lacey_smith4

I use PMK for D100 and find a very smooth continous tone negative results, and I do not have to deviate much on contrast control (VC). D100 does not stain/discolor too much (a visible color change is there, but not huge compared to some other negatives) so the VC paper issues (real or not) are not so pressing. I shoot d100 (either 35mm or 4x5) at 80-100, and have a lot of shadow and highlight detail, using close to standard recommended developing times. The grain masking effect is there, that and the tonality smoothness makes the prints look a lot more like MF prints than 35mm prints.

 

PMK does have the ability to produce some marked edge effects (density lines between light and dark areas adjacent), which I have not figured out how to predict or control for 35mm. In larger format, this is subtle and slight detail or edge accentuation, and is seen as "increased sharpness"; in 35, it can (rarely) be an actual slightly visible border line between light and dark objects. Most often, this is minor, and helps make the picture.

 

I do not use d400, using HP5 instead, which also works well with PMK.

 

the stain, incidentally, is not evenly dense, but varies according to densitiy of negative. That is touted as responsible for some of the increased tonal range elements, even on VC paper, allowing highlights to print out before dark areas are blackened.

the "distortion" to worry about is the fact that some people are close to the lens (relatively) and some very far away with a 21-28 mm lens -- but, if you are using it to frame a single row (or double), and you remain 12-15 feet away (as you might be for a bunch of folks), you can get ok results. If you have four rows, and are perhaps 8-10 feet away from the front row, the back row is 70-100% further away. (or the sides). A fifty, encompassing the same front row side-to-side measure, will be much further away, and the relative person to lens difference (front to back row), will be almost the same -- so, if you have the room, go for a longer lens.

 

On the other hand, if this is indoors around grandma's none-too big dining table, a 50 or 100mm will just not work. Most indoor shots of larger groups will require a wide angle. There have been some great shots with 21's, and 28s were/are a mainstay for political gatherings in limited spaces. May need to work people arrangements, such as a slight semicircle rather than a straight line. Think of all those "memorable" shots from the top of stairs.

 

For straight groups, use as much camera to subject distance as is practical (without being absurd), and pick the lens focal length to fill the frame. If you arrange folks with 4 rows of people, that is around 6 feet front to back faces, and the distance needed to get that within, say, 20%, is 25-30 feet away. 2 rows, say 2 feet, still 12-15 feet away.

 

Filling up any 35mm frame (28mm or 50mm) without wasting foreground is depth-to-width ratio comparable to 2:3 frame ratio (considering height as well). It short, wastage of foreground/background is composition / arrangement, not lens used.

Leica actually made a 200mm viewfinder for the 200 telyt mounted to an M with an extension tube (no viso). No rangefinder focusing, suggested for distant sporting events. Was supposed to be very rapid in operation (no focus would speed things up).

someone suggested the two biggest limitations, which all but exclude your desires -- lens legnth, and/or extreme macro only. It is doable, but will likely not satisfy your needs. And, to buy new, is expensive.

 

First, the resulting depth of lens to camera body is the depth of the 35mm body plus the sizeable depth of whatever view-camera. So, around a 45 mm camera depth for the 35 mm, then another 100 mm or so view camera depth (maybe less), for focussing any furhter away than a few inches means a 150mm, even then with bellows packed in so close that movements don't work. Your high quality 35 lens will only allow very extreme close-ups (and few are corrected for that, so an enlarger lens or such (with no focussing mount, so the lens can be as close as possible to the film plane) would be better. A much longer lens (180-300) might allow infinity focus with some movements. The newer "digital" large format lenses might give good performance on this relatively small image area.

 

For any movements, you should choose a lens that goes up at least one size in format/coverage (35 mm body, use at least a medium fomrat lens).

 

There are moveable standard bellows designed for 35 and MF bodies -- novoflex makes some, still, and I have a 1960's version (Leica screw mount, used now on SLR with SLR-Screw adaptor). But, because you still have camera body depth plus bellows depth, these work for nromal range photogrpahy only for lenses substantially greater than 50mm, and any 35mm mount lenses (except bellows versions and enalrging lenses) will still have the macro-only capability -- Still need lenses with no focussing mounts.

 

I have an ancient 35 mm on 4x5 adapter, and MF as well. MF is useable, the 35 is a curiosity, mostly (I may have taken it apart, even). Both require view camera lenses to be used much.

