mallik

<p>Yes, the Leica-like picture, it should sure doesn't give, as I see it too. With Leica M I always felt it was not producing an image, rather the scene was in real, and through photographer's eye (thanks to nice bokeh). But as value for money, I guess, this is pretty decent substitute. I am eagerly looking forward to getting this camera as my film M6 TTL has been in the wardrobe for years!</p>

<p>At the outset, let me announce I have been spoilt by Leica rangefinder M6 TTL (don't throw me out of this forum). I cannot afford a Leica digital anymore.<br>

I have, from my film Nikon camera set up 50mm f1.8, 24mm f2.8, 70-210mm f4.5, 500mm f8 mirror lens and host of filters etc. I realized these add up to a lot of value if I have to replace them now. I enjoy using ALL of these lenses. So one idea, is to buy a low end DSLR like D3100 and use all these lenses. I have no qualms using manual lenses with no AF. I grew up on them! I will get to use all my lenses and will fairly cover all kinds of photography, like I did in the past, and deliver (hopefully) very good results on the APS-C and large camera. BUT, I hate large cameras; not just about weight but the barrier they create for being able to use in a casual conversation with people informally or at events. I am a serious hobbyist, and shoot all kinds of photography, but my MOST interest is in candid/people photography (perhaps cover 70% of my photography). For this kind of candid photography, I feel the Nikon V1 suits me best - small, fast, does not distract my target etc. I LOVE small cameras (just as I did the Leica). But I am worried, the V1 does not provide shallow depth of field, which I used all the time with the Leicas, and enjoyed shallow DOF, got some good photographs. <br>

Question is, is it possible to get very nice people photographs (environmental) with very wide DOF? How much okay is it to have all your photographs with near same long DOF? Unable to decide between versatility of DSLR vs convenience of the V1 (I have been bowled over by Steve Simon review of V1). What would you advice?</p>

<p>I am myself considering the same approach of shooting film and converting to digital. I will plan to have normal scan from lab and scan high resolution myself for those specific pictures that I may want to enlarge!<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>I am interested in both B&W and Slide Film. Looks like vendors in this area have nearly vanished in Hyderabad. So disappointing.</p>

<p>Are you aware of any slide film developers in Hyderabad, India? I live in Kondapur but can travel any reasonable distance. I am desparate.<br>

Appreciate it very much!<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>Do you know of any 'authentic' B&W film developing labs in Hyderabad? I live in Kondapur. I can travel any reasonable distance - desparate.<br>

Thanks<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>Incidentally I already have a Panasonic Lumix 8 MP digital camera. I was not happy with its lack of shallow DOF (that's how it started; didn't know Canon Rebel was not full frame). I have a Nikon Coolscan IV film scanner that I have not been using much in last five years. It creates about 25-30MB files for each negative/slide when I scan film (didn't calculate what it translates to on DPI and size of a decent print I can have). But scanning one film roll was taking easily 3-4 hours end to end from what I recollect last. I was not getting this amount of time on my hobby. Needed attention to stay with film, loading, unloading, basic editing, and so on. And then since this amount of file size easily eats up hard disk, had to take back-up to DVD and so on. Felt like a hassle. But perhaps I should simplify myself into small JPEG that I really need day-to-day (all will not be printed anyway) and reduce the effort. I get to enjoy my beautiful cameras Leica (and Nikon for that special once in a while SLR stuff pictures).<br>

Thanks for all the advice. It was really useful. It looks like many of you suggested, I should go back to film and convert to digital need based. I am less confused than when I started (just hope my scanner still works - else ask the studio to scan for me, who promises 400 DPI).<br>

But curious to know, in today's era when there are so many digital cameras, are there many people who 'regularly' shoot in film and do film scanning?<br>

Mallik</p>

 

<p>Lumix is a good camera.Handling is 'relatively' easy. It is the lack of DOF (and bokeh) control, that kills me. I have shot several thousand pictures in last three plus years since I bought.<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>Hmmm. . . . I am thinking I am probably unnecessarily leading myself to a mess! The joy that I got from Leica M6, with 'occasional' use of Nikon SLR all manual with the host of lenses, I never seem to get from the digital Panasonic Lumix - other than the instant gratification of being able to view immediately and share quickly. Also, as I started shooting B&W in the digital, I seemed to have developed a greater taste for B&W. I think shooting with manual focus was easier than the habit of autofocus & focus lock, or shift the switch between auto to manual and vice-versa, use menus to change aperture (I shoot aperture priority) . . . is all a mess that I have self created. The manual gear was certainly more fun where I would concentrate on only framing and timing......only that it was killed severely with the time lag of having to process in studios (drop and pick up) and scan in my Nikon scanner, producing 25-30 MB sized pictures and then edit them in PS or other applications. Several times, my film lies unprocessed for months (I have slides that were not processed for a year - I pity myself). Looks like availability of too many options just took me off for a while from film to digital. Now I am thinking why not just use the same film gear and have them developed, scanned and put on a CD for me by the studio (if I need high resolution, I could scan the ones needed at home). Here in India at Hyderabad, I almost could not find labs that develop B&W film (I carried a ton of them from the US and lying in the freezer). I donno developing. And I don't shoot B&W exclusively. B&W film isn't available either. Why not use the film (color) while it still lasts. I mean it couldn't be impossible to live without digital cameras (digital albums, yes I still see useful and does offer convenience). Comments?<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>What I want are, in that order:</p>

