el_fang

<i>Digital leicas,....how sad!</i>

<p>Well, it's either digital Leicas (to keep up with current market trends, therefore helping to keep the company afloat) or no more Leicas at all. Which is sadder?</p>

I have owned 3 or so copies of the 90/2.8-M (latest version). All have been absolutely excellent performers that I did not hesitate to use wide open when needed. Why 3 copies? It took me that many times to finally give up trying to reliably focus the lens wide open on a close target, so when I added the R system to handle 50mm and beyond, naturally I picked up the R version of the lens (same optical formula).

<i>My $4500 camera is now a refurb, a refurb that has lost its value.</i>

<p>You don't buy a $4500 professional camera for its value unless you're a hack who just buys expensive stuff to compensate for shortcomings in other "areas." The point of a professional camera is not its dollar value, but its ability to reliability WORK and deliver the goods, something that Canon is addressing in the 1D Mk3. Yes, the solution has been slow in progress, but the problem is being dealt with.</p>

<p>If you're worried about "value," invest in gold.</p>

I would try Craigslist.

These are guys that shoot multimillion dollar advertising campaigns for the likes of Gucci and Vogue using this camera ... it's more about the current trends in fashion photography etc. than anything about the camera itself...

Look up the names "Terry Richardson" and "Jurgen Teller."

By the way I changed my mind. Firmly putting myself in another's shoes, I've decided to get an RMA on the $1200 17-55/2.8 and just stick with the 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens. That'll free up another $1k with which I can hmmm and hawww over <a href="http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/index.asp?CourseID=2299&SchoolID=20" target="_blank">Photographer's Eye</a> or <a href="http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/index.asp?CourseID=2291&SchoolID=20" target="_blank">Vision & Discovery</a>.

<i>That may be true, but some "backyards" are less inspirational than others.</i>

<p>It all depends on how well you've trained yourself to see photographically. The most accomplished photographers have such a well-defined style (take Sam Abell, for instance) that their photographs transcend where they were taken - different places and different subject matter but all conforming to an established and unique vision. If you haven't yet defined your own style and refined your vision, all you'll come away with are the exact same shots that you could have bought for 50 cents off the postcard stand. Of course, maybe postcard shots are all you aspire to. Most serious photographers I know tend to aim just a bit higher.</p>

 

<p><i>I would guess that Mr. Harvey's most celebrated images are not from his backyard, although I don't know this for a fact.</i></p>

<p>Harvey's first book, "Tell It Like It is," was shot in Virginia, where he was raised. That little book is how he got his foot in the door at the National Geographic. While I'm in the habit of dropping names, I'll mention another one - Bruce Davidson. Two of his most celebrated books are "Central Park" and "East 100th Street." The latter was shot on one square block over a 2-year period - and the entirety of both books were shot in his backyard, in New York City where he lives.</i></p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with being in the enviable situation of having money and being able to spend it. However, photography is first and foremost about seeing. If you haven't yet learned to see, I'm sorry to have to tell you that having the latest and greatest gear and traveling to strange and exotic places aren't going to help.</p>

<i>As for visiting interesting places, I plan to - starting with Switzerland, Germany, Austria and India this year.</i>

<p>Won't make an iota of difference. National Geographic photographer David Alan Harvey once said, "Great photography doesn't automatically come from being in Nepal; often, you can get the best picture in your own backyard." If you can't make an interesting picture where you are now, chances are you won't be able to anywhere else.</p>

<i>Yes, buy what you are considering-they do appear top notch equipment. If the 'pros' are very good why should they be buying such costly equipment instead buying <2G gear set that has been recommended here?</i>

<p>Go back and read it again - I didn't recommend jack to him. All I said was, if *I* had 10k to blow on photography, this is what I'd do with that money. If I were an amateur with an average portfolio, given the choice I'd rather improve my technique than worry about buying the latest and greatest gear, but that's just ol' oddball me.</p>

If I had 10 grand to blow on photography, I'd buy a D80 with a 17-55/2.8 (less than 2k total) and spend the rest <a href="http://www.theworkshops.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.