 

If you want to try, you can cut out heavy cardboard or plywood to fit your view camera back, cut a central hole bigger than your 35mm camera throat, tape the board on the view camera(maybe with a felt layer for insulation), and press fit (hand pressure) the body against the board. Or, I have seen sort of a glove of fabric, taped to the view camera body, forming a tent, with its apex taped to the camera. That can be light tight, and then your movements are rear, camera body. I've even seen some pictures use such a makeshift tent without the View camera, if you can figure out how to hold front lens and back camera still, without intervening collapse of the fabric into the light path, that is your cheapest way to try this. Give you an idea of capability, anyway.

 

Lengthy, I am sorry. More of a neato-hobby question, I am afraid. But, you can try the makeshift tent with enlarger lens as the cheapest trial.

yea, a portrait. Crop that thing into a square just barely excluding the bra -- I like that one for balance and overall.

I think the lighting bothers a lot of us. the "harshness" can be seen in the decided shadow from the edge of the bra -- making the bra look like a stiff metal cage, the softness of any breasts gone (either light for no shadows, or lift/press the breast up to obliterate shadow space). And, there is oddness (too much touching-up?) in the cleavage -- an "accenting" shadow on the inner side of the right breast (compared to the left and the bra, there should be none) -- and a whitish cleavage streak that should perhaps have been touched down with make-up -- add that to a harshly but brightly lit face with no (dominant) shadows, and it is almost like a plastic set-up -- some sort of disconnect between the elements. The lighting details are like a still-life on a table -- important.

 

Understand, I think the lighting "works" on the face alone. She has a pleasing, "I know you" face, as pointed out, not the usual unreachable model pout. A good portrait, so to speak.

I think most the major repair shops can do this. I just sent one to Flutot's camera repair in California, she was going to add the sync, but she could not fix a spring on the basic shutter mechanism (two things wrong when I sent it in), so she nicely provided another compatible shutter. Her name is Carol Miller -- email flutotscamera@earthlink.net and see if she is willing.

go to a modern camera-full store and look through their bags (carry your camera in to "fit"). Leica and one lens (or two) fits the medium "digital" size bags, nicely padded, and tons cheaper than any you find suggested here. Find one with a good strap, moderately wide, with some non-slip features. Decide if you want a camera bag appearance, a purse appearance, or a small satchel appearance (most small bags will end up sort of purse-looking). You can even find a leather bag for <$30-50. Look at Wolf or Ritz, a medium-large store, or even Best-Buy.

 

I've got multiple Domkes and so forth, but use them to carry more, or additional other stuff (notebooks, papers, etc.). The bag I carried over Europe was a $12.00 fake-army surplus canvas bag from Wal-Mart (before I swore off that place), small, unobtrusive, did not yell expensive or class (but classy in its way) -- just be sure of good padded inserts, add foam in bottom, etc. The principle thing is to get a good, comfortable from shoulder hang, with a look and feel acceptable to you. Then, pad it.

 

This likely is not the bag for the rest of your life -- you will change styles, etc. If you are a street photographer, you might want something that does not look like a camera bag, and large enough to grab a camera in and out easily (pickpocketing aside). My current most used bag is a black Museum tote bag, one that came with full shoulder strap -- a very wide mouth, deep, and I can carry my paper-work as well. But, even with camera only, it is comfortable (inserts to hold camera safe). Something like the Domke 803 (I have 2) is larger than you need, but looks like a day-satchel or such, rather than a camera bag.

specs on the autofocus say that it loses precision at the closest extreme - designed for mid-range and larger, not the smallest prints.

 

At any rate, I usually double check if any extreme changes in magnification.

 

and, as mentioned, there is a correction for easel height.

the simple answer is the lens flange to film distance is thicker (by 1 mm) in the screw mount series -- thus, wihtout extaordinary re-tinkering of each lens or the camera, no m-mount-lens would focus at infinity (or any signficant distance) on a screw mount body -- and the rangefinder would be off as well.

what you are looking for in lens comparisons may not do well in Internet scans, and preparation (auto-sharpening, etc, can actually obliterate differences). However, I think the pentax is better. Your main subject (? you) may not be at an exact plane of focus, so I have to look elsewhere. The wall, the plastic letter -- clearly show the pentax better on the edge of the negative (you can see the sharpness of the letter, but you can also tell the difference in the structure of the masonry. Do you have falt bricks, or strucured stones?

 

For the central subject, I have much harder trouble seeing the differences, color spearation and darkness amongst other things -- but I suspect they are there in the original. Look at the original, or with a magnifier (10-20X) at the negatives or slides, look for the ability to discern texture and "3-D or round" definition of individual hairs and clumps of hairs, look at the texture of the shirt fabric, look to see if you can see detail in the eye and iris of the eye. That is where you see fine lens differences, that make a lens's results "pop" or not.