<ol>

<li>Shallow depth of field</li>

<li>Large aperture (will need to shoot low-light with no flash)</li>

<li>Will not go for non-Nikon, Canon, Leica lens</li>

<li>Low on budget</li>

<li>Small on size</li>

</ol>

<p>I am just thinking will I be better off shooting film with my M6 and have then scanned at high resolution :)<br>

What will be my best choice for points 1-5 mentioned above?<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>I apologize on cross posting. I didn't realize the violation I was making. I just thought I would get both view points. Thanks for responses so far. I never knew all SLRs are not necessarily full frame ones. Looks like I have to catch up a lot in theory, since I stopped keeping track six years ago!<br>

Mallik</p>

<p>I admit, I am quite confused! I was using Leica M6 TTL 50mm and 135mm for quite sometime (and waited 'very long' before I made that big investment changing over from Nikon film SLR gear). Not too long later, digital took over to my disappointment and for reasons of practical convenience and depleting 'good' film processing studios, I moved to Panaonic Lumix with Leica lens prosumer camera (for budget reasons) about 3.5 years ago. I never liked this camera for its pictures, although I did like the convenient layout functions, without having to go through too many layers of menus and the wide range of 28-410 mm lens. One particular 'feature' that irritated me all the time was wide depth of field irrespective of aperture. I enjoyed the M6 with 50mm on f2 just too well for shallow depth of field. I could restrict the viewer to see what I wanted to show in a scene.<br>

Now I am thinking of moving to digital SLR now that they have become affordable relatively. The other day I saw a Canon digital SLR camera (don't recollect the model, but I am sure not high-end) with 18-55mm. I took some sample pictures in monochrome, and fell in love instantaneously (including the convenience to shoot without flash indoor the mall with 800ASA - no grain). It was affordable for my budget. But then I have Nikon gear all-manual lenses 24mm, 50mm, 70-210mm, and mirror 500mm lens and host of filters (by-gone era?), which I might be able to use with some restrictions on Nikon digital (I somehow feel in digital world Canon is better than Nikon - when you see pictures not camera, and really wanted to try Canons). <br>

Just too confused? Should I buy the Canon, or the Nikon, or do none, or shoot Leica on film and live with the trouble of converting to digital? Any suggestions, thoughts?<br>

By the way, I am just a hobbyist, and like journalistic pictures. I take pictures in social events, travel, and so on. <br>

Mallik Kovuri</p><div></div>

<p>I have been a Leica M6 TTL user for quite sometime and then (un)thanks to digital world, moved over to Panasoni Lumix 8MP (with the Leica lens) pro-consumer camera for pure convenience reasons. I have not liked this camera for one reason that nearly all my pictures tend to have high depth of field due to smaller lens, which I hate. I have been wanting to move over to digital SLR now that they have become mode affordable.<br>

I had also used Nikon Film SLR FM2N quite a lot and have manual focus lenses 24mm, 50mm, 70-210mm, and 500mm mirror lens. I had been quite tempted towards moving to Canon (which somehow I felt better than Nikon in physical body handling and picture quality to some degree in JPEG mode in the digital camera segment). At the same time, I also think, if I move over to Nikon, I might be able to use my existing lenses. I happened to see a Canon body (very unfortunate did not bother to check the model name) that came with a 18-55mm 3.5 lens for Rs.29,000 at INORBIT mall at Hyderabad, India. I want to see if I can make this as my main camera with no additional lenses for quite a while until I can afford (or technology changes, just like it did, when I spent a fortune in Leica rangefinder gear!).<br>

Oh! By the way, my usage: I am just a hobbyist, mostly like journalistic photos, and do take pictures a lot during social functions and festivals, for fun.<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Mallik</p>

I bought a Panasonic Lumix FZ30 sometime back to supplement my M6. The SF20 that I had with

the Leica M6, I am wondering if it can be used with the Panaosonic, since I know there are some

concerns about voltage output from flash. Can anyone confirm with confidence if I can use this

combination?

