robert_appleby

I didn't do it to adjust the release travel, just to try and

lubricate the release as noted above. However, when I saw the

interior of the box, I closed it as quickly as I could!

<p>

Rob.

And note that when you take off the film loading instruction plate, a

set of tiny shims used to locate the baseplate lock plane will fall

out. They are extremely tiny and thin and a real pain to refit. I did

it once and will never ever open the mechanism on an M again. I

sweated blood getting those shims back in place.

<p>

However, Mitch, since you're very evidently an expert, how do you

lubricate a sticky shutter release? My shutter release is jerky and

sticky and if I could fix this problem without sending the camera off

for six months I'd be very happy. Thanks

<p>

Rob.

"IMHO, those who consistently compose well find themselves

gravitating towards normal focal lengths."

<p>

I think the definition of normal has changed over the years and now

tends to mean a 35 more than a 50. As for good composition, who

knows! Certainly, the big names of the past tended to use 50's a lot,

but lenses and fashions change.

<p>

I have used the 24/35 combo about in the ratios 40%/60%. I recently

bought a 90 and will be interested to see how much use it gets.

Probably depends more on the subject than anything else, I could see

using it exclusively for certain projects. I think it'll be a

specialist lens for me, though. I like to be (and am often forced to

be) very close to my subjects and the wide angles are best for that.

<p>

Rob.

If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it's good enough

for me!

<p>

Did Barnack actually take any pictures?

<p>

Rob.

Of course, that should have been "would not give me", sorry.

<p>

Rob.

Mani, it's just an ergal collar with a plastic insert and screw to

mount to the focusing ring of the lens. To that is fitted a large tab

which is for the focusing control. The whole thing is rather bulkier

than I would have wished, but in practice it works very nicely and

I'm very pleased with it.

<p>

I was very delighted with the 90 and intended to part-exchange my 50

for it, but the shop would give me what I wanted so I now have 4

lenses. Exactly what I didn't want. Too many choices. Well, I'm sure

it'll sort itself out over the next few months and then one will go.

The 35 and 24 are untouchable!

<p>

Rob.

I agree with Andrew. The elmarit M is a wonderful lens. I got one

recently and am very impressed. I added focusing ring/tab assembly

that I had made up which is a bit bulky - the guy who makes these

things for me does things his way, not how I ask him to, but the

results are always stunning - and the focus is now super smooth,

fast, precise and controllable. Personally I prefer a stiffer focus,

even for wideangles. I'll post an image of the gizmo on my site when

I get round to it. Probably never, on reflection.

<p>

Rob.

David

<p>

I'm not retained by Kyle to defend his reputation or anything, but he

has taken some nice pictures.

<p>

He just doesn't seem to take himself as seriously as the rest of us

tend to do.

<p>

Rob.

Dear Jeff Liao

<p>

I don't think you need to worry about thievery in Europe so much, or

at least, your bag is not the problem.

<p>

As a tourist, you'll stand out like a sore thumb and be going to

places other tourists go to (this is not a putdown, just the way it

is) and these are places thieves congregate. It really doesn't matter

what bag you have over your shoulder. Anyone looking at a tourist

with a bag over his shoulder of almost any description will say -

cameras. To avoid this, maybe you should consider a daypack.

<p>

As for Billinghams, I'm a fan - of the Alice and Hadley. The others

(I have a 225 if anyone wants to give me a reasonable amount of dosh

for it) are IMHO no good for working out of. Look nice and all, but

extremely fiddly.

<p>

I agree 100% with John Collier's remark that the Billinghams (these

two, at least) are just about the only waterproof bags on the market.

I don't run much with my bags - I don't run much at all - but haven't

noticed this to be a big problem with the Billinghams. Seems some

people spend half their time with camera bags sprinting after demos.

Not me.

<p>

Enjoy your trip to the dark continent ;-)

<p>

Rob.

"Even though manufactured by Minolta, the CL is a true Leica, in feel

as well as design. The only major problem is the meter, which can be

repaired/adjusted as needed (IF needed). It's a great little camera,

and shouldn't be put down. The CLE, on the other hand, is a Minolta

not a Leica. There is a difference. "

<p>

There is a difference. The CLE has off-the-shutter-curtain metering

which doesn't require a wierd little arm to swing out of the way when

you fire it and hence can be used with all lenses, it has TTL flash

metering, lenses with a normal leica RF cam, multi-coated lenses (the

original CL lenses were not) and doesn't require the bottom to be

taken off for loading. The only drawback is that it's unsupported at

the moment by Minolta, although it is rumoured that they will be

bringing it back. A beautiful little camera. The CL has none of these

sensible features. In fact, if you factor in the TTL flash control,

the CLE is more modern than the Hexar RF.

<p>

I had one briefly a couple of years ago and liked it a lot. The main

problem for me was that the meter switched off when the camera was in

manual exposure mode. For shooting black and white that wouldn't

probably have been a problem, and there is an exposure compensation

dial, which is how you end up using the camera.

