eric_reid

I recently returned from 10 days in Thailand and Cambodia. This was a vacation and I planned on carrying my camera and taking a fair amount of pictures (for pleasure). I took an M6TTL, 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8. I also took a Contax T2 (Zeiss 38MM/2.8) P&S and a motor for the M6. I loaded the M6 with TriX and my wife shot color with the Contax. Took about 25 rolls total (hand checked in clear zip-lock bags - 8 flights and never once did the film go through x-ray!). I figured I could always leave some of the gear in my hotel since I was staying in very nice hotels with modern hotel safes. In fact, the kit was so light (in a Domke F6 bag) that I ended up carrying everything except the M6 motor (which I NEVER USED!). I did a fair amount of thinking before settling on this kit (including asking the members on this Forum) and I'd have to say that it worked out extremely well. When I look through the contact sheets and try to remember what worked and what didn't, I would say that I used the 35 and the 50 fairly equally (80%) and the 90 about 20% of the time (but I would not have been happy without the 90 since some of my favorite shots came using it). If I had one, I would have substituted a 28 for the 35 since the 35 just doesn't really handle architectural work as well as I would like and I think the 28 would work as well as the 35 for the crowded street photography which I like (and which probably exists in spades in India). Other than that, it was a great, light kit and I'd do it again in a second. Although the 3E sounds great, I was in and out of temples, ruins, building and shadow and I found I used the lenses wide open with some frequency. I've also travelled extensively in Europe with a 50 or a 35 only, without feeling under-equiped; however, I've been to these countries before and India (like Thailand/Cambodia) would be an entirely different matter if it's a once-in-a-lifetime sort of trip. Finally, I found in general that the M6's reputation for subtleness is well-deserved. I found subjects seemingly more at ease with the me smiling, bowing and shooting with my little motorless M6, than they were with my friend's honking, flashing Nikon. But I'm a believer already, so I could have been imagining it! Good luck and I hope you enjoy photographing your travels.

 

BTW, I want to thank the members who were good enough to give me recently advice on what to take for my trip. You were extremely helpful and as you can tell, your tips worked for me great! ER

M6TTL, 50 cron, Tri-X

 

Nikon F100, 50/1.8, Tri-X

Although this type of question has been asked, I didn't see anything

specific in the archive...

 

I'll be travelling in Thailand/Cambodia for 10 days in December

(Bangkok, Chaing Rai and Angkor Wat). I generally travel fairly

light (carry on only, etc) and I want to balance my camera gear

requirements with my travel comfort requirements. That said, what

would you recommend taking of the existing gear I have (don't want to

buy a new Leica lens, although I'd spend a few hundred bucks on a

Voit. or used lens ot add if it made sense): M6TTL, 35/2, 50/2,

90/2.8. I will bring a back up P&S. Also, while I usually shoot B&W

neg. and some color, what ratio of each would anyone who has been

there recommend (yes, I know it's personal, but I'd still like your

opinions). Thanks in advance for your suggestions. ER

 

I have

Here's another film speed question: I'm shooting in a low/available

light jazz club. What will be the primary difference in look between

Tri-X pushed to 1600 vs. Delta 3200 pulled to 1600. Developing will

be done by a third party pro lab (not by me, so I can't get too deep

in to development time, solutions, etc). Thanks in advance for your

responses.

Todd,

 

I think you're right on my math, but help me out with this - if I set my camera's ASA dial at 1600 for 3200 film, my camera's meter will "think" there is slower film than there is and it will show meter readings resulting in overexposed film (as you mentioned) - but then what happens when you go to develop it as if it were 3200?

Ok, I've looked through the archives and have seen a lot of info on

this but I'm still confused. I've had my M6TTL for about a year now

and I have had excellent exposure results using a wide variety of B&W

and color neg stock (not always great pics, but excellent exposure

results!). For B&W, I am planning on returning to Tri-X as my

primary stock (found the Delta 400 terrific in terms of grain and

tonal range, but just not punchy enough for my style when using 400

spead B&W), continuing with Delta 100, and with Delta 3200 when

applicable.

 

Here's the question: I have pushed and pulled the 400 and 3200 speed

films with success but ALWAYS matching the exposed push/pull amount

with the lab developing instruction (i.e., if I push one stop, I

instruct the lab to do the same). I've read a number of posts from

people on this forum who seem to know what they are talking about

that they routinely seem to pull their high speed B&W neg yet process

normal. The two examples I see most are (i) shooting 3200 at 1600

and then processing at 3200, and (ii) shooting 400 at 320 and then

processing at 400. I don't get this. How can the exposure be

correct? I know these films have good exposure latitude, but I don't

understand being a full stop off (3200 to 1600). What is

particularly confusing is that I thought, if anything, you want to be

overexposed, not under and wouldn't the above technique bring you

consistently under? Note, I'm using a good, pro lab and they will

understand and follow any instructions I give them. Thanks in

advance for your answers.

