dante_stella1

June 1, 2002

You are right; with their lack of creativity with naming, it will be

called the M3-2 or the M3-P. That will drive the price of old M3s

through the roof as people begin bitching about the VF flare in

the "cheapened" M3-2 and M3-P. Sheez, deja vu all over again.

June 1, 2002

"That Japanese 105mm..." George, have you

checked the glass (and/or

design) content in Leica's current lineup (especially R lenses)?

I agree with Kelly F.; the 105 Nikkor is the ne plus

ultra of telephotos

for the Leica if you like portraits. I use mine both with an M3

(perfect) and

with a Hexar RF (challenging but worth it). What else do you

need?

If Leica made this lens (unlikely due to the triple-cemented

center group,

which is now cost-prohibitive to make), they would likely destroy

the whole

purpose by minimizing aberrations.

<img src="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/

105example2.jpg" width="426" height="650">

If I had to pick a current dream lens, it would be a modern

50/1.5 Opton Sonnar

in M mount, with its few optical shortcomings cancelled out

through sparing use of aspherics.

June 1, 2002

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01

Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

iso-8859-1">

</head>

<body>

"Foreign?" I don't know where you are from, but

the United States

has not made any LTM lenses since about 1946, and Ireland

has never made any.

The 28/6 Orion is by some accounts a copy of the Wide-Field

Ektar and by others

the Leica 28/6.3 Hektor. It is generally regarded as a decent

lens, but it suffers

from the usual Soviet vices - soft aluminum mount, internal

aperture ring. I

looked for a decent one for a long time and ultimately bought a

Kobalux 28mm

f/3.5. Here is a picture of it.

<img src="http://www.kobalux.com/overall.jpg" width="360"

height="273"> <img src="http://www.kobalux.com/pancake.jpg"

width="360" height="273">

The Kobalux 28 is curently the smallest 28mm lens (17mm

from body w/o shade,

25mm with shade). It will still be the smallest when Cosina

releases its own

28/3.5 later this year (25.8mm). Seems that they just can't get

any smaller

(this is probably a function of the helicoid that has to be packed

into the

lens barrel - and the closer you focus, the longer it has to be).</

p>

</body>

</html>

May 27, 2002

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01

Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

iso-8859-1">

</head>

<body>

Glenn: Interesting answer, but Photodo weighted ratings

only act as predictors

of results if you assign the same weights to the same

apertures and lp/mm figures

as Hasselblad does.

Take a look at the 50/1.8 AF Nikkor ($100, 4.4) and the 50/2

Summicron-M ($900,

4.6). If you look at the wider apertures, you will notice that the

Summicron

blows away the Nikkor. But due to the ways that Photodo

weights the results,

the Nikkor comes out much better off. In fact, if you just looked

at the weighted

numbers, you would guess that the Leica is only 4% better,

while costing 800%

more.

<img src="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/

LEIM9028.gif" width="141" height="382"><img src="http://

www.dantestella.com/technical/G9028.gif" width="141" height=

"382"><img src="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/

KOHEX9028.gif" width="141" height="382">

Observe above (L-R) are the Photodo charts for the Leica,

Contax and Konica

90mm f/2.8 lenses. Assume that you are shooting portraits

wide-open with any

one of these lenses. Bear in mind that on prints, only the 10lp/

mm number is

relevant, since that determines acutance on a print viewed from

a normal distance.

The respective weighted MTFs (across all

apertures) at 10lp/mm (here

the comparison is on output) are 92, 92 and 89, respectively.

This is a 3% contrast

difference, a difference that can easily be sucked up in (a)

focusing errors

(especially with the Contax G) or (b) shutter speed errors.

Remember, Photodo

tests are measured MTF (which elminates the camera

body as a source of

error).

Cross-section this another way - at f/2.8 (here the

comparison is based on

composition) across all resolution levels. Here, the Photodo

testing shows 81,

81, and 76, respectively, a 5% difference and still within the

province of focusing

or exposure error (consider that one stop of exposure is 100%).

Given the maximum

accuracy of an autofocus system, it is entirely possible that the

Contax could

do worst in the real world. Or given the shutter speed accuracy

of a Leica,

if it runs slow, it could be bottom of the barrel with either the

Elmarit-M

or the M-Hexanon.

But when you look at the Photodo final numbers, you can

see that the weights

it assigns to the various combinations (and here is where their

mix of anticipated

shots will vary), you would think that there would be a 21%

spread in performance

between the Leica (4.6) and the Konica (3.8), with the Contax

falling in between

(4.4). You would never any difference like that (or probably any

difference)

in the real world if you are shooting wide-open or making prints,

and your weighted

numbers might look more like 4.6, 4.6, 4.4. That assumes, of

course, that the

Contax can focus as accurately as a Leica M user with that lens

at a meter.