 

Oh, also make sure you are comparing at the apertures you will want to use. The biggest differences between a normal and great lens will be at the widest aperture (compare these two at 3.5), though a comparison at 5.6 might be more where you normally shoot. Also, for this lens, a 2.5 or 2.8 might mean that crucial one extra shutter speed advantage over the 3.5, and that can be very important.

late answer, but the results are unique to each user. Yes, you can hand-hold a 50mm lens down to 1/50th, or 1/30th, or even 1/15th, and get rather good results. HOWEVER, for testing a lens to its limits, a speed of 1/200th, or a tripod, is more than advantageous -- it is necessary. In other words, each drop beneath 1/200th will add just a fraction of motion artifact, and the fstop difference between 6.3 and 9 is not noticeable over that motion change. The fstop difference between, say, wide-open 3.5 and 6.3 MIGHT be comparable to the blur difference between 1/200 and 1/30th, but the f-stop differences between any other pairs (disallowing the wide open f3.5) will be smaller than motion changes.

 

So, on the whole, just try to shoot f4.5-6.3 or higher, and take the shutter speed you can get. F3.5-4.5 is a little softer, but worth it if your forced speed for a f4.5-5.6 opening would be a slow 1/15th or 1/30th -- depends on you.

 

Except for the widest open softness (f3.5-4.5) in the corners, most these f-stop differences might take high magnification to really see. Shutter speed differences can become visible in normal-sized prints in the 1/15-1/60 range, regardless of lens, more so on the lower speeds, obviously, but, when magnified, differences are definitely visible even in the 1/60th to 1/250th, maybe more.

 

Optimal lens testing, sweet spots, etc. is always done on a tripod. For "sharpness", I would pick a faster shutter speed over f-stop anyday, especially if I can skip at least that one widest open f-stop. Of course, available light sometimes leaves no options, and depth of field and focus uncertainty may require stopping down. Generally, however, one of the features of Leica lenses is quite good wide open performance, the stop down advantage is not great. This lens is old enough, so that some softness intervenes, however.

 

Have fun.

I posted some shots much earlier that were well demarcated reflections, clear mirror images type flare, real discernible images, and I am certain they were filter based (any internal reflections would have lost precision of shape -- curved glass light ray broadcasting and then re-congealing is not likely, htough possible with a perfectly symmetric lens, I suppose (these are not)), despite a good heliopan or B&W MC filter (forget which).

 

The fact this is a repeating pattern means at least one is a reflection of the first flare image, and a pretty sharp one as well, so I am pretty sure this is the filter. Whether filterless you would have had one streak or none, I do not know. I gave up on filters on my 35s. Thta biggish hood does a lot of protecting, image and glass.

I think the rewind crankiness/lossenss/spin back-ishness is a character of the film in cartridge, not the camera. If you tighten too much, the film is wound tight, and will spring back some. flatness is not in the cartridge, however, so you should be ok. It is possible that DAG lubricated or otherwise freed up the play in the crank and you notice the change more, but the crank is realtively passive in function.

Kind of nice having a built-in meter, available at all times. (and I do take metereless cameras around, I do judge light for myself, etc. -- but not exclusively). If you've not been a meterless user, I would not gamble a ton of money on something you may not like. An M6 is not that far from an M4 price. On the other hand, you should be able to recoup your money on a M4 or such.

I am one of those who sold a collapsible, clean (except very minor internal fogging), because I just did not like the results -- slightly low contrast, flare (the element is really out front), whatever, despite my own darkroom. I may have had a bad one, but the sparkle of a newer summicron was so spoiling. At the time, I also kept a collapsible summar, as preferred.

 

I have never seen a formal review /MTF curve / whatever that rates the collapsible as high as any of the rigid summicrons - contemporary or later. Personal opinions, however, it does have its fans. Especially wide® open.

 

I do miss the collapsible aspect, but now I have a collapsible old and new elmar that are both better than that summicron was. The old elmar is slow and I do not usually shoot wide open, less flare prone, and smaller to boot. If you can live with f2.8, a used but current elmar-m is within reach, and retains all the signature and beauty of the old, with modern qualities as well.

those have been around a long time and have worked well. You may have a defective one. However, as I recall, they do not work unless the lever is pulled up almost all the way -- that is, no way to pick a short interval by pulling the lever only a short way. So, try rotating to full stop, and see if it goes.

