Ed_Ingold

<p>You should use cables with a long PC tip for best compatibility with C and CF lenses. Conventional short tips don't always make good contact, and tend to fall off for C and CF lenses. (CFi and CFe lenses have a PC clamp.) CF sockets have an O-ring which helps hold the PC tip in place, but the tip needs to be beveled to avoid damaging the rubber ring.</p> <p>Cables are consumable items, so always have two good ones (or more) in your bag. It's possible that the extra strain on the cable when extensions are used affects a marginal contact. Older lenses may have a loose or defective socket.</p> <p>You may be able to buy commercial cables with a suitable tip, but they can be hard to find. I pay a little more and get exactly the cables I need from Paramount. The Nikon SB-900 has a PC connection on the side, which is a good alternative to a hot shoe adapter. Paramount offers a PC tip with a threaded collar which fits the Nikon perfectly and locks in place.</p> <p>Let's just hope it's the cable, not an expensive repair.</p>

<p>The 7S and 7R have metal bodies, whereas the 7 is plastic. I don't abuse cameras, but I get around. A metal body is more likely to hold up in the field. I'm making this up as I go, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it ;) The basic 7 has the best AF of the trio, but I'm not interested in AF at the moment. The 7S and 7R have unique features which make them desirable as a second camera, even the main camera in foreseeable circumstances.</p> <p>One way to decide is to list the types of photography you do, and rank each model (or other cameras) for their fit with that task. For example:</p> <ul> <li>Group photos using available light</li> <li>Landscapes and panoramas</li> <li>Friends and family</li> <li>Active children</li> <li>Society events</li> <li>Weddings</li> <li>Classical concerts</li> <li>Pop concerts</li> <li>Grip and grab</li> <li>Athletic events</li> </ul> <p>Mirroless cameras tend to be slow to respond and have poor battery life. I would be tearing my hair out following active children or snapping grip and grab shots without holding up the process. Speed and battery life would rule them out for social events and weddings. YMMV. Decision making is both an art and a process.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Digital M cameras have aperture-priority auto exposure only. The light is measured as it reflects off the shutter blades, colored so to have a center weighted value. There is no preset aperture, so the f/stop is what it is.</p> <p>The latest Leica lenses have a 6 segment bar code - black or white - engraved in the mounting flange. The camera uses this code to apply a correction for vignetting and color fringing (due to a shallow angle of incidence toward the edges of the frame). Some lenses, particularly non-retrofocus wide angle lenses, come very close to the sensor. In fact, the flange to sensor distance is only about 17 mm - half that of a typical DSLR. Different lenses, even of the same focal length, have different characterics. The bar code also records the lens type in metadata, which is of little practical use. The longest shutter speed can be based on the focal length, depending on the menu settings.</p> <p>The good new is, you don't have to use coded lenses. Vignetting is easy to clean up in Photoshop or Lightroom, as is false color. There are two plug-ins for Lightroom - flat field and lens correction - specifically for Leica lenses to assist in these corrections. The lens sensor can (and should) be turned off, to avoid false readings.</p> <p>The bar code does not transmit the f/stop setting to the camera. However, the camera does a pretty good job of guessing its value, based on the light reading, even without a bar code but more accurately with one. Since the aperture is always closed to the actual setting, the light reading is proportional to the light reaching the sensor. You can also enter the lens type manually, including the best compromise for older or non-Leica versions.</p>

