steve_barnett2

I make enough to cover the ongoing costs of a Leica M, but only for the love of the equipment. An SLR/DSLR is far more profitable.

I naturally meant to say, 'Very true Bill...'

"Leica's are beautiful machines, but they were made to take pictures."

 

Very true Mike, and you do what you want with it. I guess people were just incredulous that you should devalue it in restoration by more than it would cost to buy a regular beater M2 to have painted black. A bit like buying a Ferrari then putting a Ford engine in, because its more economical, perhaps? To my mind though if the camera is just a machine to take pictures the finish shouldn't matter, so why not cover it in black tape instead and get the best of both worlds?

If you have installed new drivers for your old scanner then you may have to start again learning the correct settings for it. There is no way to tell what the problem is from your description, but my bet would be that some 'check box' isn't ticked correctly. Also are you sending the scan directly to your scanner, or using an editing software? The problem may be elsewhere.

"These "Newest" threads are then duplicated in the three groups, which also include all threads in the category in descending order of posting time for the last 4 days."

 

Thank you Brian Mottershead. I may not have expressed myself very clearly, but your quote above says it all. Utter and un-necessary complictaion. I was simply trying to suggest one list was a simpler way forward, and would be devoid of 'administritis'. My mistake was to re-iterate for the sake, I thought, of supplying context.

 

And as for opening your reply with "Steve, I take it you are ignorant.", I thought personal confrontation was off the agenda. One rule for the masses, another for the rulers perhaps?

Is there supposed to be some logic involved, or just 'moderator' logic? Do I now have to read BOTH indexes to mentally filter out the duplicated postings and decide what is, or is not 'new? Other user forums shuffle new postings, and any new replies, straight to the top of the list, thus ensuring hot topics are kept in the groups attention, and ensuring, more importantly, that dud items like 'FS' are immediately shuffled down the list. Why not try a creative solution like that, rather than a civil service style bodge?

I guess the best discipline to use should cover all eventualities, and get into the habit of following it at all times. For my pennies worth you should do both 'tests' of successful loading. A half or full wind on the lever, and once the bottom plate is on watch for the rewind crank/centre spigot turning. I learned this the hard way in theatre photography where you can be loading off stage in the dark. I still do it now with my MP. And I would also agree that the sharp edged rail on current bodies can make loading more difficult if the film has a bad curl.

Another good tip would be to read Evelyn Waugh's seminal book on foreign reporting, 'Scoop'. An invaluable read, especially the part about kitting yourself out. I wonder if Silvermans do 'cleft sticks' nowadays? But seriously John, it may make a good read when you are there if humour falls short.

Take digital, and email you output to a home base each night. Then should the worst happen, the world will still have, at least, your day before last photo's. But from a personal opinion of doing news and photojournalism, if you have to ask here, you shouldn't be going.

Good to hear of somebody with some common sense Tom!

And the 'thicker eyepiece' on my MP is exactly the same as the eyepiece on my 'unimproved', 'unbuggered about with', 'unmodified', M7. So all that says is that the eyepiece is totally irrelevant.

I think the 'micro lenses' referred to are in the body, and part of the sensor, to correct for the standard M lens rear element distance.

For anybody interested the current Amateur Photographer has an

article on the new M digital 10mp ('at least') body due for release

in 2006. I couldn't see any reference to 1st April anywhere so who

knows?

Shooting through a car window by any chance? I don't know about internal refelctions, William Eggleston never seemed to get any in his night shots ;-)

As B&W make filters for Leica I guess they will be rebadging one for John right now.

I think in its day the Rollieflex may have been the natural companion to the Leica. But only because at the time it was one of the few available MF cameras with a decent lens. Nowadays the Mamiya 6, or 7 makes a direct functional comparison with the Leica M possible, and they surely are the current MF equivalents?

I think the MP is the best camera Leica have ever made. Judging it now against a fifty year old M3 is ridiculous. My M2 and M3's have all those years of use in them to make them smooth and silky to use. The MP comes close already, but with modern materials helping to make it even more durable in the long term. With use it can only get better again. As for it feeling like an M6, well, all I can say is that it must be the best damn M6 in the world.

But that makes me think that a new collectable market has been unearthed. What price the earliest M3's? So in fifty years the 'first' MP will be the hot thing with its retro dial. Just dreaming.

The dial changed shortly after the MP was introduced.

Only partially here, the wind has gone out of ones sails since Josh and Co got stuck in. Sigh.

I'm not sure how many rolls I get but it must be up there in the 60's or 70's and using AE. But then, my M6TTL lasted only six months between batteries. A few weeks seems very short unless you are shooting a gazillion rolls in that time.

"to name calling steve barnett"

 

In context Leslie you were being agressive, calling for all sorts of proof about Arbus 'not' using a Leica. The Revelations book, while not necessarily being the seminal book (only history will decide that), is unclear on the subject. It certainly doesn't say she didn't use a Leica, but does say what she did mainly use. But for instance, all the cameras we know she used are in the Index, but not Leica. So your agression is unwarrented against people who are quoting good sources. On the other hand Leslie, you 'quote' from a book that has no title that you can give, and insist you are right and everybody else is wrong. If you think calling you 'prat' is a little strong and flaming, then all I can say is that I did consider some other words before settling on prat.

Ditto Paul and Mitch. The magnifier is a nice idea 'on paper', like the grip, but in practice it is more bother than it is worth. Lets face it, you could bracket exposure and focus in the time it takes to screw the damn thing on then take it off again. For specs wearers its even more awkward as the magnifier tends to pivot on your lens making the camera seem very distant and unergonomic. Its maybe more useful if you have a dedicated 90mm camera/body, but who wants that?

I didn't say Arbus never ever used a Leica, I just pointed out that Jamie makes a pertinent observation, that her later better known and influential work was done with a Rollie or Mamiya. So, yes, you are a prat for wanting to argue the toss over inconsequential matters. Its her work that counts, and the camera is secondary. Ah, but I forgot! Sorry Leslie, this is now the fondlers forum. Gone are the days when photographers and their work could be discussed without having to mention 'Leica' in every sentence.

I, like Jason, recommend the 'Revelations' book for all Arbus info, including her autopsy report! Of especial interest are her contact sheets that really do tell a tale about some of her famous photographs. But up until '56 I can only find references to her using lager format cameras, then after, mainly Nikon or Rollie. So Leslie, I think you are being a bit of a prat, and Jamie makes a valid point.