mikep1

I prefer the originals to any of the "doctored" versions. I'm sure there is far more shadow detail in the slide. I've used coolscans qute a bit and they don't pull shadow detail very well. Shadow detail that is excellent when viewed on the light box or as a projected image on a screen goes missing in the scan.

To me the 24mm is the ideal wide angle - I have felt this way whether using M cameras or SLRs.

 

The problem with the 24 on the M is that in order to see the entire frame EASILY, you need to have the aux finder. However, if you don't wear glasses and you have a .72 rangefinder you can see the entire frame using the camera's viewfinder. You will have to peek around by moving your eye from side to side too see the extreme edges of the finder. Some find this too annoying. I now use my 24 without the aux finder and without "peeking" around - simply realizing that I'm going to get slightly more on the image than I can see in the finder. Seems to work fine.

 

But the basic answer to your question, as far as I am concerned, is the 24mm ASPH

$1874.98

I like it! And you say it was actually taken with a Leica film camera, not some digital camera or a cellphone? How delightfully retro! I have to admint I suspected something about it was different when I noticed there were no blown-out highlights or harshness. Transparency film, eh? Hmm, I think you may be on to something.

To me this would be more effective with a tiny bit of fill-flash or (if you hate flash-on-a-Leica) a different angle to get a bit of light on the dog. I didn't realize the dark area was a dog. It doesn't need much light - just enough to show a bit of detail.

In the last month I've been outbid on 7 different V35 enlargers - working on the 8th as we speak...

Ed,

 

Darn, I think of all the paper clips I twisted up just for something to do with my hands. One of them could have been famous...

Perhaps I've lost track of the point of this thread. Is it that Regular Ovens cook Leica's in a more tasty manner than do microvaves? or,

That Digicams taste better than Leica's no matter how they are cooked?

or,

That microwave ovens will make both Leicas and Digicams unsafe to eat?

or,

That all cameras are damaged by cooking in microwaves because the water in them is de-waterized or something. or

That we all want to see something we wrote appear on the screen no matter how inane?

If you have a .72 finder, you can peek around the finder and see the complete coverage of the 24. I don't use the aux finder at all w my 24 and don't have any problem. You actually don't really need to peek around - just assume you will get a bit more than you easily see through the finder. This "incomplete" coverage is essentially the same view you get using most SLRs which do not have full-frame viewfinders either - except for the pro models.

 

If you have to wear glasses when shooting, however, the above is not really workable.

"Autofocus and slow shutter speeds are still two of the big drawbacks to SLR digitals."

 

I don't understand what you mean. "Slow shutter speeds" - you can't mean the actual shutter speed which, on a D100 goes to 1/4000. If you are referring to lag - between pressing the button and firing the shutter - there was no noticeable difference between my F100 and my D100. There is essentially no lag.

 

Autofocus - are you meaning the autofocus is slow? That depends on the lens. Again with my F100/D100 they were extremely quick with current lenses. If you mean you are forced to use AF, you are not. You can just turn the switch to manual focus.

 

Digital SLRs are the equal of film SLRs for both of these functions.

Alex,

You're not buying the deep meaning aspects of my photo? Darn!

 

I'll try the Vesuvio next time...I'm WAAAY over 21.

 

I sympathize with the unfinished project dilemma...I have an E-Type Jag I've been restoring for nearly 8 years! But hey, unfinished stuff worked pretty good for Schubert!

 

Regards,

 

MikeP

Maybe something like this...?<div></div>

In my opinion, the Pizza Napoli shot would be quite good if the left half of the pic was cropped out. All the "action" is in the right half with the kids under the bright sign.

Grant,

 

Nice photos - I especially like #7 (if I counted correctly) - the guy sitting on the bench with the sun glasses. But all of them are very good. It's good to see some really nice shots on this site to learn from. My biggest problem with "street" shooting is overcoming the feeling that I am intruding. I'm working on it but it's not easy for me.

 

Thanks for some great inspiration.

 

MikeP

Uh, yeah, YEAH, that's it! I'm shocked that you missed it.

 

I was juxtaposing the serenity of the guy on the bench with the upthrusting "in-your-face-ness" of the tower in the distance. The intentional contrast wherein I cleverly substituted the tower to evoke an upraised middle finger behind the bench-guy demonstrates the incongruity of life and the sublime reality that we, as humans, can be at one moment at peace while lurking in the background is the ever-present and ominous fact that we will, ultimately, get the shaft. I got the inspiration for this shot from the numerous 1950's postcards one can purchase nearby at Pier 54's "Fruitless Images R'us."

 

Actually, I just wanted some opinions about the photo. I liked it because it was was shot with the 90mm, (not the 35, which I typed in by mistake), in late afternoon and had both the person and the tower in focus, and was handheld at F16 at around 1/30 sec. The metering was intentionally on the sky so the foreground was dark. The image as it shows up on the post is somewhat darker than the slide. The slide came out exactly as I hoped it would when I snapped it-sort of a composite of the scene from where I was standing at the time with the tower in the background. I appreciate the opinions about the lack of a particular "focal" point and agree - I had no concept of "this is Coit Tower (San Francisco) or, "this is a guy on the bench." Perhaps I should have and shot it that way or, at least taken several shots with different focal points/lenses. Or maybe I just don't have that artistic an eye!

 

REALLY nice shot from Russian Hill!

Framelines? We don't need no stinking framelines! Just kidding

 

The thing looks neat to me! If I decide to get into digital for my M lenses I'd consider it a reasonable (er, uh, depending on the price)stopgap until the Digital M shows up. And a 75mm Noctilux sounds interesting!

OK,

 

Someone please explain why this image is not appearing with the message but as a separate link. I resized it to less than 511 pixels per what I understand to be the instructions. But it still posts as a link.

I going to try this one more time...sorry<div></div>

Jeez - they both look the same. I just can't master this posting images thing...

First was much darker than the slide...<div></div>

X<div></div>

It's the only film camera I own so...Yes

Paul,

 

If you are looking for specific info, I can scan whatever you need from my M7 manual.

 

MikeP

Aha!! I always wondered where the Klingon uniforms originated.

Provia 100F for me...