 

On E-bay, I found a Russian pneumatic one -- it is silent and does not vibrate, like these mechanical ones (really don't think it matters much). They seem to be scarce, and I have the feeling they may not last indefinitely, as seals wear out, but it is sort of nice.

aspherical means that some elements in the lens are not uniform in their shape (older lenses, every element had a fonrt and back surface that each had a uniform radius of curvature). An aspherical element can take on a different curve at the edges than at the center, in essence, be more the edge of an ellipse (or even more complex shape) rather than a circle.

 

As design elements, they have been known for decades, but the calculations and hand grinding and hand polishing made them prohibitively expensive -- but for the past decade or more computerized lens design and production has improved the ease of manufacture.

 

What they allow the lens designer to do is to have a higher degree of correction, especailly wide open (in the third, fourth, fifth order of corrections), and to insure better middle to edge correction. Across all brands, I think the zooms have benefited most, but Leica has pushed the envelope with prime lenses.

 

So, IN GENERAL, they allow a designer to make a better, sharper, more contrasty lens (preferred by modern deisgners -- better MTF curves). That does NOT, however, mean than any particular asph lens is BETTER than any particular non-asph lens; it is still a 1:1 comparison, and the older lens may have a flavor that people prefer. By and large, in the top of the line from one manufacturer, otherwise the same spec lens - but now aspheric, will technically outperform its predecessor, although (and especially for Leica users), some folks prefer the prior versions.

the normal enlarger or similar lens will work well, but most have no means of focussing, so you will need either bellows (preferably) or rings. The m39 to K mount, or m39 to pentax screw mount, should be widely available. They may be called Leice or M39 bellows adaptors, etc.

 

Unless you are going very small, e.g., well over 1.5-2x magnification, you might not notice that much improvement over a modern macro lens -- especially by the time you compare the cost of a very good enlarger lens, the bellows, the adaptor -- a good macro down to 1:1 (pentax 50 or 100, plus minus one ring, tomkina/tamron/vivitar 100 macro), will be close in cost, and much easier to use (with automatic stop down diaphragm). The enlarging lens set-up, wiht a diaphram you must close for each shot after focussing, is more a set-up for deliberate tripod/studio use than for little insects.

 

I do use such a set-up on occasion.

film is film, no development changes, and I think the respodent was tongue in cheek. Some same-film differnet formats have slightly differnet times, due to physical factors, so stick fully to 35 mm times.

 

 

This is a way to get a 24by56 negative, correct, and such has been proposed between various formats. Many cameras offerd the adaptors (eg.g., Mamiya 7 does even now). The kicker is to keep the film flat - it might take a piece of cardboard or similar with little film guides/holders -- the edges of 35 do tend to curl up, and holding it flat would be hard. I suppose something the thickness of the 120 paper backing could be used across the film plane...

 

I, too, wanted to do something similar on 4X5 (generating a 24mmX120mm negative, but eventually decided it was easier to use a cut-out dark slide to mask off strips, but use regular 4x5 film (I stopped at about a 45x120 (2X5) aspect). There is the volume-of-film argument available in 35 rolls, but I think the only real advantage of smaller formats in larger bodies, even if done well (as opposed to cropped down or masked down full size film), is if some film is available ONLY in the 35 mm size. That has been the case for scattered films before (like the extremes, slow tech-pan (for a while), very high speed films, special orthochromatic film, etc.), not so sure any 35 mm only films are left, although the 1600's are not so common in 120.

 

My advice, stick to 120. Other than tinkering prowess, I see no advantage. You can, if you want, mask off the viewfinder of the Kowa for the "discipline" of shooting in that wide format.

I usually avoid cropping suggestions, but here goes. From original, crop just under the right forearm, dropping the bottom, and drop the down-pointing fingers of the left hand. Leave the full width to the right. that leaves a general sense (face, arm, long axis) all in the same direction, leaving that all things contemplative, something off screen. As it is, the near vertical diagonal of the body, and the down pointing fingers, both strongly detract from the intent of her gaze. The original looks more like a 3/4 portrait, but forced to look away.

 

dropping the bright & "sequined" pants also adds to the mystery of the bars.

 

I see the target you are after.

gigabit film is one I have used, and I really think it more reliable than Techpan, which is its competitor. Lot of folks will poo-poo it, as "mereley repackaged this or that", but it is on the market, available, and does what it says (matched with its own developer). Too bad it is so slow (mostly, ASA40)

 

See this thread from a year ago:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Y2g

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Y1k

 

The enlarged scan has a lot of scanner artifact, the prints are grainless and a lot of detail at 18X.