I'm in the market for a new, USA, black 50 Summicron and I'm trying

to determine whether the Leica $200 rebate is still active for this

lens (I'm in the LA area). A couple of sites (B&H, etc) don't

mention the rebate; however, I did see it at Focuscamera.

 

Does anyone know whether the rebate is still running?

Tony,

 

<p>

 

If you haven't committed to the silver yet, please keep in mind that

black M6s take better pictures than silver ones.

I've tried a few bags so far with a modest kit consisting of an M6,

two lenses (35 and 90), motor, filters, batteries, lens cleaner,

small penknife, flashlight, Sharpie, etc., and about 8 or 10 rolls of

film. I've found the more padded bags, such as the Lowe Street &

Field/Reporter, while very secure and well-organized, are too bulky

in the way they rest against your side. They also scream "camera

bag". I just started using the F-6 and I think it's perfect for the

M6, 2-3 lenses, accessories and film. It fits everything

comfortably, yet the gear seems secure. It is the shortest in depth

of the Domke bags and this makes it particularly well-suited for the

M6 and for working out of. Unlike some other bags which have

adjustable velcro dividers, the Domke's have full compartment

inserts, which I find easier to adjust and I like to be able to

remove them to load/hold gear. I was concerned that the F-6 lid

would not stay closed when unclipped. Indeed, I find that it doesn't

ride up and open when unclipped (this makes it easy to work from when

you need to get in and out of the bag) and obviously very secure when

one or both clips are connected. I bought the canvas one since I

live in SoCal and rain isn't a big issue. I also thought it would

soften up nicely over time. The ballistic nylon version is probably

better suited to all-around/travel use as it would be water

resistant. Last tip -- I bought a small Lowe camera pouch (like for

a oversized point-and-shoot, which I use when I'm taking only my M6

with 35mm lens and some film. Very small and has some padding.

Often thrown in my briefcase or when travelling very light or just

out for the day and want the camera with me. Good luck.

Michael,

 

<p>

 

First off -- I do not have any experience comparing the vintage 90 TE

with the contemporary 90E, so this is a quick few words on the

current version 90 E only. As you might recall, I was wavering about

a week ago between purchasing a new 50 cron vs. new 90 E and I ended

up buying the 90 E. I just returned from a weekend away where I

first used the 90 E extensively at a National fencing Tournament. I

thought the lens was simply beautiful. The size and weight are

extremely well-balanced. It was a pleasure to use for action and

crowd/coach reaction shots. I also used a borrowed 75 and it's size

(like the 90 cron) and length of focus throw are a real drag. I know

you're not considering the cron, so the extra stop isn't a

consideration, but let me tell you that between the size of the frame

lines and the desire to shoot handheld, it's hard to imagine that the

one's rate of return of perfect focus shots would be very good at

F2.0. I read every review and post I could find on these lenses and

the overwhelming consensus is that the current model is superior in

everyway to the prior versions of the 2.8s. It seems to also rival

the 2.0 in most user's opinions - except that many here have stated

that the 2.0 is a bit too sharp for portraits (which would concern me

for a lens which is a well-suited for portraits as the 90...).

Again, I can't speak for the collector values since I'm a user only

(at this point!). But if you're going to use the lens and not

collect, I would just point out that the current pricing (between the

rebate and a "Leica Day" discount which you should be able to find

before year's end) + the Passport Warranty program, make a new 90E a

pretty good value in comparison to most used versions of any kind.

Thanks for your advice when I bought this lens! Good luck in your

decision. ER

Could someone please let me know where they've been able to obtain the new 1.25x magnifier in the U.S.? There were a couple of posts mentioning that people had ordered it, but I can't seem to find them in stock anywhere. Thanks in advance.

Wow - a ton of responses to a pretty average question. I appreciate the advice from everyone. Not that you're all that interested, but I decided to get the 90/2.8 for now. Reasoning? (i) I'd should get better with my 35mm as my "normal" main lens before committing to another "normal" lens in the 50; (ii) the 90 offers the greatest useable difference for a everyday, two lens kit and it will allow me to develop and have fun with a very different style of shooting than would a 50 (which I would use more like the 35mm in style); and most importantly, one of my good friends called me today to say that he's taking advantage of Leica Day and the rebate to buy his first M6 with a 50/f2 (I can borrow until the goodwill dries up!).

 

<p>

 

Since so many of you are into facts and figures, just wanted to tally your own opinions for the heck of it:

 

<p>

 

Out of 20 total opinions...