<p>

In the end I got rid of it because it had a sticky shutter and was

unsupported by Minolta, and also because in practice it isn't much

smaller than an M6. When you have a lens mounted, it takes up about

the same amount of space in a bag or round your neck. In the end,

either you're carrying a camera or not. As someone else here said,

the little Rollei 35's are very compact and excellent quality.

<p>

For use with a 28 mm lens, the CLE would be a terrific little camera

as it has a very nice viewfinder in which the 28 framelines are fully

visible even to me, and I find the 35 lines in the M6 at the limit of

visibility.

<p>

Rob.

Also, you should take a look at third party drivers for these

scanners. I use the LS2000 which is rated at 2700 dpi, but if I want

a really hi res scan I go to the silverfast driver which will give

twice the resolution - 5400. The results are amazing seen on screen.

On the other hand I don't print.

<p>

Theoretically this will give you a nearly 18" high print at 300 dpi

full frame. Anything that size is going to be on the wall, i would

have thought, so you won't be looking close to see the grain anyway.

<p>

There are most likely silverfast drivers for both these new scanners

and they will probably be bundled with them, so that may solve your

problem.

<p>

Rob.

45 ms is still less than 1/20 s. Not much. The impression may be

enhanced by the _sound_ of the R6 which is long and slow compared to

a Nikon, for instance. But in practice, no difference.

<p>

I really don't think that shutter lag is a practical consideration in

taking pictures. You can't react faster than 1/20 s anyway, our

reflexes are just not that fast.

<p>

Of course, if you want an excuse to buy M gear, go ahead. It's

excellent equipment with lots of quirks and limitations. You may like

it. I certainly do! But I have found that SLR is an excellent school

for picture taking, after which you have to retrain yourself for the

M way of looking at things. Not an easy transition.

<p>

Rob.

Godfrey, it's amusing you should say that about using the standard

wind-on lever. I've often thought it would be neat to take it off,

now I've got the rapidwinders on. The camera would be even more

minimalist. But it'd certainly get me into trouble sooner or later.

<p>

Actually, I've also noticed that the newer winder wore in much faster

than the older one. Possibly the shop that sold it to me had been

fiddling with it or maybe it was second hand and the previous owner

had done something to it. The new one is already worn in after just

ten rolls or so.

<p>

This thread is probably comprehensively dead by now, but I just want

to say - I love my rapidwinders!

"I think so much depends on the shape of your face and whether or not

you wear glasses : trying to see the whole 35 frame (at once) on a

0.72 meant having to force the camera so close to my eye that my

eyelashes were pressed against the glass of my spectacles - after a

while leaving smears! "

<p>

Stephen I have the same problem, more with my eyebrows which are

getting bushier with age. My solution is - and this drives my wife

crazy - to trim them with my beard trimmer! Since I'm fair haired

this makes it look as if I don't have eyebrows - but my glasses are

clean! I'm also considering Lasik surgery, but have my doubts. In the

end I get along well with shaved eyebrows and glasses.

<p>

The lengths some people will go to...

<p>

Rob.

One thing I will say about the rapidwinder, having noticed that quite

a few people have used one briefly and then returned it or sold it.

It's a mechanical device which needs to be worn in a bit. I've found

that my new winder is much stiffer, slower and jerkier than the older

one, which has had a few hundred rolls through it. And I recall that

I wasn't too happy with the old one when it was new. So I suspect it

takes quite a while to get it up to speed. Well over the 15 or so

rolls Tom mentions in his instructions. Another thing Tom says is

that you should marry each winder to a separate body and not swap

them around. I've marked the winders and their bodies to avoid this.

I can believe it makes a difference.

<p>

The M is an unfortunate design in a lot of ways! The M winders I've

tried - a couple - didn't turn me on. The rapidwinder, on the other

hand, works well for me. Plus it looks cool!

<p>

Rob.

I'm a fan, as I've said many times on the LUG. I have two, one on

each camera, and the normal baseplates languish in a drawer. The grip

makes the whole thing work much better.

<p>

The only gripe I have is that the winder itself is easy to drop if

you're in a hurry to change film - this happened to me recently while

shooting a wedding (cold fingers) and the mounting flange bent out of

shape. I smacked it with a hammer a couple of times and it now fits

again.

<p>

I don't buy the "2.5 frames a second" hype for this gadget, the

camera does shake a bit when you're winding on, but you never have to

take the camera away from your eye.

<p>

I wind with my ring finger and little finger and use the other two

fingers for focusing.

<p>

The rapidwinder is the best reason to buy a Leica!

<p>

Rob.

Talking of recognising camera brands, there's that extremely

convincing scene in Jurassic Park 2 where the two pro snappers meet

on the island and one of them says to the other - Oh, is your's a

Nikon too?

<p>

I used to put a bit of tape on my cameras but my wife laughed so much

(pro for 20 years) that I had to stop. When I met Johnny Deadman in

London in December he had so much tape on his box that you couldn't

tell what make it was when holding it in your hands, let alone from 5

yards away.

<p>

As for HCB taping over the rangefinder window! That explains why so

many of his pictures are out of focus...