</body>

</html>

May 26, 2002

Kodak T400CN. It has only one color layer and it is tack sharp,

IMO better as a test film than TMX, which is also pretty good for

that.

May 25, 2002

<img

src="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/paw20.jpg">

This lens. More are <a

href="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/softworld.html">here

</a>.

I generally believe in shallow focus to achieve a softer effect,

but not in

using "soft" lenses. Sometimes (a lot of the time)

you will miss with

a nice, sharp, fast lens and achieve the same effect. Or you'll

shoot into the

light to flare it out.

</body>

</html>

May 25, 2002

<img

src="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/paw20.html">

This lens. More are <a

href="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/softworld.html">here

</a>.

I generally believe in shallow focus to achieve a softer effect,

but not in

using "soft" lenses. Sometimes (a lot of the time)

you will miss with

a nice, sharp, fast lens and achieve the same effect. Or you'll

shoot into the

light to flare it out. I like the 80/1.4 Summilux-R the best.

</body>

</html>

May 25, 2002

I have put compatibility notes at

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html

Look near the bottom; there is a chart of combinations which

have tested successfully (none have been unsuccessful, but I

don't have reports on every single lens made -- yet).

I have not reported on the 35/1.7 Ultron and the 135/2.8

Tele-Elmarit, but I just received messages from people who

have used those successfully.

May 21, 2002

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01

Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

iso-8859-1">

</head>

<body>

<img src="http://www.dantestella.com/Olga/06.jpg" width=

"762" height="506">

Shot with the Canon 35/1.8 LTM lens. See this

and more real-world

Canon-for-Leica reviews <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/

technical/canoleic.html">here</a>.

</body>

</html>

May 21, 2002

Leica bodies are based on an assumption of a 27.95mm

distance to the pressure plate rails, a 0.20mm film channel, and

a 27.75mm front rail. Hexar bodies have a 28.00mm distance to

the pressure plate rails, a 0.24mm film channel and a 27.76mm

front rails. The question is what assumption is made about

where the film sits - front or back.

May 16, 2002

Sorry; I hit return at the end the sentence too quickly:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/kobalux.html

May 16, 2002

I have a page showing the test results from Pop Photo (FWTW). The

Kobalux.com web site has the British Journal of Photography and

Shutterbug evaluations.

May 14, 2002

For the frames, Leica used to use brass stampings for the

bodies because they could be brought to closer tolerances.

When precision zinc castings became available, they went to

using those.

For the covers, Leica used brass until the M4-2, when it

went to zinc. It eventually came back to brass (via CNC) for

some M6 commemoratives. No one knows why they used a

titanium nitride finish for the "titanium" M6.

A lot of cameras have real titanium covers, such as the

Contax T and the Hexar RF. Either they have found a way to

stamp these, or there are no threaded holes in the parts (I believ

this was the case when I took the top cover off a Contax T once).

Body castings would be tough due to their complexity and the

number of threaded holes they have.

May 11, 2002

Was this an on-film test? Or were you reading from the lens

distance scale?

May 8, 2002

The slippage happens with a lot of cameras, and I think it is to

prevent you from ripping the film sprockets. The whole Leica double-

stroke concept was to prevent film stress (I am grateful that they

dropped that "feature"). I haven't tried it on my SS M3, but I would

be loath to try to induce slippage. In the worst case, you could

conceivably polish the clutch surfaces and make them slip all the

time.

May 8, 2002

I just finished a pretty exhaustive synthetic review of the Hexar RF (which

just came off to 10 printed pages), with notes on the current controversies.

My theory on all of this (explained in the review) is that the Leica M and the

Hexar RF are very different animals from a development standpoint, and that

this history, combined with the personality types of both groups of users, tends

to perpetuate a sort of holy war (which I'm sure you can identify with the Ford/Chevy

thing). Of course, growing up in a house that was Catholic on one side and Protestant

on the other, I am used to tension. And as both an M3 and a Hexar RF user, you

can imagine the conflict I must be feeling. The link is <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html">here</a>.

April 28, 2002

I would guess by unit volume that between the Ciro, the Detrola

and the Argus (well, Ann Arbor was not a suburb *then*), Detroit

was probably a bigger producer of cameras than most cities.

Jay, you may not recognize Atwater Street any more. It has been

totally redone from the Renaissance Center and west (in fact, it

is now a flyover), but the old part (industrial row) is actually more

interesting a photographic site than ever. There are huge

mountains of road salt unloaded by freighters, cement factories,

derelict warehouses (which are all in the process of demolion

for a new master development by GM) and packs of roving wild

dogs (they actually look like poodles and German Shepherds

and cocker spaniels, but they are MEAN!).