 

<p>

 

-- 14 were in favor of buying a 50mm next (most saying to also keep the 35mm)

-- 2 said to get the 90mm next (regardless of whether to add a 50 later)

-- 4 advised something entirely different, or were not determinative.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again for all your help! Eric

Thanks for the posts so far -- I appreciate the advice. Since a new

90 can be had for such agood price with the sale + rebate, and a used

50 'cron could be added in the future for the least amount among the

new version lenses, I'm thinkin' of taking the 90 now. But please,

keep the advice rolling in!

 

<p>

 

Note to Todd -- I completely agree on adding a wider lens. I was

figuring on adding a Voit. 21mm within the coming months...

I realize from spending many weeks at this site that many of you have answered this question before, so I apologize in advance for beating a dead horse. That being said, I could use some advice!

 

<p>

 

I bought a M6TTL earlier this year and with it, a 35mm Summicron. I previously rented and spent time with a M6 with 50mm Summicron. Having come from SLRs, I thought I'd find myself wanting a longer lens to "steal" shots of people from further away. I've come to realize however, that the mood that comes with shots taken up close in midst of the action with a shorter (eg, 35mm) lens are have more "life". This being said, I find myself thinking that the 35mm is just too wide too often. Most of my shooting is candids of people/street, and travel. I also find that I shoot low light at widest aperture fairly often. I definitely want to be able to shoot natural light portraits (but I don't really know how often I'll do this in real practice). Given that my local Leica Day is this week, and the Leica rebate is scheduled to end 12/31, here are the choices that seem to make sense:

 

<p>

 

1. Get a new 90/2.8 (on sale + rebate), for a 35/90 kit.

2. Get a new 50/2 (on sale + rebate), for a 35/50 kit.

3. Dump the 35, and get a new 50 Summilux, for a fast one-lens does most all kit.

 

<p>

 

I like the idea of one lens does it all, but I've had a Contax T2 for years and was never content with a 38mm lens for all uses (putting aside that it's not a M). I know many of you will say that I'll have all three (35/50/90) soon enough, so don't worry about it. You're probably right. Also, I've noticed from the other posts that most everyone has a 90, but most of you seem to only use it 10% or so of the time. Whereas everyone uses their 50 a lot! What would you suggest?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance, Eric

Took the plastic off two days after I bought the M. Started to mess

with it like a scab, then just had to peel it entirely off. Sigh...

sure do miss the plastic stickers on the bottom of my $2000 camera

body...

I second Steve Wiley's recommendation. I've got the Gitzo Reporter

legs and the Monfrotto Pro Ball head. I like the Gitzo legs in the 4-

section version for greater portability (can be strapped to the side

of a backpack with ease) and because the tripod can be used closer to

the ground than the 3-section version. If you've got the bucks and

plan on using the tripod often enough to warrant it (soul searching

time), you can go for the comparably-sized Mountaineer (carbon fiber)

versions -- they are lighter and absorb vibration better. I also

agree with Steve that the Manfrotto head is of much higher quality

than the price suggests -- it's a terrific value. It is extremely

simple, fast and stable, especially when paired with the relatively

lightweight M6. What you lose over the pricier Gitzo or other

comparable heads is additional adjustabililty. However, when I

compared numerous ball heads for general use (i.e., everything but

studio), I thought that you don't see sufficient difference in

quality and fluidness until you get to the Arca Swiss. Once I saw

that baby, I didn't want anything else (other than a RRS plate to go

with it). When I bought my sticks, the Arca Swiss was (and still

is?) hard to find in stock and (definitely is still) very expensive.

I wanted her bad. Fortunately, a knowledgeable pro was in the shop

and recommended the Manfrotto, which was so cheap in comparison that

I figured I'd get it and wait for the Arca Swiss and a RRS plate.

Now I realize that I don't use the tripod all that often, and when I

do, this set up works great and I appreciate the weight savings and

simplicity of the Manfrotto. Also as Steve mentioned, I wouldn't

hesitate to use this set up for up to medium format, but note that

with greater weight gear (even pro-weight SLR with long lens), you

may start to yearn for the moderately more stable 3-section legs and

the beefier head. For my M6, however, I found this set up ideal.

Note, I use the M6 grip when the camera is on the tripod -- I find it

easier to control and adjust, and the thread mount is also centered.

Good luck.

Leica baseball cap.

Me... I'm just loaded :)

I know this topic has been discussed somewhat (usually w/re to non-metered Ms), but what are your opinions on getting a good meter and learning to use it as part of building a better technical foundation? In addition to shooting lots of film, I'd like to do whatever's possible to increase technical proficiency so that it approaches "second nature" and allows more creative possiblities with less pure luck involved! In your opinion, would learning a handheld meter help build skills for someone with a M6TTL?

 

<p>

 

If so, what do you recommend. I'd like to only buy once - so I wouldn't mind spending (a bit) more to get a meter that would serve most common purposes. What do you think of the Gossen Luna-Pro analog vs. digital models?

