jean3

What holds me back from digital are things like boot-up times and shutter lag, and the bulk of these beasts. The reasons for me to have a leica M, btw.

 

With the dslr becomimg smaller - eos 10d and pentax *ist d seem to move on that way - things change for me, and i'm really tempted to go digital, just for the reasons of easy workflow, instant feedback and easy sharing. To be honest - film scanning is a PITA, time consuming as hell, and i quit drakroom a long time ago. Some people like darkroom work, some (like me) don't enjoy it. I guess that's the point where the decisions are made, which workflowc - analog or digital - suits you best.

 

About the quality, well.. i agree with godfrey on this one. I don't like the handling of the digicams - slow and distracting, compared to M. The quality is fine, and i have never missed 35mm film photography. But i never shoot with sandbagged tripods and techpan, but handheld and with iso 400. You'll kill me for that, but i found the eos10d at 400 iso way better than any film of that speed. I mean, not by a small margin or only visible in certain details or whatever. I mean much better.

 

Currently, i keep using my M with tri-x, and do my own developing. Selling my M is not an option, it is not a user, but a "beater" that looks really ugly. It would fetch so litle money on that collector-driven market, that i'm just not willing to sell it, since i would have to pay a lot more should i ever want an m again, as you all know - a second-hand m is usually mint and unused. I guess that's why you so seldom stumble across a "user" M, the folks just keep those cameras!

I'm always stunned by the little effort people put into their auctions, even when they expect high prices. Pictures are crap, almost no info and the seller didn't even bother to check the lens name's spelling. It's beyond me how anyone is willing to dump that amount of money into a lens you can only speculate about what is is and in what condition. Must be buying disease or something..

I've never been in chile, unfortunately! Unless you're hiking alone in the mountains for all the 6 months, in every city you will find the "infrastructure" to get film developed. I have absolutely no doubt that in chile people take pictures, the same like in denmark or japan ;-) Perhaps you'll ask in a more general forum for adresses of labs in the cities you'll be in, so you don't lose time looking for them.

 

Ant then, you'll carry home negatives, and even prints of you order them, without fear for xray or losing them in mail. About the film.. well, you'll need more. But you'll get also film in chile, pricing might be different.

 

have fun, and enjoy your trip!

I don't realy understand why so many seem to be unhappy or even angry about the MP. No, it's not digital, and adds no bells and whistles to the M system. So what.. And honestly, I don't expect anything in that direction from leica, it just surpasses their ressources by far. It's a small - very small company, and probably canons digital r&d budget surpasses leicas entire business.

 

So what they did was to improve their product. Fix the rf issue, and get rid of past costcutting decisions that affected the appearance. Cheapo black chrome doesn't suit such an expensive camera, and I'm quite sure that most buyers are willing to throw in the last $50 (or whatever it might be) for the decent brass and black paint finish.

 

I'd say that the mechanical m just became better than ever, and received a suitable finish. Well done - do what you're good at, and satisfy your customers desires and needs. Together with the m7, they now have two very good products to serve the small niche market. I would be very surprised if the MP wasn't going to sell very very good!

 

If I was in the market for a m, the mp would certainly be my choice - it's as good as m can be (better even, considering the RF flare issue solved) AND the design and finish are just beautiful.

well, I'd certainly not reject 1.4 million euro if they came my way! But even when it's obviously a small business, it's good to see that they can still survive, provides a lot of people with jobs, and makes a nice product.

 

On the other hand, forget the hopes about significant digital r/d..

Well, Walt, Emmanuel.... ok, point taken, obviously a lot of people enjoy this thread, and I'm the minority here. OK, we'll both can live with that, and enjoy tis forum, I'm quite sure. To justify myself, I checked the thread because it was intended related to photography, obviously the magic word "cuba" strikes a chord, and gives a lot of folks here the need to express their strong feelings about that topic. But most people here have far more knowledge and experience with cameras and equipment than with history and politics, that's what might make it very entertaining but not really informative. Perhaps in a forum about german politics from time to time some threads evolve into a pro- or contra leica debate? Imagine the fun, and perhaps someone of the participants actually takes pics himself ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

jean

I'd say it becomes silly when you start to use other cameras for shooting, because you're afraid that actual use might somehow wear the valuable, precious future collector item ;-)

 

The day I sell my leica, I'll stress it as the ultimate collectors item - a leica that has actually been used. Don't miss it! Impress your collector friends with this unique, used leica! Dents, scratches, wear you can use to proof your tales of frenzy shooting in all exotic places in the world!

 

Mh, perhaps an idea for leica for a new limited series? Dented and dinged by factory, for the unique pj look?

 

Silly, isn't it :o)

 

have fun!

first of all - this forum should stay really free of politics. I don't care for the political opinion of the folks in a photo forum - please go to a political forum for this. I'm sure there are plenty of them. It's annoying in here, and has absolutely nothing to do with photography, or leicas. Reading here about politics makes as much sense as would be a thread about leica photography in a politics forum. You get the point, I hope. It really doesn't go beyond the usual blabla people overhear in tv.