<p>The Leica Look is a product of the style of photography peculiar to rangefinder cameras and the photographers who subscribe to that style.</p> <p>At one time, I fancied that I could tell which photos in National Geographic, for example, were take with Leicas and which with Nikons. This was in the 60's and early 70's before SLRs came to dominate photography. Somehow Leica lenses imparted more snap - contrast and detail - than other cameras. I think now that there were other factors in play.</p> <p>I bought my first Leica fifty years ago, when news people were split between those and the upstart Nikon F. Those lenses were definitely sharper than from Nikon, and hardly more limited in focal range - 35mm to 105mm at the outside. Black and white was everyday grist, with color for the weekends and big city papers. We learned to develop and print for publication, while the hoi poloi settled for grim, muddy prints from the corner camera shop. B&W can be luminous and open, if you do it right.</p> <p>The 60's also saw a migration away from the routine use of flash, indoors and out. If you've ever used a flash with a Leica M2 or M3, you can understand why it was a last resort. What's a hot shoe? Available light photography, coupled with slow shutter speeds (the fastest film was Tri-X at 320, later 400 ISO) adds to the "glow" of early Leica photography. I removed the reflector to use bare flash bulbs for fill. Like modern diffusing caps, they fill the room with light without overwhelming it. Newsprint is not very tolerant of shadows under the eyes - and editors weren't shy about telling you so.</p> <p>The "standard" lens for a Leica was (and probably still is) a fast wide angle, usually shot wide open. Limiting the depth of field adds "pop" to photos in any genre (save landscapes), and the relatively simple, compact rangefinder lenses look better out of focus than the complex semi-retro-telephoto SLR lenses. It didn't hurt to have nearly round aperture openings with 10 to 15 blades, compared to 5 to 6 blades for SLRs. Guess what? That's the new "standard" for mirrorless cameras like the high-end Fuji and Sony models.</p> <p>Where do we stand today? Leica, for now, still excels in lenses for wide angle. They are virtually distortion free (< 0.5%), no lateral color (<0.5%) and sharp from corner to corner. I have prime lenses for my Nikon from 20mm to 105mm, and fast zooms from 17 to 300. None comes close to Leica performance in the wide to normal range. Even Hasselblad comes in a close second, despite the format advantage.</p> <p>People are less self-conscious facing a petit Leica than a Nikon, for which the smallest lens is over 3" in diameter. I'm more comfortable without all that weight in front, and my back is grateful too. Plus I'm not getting criticized over the shutter/mirror noise.</p> <p>Is CCD coming back in force? Probably not. CMOS sensors make much more efficient use of real estate - less lost space between cells. In addition, much of the image processing, like noise reduction, can be done in the sensor itself, using much less power and generating much less heat. CCDs run hot and use up the battery quicker. Really high performance CCDs need cooling. Some MFD cameras use thermoelectric cooling, mine (Hasselblad CFV) uses a small fan. Astronomical and scientific CCDs use liquid nitrogen.</p>

<p>Most of the interesting parts of a panorama are within 30 degrees of the horizon. You can capture that in a stitched panorama using a "normal" to medium telephoto lens. An extreme wide angle lens or full-frame fisheye captures a lot more sky and dirt than necessary. In general, use a wide angle lens to exaggerate something in the foreground.</p> <p>Stitching software works by distorting each frame in a fisheye fashion to blend without corners, then converts the results into a cylindrical or rectilinear projection. A rectilinear projection can only approach 180 degree coverage asymptotically. You need several shots with a 25% overlap, rotating the camera on a vertical axis. If you use a pan head, the tripod must be first leveled, otherwise you lose much of the panorama by cropping away the jagged or curved edges. Photoshop does a decent job of stitching, but a dedicated program like PTGui is a lot more precise and flexible.</p>

<p>I'm going to get an Alpha sometime soon, but I can't decide between the 7S for ISO performance and silent operation, or the 7R with 36MP for landscapes and detail. I have a collection of Leica lenses which I plan to use with a Novoflex adapter, and some good Nikkor lenses (a Novoflex adapter has f/stop settings, and works with G lenses too). I'm okay with aperture priority (that's all I use anyway) and manual focusing. If I need speed, I'll use a DSLR.</p> <p>Zeiss makes ZM mount lenses with Leica performance at 1/3rd the price. They're not cheap by Nikon prime standards, but have better performance and ergonomics for manual control. Voigtlander has M mount lenses at the low end of price and performance (by Leica standards). I have a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 ZM, which is extremely sharp and mechanically solid.</p>

<p>A Rolleiflex TLR is not exactly a lightweight camera, but lighter than an Hasselblad V with a lens, any lens. The Rollei uses relatively simple lenses, about 1/3rd the size and weight of same 80mm focal length Hasselblad lens. It is amazing how sharp the Rollei is when used on a tripod. Of course, nobody in "the day" used them on a tripod, nor Leicas either.</p> <p>The waist level finder of the Rollei (and Hasselblad) is somewhat of a misnomer. It is impossible to focus at waist level, and hard to compose the image. I always used mine with the magnifier, at chin level, or with the sports finder at weddings. When the sports finder window is deployed, a clever arrangement appears with a mirror and lens which lets you focus accurately. There is a prism attachment, which weighs about as much as a paving brick. Good luck with that.</p> <p>There is a closeup lens set (Rolleinar?) which has a parallax correcting attachment for the viewing lens. It works okay, but no cigars. There was also a geared pair of polarizing filters. If you can forgo closeups, tightly framed images and interchangeable lenses, why not choose a Rollei. Be prepared to get a lot of questions about your "old fashioned" camera. (An Hassie looks old fashioned too, but people think it's a video camera and go about their business.)</p> <p>I will never part with the Rollei, for the sake of memories of the hundreds of rolls of film I shot with it. However when I'm in a medium format mood, I take an Hasselblad kit into the streets and woods.</p>

