lacey_smith4

with ONLY a visoflex III and a bayonet mount 50, the full magnification ratio covers an object field of 1 inch to 1&1/8 inch (that is the full range you have under your control -- onto the short 1 inch side of the 35 mm negative). The viso is designed to be part of a full system, bellows, various tubes and lens mounts -- there you have consiberable versatility, but it is more than simply a lens and a visoflex. They pushed the 65 elmar, or the 90 elmarit, on variable tubes and bellows, for the main macro use. Without that, you are restricted.

 

As well, you have a hassle of metering, winking between one view finder and the other. You do not have the auto-diaphragm (you must manually stop down), and, unless you have a ttl or an M7, there is not automation, even for flash. Indded, for flash, you meter your flash somehow, and apply exposure corrections for how far out you lens is ramped.

 

For virtually all my (for the fun of it) macro work in 35mm, I use the Visoflex system (65 Elmar, 90 elmarit, and a tilt-shift bellows unit for some enlarger lenses. I abandoned my SLR totally (but I am meandering back). Visoflex use is deliberate effort and style -- which is good for the discipline and art, but perhaps the opposite of what many have their Leicas for.

 

The Visoflex and its paraphenalia are NOT smaller than a smallish SLR (say, a Pentax) and a small 50mm macro. You could pick up an SLR, short macro lens for the cost of a visoflex basic system. The only advantage of lugging around the full Leica system is the ability to share film/bodies for two types of shooting -- normal Leica and macro.

 

One other thing, which is my impression. The summicron is corrected and optimal for normal views -- a few feet to infinity, and I do not think it does that well in close-ups -- I think the older, simpler designs do better (which includes my modern Elmar).

 

Search this forum, this has been discussed before.

Assuming this is indeed RF focussing, someone might bring up the difficulty of using our 75/1.4s or 90/f2s in this camera -- rangefinder limits already exceeded, then to admit an equivalent 75/1.4 becomes (say) an equivalent to 110/1.4, we will be focussing much more sloppily than before, unless we restrict to f4 or less. (actually, does the Cosina viewfnder enlarge for more effective base length?)

 

On the other hand, a 50/2.0 might be equivlent to a 75/2.0, a nice combo requested often enough here. So, I would think an ideal set would be 21 (now a 30), a 35 (now a 52), and a 50 (now a 75). The 50/f1.4, becoming a 75/1.4, may well exceed rf accuracy.

 

And, before someone says that the focus parameters do not change with format, indeed they do, as the acceptable out focus blur is enlarged more for smaller formats, and the percentage of full frame that any blur occupies is larger with smaller formats.

incindentally, cropping close to shoulders left and right, possibly cropping just above the hands, makes a tight, nice selective focus portrait, and does away with the visible sharpness in the background.

I rather like some/most of this. You used back tilt, from the angle of focus, and I do think the resulting band of sharpness on the background is distracting, given the overall blur/softness. Had the background at that level been a table with detail (books/sewing/medical instruments, etc.) it would have tied in with the face, but right now a featureless background band competes with the face for attention.

 

Less dramatic of a tilt, and a forward tilt as well, could have gotten the face, a bit more of the hands (though I sort of like them ghosted out), and also had the background sharp focus thrown high, out of the picture. Wide open aperture.

 

You could have also moved her further from the backdrop, and your existing tilt would have thrown the focus plane out of frame below, as well. Other than that, if you like the ghost large hands, great, that is a matter of taste. But, I think that extraneous background band of focus is a technical error/oversight.

to answer Robert about dumbing down the newer pentaxes to disllaow older lenses. Not, so, as I understand it. Pentax did have a few interim consumer models of the Z series (NOT the ZX5/7, good bodies) that did not have the mechanical linkage for the diaphragm of the older lenses, but that is not the case with their better cameras. The digital one discussed -- as initially released -- could use all K mount lenses, it just could not do open aperture metering with an older "M" lens (it would work, just metering stopped down). This month/last month, Pentax released a downloadable firmware patch that has fixed that as well. Should work well with all K lenses. Now, the oldest, the "M" lenses, may not "program", I think that still takes an "A" lens or newer.

 

Most of this from the Pentax forum. I am older manual generation, now going back to some Pentax SLR for the third time (I'm still a dmominant Leica RF user). Pentax had some great stuff (still does, I suppose). Always more successful overseas than in the U.S.

understand my comments are "hypercritical", as I like the overall effect. You have a style difference between the second and third (softness, more than color), and that means you are trying and investigating.

 

Now, nitpickiness -- pay attention to background. on the first, the brown blob in the lower right corner is odd, and would be nicer if absent. On the second or third (I htink the B&W one, I've forgotten) the pose loks a bit strained, rather than thoughtful or pensive -- and, for whatever reason, the arm doesn't even look like it is part of the body. The fourth picture, nice for her to give away to those who are close, perhaps, but I see not as much personae in it as the others.