 

JandCphoto is U.S. supplier. You must develop yourself, and it has a different feel (film base is different).

well, of course you could log onto http://stans-photography.info/ for some pentax comparisons, most folks think it is a good enough site, though it is just people's opinions.

 

In the 200 range, your problem will be shutter speed (absolutely so if you hand-hold) -- the pentax and other "affordable" options will be maximum f4, which might be a touch slow for indoor work. You might consider the 135 f2.5 K version (pre "M" and pre "A" - I think superb) -- a shorter length, but still has some reach, and with that shorter length and the wide f2.5, you can shoot more easily indoors. On e-bay, you might well get one less than $50, whereas the 200mm f4 seems to go $90-150. I had a 200 f4 once, was not too impressed.

 

Short end, the spectrum of options is so great not even sure were to guide you. Many, many more 28mm options than 24 or 21, and the 28 is the cheapest way in (I have one, if interested). If you can afford it/find it, either the new or old 30 and 31 mm have a cult. In short, you can get indoor f2.8 apertures with both a 28 and 135 for cheaper than you can get any other lens, by far. And, it is a way to test what you need; you should be able to turn them around for the same general low cost as you paid.

 

A 24 or 21 will cost you, as will a high speed 200. Measure some of your indoor lighting and see what sort of shutter-speed and f-stop pairs you need. A 28 is not wide-wide, but probably would do. In the long run, a pairing of 28 and a later 21 might do well. But a 28 is definitely the cheapest trial basis.

if you search the archives, you will find a lot of discussion on particular lenses.

 

In general, it depends on what you define as "better". Many prefer the older lenses, for their "signature" or look. Generally, the newer lenses are "sharper", more defined images -- to some, too much contrast, and some current lenses optimized for the single plane of focus, with less attention to the out of plane performance. They do tend to be a little more flare resistant. And (to a small, perhaps inperceptible, degree) the close-up performance is actually a little less maintained (3 feet being close, 6 feet not close -- modern exceptions to this the 50 mm elmar 2.8 and the 90 f4 macro). By and large, most any Leica lens in production in 1965 or later will do quite well. Within a single long-run lens line, there MAY be some changes in coatings, mounts, etc. with later lenses, but not substantive changes in performance.

 

Some lines (the 90 lineage, for example), did not clearly evolve smoothly to betterment -- the 1960's elmarit 90/2.8 was very good, the 70's versions slightly less good (to me), with design emphasis on smaller and easier to handle, perhaps, and the 60's version not performance-beat until the current 90/2.8(1990). In the 90 summicron range, they were (sort of) comparable for decades, except the early version were very heavy), but now the newest is so superbly sharp some think it not good for portraits. So, there is some advantage to knowing very specific lenses.

 

You will find similar arguments for the various 50's (with some arguing the DR summicron a better lens than any that followed) and 35's -- most earlier versions have their emphatic proponents, after the initial evolution. I do not think there is as much discussion about 21s, 28s, and 135s -- the early ones are good, but sustained design improvements over their lineage. But, I am not a big user of any one of these focal lengths.

 

For my own arsenal, I have mixtures of current and vintage, and gave up some current ones in favor of the older ones. I have, and use, old and new 90 elmarits, 3 separate 50mms (2 current, one 50 years old). Each is used on occasion. The 35 pre-asph summicron always goes in the bag. Here, I had a curetn asph, which was optically better (to my tight look), but I still liked the older pre-asph, for handling, amount of use, etc.

 

What hooked me back into Leica more than 10 years ago was the 35/50/90 summicrons, but I kind of like the look of the 50/2.8 for people, which, to me, is an "older" style look, though very good, indeed. Same for the 90/2.8.

 

Though many here belittle his "objectivity" and mild pomposity/certainty, E Put's Leica web site and his book is, I think, an ok point of reference; the 7th edition Hove Leica pocket book has some of his "impressions" and performance graphs. Just remember, almost any Leica lens can outperform you, and the "tests of perfection"/comparison require optimal technique, film, tripods, etc. Quick handheld street shots are not likely to show a difference.

actually, I spotted this as well -- Bogen / Manfrotto 3422 Monopod Support Bracket with 3009 Mini Ball Head. It <<<might>>> be positioned similar to what you use, but would still need a ball or some handle for you hand to rest on, where the camera nomrally rests.