chris_chen4

I have both 35 ASPHs & they're both excellent, but wouldn't mind

selling off the 35/2 Summicron (hint, hint), as I use the 35/1.4

Summilux much more often (I do a lot of low light photography & don't

mind the extra size & weight).

Sorry, while I certainly don't think of myself as the world's

greatest photog or even of "extremely high caliber," I don't see

anything on these 2 pages that would be "impossible to be

made with a manual camera." To use 1 of your examples, the

woman @ the bottom of the color page looks like she was

posing w/her snake & I don't know why you would necessarily

think that she wasn't "going to wait for someone to focus &

visualize." It was a parade of some kind, & most people

participating in parades are happy to have their pictures taken

(especially in Berkeley, where every day is Halloween!). As far

as using the 90mm w/your M in a reasonably quick fashion, all

you need is practice, practice, & practice.

As I posted a few threads up (Michel Vandeput's "photos not allowed"),

"I believe the main reason that museums & cultural/religious

institutions often prohibit photos isn't to prevent damage to precious

artworks from flash photography, etc., but to protect the sales of

postcards & books, which are an important source of revenue." With

regard to theatrical performances & such like the Cirque du Soleil

that Marc Williams's discusses, you have copyright issues involved,

too (just like @ a concert).

I believe the main reason that museums & cultural/religious

institutions often prohibit photos isn't to prevent damage to precious

artworks from flash photography, etc., but to protect the sales of

postcards & books, which are an important source of revenue. As Kai

Blanke pointed out, the main legal consequence of violating such

policies is that you'll be thrown out, just as if you did the same

thing in a store or on other private property where photography was

prohibited (that's pretty much true for the U.S., too).

Ron:

<p>

The logic isn't difficult. There's always a trade-off in using any

accessory. E.g., a tripod is particularly useful *sometimes*, but I

don't keep my camera attached to a tripod *all* the time.

Similarly, I'll use a polarizer or other filter (usually colored for

B&W) when it will enhance the color/tone, etc. of the entire image

& that enhancement outweighs the potential degradation

introduced by the filter. However, when shooting in normal

situations, I take the filters off because they're unnecessary.

<p>

Chris

<p>

------

<p>

"Some of you nice people state that you only use filters on your

lenses when necessary such as a polarizor or warming filter

because any additional piece of glass may degrade your final

image. Please then explain to me why using a polarizor or

warming filter only "occasionally" will still give you a perfectly

acceptable photograph. If you believe they degrade your photo,

why then would you ever use them. If at those "occasional" times

when you would use them, you don't notice any difference in

image quality, then why not use them all the time? Are they

acceptable only "sometimes"? I simply do not understand the

logic used here."

I'm firmly in the "UV filters are the work of the Devil" camp. But

seriously, I am religious about the use of lens hoods, which I think

do a better job of protecting the front elements *&* actually prevent,

rather than increase, flare. Otherwise, I usually attach filters only

when they provide a desired effect (e.g., colored filters for B&W).

The only time I use filters for protective purposes is when I know

I'll be shooting in a particularly dirty &/or windy environments

(e.g., sandy desert, beach, etc.) & when I'm using my old '50s-era

Leitz lenses w/their butter-soft coatings (e.g., Summicron DR).

DAG also sells a replacement vulcanite: <a

href="http://www.dagcamera.com/leica_m.htm">http://www.dagcamera.com/leica_m.htm</a>

Roger:

<p>

There are 2 Chris Chens who post to this list & I'm not the 1 who

posted this question (you must realize that amongst Chinese people,

the surname Chen is like Smith for the English or Kim for Koreans).

Since I don't post nearly as prolifically as the other Chris Chen, I

use the "Chris Chen (Wash., DC)" tag line to distinguish myself (BTW,

a doppelganger is a "ghostly double or wraith of a living person").

As to the Ann Arbor Chris Chen's reference to anti-semitism, I haven't

a clue as to what prompted it.

<p>

-------

<p>

"chris -- what the deuce are you talking about?? doppelgangers, anti-

semitism??? i just made a joke about college drinking, not an unknown

phenomenon."

Y'all have me beat. My oldest Leica body is a '59 M3, oldest Leitz

lens a '54 collapsible 9cm Elmar. Other than that, I have a Nikkor

f/2 8.5cm in LTM that's from around '53-56. However, I routinely

shoot w/some of my old Zeiss glass for Contax RF (dating all the way

back to '36) on my Leicas (mounted via adapters).

Kristian:

<p>

I'm w/Mike Dixon re: the timing on this shot (my motto is "90% of

life is timing"). Regardless of whether the man was looking @

the wall, the pic would have been much better if Mr. Koh had

waited long enough for him to walk approx. another 6 feet (2m?)

so that he was in front of a lighter portion of the wall. Nothing

wrong w/taking another shot. Also, the "colour of the guys hair

being the same colour (or similar contrast) to the section on the

wall behind his head" *is* very predictable once you're used to

seeing in B&W.

Eliot:

<p>

I agree, there's a lot of nonsense posted on this, & many other,

internet fora. I had no idea people actually thought that the

Noctilux was suitable only for B&W, although someone once

asked me, in all seriousness, whether my old uncoated 1930s

lenses only took pictures in B&W!

In addition to using an adapter, you can also have the MR4 meter

recalibrated for modern silver oxide 1.5V batteries, which

discharge more like the old mercuries. I can heartily

recommend George Milton of Quality Light-Metric in Hollywood,

CA (323-467-2265), who specializes in the repair & restoration of

light meters.