<p>In the digital age, cameras come and go on an 18 month cycle, but lenses endure.</p> <p>Lenses I bought 50 years ago are worth as much or more than what I paid for them, and work as well on modern cameras, including an M9. They're not exactly part of my retirement plan, but certainly what I leave to my children. The performance is there too. After a bit of pixel peeping, my Nikon lenses, which have served me well, look somewhat defective by comparison. Used Nikkor lenses, at least the better ones, have appreciated too, in parallel with new prices.</p> <p>You can only get about 50% of their current value in trade, but often more than retail if you sell on an auction site. If you need money in a hurry, there are always pawn shops and payday loans. "Fast" always comes at a premium.</p>

<p>If you can find THE bag at KEH that meets your needs, rest assured that EX means "just unwrapped" quality. I have enough trouble finding the right bag in my growing collection or from a nearly limitless variety, new from vendors.</p>

<p>In the past, I've just used two shoulder straps, one on either shoulder. However, you spend a lot of time and energy straightening straps and keeping the idle strap from slipping off. Now I use Sun Sniper straps (similar to Black Rapid, but with a better swivel and attachment). Both cameras are easily accessible, even with crossed straps. It would also work to have one camera on a neck strap in front and the other on a Sun Sniper hanging to the right, cross shoulder. A harness is just to fussy for the real world, unless you are rock climbing.</p> <p>My back is kind of game after years of abuse, and even a light camera, in front on a strap, hurts after a short time. A Sun Sniper centers the weight on my spine, and I can carry a D3 with a 70-200/2.8 attached for hours. The long strap with a wide pad distributes the weight well on my neck and shoulder. I carry a bottle of Alleve, just in case.</p>

<p>FE lenses for the Alpha have a stepless servo motor for the diaphram and a piezo-electric motor for focusing. This adds to the bulk. All is relative, however. The 24-70 Tessar is only slightly larger than a Nikkor 50/1.4 AFS. That's because Alpha lenses do not have to be retrofocus, although some are slightly retrofocus so that exit rays are straighter, and cause less problem with vignetting and purple fringing.</p> <p>If you are willing to subsist on aperture priority and manual focusing, then relatively petite Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander (and other) rangefinder lenses can be used on the Alpha with various adapters.</p>

<p>Left-eyed, right-eyed refers to the master eye when acquiring and tracking a subject with binocular vision, and has nothing to do with the quality of vision. You can be right eyed, but have better vision in the left. In the absence of a visual disparity of that sort, you can use either eye in the viewfinder.</p> <p>My master eye is the right, but I have clearer vision in the left. I deal with nose prints on the LCD by wiping the screen when they begin to annoy me.</p>

<p>Keep nose grease off the rear LCD? Use your right eye for viewing. Actually the LCD is easy to clean using a microfiber cloth. I always carry at least one in my camera bag. The thin "camera" types or thick hardware store variety (washed once, no dryer cloths) work equally well on non-critical surfaces.</p> <p>A greater problem is seeing the menus or image data in bright sunlight. There are folding attachments touted for this purpose, but I find they get in the way and fall off in use. If it's a problem that cupping your hands won't solve, use an ordinary editing loupe or detachable hood.</p>

<p>"...millions of people have burned discs using the OS software without a problem."</p> <p>Perhaps, but millions of people find discs they burned ten years ago have "faded," when in reality, their software is no longer compatible with the way they were burned. Millions of people burn music Track-at-once too, even though it leaves a 2 second gap between songs, then wonder what is going wrong. Disc-at-once is just as applicable to archiving images as for audio CDs. The difference is having one directory, closed to further entries, and a gapless data structure.</p> <p>My primary business is audio and video recording, for which disc burning is an important function. I'm able to apply what I've learned to archiving of all types. If your discs go south, you blame the disc. If mine go south, I hear from angry customers.</p>

<p>Built-in CD software generally writes in a packet fashion. This makes the CD/DVD look like a floppy drive, except a new directory is created with each burn. If everything goes right, the previous directory is copied along with the new, but only the latest directory is readable. If there is any glitch in the burn, all previous data is lost. Since there is no standard for packet writing, the discs often can't be read on another computer or operating system.</p> <p>The best way to save data on an optical disc is with software that writes in a Disc-at-once mode (DAO) that finalizes the disc. These discs follow ISO standards, and can be read on any computer, PC or MAC. Software like Roxio (PC) or Toast (MAC) will write DAO, but not as a default. You have to dig through layers of menu to set that up. I use Nero software, which is better suited for archiving. AFIK, it only works on a PC.</p>