<i>I have owned the FM2N and the FM3A and both carry a lot of similitudes, however I liked most the FM3A for its bright viewfinder.</i>

<p>You can install the FM3A focusing screen into the FM2N and get the same brightness. Having said that, the slightly darker and grittier FM2N screen seemed to me to be a little easier for manual focus. I prefer the FM2N for its LED metering display which was much easier to see in darker conditions than the FM3A's match needle. I agree that both are excellent cameras - in particular I used the FM2N professionally shooting for newspapers before switching to digital. Solid reliability, always brought back the goods.</p>

<p>Few more points - a camera is only "obsolete" when it no longer does what you need it to do (and need vs. want has to be clarified). If you are in this to take and share pictures for photography's sake, rather than collecting cameras for their "feel" and nostalgia, then for convenience just stick to digital and save yourself the cost and trouble of buying color film and getting it developed and scanned.</p>

<p><i>PS I am leaning towards the cheap film option now and then jump on digital when they come out with a lower priced consumer full-frame digital.</i></p>

<p>Film is only "cheap" if you hardly ever take pictures (e.g. a camera collector whose equipment sits unused on a shelf). The point of photography, of course, is to take pictures; and once you start adding up the costs of buying, processing and scanning film, the more of a photographer you are, the more expensive film gets. In my case, I'm rather proliferative. My 1D, which I bought used for $1500, paid for itself in the first month of ownership just from cutting out the film and lab bills. I haven't taken the time savings into account. In my city of 11 million, there is ONE remaining RELIABLE pro lab, with an E-6 turnaround time of 4 days.</p>

<p>How much photography do you do in a month? How much is your time worth to you? Add those numbers up, compare them to what it would cost you to buy and process the equivalent amount of film (not to mention the hours you'll spend scanning) and figure it out for yourself.</p>

<i>I realize lots of people think the organization isn't worth it - but I really do want to get in.</i>

<p>I think it's more than worth it, WPJA has been the source of my best clients. This is because they are most often already pre-qualified; these clients are looking for a specific type of photography, from a specific type of photographer (I am a newspaper photojournalist) and are willing to pay top dollar to get exactly what they want.</p>

 

<p>Having said that, photojournalism is just one way of photographing a wedding, and it's no better or worse than any other style. You shouldn't be trying to mold yourself to fit WPJA - it will only end up being a frustrating and unsatisfying waste of time and money for you. If you are more a "fine art" type of photographer - and that's great as well, and plenty of clients want that - then stay true to yourself, do your own thing and forget about WPJA.</p>

<i>Do they ever turn down anyone who applies for membership?</i>

<P>In fact they often do. I personally know several portrait and "classic" wedding shooters who have been told to "brush up on their photojournalism skills," then apply again. WPJA is not kind to people who don't read their requirements before applying, probably because it's a waste of everyone's time. As for Christina's site - you have some nice, natural-looking moments here and there, but the majority of your images seem to be either set up, or involve far too much fluffy effect (fish eye, ultra wide, extreme tilt) and not enough story-telling substance. This is not necessarily to say that your work is substandard; however, it doesn't look to me like the type of work WPJA would be interested in.</p>

 

<p><i>I have seen some WPJA member sites that contain a ton of photoshopped images and portraits and shots of details.</i></p>

<p>There isn't any WPJA bylaw prohibiting these sorts of pictures in member sites. However, the general guideline is no more than 20-30% portraits, details and setups.</p>

 

<p>From their <a href="http://www.wpja.com/for_the_photographer/join_wpja_organization/" target="_blank">Join WPJA</a> page:</p>

 

<p><i>NOTE: DUE TO THE VERY HIGH NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO RESPOND TO PHOTOGRAPHERS WHOSE PORTFOLIOS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR WPJA MEMBERSHIP. YOU WILL ONLY HEAR FROM US IF THE RESULT IS IN YOUR FAVOR.</i></p>

Google the name Alan Zanger. He works the L.A. area and if you're persistent enough you'll find his contact info. Good friend of mine and well known in his field for having been clocked by Alec Baldwin. Don't tell him I sent you though - because he will have no idea who "El Fang" is <grin>.

Anyone who has seriously and continuously photographed for a reasonable length of time - and I mean real photographing, not shooting newspapers or test charts - should have some sense of the focal length(s) they like to use, to capture the kind of subjects they like to photograph. Just because you're in a different part of the world, doesn't change who you are as a photographer or the way you see.

<p>I'd say forget you even asked, because every person's choice is a personal one. What do you normally shoot with? Bring that, have a backup, leave the rest behind. Shouldn't be much of a problem if you just think about it for a minute. Only the gearheads won't be able to figure this one out.</p>

I agree with "keep it" if you only have one M6. The value of a proven, reliable backup just can't be understated especially considering how little FM2's are going for these days.