"Akkirman" may be grouchy, but he does have a point. I don't

think anybody believes that the Noctilux can't be used w/color film

or during the day. However, the Noctilux was designed for, &

excels @, extremely low light "available darkness" shooting,

which is why most Noct' shots are in B&W. While your pix show

that it does fine in daylight conditions & has a certain look &

boke, the bottom line is that you're wasting a lot of money if you

end up using a very expensive specialist lens for purposes for

which it wasn't really designed.

As your doppelganger, I guess I should weigh in here. Honorary

cheesehead (born in Wisconsin), but grew up in the small but

great state of Maryland (unofficial motto: "Kicking Delaware's

Ass Since 1632"), attended the Univ. of California (go Bears!) for

undergrad & Northwestern Univ. for law school. Almost everyone

else in my family (incl. my grandfather), however, attended the

Univ. of Maryland & I'm quite happy to see that they'll now be

playing for the NCAA nat'l championship on Monday--GO TERPS!

There are no easy answers (many different factors could be

involved), but you could try Ed Hamrick's VueScan software. It

works much better w/my Dimage Scan Dual than the Minolta

PhotoShop plug-in.

The Canon RF 50/1.4, 50/1.8 (black), 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/3.5 (both

black & black/chrome), & 135/3.5 black have all performed well

for me. The Nikkor 50/1.4 & 85/2 for LTM, too. I also use most of

my Zeiss & Nikkor lenses for Contax RF & Nikon RF via a Contax

RF-to-LTM adapter.

I asked this question a while ago on another forum (LUG, LEG,

etc.) & have also spoken to various repairpersons. Yes, the

strap lugs on the M6 (& perhaps the M4) are made of a harder

metal than those on the M3/M2 (I believe steel replaced

chrome-plated brass) & yes, the older lugs can be replaced. It's

a significant, but not difficult, job & can easily be done @ the

same time as a CLA or other repair (which is what DAG is doing

w/my M2 right now).

Thank you, Andy for your common sense post. It's amazing how quickly

Sanford's simple query ignited the usual "G v. M" flames.

I have the f/4 9cm collapsible Elmar in M mount (not LTM, but pretty

old, c.1954) & it performs very well, comparable to other high-quality

lenses of that era (Zeiss, Nikkor, Canon, etc.). Although they're

only single-coated @ best (& Leitz coating in that period was a notch

below the competition), the old lens designs (Tessar variant for the

9cm Elmar) minimized the # of elements, so they're quite capable of

producing excellent pix, as the great photographers of that era

proved. In my experience, the biggest disadvantage of older "classic"

lenses, both uncoated & single-coated, is that they're not nearly as

resistant to flare, so always use a hood & avoid filters as much as

possible.

I've successfully used a Super Ikonta B as a medium format traveling

companion (it's now being CLA'ed). Bertele's 21mm Biogon design is a

indeed a classic. I occasionally carry around a "mini SWC"

outfit--the original 21/4.5 CZ Biogon (c.1955) semi-permanently

mounted on 1 of my Contax IIa's--but have yet to master the superwide

<A HREF="

http://not.contaxg.com/files/0017/27mhptrumpeters_.jpg">viewpoint</A>.

I don't use my G2 system every day, but when I do, I use it pretty

hard (e.g., in stressful &/or rushed situations when I like/need to

have automation) & so far it's held up just fine. Most recently it

easily survived a day bumping into rocks (& my M3) on a hot day

spent hiking around Joshua Tree Nat'l Park on vacation (the

finish is a bit pinged up now, though).

Although I mostly use B&W (& never use a flash), when I do

shoot color (NPZ or Supra 800) I adjust color balance in

Photoshop. I usually can't afford to lose the stop or 2 required by

a correction filter & w/the variety of interior lighting nowadays

(fluorescent, halogen, incandescent, etc.) I don't want to worry

about the various color temps.

I fully agree w/Andrew about the 40/2 M-Rokkor. It's definitely a

best buy & would fetch 2 or 3 times more if it was called a

Summicron & made in Germany. However, I wouldn't

necessarily compare it w/the current 35/2 ASPH (particularly re:

sharpness @ f/2, although the boke is nice) but rather w/the

often-idolized & collected older (i.e., '50s & 60s) Leitz/Leica 35s

& 50s that are usually way overpriced, IMHO. Don't get me

wrong, I love the look of old glass (heck, I have a DR, the Canon

& Nikkor 50/1.4s, & a 1/2 dozen 50mm Sonnars for my

Contaxes), but a well-designed, multi-coated optic from the

1980s like the 40/2 M-Rokkor has plenty of practical advantages

on flare-control alone.

You're not alone! I was experiencing a similar light leak in my

1961 M2, but looking more like a blurred streak extending

horizontally from the lower right side of a frame & partially into the

next frame. It would happen most often while shooting in bright

light & @ 1/1000th sec. but started occurring even in overcast

conditions w/slower shutter speeds. Since I was never able to

diagnose the problem (like you, I couldn't see anything obviously

amiss), the body's @ DAG right now for a fix & CLA.

Well, Mark's question was specifically about using the 40mm w/an M3,

no? 1st of all, Mark may prefer the 40mm view over the 50mm or he

might like the fact that it's a small, low-profile lens. 2nd, I

don't know what version of the 50 'cron you snagged for $290, but even

assuming that Mark could find 1 that cheap, it wouldn't *necessarily*

perform better than an M-Rokkor (which actually run about $250-275 in

excellent condition). In fact, Minolta badge aside, the multi-coated

CLE-version of the M-Rokkor is probably a better performer than a

1950s-era 50 'cron. BTW, it's great to hear that you found a user M

body for < $200, but I don't think it's exactly easy to find a body @

that low of a price, either.

<p>

------------

<p>

But DC Bro', My 'cron is almost as cheap as the Rokkor.