 

You've done well with fairly simple lighting. Good model. Whether someone likes softness or detail, up to them (and you).

called a preset diaphragm action. When used on a visoflex, or similar (or the early days of SLRs), such lenses allowed you to preset the aperture, yet focus wide open, then quickly close down the diaphragm to the selected aperture.

 

not much use on a M camera, unless you have a visoflex -- but it could be a way to always stop down to no less than, say, f8, or something. My memory is faulty, but I believe the limited run you have is not terribly common, and I suppose the head must unscrew for viso use.

The Bessa bodies have a fairly easy to exhange lens mount on the front (or so I'm told, and was discussed when the Bessa first came out). I do not know if they mean a camera-techie replacement or amateur, but that was the strategy that allows the cosina bodies to so rapidly be made Leica screw, then Nikon/Contax, then M. I know the R2 has other changes, but the machining of the original front plates allowed Cosina, at least, to do some quick change-outs.

 

So, maybe this was what was discussed. Putting a Leica M lens on a Leica screw body is crazy, but not on a "converted" Bessa -- if that is what they are talking about.

"consumer films" almost always means a release of a pro film to a different market, perhaps with slightly less qc.

I think I would return it.

 

However, I have had the pre-asph and now am on the second round of a bit of looseness -- and I confess that is is mounting/demounting by grabbing the hood or end, not grabbing close to the body, that does it. However, both times, the play is a minor lateral movement (that is, rotational, not in/out play), and not affecting focus. If it loosens up to allow in-out motion, it would be a problem.

 

First time Sherri Krauter fixed it (nice person). I believe the charge was to be around $60-70 for that alone, but I had a complete CLA.

Novoflex makes some adaptors, but Horseman (see B&H) makes a full fledged system -- camera mount, bellows, and moveable standards -- that gives you most view camera movements on a Nikon/Canon/most 35 slrs, and most medium fomrat slrs. I have not checked Calumet lately, that may be what they have.

 

You will likely still need the large format Rodenstock/ Schneider/ Fuji/ Nikon/etc. lens (you choice, they will all be completely manual), for the focal mount to film/sensor distance reasons mentioned above. I htink it is possible to mount some medium fomrat lenses on the 35 mm slr setups, but am not sure.

I have the Leica one, handled a Benser double one briefly. on rare occasion I use it. In the past couple years, maybe twice -- one a zoo outing, and somewhere or another else. However, the prices, even used, seem to hang high, for such a near-useless piece, but it sounds neater than it is.

 

In use, the camera and 2 lens is probably more stable, and I think hand-held photos at slower speeds may be better for that reason, but not much so, though night/interior shots may benefit from it, especially if the dangle lens is heavy.

 

But, that is not why potential users buy it. Some fret incredibly over having a $2000 lens dangling off the bottom for more bangs -- it is secure enough, but does protrude. As an alternative way of handing the camera, I actually like it, but not enough to forego fear of lens injury nad desire for light/quick.

 

All in all, in is NOT in the context of Leica free motion, though is not a terrible impediment. It DOES allow one to carry on a strap all many would ever use, and if you do not have a jacket, is an ok way to carry the extra lens -- even a bulky 90f2 or 75f1.4 dangles ok, and sometimes those lenses do not pocket well. But, I think everyone would carry the whole thing more gingerly, sit down on a bench much more carefully, than they would with the body/lens alone. You can use the base lens as sort of a tabletop tripod, and someone either recommended, or briefly made, a ball-head to fit into it.

 

Oh, most the compact bags (or large compartmentalized ones) do not like the two-lens setup (the setup is now big in all 3 dimensions), especially if a long lens is on the wrong end, so you de-cap to go into the bag, which means you keep that spare rear lens caps around (which you should do anyway, I guess).

 

It is a gimicky kind of artifact extended from the golden age of the 50's photo paraphenalia. As I say, I do occasionally use mine, but it is of very limited use. Maybe if I were running across fields as a wildlife or combat photographer, and wanted only one thing to keep control of (but I would likely not be using an M). Or when I go to to the zoo and don't want jacket or bag (but losing unobtrusiveness). A big pocketed jacket is much more useful.

I wasn't putting the megapixel count on a golden throne -- indeed, they are as close as they need be for most of us, though there are still differences between various chips and outputs. However, technology will undoubtedly advance -- which is why I added the "firmware". Something will change -- 50 gig storeage in a dime size package, light speed downloading, loss-less compression changes(I know there is a theoretical there as well), write times for RAW images faster than take times, etc. , etc.

 

And, unequivocally, the only thing about this camera that will not be outdated is the lens.

 

That does not mean I do not want one. I just want it to be a primary camera in ten years.

just dreaming, of course, but what would make the hefty price tag of

a digi 2 worth it would be a sense that the camera would not be

simply surpassed in a year or two. My M's last a long time.

 

I wish Leica would annouce an upgrade policy -- two years from now, a

new 12 meg sensor and firmware installed for $500. Obsoletism is a

curse in the digital world, though of course good images will still

come from the "obsolete" (and I htink we are at a pretty good level

in what is now offered digitally).