Here's a shot from the Magnum Photos website:

<p><a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOLVZGJH6&IT=ImageZoom01&PN=12&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Album&IID=2K7O3RFCUBS&SAKL=T&SGBT=T&DT=Image" target="_blank">Olympic Esplanade by David Alan Harvey</a></p>

Southern California as in Los Angeles, or San Diego? Can't help you with San Diego but there is a group in L.A. that I've heard does this sort of thing:

<p><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LAShooters/" target="_blank">L.A. Shooters</a></p>

Thanks for the info Peter. Just put my preorder in for the book.

BTW I would also add <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/" target="_blank">SmugMug</a> to your list - I've been trying them out in lieu of Pictage and so far it looks very promising - prints are much better quality, delivery is much faster, and customer service makes you feel like you're actually worth something. My clients also seem to prefer the SmugMug interface - I'm getting a lot more orders with far fewer "How do I do this?" questions.

I joined the service years ago (close to when it first launched) and my experience with them has been disappointing. They were great with the initial membership sale to me, but the follow up, including service to me, my clients, as well as the product itself, just haven't lived up to the hype. Clients have complained to me multiple times regarding poor print quality and slow delivery. As of right now I still can't sign in to edit my profile - and all my emails to customer service dating from May 2007 have gone unanswered, and calls have been routed to voice mails and never returned.

<p>One of the things you have to be careful of is Pictage's misleading advertising. Their so-called "clients" listed on the <a href="http://newaccounts.pictage.com/application7.html" target="_blank">photographer sign-up</a> page - including the big names Denis Reggie, David Jay, Mike Colon, Michele Celentano and Kathleen Clark - either have a financial stake in the company, and/or are paid to promote it through Pictage-sponsored "workshops." I would take their so-called "testimonials" with a pretty big chunk of salt.</p>

<i>So in other words you'd need three cameras to equal the M8.</i>

<p>Not really. The GX100 doesn't count because I can slip it in my pocket and have an extremely capable backup on my person without even noticing the camera is there until I need it. The 5D can focus a 24/1.4 almost as quickly as a 1D can (and still far faster than MF on an M8). So what we're left with is the 5D and a 24/1.4.</p>

<p><i>All together, how much do those three cameras cost?</i></p>

<p>Well let's see. Using current B&H pricing, M8+24/2.8 = 5495+2995 = $8490.00. 5D+24/1.4 = 2180+1119 = $3299.00. Savings = <b>$5191.00</b>. <b>Advantage 5D</b>, unless you're Bill Gates and $5k is the amount of loose change you have sitting in the pockets of your Canali slacks collection.</p>

 

<p><i>How much to they weigh?</i></p>

<p>Going by same source: M8+24/2.8 = 19.2oz.+10.2oz = 29.2oz. 5D+24/1.4 = 28.6oz+19.36oz = 47.96oz, or <b>1.1 lb</b> heavier. Discounting the 2-stop advantage of the f/1.4 Canon lens, since we're strictly comparing weight rather than capability (the latter of which would invalidate any comparison whatsoever), I will call <b>advantage M8</b>, if you have Lou Gehrig's or some other muscular degenerative disorder that makes 1.1 lbs difficult for you.

 

<p><i>How much space to they take up?</i></p>

<p>They'll both fit in a Domke F-5XB shoulder bag. Like most average people, I'm not Bill Gates, nor do I have Lou Gehrig's. Practicality would therefore dictate that I choose the 5D. However I still want an M8 - hence the decision being emotional, rather than practical.</p>

Yeah, I followed that discussion for a while, seemed to go round and round for a bit with no real consensus on the matter - sounds all too familiar. It seems the only remaining reason to buy Leicas, and the M8 in particular, is strictly emotional. Wide angle? My 1D focuses my 24/1.4 faster and more accurately than the equivalent on my M6, and my eyes aren't even that old. Quiet? My Ricoh GX100 with all the pre-recorded beeps and boops turned off is dead silent unless you literally press your ear up against it. Available light? Three words: 5D at 3200iso. I've also seen samples from the Nikon D3 at 6400 - wow.

<p>I still want an M8/M9. But I want it to be reliable, and work properly without stupid $100 filters.</p>

Ray, have there been any recent reviews or updates showing the problem's been fixed? I admit I've been out of the loop since trying my samples about a year ago but I'd love to give it another go if that's the case.

 

<p><i>Really, I have no dog in this fight, but I think you're beating a dead horse El..</i></p>

<p>The M8 and its issues are a dead horse, no argument from me there especially since I haven't heard yet from anyone that the problems have been fixed. But people purporting to be objective and unbiased when they're really not - that horse is alive and kicking, and given the chance I'll gladly beat it some more...</p>