majid

<p>Sorry to be late to this thread, but people seem to still follow links from it.<br>

I had the 45mm f/2.8P on a FM3A in 2002, and bought my first Leica, a M6TTL with a 50mm Summicron about 6 months later. After that, the FM3A just gathered dust. The 45mm has a decent enough bokeh thanks to the rounded diaphragm blades, but it lacks the "wow" factor of Leica optics (or VC ones, for that matter).</p>

<p>At that price point, the only decent tripod you can get is a Tiltall. If you are doing mostly tabletop macros, a Novoflex BasicBall is an excellent choice.</p>

<p>The LowePro Mini Trekker and Compu Trekker are excellent, but quite distinctively camera bags. I used to carry mine in an inexpensive Timbuk2 "Underground" backpack:<br>

<p>One other lens you could consider is the Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 ASPH with a lens mount adapter. That requires stop-down metering and is impractical outside a studio environment IMO.</p>

<p>Another lens to consider is the new Zeiss ZE Makro-Planar 50mm f/2. If you like the 35mm f/1.4L, though, you probably want f/1.4 or faster. I have the 50mm f/1.2L, and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 before that. The 50mm f/1.2L is a bit of a disappointment compared to my other L lenses (the 70-200mm f/4L and the 35mm f/1.4L, since sold).</p>

<p>I have the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 in ZF mount. It is good, but not amazing, not like the Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. When I compare shots on the Zeiss at f/1.4 on my old D3 to shots with the Canon f/1.2 on my old 5D, the Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and f/1.2, and both have equivalent, rather mediocre bokeh. You can judge for yourself by comparing three shots here (I added the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for good measure):<br /> http://majid.info/images/canon_5d_50mm_f1_2.jpg<br /> http://majid.info/images/canon_5d_50mm_f1_4.jpg<br /> http://majid.info/images/nikon_d3_zeiss_50mm_f1_4.jpg</p>

<p>All photos were exported as JPEGs from Lightroom for equal treatment, no sharpening applied. Keep in mind the Canon 5D has a slightly weaker AA filter and is thus intrinsically sharper than the Nikon D3 despite comparable pixel ratings.</p>

<p>The 7D is definitely superior to the D300s. The midrange cameras to consider are the Canon 7D, 5DmkII and the Nikon D700.</p>

<p>One interesting option to consider would be the Panasonic GH1, which can accommodate Leica M lenses with a simple mount adapter, and has by far the best HD video ergonomics in any DSLR. Many photojournalists believe the future is combined motion and still capture.</p>

<p>I think he meant "no newly designed lens", not "no lens you can buy new". Nikon still makes AI-S lenses, but all the new releases are G lenses without the aperture ring.</p>

<p>The strain in the glass from molding alters its refractive index and has to be factored in computing the lens formula.<br /> <br /> Interestingly process (3) is <a href="http://www.frojel.com/Documents/Document03.html">over 800 years old</a> (well, apart from the CNC part).</p>

<p>I have the 5DmkII and find the auto ISO utterly useless as it always picks an ISO and shutter speed combination one stop less than what I need, even though I don't have specially jittery hands.</p>

<p>Some M lenses like the Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 were introduced after the R equivalent. The problem is the viewfinder on the 5DmkII is not adequate for critical focus, even with an Eg-S screen, and you would need a magnifier like the Angle Finder C or Magnifier C, either of which is quite cumbersome, not to mention the hassles of stop-down metering, or you would have to use Live View. The Zeiss ZE line is a much more practical option.</p>

<p>The D700 is a significantly better camera than the D300s, with a correspondingly higher price. There is roughly half again as much improvement going from the D300s to the D700 as there is going from the D100 to the D300.I had bought my father a D100 when it came out, and a D300 2 years ago, he is very happy with it, but I used to have a D3 myself and absolutely nothing can touch it (well, apart from the D3s, presumably).</p>

<p>As a wedding photographer working in marginal lighting conditions, you would probably benefit from the class-leading high-ISO performance of the D700. Its performance at ISO 3200 is about the same as your D100 at ISO 400. This will allow you to shoot without flash for more natural lighting, or use smaller apertures for wider depth of field in group shots, and thus get a higher proportion of sellable successful shots. The price premium is probably worth it if you shoot more than a half dozen weddings a year.</p>

<p>The Epson R-D1 series are not sold outside Japan, which is why you can't find one in your local camera stores. You can import one via eBay, but the markups would make it likely just as expensive as a second-hand M8.</p>

<p>Read the "Learn" section on this website to understand the concepts. Once you have them, the manual will make sense (although the other books mentioned above are usually more understandable). I can also recommend John Hedgecoe's didactic works on photography.</p>

<p>Well, if you paid $2000 for the lens, you probably resold it for a profit. I still have the Hasselblad 500 C/M you sold me 6 years ago, so far from me to discourage your equipment-shedding, but if you were happy with the Summaron, why get a Summilux ASPH in the first place? You sold a 35mm Summicron ASPH in the past, presumably you knew by then that even f/2 was overkill for your needs?</p>