 

Nonetheless, in Leica, I just am used to thinking decades, not months

or years.

it shoudl mechanically fit a board, if you cut a hole big enough. I do not have the tachihara; it is possible you would need a spacer to move the lens out a touch, away from the mount around the board, but I do not think so (I used to have such a beast).

 

However, how much bellows draw does you tachihara have? a 300 mm lens requires 300 mm of bellows for infinity focus, and you should calculate how close you can focus with a long lens, I do not think you have much bellows draw left.

mine does not click-lock, if that is your quesiton. But, enaged in exrended and roatted postion, it is firm, and takes deliberate motion to unseat it. So, to some degree, it locks --whether that is a mechanical click or friction, seems irrelevant.

 

My old 50 Elmar is the same way, incidentally. Maybe the bigger mass of the 90 required a true lock.

look carfully at the wording. though not currently in catalog, "latest" model 35 mm summicron would/might be Canadian; and certainly "new" might be appropriate. It is ONLY when you throw the word "asph" as in "35 mm summicron asph" that the distinction is borne out. You can always check serial numbers as well, at least for year of manufacture.

 

The last pre-asph, as truly new, may fetch that much, easily. And be worth it, in some eyes.

I do not know this lens, but several lenses have little protrusions of some type to make sure they line up right in the correct board for the correct camera (which usually no longer exists, and which is irrelevent for general use, anyway). Occasionally, the board will have a little protistion to mate to a lens, rather than the lens.

 

 

You have two choices with this lens and board. 1. Remove the screw from the lens. 2. Make a little matching dimple on the board (wood or metal), if need be, even drilling all the way through). Finally, you could wait forever looking for the right board.

 

 

If you bypass the spacing afforded by that screw, your <<might>> get soe sluggish turn of the diaphragm ring, and a spacer (even circles cut from paper) should alleviate the binding.

 

Seriously, matching boards and lenses is not difficult, but often takes a little convincing. There are comapnies that do a wonderful job (at cost) of cutting the hole and mounting in exact center, etc., but usually a lens can be mounted easily enough if the right size main hole exists.

15's are notoriously hard to meter through the camera (any camera) -- the angle so wide, that sky is almost always over-measured. try angling it down for the metering.

 

the 135 should not have the same problem. It is not a screw mount problem, and I have no problem with my 15 Voigt. A couple lenses (not these) do protrude into the body and block some meter reading (early Lecai 21s, the russian 21, etc.). However, when checking either lens, meter against a fairly monotonomous surface -- the street, a balnk wall, etc.

If she is an employee and printing these herself, probably this is not it, but if she were to take professional looking images to a commerical place, that place may require a release from what they think is a professional studio, before the make copies/prints.

tripod and ambient?

 

flash to the side, perhaps with polarizer on flash and over lens, crossed at some angle? Most the tangentially reflected light will not be fully polarized, but hat dierclty refelcting off refelctors will be.

 

Photoshop fix post exposure?

A timer-cable release exists, I can't rememebr the brand, but searching B&H would probably find it - under large format, either linhof or cambo or some European company, I think. But, a little pricey, as I remember -- and, remember, to be off 1 second out of 10 is better accuracy than the normal slow shutter speeds on any mechanical camera. Precison reproducibility may be important for color slides for commercial use, but that would be about it, I think.

off-hand, adding in the cost of a spotmeter, the M6 beigns to look favorable. Some might argue an old IIIf, perhaps with a modern voigtlander lens, might be even a little quieter, but would require a separate meter. There are also (minor) differences between bodies -- some M6s quieter than others.

 

You might also consider the lens you will need, and see if the normal 35 or 50 will work, if not, add the cost of a 90 in the equation before you plan heavily.

 

Spotmeters come in tight spots (1 degree), which tend to be a bit more expensive, and broader spots, such as a 5-10 degree attachment for a meter such as a Sekonic 328 (which I like) or such (Gossen, Minolta, Polaris, etc.). Frankly, enough experience, and metering certain areas ahead of time (like going down to the stage during pre-arrangements), may obviate the need for in-concert metering. I think your choice will be driven by cost and what you find available -- nothing wrong with used, if it works.

her "Author" book of portraits is about the best recent book of B&W portraits I have run across -- no fancy photo setups (though some odd surroundings), and someimtes I could wish for a different lighting, but overall, very good, very well reproduced, and very classy -- timeless, decades old or recent, could not be distinguished. No tricksterism -- just solid portraits.

 

Good faces, good work. So very refreshing compared to the flash of so many recent portrait books of notoriety.

ok, let me ask the pednatic questions (the effect is nice). Is this a 35 1.4 wide open with marked flare on top of shake?

 

shake -- the building and pole confirm camera movement

 

non-shake -- the shape and size of the light jiggles change with position in frame, which could be light covers and an effect there, I suppose, but the closer lights (top of picture, as I see it, give smaller movement effect, but, as closer items should be larger in camera movement effect). and the zig-zag pattern also changes as you rotate around.

 

All in all, a mild optical curiosity to me, but nice composition and effect.