 

Thanks

 

Mallik

Thanks guys, for several suggestions. I bought the Canon S3 IS and returned it to get the

Panasonic Lumix FZ30 with the Leica lens. The Canon was good, and it is true that the

Panasonic has 'some' noise occasionally. But I liked the Panasonic for the feel. It was

heavy, had one ring for zoom (instead of the rocker switch most digital cameras have), and

one for manual focus. I found this more convenient to my style of photographing. I have to

admit, it was a tough decision, more so considering that Panasonic more expensive and

did not appear to (from review of sample pictures on web) give pictures any better than

the Canon. But I felt I 'actually' enjoy the handling of a camera in my hand, than purely on

the output!! Sounds funny? I am yet to try out the camera, but felt happy for the decision

to return Canon and buy Panasonic with the Leica lens. And oh, by the way, when I shot

couple of shots of a nearby object with the Canon once with the largest aperture f2.8 and

smallest at f8, with about normal focal length, I did not see a significant difference in DOF

- thanks to the advanced point and shoots!!

 

Mallik.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed and will do so in the next day or two. I am in USA and 'am looking at local options. I don't think I would be interested in the Ricoh RD if it has only fixed focal length of 28mm. I am intending to dispose off my Nikon SLR (film) stuff, and limit myself to minimal gear of Leica M6 and a digital which will be a do all when I don't use Leica. I will look at the options indicated here. I think I have got a very good beginning. Thanks again for the quick responses.

 

Mallik

I am looking to purchase a digital camera to supplement by film Leica M6, in

the price range of USD 250 - 400. Can you share your experiences, suggestions?

My top priorities are lens quality (large aperture), ability to control

aperture easily (through aperture priority or manual so I can control DOF) and

definitely ergonomics. I would have definitely preferred the Leica Digilux 2,

but it is not within my current budget.

 

Mallik

I read earlier that Leica stopped manufacturing Digilux2 (but not stopped selling). I

also read that a Leica MD is on the way this year. Even if Leica MD is on the way, why

should Digilux2 manufacturing be stopped, unless a newer version of this is being

introduced? I see Digilux2 and Leica MD as two different categories of products.

 

Mallik.

Very nice Cathedral shot. It's simply BEAUTIFUL! But sometimes I do wonder whether

it was the object with that seemingly intricate actually large sized detail that

mattered, or the Leica CM. All and all it's a nice picture. Thanks for displaying.

 

Mallik.

It's funny that while my question was more on the color gamut, most replies

addressed grain (which I knew could be handled in software). Also I have to admit

that I am disappointed at the personal confrontations in a public forum such as LEICA

forum. Anyway thanks for the effort by contributors. I guess I will try and shoot same

images with digital camera and film camera, and check how much I am illusioning

myself.

 

Mallik.

After watching many pictures of digital and analog (film) pictures (both taken by me

as well as by others that I see on Web, Magazines etc.), I tend to get a feeling that

pictures from digital cameras seem to have a graphical quality as opposed to showing

the REAL image. So much so, that I start guessing if the picture was taken with a

digital camera or a film one. I get a feeling that there are more shades in color and

light (in the scene photographed) than shown in the picture, and feel an analog

picture would have done more justice. On the same front, I feel colors are often

brighter in digital pictures, though. A result of lesser gamut in digital pictures

probably. Am I being biased or do you also feel the same way.

 

Mallik.

I thank you all for those answers which I am sure will help me in making the

decisions.

 

Karl, I like some of your ideas. But I would still need a light source right? I mean in

addtion to a diffusion panel. One of the aspects that was never clear to me was, what

wattage for hot lights is right. I understand typically I might need two or three lights,

probably one being weaker (for background lighting for example). What type of lights

are good for these. I am prefering hot lights to flashes, for I feel as a beginner in

studio photography, I better see the light than predict it, and worry about light

temparature later. Space is definitely a constraint (proabably 10'X10' max.).

 

Mallik.

Friends,

 

I am trying to set up a 'budget' home studio, primarily, lighting with umbrellas,

screens etc. The idea is to have minimum gear to start with. I intend to use this

studio for photographing still objects and portraits. Can you please provide some

recommendations on the equipment. (And yes, I know that I may end up using the

Nikon to some degree for macro or other closeup photography, where my Leica may

not work for me!).

 

Thanks in advance

 

Mallik.

I just moved over recently to Hyderabad, India for good, after staying in Chicago, USA

for a long time. Just curious of any users of Leica M or R in India, and if so at

Hyderabad. To please that urge to meet these special people!

 

Mallik.<div></div>

I somehow became curious about the old screw mount cameras, to make them

unobtrusive than the relatively larger and rich looking M6TTL (chrome), appear less

'rich' (avoid theft) than the M6TTL and Nikons etc. that I have. I find trying a Leica SM

IIIg or F to be expensive when I do feel that my M6TTL will be my THE camera to use

for anything serious. So just to try out, I searched and came across this camera "Leica

II (D) Olympia 1936 Elmar f3.5/50mm Olympia 1936 edition, black model with built-

in rangefinder" that has been re-conditioned and supposedly working fine. The price

expected is USD 100. Can someone tell me how good is this camera? Will this remain

just a 'fun' camera or can it take some good pictures?<div></div>