounted Leicameter. The meter is coupled to the shutter speed dial, and that makes it quicker in operation than if it were not coupled. Obviously, however, it's not TTL, it's not at eye-level, and it's not aperture-priority as you were used to with the M7; but it's not bad. I find having the metering info in the viewfinder to be quite helpful, though, and I eventually moved on (with detours through M6s) to the M5, but I think the Voigtlanders have a lot to offer.

 

Your question about value: For my money, the M2 is the best value for an older Leica with 35mm frames built in (the M3 has 50-90-135, if memory serves). But I do enjoy the M3's finder and would probably go with that if I could limit myself to the 50 (or just using the 35 with the full viewfinder, I guess).

 

If you get a decent M6 classic for $800, don't tell anyone here, as they all paid a lot more.

 

Seriously, though, I think you'll have a wait looking for one at that price. With your purposes and budget in mind, I would probably recommend an M3 or M5 with a 50/2. My great "one that got away" Leica was an M3 with rigid 'cron that made beautiful pictures, and I might try to replicate that one if I were in your shoes.

 

Good luck, it's a wonderful problem to have...

hey, all -

 

i was looking at the 24-90 in a review in last year's shutterbug that

sounded pretty good -- and wondered if there's a definite star in the

normal-range zoom line for pentax AF (3rd party ok, too) -- any

thoughts on lenses to avoid, or real stars?

 

thanks for any help you can offer,

 

John

Keith -

 

It's a good question. I've dabbled with Pentax SLRs, Leica & Contax rangefinders, and the Bronica RF645, among (probably too many) others. My short answer to your question would be "sure, go for it." I never found the Leica shutter to be too much quieter than that on the Pentax MX (or the Super Program, which I found even quieter than the MX), but it is somewhat so. In the interest of complicating things more than you'd probably wanted, let me say this:

 

Think about the Contax G series. It has a spectacular 28/2.8 and 45/2 (as well a wonderful 21/2.8 and 90/2.8), it's autofocus, relatively unobtrusive, and as someone who prints his own negatives, I really appreciated the lenses' clarity and contrast.

 

The Leicas are super, for sure: quiet, great lenses, unobtrusive, robus, quiet focusing, all the things you're looking for. But you need to get used to rangefinder focusing. It's not that difficult, and once you get the hang of it (and maybe learn zone focusing / pre-focusing / other techniques) you can use it for developing-situation people photography and street photography to great end (like some of the folks here on the forum); for many, though, it's slower -- it's the old focus-and-recompose deal. Personally, if I were in your shoes, I'd think about a quieter SLR: I've been playing with an Olympus OM-2S lately that is almost as quiet as my M5, and it takes any number of small, very sharp lenses (for B&W work they have startlingly high contrast). I know you're invested in Pentax glass, and as a lover of that line of lenses it pains me to say it, but pick up an OM-2S or the like: you can focus on the ground glass, so you can focus and compose at the same time, they're quiet, robust, and you get aperture priority or manual exposure plus center-weighted or spot metering.

 

There you go, more info than you wanted, and not exactly the kind you wanted. Most importantly, have fun..

 

As an aside, how are the 31 and 77 for manual focusing? And are they as good (image-wise) as the drooling reviewers suggested?

nicely done, Marc -- get a machine shop to rig you up an adapter, plate them with titanium, and charge leica folks $400 a pop for 'em.

You may be right about his writing being better than his photography, but the writing <i>is</i> quite good. First few paragraphs of the travel page were bitingly true -- insightful, hilarious stuff.