<p>21mm and to a lesser extent, 24mm lenses are mainly used for architecture. As "people" lenses, everybody further than arm's length become background clutter - in focus clutter at that. To use either effectively, you need an auxiliary viewfinder, which adds to your personal "clutter," on camera or off. I have those lengths and wider for my Nikon, but not on the horizon for the Leica.</p> <p>Although a 28mm is not dramatically wider than 35mm, it is wide enough to make a difference in a group shot where you can't back up. It is a little wide for candid photography. I prefer a 35mm for that, but 28mm would work too. I didn't want to spend a princely sum for occasional use, so I bought a Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon to fill the slot. The Summicron 28/2 is sharper, but at four times the cost. At f/5.6, or even f/4, the Biogon is sharp enough at the corners for my needs. The center sharpness is as good as any in the Leica stable, and there's no focus shift.</p> <p>For fifty years running, a 35mm is on the camera when I put it away.</p>

<p>It is not enough to choose a tripod that will support the weight of you largest camera and lens, but one that will keep them steady in the real world of breezes and soft ground. In general you can't use image stabilization on a tripod, so the same rules apply to the 70-200 zoom lens.</p> <p>A carbon fiber Gitzo will have the quality you're accustomed to, at about 60% of the weight of aluminum. For a 200mm lens, I'd suggest a #2 as minimum spec. A #3 will work with a 300mm lens or less in anything less than a wind that shakes the branches, at not much more cost or weight. They're not cheap, but that's the problem when you need something both light and sturdy. The RRS tripods are interesting, but I've had my Gitzo GT3541XL everywhere for 8 years now, with no end in sight. I have a column for it, but a leveling head is all I use, with an Arca B1 on top.</p> <p>Feisol are Chinese-made Gitzo clones. There were some early problems with bonded parts, but no recent complaints. At half the price of Gitzo, and Gitzo's diminished warranty, they're worth a shot.</p> <p>Any ball head will hold an heavy camera on top, but fewer will hold it tilted 90 degrees. More important, you want a ball head that will allow you to make adjustments partially tightened without any slip-stick action. The field narrows considerably at this point, to Arca and RRS (and perhaps a few others). Don't expect bargains that perform well. You'll go bald soon enough without tearing your hair out over a head that slips or sticks.</p>

<p>I make mine the old fashioned way - panning and stitching from still shots. I sometimes add the dimension of HDR, especially for otherwise featureless skies. That's much appreciated by Seattleites, who spend most of their year in relative gloom.</p> <p>Picture frames are made in 1:3 formats in at least two standard sizes - 8"x24" and 12"x36". Either is a very reasonable size to hang on a wall, and the 1:3 aspect ratio is clearly a panorama, not some ordinary format.</p> <p>It's fun and easy to make panoramas, but too expensive and a huge burden limited wall space to print most of them. I try to choose subjects which represent a certain geographic area in a unique way. I have sold a few framed prints, but also made them as gifts for friends and relatives. Recent subjects include the Chicago skyline from the Planetarium, the Table Mountains between Golden and Denver, and Mt. St. Helens in Washington. It's not something I do in a hurry, and usually with a digital Hasselblad. Any camera will do, especially if you turn them vertically for maximum detail. If there are any important objects within 75 feet, you must use a nodal slide to avoid ghosting.</p> <p>Some I've made into Quicktime "movies", where the viewer can scroll horizontally and vertically as though looking around. This is effective for interiors, for realtors, homeowners or just entertainment. The computer doesn't have to be fast if you keep the resolution in line with the monitor - like 1080 px tall. I've made fixed panoramas of rather mundane scenes during concerts for use by the organization in their websites and brochures.</p>

<p>Fuji X cameras get high marks for their lenses. The X-Pro has interchangeable lenses, and adapters for Leica, Canon and others. The Fuji combines the best (and worst) aspects of an optical viewfinder and an EVF. It is, however, an APS-C sized sensor.</p> <p>The Sony 7/7r/7s system gets high marks for the sensors and ergonomics. It is a full frame, strictly EVF camera which can take other manufacturer's prime and zoom lenses, including Leica, Nikon and Hasselblad. Sony lenses for this camera are few, at present. Other than a couple of Zeiss primes made for the Sony, they have lackluster performance. If you can forgo automatic focus, and a collection of good lenses for other cameras, the Sony is a logical choice.</p>

