john_amiet2

<< What are all those little balls hanging in the air? >>

 

They are the Xmas decorations that come with a new Noctilux at this time of year!

Alan wrote: << How highly do you expect to be valued by your dealer? >>

 

So high that I cannot see over the top! I AM his livelyhood, and indirectly he is mine. It must be a working relationship, but alas, your discovery is a very real concern that is only growing.

 

We have known "the best of times" and alas, will know "the worst of times". Be gratful for the former.

 

Cheers,

JA

Jorge, I am afraid you got it all wrong. First of all, comparing the M8 to a Rebel simply puts me in mind of 'apples & oranges'. OK. They are both round, but the similarity ends there.

 

The M8 is a RANDGEFINER. The Rebel is a DSLR. They are designed to serve different functions. The 10MP argument is almost irrelevant. I think (don't know!) some P&S cams are now 10MP, so why even have a Rebel?

 

Your 'expert' assement of how long an M8 will last seems to lack evidence. Have you used one? Do you own one? I can answer yes to both those questions and can report that it is a very impressive camera and will blow the Rebel out of the water in any area where their use may overlap.

 

Cost wise, well if you have to worry about that, forget about any Leica. Just a fact of life. Same as Porsche or BMW etc.

 

As for 'real photographers' drifting away from Leica, well you are just plain uninformed. One is writing this! And I know of many others. We choose the tool because it best suits our work style. I gave up Nikon & Hasselblad in preference to Leica. Still own them all. Just don't use them for work.

 

Cheers,

JA

Fred, I suspect your remarks are more based on cynicysm than factual knowledge of the actual costing. Certainly $10 saved is reasonably 'in their pocket' rather than yours and mine. Tha's business. If I am wrong here, I apologize.

 

Alan, I concur with your last stement and I think you will find my original comment NOT in disagreement either.

 

Vic, The Steer is great, I agree. In fact I consider a Noctilux almost unuseable without one! I suspect the 75/1.4 would be the same. I bought one for my 90/2.0 but lost it before fitting it. :-(

 

Cheers,

JA

Pico, you probably now have the most unobtrusive 'street camera' in the world. LOL

 

JA

Pico, I installed a shade awhile ago, but removed it because in low light situations, in which I frequently work, the overall light advantage of the VF is reduced noticeably.

 

Alan, If we remove the 'spin' from your comments it may read more reasonably. eg. the 'expensive' upgrade V's 'a few bucks' saved does not exactly add up to the same 'tilt' on the one subject. The cost is expensive if you do it, or a big saving if you don't.

 

I suggest that in both instances, Leica may have been attempting to sincerely achieve a 'best and economic' outcome for the customer. In the former, it did not work, hence the latter attempt. Is this not what many businesses do to tread the fine line of economics V's performance?

 

Cheers,

JA

Obvously mileage varies. I walk the beach and/or the park with my dog and Leica every day, sometimes twice a day. Always a cap on lens except when shooting. I have just returned from a 3 week sojurn in Morocco where I travelled by train, bus, camel, donkey. All the time lens with cap fitted. Never a problem. I do periodically check that it is in place, just as I periodically check everything else.

 

Now those dreadfully useless internal lens shades are a different story. I still can't believe that the same company that build the lenses also build those irritatingly useless shades. I only persist with them because thay are quick and compact. They certainly give absolute minimal protection, mainly physical rather than optical.

 

Cheers,

JA

I must say a lot of the remarks above make me smile. As an (almost!) ex wedding photographer of many years, using mainly Hasselblads for that time, I now almost exclusively use leica M's. But that is all gear selected to suit the style of images demanded at the time.

 

My real point point is this. A good photographer, wedding or otherwise, chooses gear to achieve the clients requirements, best suited to how he/she works. The tools are your choice. The good pictures are your skills at work.

