gee-bug

<i>Life in photos comes from the photographer, not the technology</i>

 

<p>That's like saying a painter could produce the same work of art with watercolors or oils. No. Of course skill and inspiration are important, but the choice of media is also critical.

Something quite amusing from that website. I had no idea...

 

<p><a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/">Chimping</a>

I might get grilled alive over this, but I'll say it: I have a hard time distinguishing between pictures taken with a digital P&S and a DSLR. Put it this way: it is much easier for me to distinguish between a film photo and a digital photo than between photos from these two types of digital cameras. Am I alone? Maybe I just haven't seen any good examples of DSLR photos?

I use a 35ASPH cron & 50 Elmar combo quite a bit. Their perspectives and characteristics really are quite different. These two focal lengths are, IMHO, the most useful focal lengths on a .72 body. The cron + Elmar combo is small, unobtrusive, and light (and relatively inexpensive).

Looking for the best value in a point & shoot digicam under $500.

Probably something with 4 or 5 Megapixels. I've read many, many

reviews. The problem is that there are many, many digicams in this

range. I'm leaning toward the new Canon S60, which is $499.

 

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated, thanks.

In motion picture photography they have a procedure called "<a href="http://www.cinematography.net/CheckTheGate.htm">checking the gate</a>" where after a take they check to make sure stray hairs or other debris aren't in the film gate. It is probably a good idea to do this occasionally with a still camera too.

An Example from the 75 Summilux @f1.4<div></div>

"Film might be around for a couple more years, produced in smaller and smaller quantity at greater and greater expense for the few people who remain in denial while the rest of the world goes digital."

 

I heard this remark a couple of years ago, and ya know what? Film is still here, and it doesn't cost any more than it did a couple of years ago. I wager that film will be around much longer than say, compactflash or SD cards.

 

Why do people hang around this forum after they have sold all their film gear? A touch of regret, perhaps?

Always in my camera bag for just this reason: white artist's masking tape and a double-tip Sharpie.

Good read, but Mr. Resnick needs to learn how to use paragraphs.

Traded a Noct for one and haven't regretted it. The 75 has alot of the Noct characteristics without the super-swirly bokeh wide open. Easier to focus wide open (and at f2) and better performance stopped down than the Noct too. But, it is a big hummer. Works great in a two-lens kit with a 35mm.<br>

 

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2116784-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2116784-sm.jpg"></a><br>

(Click for larger image) 75lux with Agfa Scala, wide open

Italics... </i>off!

I've had three current version Leica 50s: Summicron, Noctilux, and Elmar. I currently own just the Elmar, and of the three, it is my favorite. The Summicron was nice, but the OOF characteristics wide open were a little "wiry" for me, and I disliked the collapsible hood. The Noct was, well, a Noct: really great in low light, but otherwise, no. Also, a real be-atch to focus at f1 (or f1.4). The Elmar has great color rendition and contrast, and superb build quality to boot. Here's a sample from the Elmar of what I think are some begonia leaves at the close focus limit. Click on the image to see a larger version (sorry about the square crop, I couldn't find the raw scan).

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2271683&size=lg"><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2271683&size=md"></a>

Here's a new <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-02-22.shtml">Sunday Morning Photgrapher</a> article on lens quality and ratings.

Sorry, not Leica. Canon S50, "P" mode, -1/3 exposure, 400 ISO

Grip when using 75lux and/or wrist strap.

Gotta agree with Jay here... I always have a UV mounted, and haven't noticed any image degradation or flaring (with B+W or Heliopan filters). The great, great advantage of a permanently mounted UV is that with reasonably caution, it negates the need for a lens cap. My lens caps are packed away with the leather cases and lens boxes, I never use them. I carry a LensPen and occasionally swipe the UV when there is a speck or fingerprint.

I though this was a thread about this camera:<br>

<img src="http://www.keh.com/images/fullsize/LM02010000056.jpg"><br>

We're gonna have to call the putative digital M something besides "MD".

I'm sorry, but I gotta say, I'm really not a fan of the pregger pics.

I did 1 meter focus tests on a tripod at f/1, f/1.4, and f/2, and f/4. The subject that was in focus at f/1 was out of focus until f/4.

1. Yes, you have to be careful at f/1.4 to f/2 at close distances.

 

2. Fine, that's kind of the whole point of the lens, no?

 

3. Vignetting isn't a concern if you're in an "available darkness" situation. The only time it really annoyed me was shooting the dawn sky at f/1.

 

4. Dunno

 

5. Dunno

 

6. It got tiring for me. I traded my Noct for a 75 lux, and am happier with the OOF signature of the 75.

 

7. If you can afford it, I would get a used one - I think everyone should try it to satisfy their curiosity. You can pretty much recoup the funds if you don't like it. I'll probably get another Noct one of these days, I miss going out with it at night to restaurants, etc.

You're evil.

Funny, 3 polarizer threads going... I see a big difference in the blues of the sky when using my polarizer with Velvia. It makes them dark blue, almost navy blue.

 

Here's another polarizer question: can a polarizer "fade" over time? I saw something about this on another forum. Mine is an old Wetzlar, probably older than I am, and I'm wondering if I'm getting the full polarizing effect from it. When I rotate it, I only see a very slight effect, but Velvia really seems to "see" the effect.

I don't think it necessarily has to cover the viewfinder, i.e., you can mount it so that it swings up vertically, and look through it over the top of the camera. This has the advantage of being able to "remove" the polarizer temporarily while keeping it mounted and not blocking the viewfinder. John is right though, make sure you swing it out all the way, 180 degrees when viewing. I've got the older metal Wetzlar 39mm polarizer, and while it is a bit of a PITA to use, it works great with skies on Velvia.

Another of Sophie the Aussie-Fox.<br>

<img src="http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc29b3127cceb879124549de0000006610"><br>

75 Summilux-M @f/1.4, Kodak T400CN