April 28, 2002

First, the Canon is not that bad. It's just not a distance lens.

Second, the original 60/1.2L Hexanon (with a little updating)

became the 57/1.2 SLR lens (and became the 60/1.2L

rangefinder lens again in 1999), so if there was a stretch, it was

in the right direction (they made the SLR lens for close to 20

years - from 1967-1986 - during which entire period it was

competitive with every other 1.2, including Leica), since that lens

could deliver 40% at 50lp/mm at center and edge, wide-open

(some other lenses had higher center and much lower edge).

Finally, the 50/1.1 Nikkor is a not a 7-element Sonnar but by

Nikon's account a 9-element Planar. So it isn't a stretch of either

of the Nikkor 50s, which were both Sonnars.

April 27, 2002

Jay: the person in question got this from measuring M2s and

M3s precisely on a specialized device. But you are right: the

separate problems that affect ability to check register are (a) lack

of similarity in film behavior to the test surface; (b) subject-side

field curvature of the lens; and © the shape of the focused-

plane projected on the film (paraboloid - meaning that you can

optimize for the center, edges, or all). As for the quantum of

shrinkage, it can be a little or a lot. It may not even be as big a

problem anymore. Just something to ruminate about.

April 27, 2002

You are right; the only reliable way to check focus is to use a

first-surface mirror (better) or groundglass on the film rails. The

problem is that a flat piece of glass (either) does not imitate the

behavior of the film, which is flexible and coated on the image

side with gelatin, a substance that loves to curl.

On the film flatness swamping all other issues, it is hard to say,

because depth of focus varies from lens to lens (generally the

inverse of depth of field).I have noticed that motor-driven

(2fps) sequences wide-open with a 21/2.8 at infinity with the

Hexar do not work as well as one shot every one or two seconds

(about the same speed as you would shoot an M3). If you shoot

at a more leisurely pace, there is no difference between the K

and the L. This confirmed what I read about a Zeiss test that

concluded that 2-2.5fps is the practical limit for motor drive

because the film has to settle. But this would not be a usual

situation - wide-open and infinity would probably be a

landscape, so no rush to shoot a million frames.

Based on my puttering around, I also think that pressure-plate

geometry and spool rotation direction also play a role in flatness.

Cameras designed with motor drives seem to have smaller

pressure plates and deeper film channels. They also lack

counter-rotating spools. This may affect film flatness, but I

imagine the bigger determinant is time between shots. The

repair expert told me that when you shoot wide and far with wide-

angles, shoot two shots: one when the camera is wound and

another one right after it winds (whether lever-wound or motor-

wound),

April 27, 2002

I was discussing the issue of film-flange register with a

certain repair wizard

who lives up on a mountain. The question was how you would

check film-flange

register on a given camera/lens combination. The conversation

started with my

idea of having my Hexar RF tested against a selection of

lenses and concluded

with my wondering if it was my M3 instead that needed to be

checked.

First, besides telling me that as a real world test it is

impossible to do

because the film starts to bow inward after a minute (relative

humidity changing);

he also shared this interesting insight: Leica late LTM (IIIc and

on) and M

bodies contract over time, enough to cause the body focus to

change. This is

the same principle which makes boring out old engine blocks

more attractive

than using new ones; the cylinders keep their shape. If I recall,

he called

it "seasoning" of the alloy.

To be fair, this isn't just Leica, but anything with a diecast

chassis (ever

wonder why old SLRs sometimes focus a hair past infinity?).

Leitz perceived

this to be such a problem with the older screwmount cameras

that it advertised

that they were made of metal stampings to improve precision

and stability. Then

they started die-casting and the party line became that die-

casting was better

(in reality, die-casting allows smaller tolerances but apparently

does nothing

to promote stability).

Second, register problems do not manifest themselves with

lenses like the Summilux

75 close-up, but rather with fast, wide lenses at infinity. Wide

lenses have

very little focus travel at the longer distances, and if there is a

register

problem (like body focus being too long), the lens will fall well

short of focusing

at infinity or focus well past it. This would tend to suggest that a

lot of

the people with troublesome Summilux 75s and Leica M6s

close up are having rangefinder

or lens problems, not register problems. Having used a 21/2.8

both on my M3

and my Hexar, both seem to be fine at f/2.8 at infinity at 50x. My

interlocutor

said that that fact suggested that it was unnecessary to test

either camera.