 

Broadly speaking, I am finding I return much better images with the Leicas than I did with the Blads, but that is largely because my style, and demands on me, have changed with the times. When the M8 is released (into my hands) it will be the "last word" in wedding shooting, and my mainstay of theatrical work..... till something even better happens along. :-))

 

What I have been trying to say is, know your brief and choose the tools accordingly so that you can work at your peak skills level. Remember, the camera is only a tool. You are the artisan and that is the big factor.

 

Cheers,

JA

I have been out of circulation for a month (travelling), so I know of no real news, but BS like I read above as unsubstantiated or supported gossip is a real worry. If there is substance to the above claim(s), present the facts. I would be interested in (the facts).

 

JA

<< Is this a Leica Forum Q? >>

 

No. It's a Leica Forum statement, concerning loss/theft of Leica gear. Quite legitimate.

Paul,

 

There are too many self styled experts only too willing to offer unhelpful advice that obliquely grinds there particular axe. There are also a number of helpful suggestions, relating to battery changing, that I suggest you try, if you have not already. Most likely, fresh batteries will solve your problem. And remember, your M7 is a much FASTER shooter than the M6, which is no slouch anyway.

 

Fresh batteries and enjoy.

Short answer - No!

 

The black paper backing SHOULD be visible on the 'front' of the mag insert. ie. the black side faces the lens when loaded as this is where the film emulsion will be when loaded to the first and subsequent frames.

 

Put another way. Whatever you have done previously, is the oppositeof correct.

 

After breaking the paper seal on the new film when placed in the bottom chamber of the mag., you should unrol it and thread it onto the top chamber. This action should show the black side of the paper backing. The 'start' markers on the paper show on the 'unrolled' portion of the film before it is threaded. That is what lines up the red triangle on the mag insert.

 

Try again. It really is very easy.

 

Cheers,

JA

Werner, I am assuming they are processed and filed films. If so, soak them in warm water with wetting agent, even dishwashing liquid so that the adhesion between the film and sleeve is softened. agitate a bit until the adhesion releases the film. Try not to force them apart as this risks tearing the emulsion (ugh!).

 

You may or may not have to re-wash the films and hang to dry afterwards. A tedious process, but necessary. The sleeves will, of course be dumped, but the film is salvageable. Just don't force the process. Re-heat (warm) the water several times as may be necessary. Careful slitting of the sleeves helps ingress of the water and may speed up the process.

 

This is the analog equivalent of a computer HDD crash except that you don't have to pay an expensive 'techy' to fix it!.

 

Good luck.

 

JA

Marc, I haven't used coloured filters on my Noct, but I do use a ND filter to allow me to use f1.0 in daylight situations sometimes.

 

Cheers,

JA

No. Only to prevent you REMOVING the mag without slide in.

Gary, memory (going back a few years!) tells me that if the red light flashes sevearal times immediately after exposure, it is correct. I f it goes out and stays out for several seconds, you are in danger of under exposure.

Whoops! I slightly misread your post. I thoght you had pulled the mag. insert out. Actually, you will still get a little fogging extending onto the frames on either side of the "sun exposed" frame, but not much other damage.

The most likely scenario is that you (obviously) lost frame #4. The frame preceding and following will both have heavy 'blanket exposure' at least half way extending from the #4. Frames 1 & 2 will probvably be safe. If you wound on 2 frames past # 4, they will all be O.K. in my past experience.

 

Good luck, and yes, process that film.

 

Cheers,

JA

Ruben said: " In terms of image quality, is the Noctilux (stopped down) comparable to the Summilux or the Summicron? "

 

First, let me explain that I am anything but a theorist in these things. My only interest, and experience, is in practical use. I don't have a Summilux M 50 so I can't offer practical experince there. I do have the Cron 50 and find it always preferable to use if sufficient light. I try mainly to use the Noct. in low light situations where action is also involved. It is the only lens to cover this for me. I believe the Cron @ f2.0 (and smaller) is marginally superior to the Noct., but have not tested it in real action as the small difference will probably not concern me. I am always about getting the image rather than the 'quality'. Sorry I can't be more definitive.