 

<p>

 

As always, thanks for the advice!

Godfrey,

 

<p>

 

You mean that was the sound of the camera? I thought it was supposed

to be AK-47 fire...

Saw SPY GAME (Robert Redford/Brad Pitt) last night - one of the better executed spy-thriller genre films of late. Anyway, in one segment, Pitt's a CIA operative posing as a photojournalist in 1985 Beruit. He runs around wielding a couple of Leicas in midst of people taking pot shots at him and others. He also uses a Nikon for a scene or two, but it's the scenes of Pitt ducked-running across a burning street firing a motor-equiped Leica over his head that gets the Leica juices flowing!

 

<p>

 

Makes you want to quit your job and run around Kabul for a month! (Not really, but the movie's a good Leica sighting for the rest of us photojounalist wannabes...)

John and Andy -- Thanks for your detailed responses. I appreciate

it. My lab is friendly and easy to work with, so I think I will

engage them in a discussion of their process on the Delta 400 (it is

the new version, BTW). They mentioned that they treat it differently

than Tri-X, but I didn't have the knowledge to probe on how exactly

they handle it. I'll take your info and ask. Also, I think I'll

rate it up 1/3 stop for a roll or two and see how that goes. In any

event, the latest batches a shot have resulted in useable negs, so

I'm much less concerned. Is it really true, however, that slightly

overexposed is generally "ok" and in any event better than

underexposed?

I just got back the latest batch of processed negs and contact sheets from my trip to GA last weekend, following my question posted last week on exposure problems I've been having with my new M6TTL. Since so many of you were patient and extremely helpful with suggestions to hone in on the problem, I thought I'd let you know how it went:

 

<p>

 

1. All color neg (Fuji NPH400, shot/process normal) had realtively spot on exposure. Mediocre shots, but perfectly exposed!

 

<p>

 

2. Ilford Delta 3200 (shot/process normal) - pretty good exposure, contact sheets are a little grey, but the negs themselves look good and the lab says they'll print great.

 

<p>

 

3. Ilford Delta 3200 (push 2 stops) - better than I expected! A few 8x10 enlargements show good exposure and contrast (blacks are rich black and whites are white). Grain's no bigger than a Volkswagon, as you'd expect. (Read that Selgado oftern resorts to pushing Delta 3200 to 12,800, so I figured what the heck. I discovered that I'm no Selgado. 'Course, a Georgia wedding doesn't have the same depth of subject matter as a few years in Somalia will give you).

 

<p>

 

4. Tri-X 400 (shot sort of normal) - one roll fine, one roll horribly ruined due to light leak exposure. Can't figure out how it happened, but I recall that it was 2:00am and I'd tipped back more than my share (is it possible I replaced the baseplate without fully shutting the back cover?!?!)

 

<p>

 

5. Ilford Delta 400 (shot/process normal) - here's where it gets interesting. These rolls seemed consistently overexposed by about one stop. I spoke to the lab technician (again, I'm using a very good LA pro lab), and he said he shoots Delta 400 frequently and has the same problem! He showed me that the negs are well within the range for great prints. Mind you, this is the second pro lab I've processed Delat 400 with, so I don't think it's a processing "error". Since the negs are fine, I'm not too worried about it, but I wondered if any of you experience similar results with this film?

 

<p>

 

Bottom line - my "exposure problem" seems to be getting resolved. Got 4 or 5 decent enlargements out of the weekend. Now if I could just shoot more sober...

Jack -- You're right, thanks for the catch. As I was writing, I was

comparing the negs to some that were actually thin and I wasn't

paying attention to my post! The negs in question have all been

overexposures that have insufficient detail. While we're on the

topic, I always thought as a rule of thumb that it was better to have

overexposure than underexposure. Is this right? How much

overexposure is ok on B&W negative film? (I know it ought to have a

wide latitude, but we're talking overexposure here...).

Thanks for everyone's fast response! A bit more info (since Lutz

asked)...

 

<p>

 

1. I'm looking at the negs (not the proofs or contact sheet, which I

know is a compromise print to allow all shots to be seen), and

they're a bit thin.

 

<p>

 

2. I'm using a pro lab specializing in B&W for process and print.

When I try to enlarge using one of the overexposed negs, the lab can

usually print something decent. But I don't think their expertise

makes up for my exposure problem! Also tried a different pro lab -

same problems. BTW, never had any of these problems with either lab

using same film (or Tri-X) using the rental M6 or my Contax T2.

 

<p>

 

I think I'll try the grey card experiment -- if I use slide film for

its exactness in exposure, what slide film should I use? For this

weekend, I guess I'll set the ASA dial for an extra 1/2 stop and

process normal. Any other suggestions?