I had a machinist make me up a couple of covers with a screwdriver

blade-like protrusion which works pretty well. It cost me, but maybe

not as much as the leica one! I asked my local dealer about the R6

etc. covers and he said they didn't fit. He was adamant. And wrong,

obviously!

<p>

Rob.

grant - I have only one thing to say to you: nail polish.

<p>

Rob.

"I figured the golden section would show up in this discussion. The

way I learned it, it's supposed to be a mathematical determination of

the most pleasing proportions for a rectangle. 1: 1.618, as I recall.

So theoretically the best dimensions for a picture frame could be 10

inches by 16.18 inches. Now, let's see how this could be translated

into the rule of thirds. One third is 0.33. Two-thirds is 0.66. How

to get from 1.618 to .66? How about taking the reciprocal of 1.618.

Pardon me while I hunt for my Hewlett-Packard. Ok, the reciprocal

comes out--whadda know--0.618. Interesting result, but not exactly

0.66. So I dunno. I do know that one of my favorite photos is Edward

Weston's "Nude, 1937." Or is it 1934. Somewhere in there. You know

the one, where the center of interest, or focal point, is the oval

shape of the model's dark hair. Then the oval shape of her arms leads

my eye all the way around the picture, and smoothly back to the final

resting point, her head again. It's not easy to see the rule of

thirds at work here. Wait a minute. It could be that her right arm is

0.66 of the way from the left edge. Or is it 0.618 of the way? "

<p>

Confused? You will be...

<p>

BTW, it ocurred to me while reading all of the above that the Golden

Mean is of course a kind of early version of fractals: the proportion

of the smaller to the larger division is equal to that of the larger

division to the whole. And so on. Seems this idea has been

fascinating people for a long time. Also features in the Fibonacci

numbers, of course.

<p>

Now, think hard of the fifteenth term in the fibonacci sequence, take

a deep breath... click! Damn, I really wanted the 23rd term! No

wonder that picture's crap!

<p>

Rob.

Look in the mirror. See anything there?

<p>

Rob.

"One other irritation - it seems that HCB is always treated in Leica

groups the way Adams is in large format groups."

<p>

I totally agree. Although he could be brilliant, many of his snaps

are pretty hohum today, I think. (Wartime pictures, I meant stuff

like the woman being denounced as a collaborator - or was that

Capa?!). Another Leica man (who tends to annoy people for no reason I

can understand) is Eggleston - brilliant, IMO. But then he _is_ a

colourist...

<p>

As for the Golden Mean and all that, I'm not unaware of it, it's just

that I think these things are completely useless in actual picture

taking.

<p>

It's like the lengthy discussions about colour as an "element" in

making a picture - how is it an element? Either what's in front of

you turns you on or it doesn't, either the colour goes or it doesn't,

that's all. It's a holistic thing. Clickinyourhead/snapinthecamera!

On to the next one.

<p>

Rob.

Mani, it's true that size is generally impressive, but I don't think

that just enlarging it more will make a bad picture good. I shoot

slide, and one of the beauties of slide is that the picture is right

there for you to evaluate. Of course you can always crop, but on the

whole if the slide looks good then so will a screen-size scan, and on

the other hand, if the slide is ugly, then the scan will simply give

you a larger ugly thing. That's how I see it anyway.

<p>

About the famous - and I think, totally crap - rule of thirds:

although I said in my previous post that the proportions of the 35 mm

frame tend to enforce it, I think there are many powerful pictures

which exploit the rather unsettling look of a centrally-placed

subject in the 2:3 frame. It's a default reaction for me to off-

centre my subjects, but often i resist it, and I find this can give a

certain tension, paradoxically, to the snap.

<p>

And another thing! ;-) Despite the fact that HCB built his career or

at least brand around the Decisive Moment, many of his snaps are not

at all decisive. They are often static, built around a strongly

designed frame in which someone happens to have placed themself at

the moment he went click. Which is decisive in a way I suppose. But

the strength of the image comes mainly from the static framing of the

subject - the person is often just the cherry on the cake. Of course

I'm not talking about his terrific wartime pictures, more his

personal work, which is what he's mostly known for. I think he was

very much a formalist, despite his statements about hunting for the

essence of life. Definitely not very interested in people. My

opinion, anyway. But now we're getting into the ethical side of it,

perhaps.

<p>

And now... back to work!

<p>

Rob.

"I use color film, but only with medium format. I don't particularly

care for the look of 35mm color enlarged past 5x7, but I go to 11x14

with black and white."

<p>

There's a simple solution to that Jeff - shoot slide and never print!

<p>

Rob.

"I keep looking for this offensive red dot on my M3 but I can't seem

to find it. On the other hand, I LIKE the big red lensmount index

dot. Does anybody tape that?"

<p>

No need to - mine fell off when I was assaulted by a drunk in Bombay

while photographing. He smacked my cameras together like cymbals and

the index dot fell off. The next day he came up to me and apologised

very politely: "Sir, I was drinking too much that time"! Ah, India...

<p>

Rob.