My personal conclusion from this is that is that a lot of old M

cameras probably

have less than ideal body focus and that the modern Ms (of

whatever brand) are

heading that way. It also makes me think twice about all of this

(probably manufactured)

argument about the Hexar RF's register distance being slightly

longer, (1) because

most people who have complained about focusing problems

have complained about

long lenses not focusing (=rangefinder alignment); (2) because

the Leica frame

of reference on any camera before the M6 (1985) is a moving

(contracting) target;

and (3) given the nominal dimensions of the Hexar FFR (28.00

+/- 0.03mm) vs.

the Leica M (27.95 +/- 0.01), it seems just as likely that after 10

years, a

Hexar RF could have a FFR closer to Leica spec than a Leica

does.

I suspect that the Hexar RF is now mfd to the same FFR as

the Leica (27.95

to the inner rails). because it seems that everyone who has had

real register

problems has had a low-S/N Hexar. I surmise that they figured

out the problem

fairly early on.

The solution to all of this seems to be checking body focus

every 10 years

or so.

Strange.

April 24, 2002

My vote is for the Hexar RF. At the end of the day, even if you spend $1,100

on the kit (sheez, I spent close to double that and had one of the first ones

in the US) and even if you have to have the backfocus or RF adjusted ($275 total,

assuming out of warranty), you are still $1,000 less than an M7 and have functionality

that the M7 lacks.

I like being able to <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html#10525">use

ultrafast lenses</a> without resorting to ND filters, like with the legendary

Nikkor 105/2.5.

I like being able to squeeze off two shots in a row without removing my eye

from the finder.

I like being able to see the high and low exposure values (i.e., the contrast

range of a scene) graphically, rather than mentally averaging them.

In terms of the build, I am favorably impressed by the liberal use of METAL

on the Hexar - there are no plastic parts anywhere on the exterior of the camera,

just some neoprene grips. Even the battery cover is a lovely metal piece...

: ) The finish is a nice, flat black epoxy that is warm to the touch and very,

very hard hard enough to scratch the metal off a Jupiter lens. This is

in contrast to the ever-growing chorus of plastic parts on Ms. By comparison,

the M6's finish looks cheap, the Bessa-R feels like a toy (I get a kick out

of the simulated cap screw on the winding lever) and the Minolta CLE

is nowhere near as solid in the hand.

Maybe I'd have a different perspective had I an early Hexar RF with problems

(my first one actually bit the dust being dropped onto a bare cement floor),

but I haven't. My M3 is a good backup to the Hexar, not the other way around.

April 23, 2002

1. You have to think of these things in terms of effective

speed.

a 50/1.8 Canon is a lens designed for f/4-f/8 at 10-15 feet

(BTW, the 50/1.8

Canon is a fantastic lens for general purpose work). The same

goes for a 50/1.4

Canon and the Summarit and basically anything else. They are

mid-distance, mid-aperture

lenses for general purpose use.

2. When you start looking at the Sonnar variants like the

(well) Sonnar, the

original Voigtlander Nokton 1.5 ($1,300+ used) the Canon 1.5

(or Serenar 1.5),

the Nikkor 1.4 or the Zunow 50/1.1, you might as well not even

have aperture

blades. They'll all designed to be shot wide open. This came

from Zeiss's original

design philosophy of a better high-speed lenses wide-open.</

p>

A 50/1.4 Nikkor takes the Zeiss design philosophy a step

further, too far for

some people's taste. It is designed for f/1.4-f/2.8 at 3-10 feet. It

is a very

extreme computation of a Sonnar. In fact, the veiling flare (from

focus field

curvature that increases with distance) becomes so fantastic at

infinity, that

you have to stop down to f/2.0 to control it. See <a href="http://

www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html#5014">here</a>.

But that situation is outside its intended purpose, which is to

see in the dark

at close range. I have seen things in the shadows of Nikkor

negs that I have

not seen at all in any others. There is a very good reason that

the Nikkor is

so expensive: it is a single purpose lens that performs

admirably in that purpose,

even compared to modern glass. So what if it's $400? It's still a

damn sight

cheaper than a Summilux, and for some aesthetic purposes,

superior. The 50/1.2

Canon has the same close/open optimization but does not do

quite as well at

it.

3. By the time you hit f/4 on the Nikkor, things are poised to

go downhill,

and the image starts to degrade at f/5.6. When you hit it on a

Canon or a Leica,

things are still looking up. But either the Canon or the Nikon at f/

4 will be

blown out by a 50/3.5 Elmar atf/4, because the Elmar is easier

to make well

and has far fewer choices to make. Fast lenses need big glass

and optical compromises.

By and large, smaller maximum aperture lenses will always

outdo larger-aperture

lenses in resolution.

April 23, 2002

Which one a classic? Every car looks like a classic the year it comes out.

April 22, 2002

Maybe a little less serious <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digilux.html">review</a>

of the Digilux...

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by dante_stella1