<p>I am considering selling my own 35mm 'Lux ASPH, mostly because I upgraded from a M8 to a M9 and gone back to my mainstay on my MP, a 50mm Summilux ASPH, and seldom use the 35mm focal length any more.</p>

<p>A silk cord would be a better option:<br>

http://www.artisanandartist.com/straps/acam106.htm</p>

<p>The problem with the so-called optical resolution is that they just quote the pixel pitch of the pixels on the CIS sensor, but omit to mention that the optics in front of the sensor are just not very good, fixed-focus lenses at best, pinholes at worst, and certainly no match for a Coolscan 9000. I don't see the point of scanning beyond 1600dpi on my V500.</p>

<p>Small production volumes, expensive labor, labor-intensive production due to lack of automation (hand assembly) and individually testing each camera, lack of vertical integration.<br>

If Leica were simply extracting a premium for a luxury product, they would be fabulously profitable like Louis Vuitton. In fact they have been consistently losing money over the last decade or so.</p>

 

<p>I've bought from J&R and Adorama occasionally, they are both reputable shops, but B&H or Amazon are where I get my gear from online, and Calumet offline. The really great thing about B&H is how consistent and reliable they are, even if they are not always the absolute cheapest.<br>

<br /> I received my new Mac Pro from Apple yesterday, unfortunately the video card is incompatible with my monitor. B&H has the other, hopefuly compatible video card in stock (Apple has it back-ordered for a week) and when I ordered with next-day shipping, they actually shipped it next-day even though I was 3 hours after the cut-off, so I will get it tomorrow. Thanks!<br>

<br /> The fact Henry Posner (director of Customer Service at B&H) posts regularly here is just another sign of how they walk the walk on customer service. That's rewarded by loyalty (I've spent over $22,000 there in the last 10 years).</p>

Unless you can find a used Fuji F30 or F31fd at a reasonable price, your best bet is to get a small DSLR. It can still be used in full auto mode and be just as easy to use as a P/S.

I sold my Noctilux because it was just gathering dust. The long lens throw makes it too slow to use in any kind of dynamic situation, and I bumped into the 1m minimum focus distance (vs. 0.7m for the other lenses) surprisingly often. In practice the Summilux lenses get the shot more often than the ponderous Noctilux.

 

The lens I use everyday on my MP is a 50mm Summilux ASPH and on my M8 a 35mm Summilux ASPH. Consider also the 28mm Summicron or the excellent 21mm, 25mm or 28mm Biogon ZM from Zeiss Ikon.

The M mount is a niche market. Leica could probably make a lot of money producing Nikon F mount lenses much as Zeiss did with their ZF line. Canon is trickier because the EF mount is so electronically involved, although there are companies that successfully reverse-engineered it.

If you want to stimulate sales, it would make more sense to give gifts to the best man or the bridesmaids...

Jeff Ascough wasn't under consideration anyway (far beyond my budget), and he is certainly entitled to his

opinions or policies concerning points 1), 2) and 3), but just to clarify point 4), I am not asking for the

photographer to assign copyright to me, just to grant me an unlimited license. The photographer retains the

copyright. I believe European law recognizes a notion of "moral rights" that are not cessible, unlike the US with

its permissive "work for hire" statutes.

 

Thanks to all who provided constructive feedback and recommendations. I now have promising leads I am following

up on.

I used Blurb for photos of my engagement party, with <a href="http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/103429">good

results</a>. The image quality is good, although the color fidelity on the softcover edition is poor (too red).

The dust jacket on the hardcover is fine, but I wonder how the ImageWrap would be. Their software works well for

photos, but is a pain in the neck for accurate setting of text. Indesign it is not (then again, anyone can use it).

<p>

A relatively inexpensive book like this ($30 for 40 pages), that can be given to parents or even attendees (you

can let Blurb take care of printing and selling for you) will see more use than a heavy traditional album. My

grandmother and my fiancée's grandfather were both thrilled to have their copy.

I am getting married in London on November 9th, and I am looking for a photographer who shoots both digital and

color film (ideally MF rangefinder style like a Mamiya 7). It is going to be an Indian style wedding. My key

other key requirement, besides the film/digital duality, is to have access to the RAW files (and a copyright

release, of course).

<p>

It seems really difficult to find wedding photographers who will still shoot film. I understand why, of course,

but a good silver print is a thing of beauty with proven archival properties to boot, and I am a

belts-and-suspenders kind of guy. If no one shoots both formats, is it OK to hire two photographers, one for film

and one for digital, or would they interfere with one another?

<p>

I have collected useful information from <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Hrz1">this other

thread</a>, and was wondering if there is a site in the UK similar to Yelp where one can read independent reviews

of photographers?