 

The other use I have for the Noct is very shallow DOF applications despite sufficient light for a slower lens. Selectively choosing (very carefully!) the area to be focussed, at f1.0 the rest of image is rendered very OOF, which I like. The great difference between in focus and OOF creates an illusion of greater sharpness in the focussed region than is actually true. Definition at f1.0 is not brilliant, but very appealing if I can explain it that way. I believe the noct also brings a mystical warmth to colour images also, that I don't see in my other Leica lenses. The much maligned vignetting of the Noct is a reality, but in my work it is more of an advantage than a problem.

 

Cheers,

 

JA

Try this one Marc.

 

I don't think I've shown this before, but can't remember.

 

Cheers,

 

JA<div></div>

Marc, It seems to me that if the difference @ f1.4 is what you are interested in, then the Summilux has to be the winner for the simple reason that the physical size and operation of Lux is MUCH better. I don't believe you will detect any other difference, with actual real world photos.

 

The only reason for choosing the Noct is to have f1.0 with the benefits it provides over f1.4. I am a dedicated Noct user and I only use it at f1.0. If I need to stop down, in my case I switch to my f2.0 Cron. Much easier to use.

 

Cheers,

 

JA

To paraphrase my previous remarks on this and other fora, "if the subject is strong enough, let it rule". The equipment (format shape) is of NO consequence in such instances. It is just what is available to record the subject with. All this ignores external forces that may be relevant to how the final reproduction needs to be affected.

 

An example I'll quote is my recent exhibition. All frames were identical to unify the presentation, but images were a mixture of horizontal and vertical, as well as colour and B/W. Image ratios were all standardised only for expediency of production rather than styled to suit the image. This was a necessary compromise, IMHO, because of other physical restraints placed upon me at the time. The overall result was harmonious, but given my choice, I would have changes the image proportions to suit some images.

 

Summary: I believe I agree with the original view expressed by Nels and would be very interested to hear Lutz's counter argument, if indeed it is opposing.

 

Cheers,

 

JA<div></div>

I know I have have had a few drinks tonight but, it seems to me that so much crap gets spread around here based on NO knowledge of the facts.

 

Let Leica bring out the M8 as they have designed it, in their inestimable right, and either 'like' it or 'lump' it. No amount of b.....ting will have any influence on the outcome at this stage.

 

What anyone 'fears' or 'hopes' is inconsequential! What wil be, will be. Go take pictures with your "bloody awful" M 'odd number' models and blame the result on the camera, if you dare. I suggest the poor result is not the camera's fault.

 

No apology for the rant, and I don't blame it on the drink, even if other will.

 

Cheers,

 

JA

Alan,

 

You have a perfectly good meter in your M6. It works like a 'fat' spot meter. Just point at your subject ans set aperture/speed accordingly. Point slightly downward if large areas of sky are in the subject, whilst adjust ing, then recompose as desired.

 

No system of light measurement is perfect. You must learn to compensate when approriate. The built in meter directed at your subject whilst shooting is a lot more convenient than metering off your hand. Remember the angle you hold your hand at will also influence the reading. Just another source of error, which also takes more time. Not critical for most landscapes, but can impede photography of 'live' subjects.

 

At the end of the day, all systems work if you understand them. You must choose the method you are comfortable with.

 

Cheers,

JA

I had a cheap 2x converter that got stolen. I replaced it with a Hasselblad one and the quality is noticeably better. Good luck to the thief! Ha Ha.

 

I use it principly on a 250FE for concert work from the back of the theatre. I can't say I get any loss from using it as the edges of the frame usually don't have much of interest or lighting.

 

I don't remember exactly, but I think I remember a Hasselblad instruction from years ago warning against using more than one extender at a time.

 

It is always important to attach the extender to the body first, and then the lens to the extender. Remove in the reverse order.

 

Hope that give some useful input.

 

Cheers

JA