<p>Focal length equivalence is not an engineering problem, rather one of familiarity. If your main experience is 35mm, you tend to visualize which focal length to choose for a given situation in that framework. If you use zoom lenses, translating the viewfinder to a focal length means looking at the lens barrel and converting if you decide to use a medium format camera instead. If you typically use prime lenses, the relationships are somewhat easier to visualize. Imagine! Using a DSLR as a viewfinder and light meter for a medium format camera. </p> <p>If I estimate the size of something, it will be in inches, and fall back on a conversion factor to metric. In the lab I "think" in centimeters and milliliters, but in the real world it's inches and ounces. (Despite having thrown the British out of office, we in the US cling to their conventions.) Estimates are nothing better than 10%. Likewise lens conversions and equivalency.</p>

<p>The comparison is complicated when there is a change in aspect ratio. The convention is to use the diagonal dimension for comparison, but the long (or short) dimension is equally valid, hence the range in equivalent focal lengths.</p> <p>When using a square format, I tend to compose to the corners rather than to a rectangular format. This makes the "normal" 80mm lens closer in effect to 35mm than 50mm in a 24x36 format camera. Printing in square format looks "artsy" and perhaps "unsettling" after six decades dominated by 2:3 cameras. Even 4:5 looks excessively symmetrical to our jaded senses.</p>

<p>The focusing/zoom cam is plastic, and easily damaged in a fall. It costs about $500 to replace (call for an estimate), and the focusing motor about the same. I use "Authorized Nikon Repair" in Morton Grove (or is it Elk Grove now) in Illinois. They do good work at a reasonable price. The turn-around is usually 5 working days or less. My 70-200 has gone under their knife, as well as my 28-70.</p>

<p>I switched to a "mirrorless" camera, notably a Leica M9, when I found I wasn't needing most of the features of a DSLR, but was suffering from the weight of the kit (about 35 pounds). The Leica and four lenses weighs only 7 pounds, including the bag, and I don't have to set the bag down to get at its contents. My back isn't what it used to be, to a considerable extent due to the abuse I've subjected it to.</p> <p>The Leica is not a complete extravagance. I bought my first Leica fifty years ago, and collected several lenses over the years. I'm comfortable with a rangefinder, its limitations and benefits. The quiet, though not silent shutter is a real plus, along with the unobtrusive appearance.</p> <p>At this point I would definitely consider a true "mirrorless" camera with an EFV for several reasons. They are light weight, highly capable, and several can take Leica lenses (also Nikon or Canon). Thus they can serve as a second body for the Leica, with added benefits. In particular, I'm considering a Sony A7r (36 MP) or A7s (12.1 MP but totally silent with incredible high ISO performance). With the EFV and inherent live view, there are no limits on closeups, long or very wide lenses.</p>

<p>The 120 Makro CFI has somewhat better internal baffling to suppress reflections. I have not noticed veiling flare in mine from a bright sky or backlighting, nor excessive flare when there is an exceptional bright light source in the field of view. The Makro Planar is a simple lens compared to the 80mm Planar CF/CFI, which would ordinarily mean less flare in general. The only lens which I find problematic is the CF50 FLE, and then only under harsh conditions.</p> <p>A filter, even plain glass or "UV absorbing" has a profound effect on contrast in the situation you describe. I don't use my Hasselblad in conditions that would require that degree of protection. I also use a compendium hood outdoors, although that won't protect the lens from a bright sky or backlighting.</p>

<p>I have used both Omega and Beseler enlargers extensively. The Beseler is by far the most rigid of the two, and of any I've used. The downside is that the braces limit the freedom with which you use a paper holder. The Omega B Autofocus was by far the fastest in use. You still have to fine focus, but the auto feature lets you size and crop rapidly. The Omega also has better film holders, lens holders and dedicated condenser modules for each format. The Beseler has focusing bellows for the condensor and lens - universal but crude.</p> <p>The newspaper had a Leitz too (elegant jewel), and an MF Durst. The Durst, I felt, was too shaky and flimsy compared to the Omega and Beseler (and Leitz) enlargers.</p> <p>I tried to set up a darkroom when my kids were in school, but there were very few enlargers available at the time. Ten years later, Great Lakes Naval Base disbanded their darkroom, and put a dozen or so Omega D2 (4x5) enlargers on the local market. By that time, it was too late for me and my kids had left home.</p>