 

But - as a european, I'm surprised, a little shocked, to be true. US citizens are NOT FREE to travel whereever they want to? Wow..

Bill,

 

I'm afraid your system is totally messed up.. with xp, this (or any) scanner should really work absolutely fine. If I were you, I'd try the scanner on a other computer, just to be sure. If it runs fine then, i'd recommend reinstalling from scratch. Or, perhaps your usb/firewire port is defective. have you tried both ports?

 

good luck, jean

thst's the magic of marketing. People much wiser than all of us together in this forum decide that it is best for europeans to pay 30% more than peole im the us. I never checked hong kong, but would not be surprised to see the price drop not only on leicas. Srange, but it applies to virtually any product i've ever dealt with. In the internet age, however, everyone can find out that the stuff he's interested in increases (or decreases) surprisingly in value when crossing a border.. and i hope that the days of price regulations are going soon.

Jay, indeed, a good point. On the other hand, the analogy still is valid in the way that even decades after the death of a product there still is demand, and companies offering products. I see no reason to worry about the availability of film, as long as there are millions of cameras being used out there. Digicams are quite expensive, and not everyone has the infrastructure (read: superfast pc) to make use of them. So there will be plenty of use for 35mm cameras for the next decade. Video was different - a camcorder is a stand-alone product, assuming everyone owns a television. Film is a technology of the past, we don't need to argue over that. But it will stay a long, long time available for everyone who want's to use it.

don't worry about the availability of film in the future. Do you remember super8? Well, I guess that it's about 20 years ago that super8 was overrun by video. Perhaps also two decades now that there's no significant production of these cameras. And probably there are much less super8 cameras out there than even leicas.

 

Now, guess what - you still can buy super8 film easily. Kodak makes 5 different types, b/w, color, negative, and the good old kodachrome. And is introducing another one this year. And I can buy super8 kodachrome in almost every decent photostore in munich. Worried about increasing price? Super8 costs almost the same than 10 years ago. So, what are you worrying about? Bet that tri-x will stay around longer than most of us.

 

Have fun!

of course they can benefit from leica lenses. The full frame sensors surpass 35mm easily, so such a camera would be the first to really suck everything out of a leica lens. The incapability of leica to make such a camera results in marketing speech to justify this. That leica lenses are to good for a digital sensor is of course nonsense, the opposite being true seems much more realistic. Of course there seems to be a problem with the construction of m lenses that might inhibit a digital m forever.

 

Anyway, it all boils down to the question if you prefer film over digital. When you enjoy film, use film. When you enjoy digital, then do so - no need for religious debates.

well, a tripod would make sense, if you're unhappy with sharpness.

2) meters, absolutely! It's fun how even in the internet age different systems survive, regardless of all efforts to set a common standard :o) BTW, I'm lost with distances in feet or temperature in fahrenheit. I remember when filling up a car in the US, I was (and still am) totallly clueless how many gasoline I poured in it. Gallons, hummmmm.. Sometimes inconvenient, but also part of the fun when visiting other countries.

hey, no misunderstandings here, the time when photographers imitated paintings is long over. My point was that a photographer should pay attention to anything in the frame, just like a painter - instead of taking a snap with a main subject surrounded by random elements. Random snaps on the other hand can be good, too. I recently saw some pretty good lomography.

Marc, you summed up my experience. In the beginning, all I saw was my main subject. The results of course sucked, my beloved one had wires and laundry going right avross her, or other weird - or funny - distracting stuff. Sad is only, that in the end you have a piece of paper, whatever is in it looks much different than the sensation you had when taking the picture. Thanks to digital (i admit, sad but true) i learned more or less to take care of the background and the environment. Within the restricted boundaries of the frame, all elements are equal, and atrract the eye. If you place visual junk in the frame, it will interact with your main subject, and possibly make the image not work.. Part of the problem is in my opinion thet it is so easy to take a picture. You do not have to think about everything within a frame to make the pic, and most of the time you don't. Compare this with painting. If you had to place every element manually in the frame - what would the results be like? I am convinced that a good photo neds the same thoughtful process as a good painting, and random backgrounds really have no place there. I hope I don't get killed for posting non-leica images here, but they seem to be good food for thought ;-)<div></div>

I second Giles. A manual SLR is nice, but for me is to close to the M to justify the hassle of a second system. An M is not ideal for a lot of photographic tasks, like macro, working with long teles, high speed flash sync, (and some more stuff without any doubt). An high-tech bells&whistles image stabilizing brain fading auto everything seems perfect to me - for these things. I would not haul such a camera "just in case", or threaten innocent people with it.

my first leica was a leica II, and i really enjoyed the fast focussing, especially with the elmar's focus tab. The separate viewfinder and rangefinder did not bother me to much, actually. Not a camera for action photography anyway ;-)

 

I was happy with the camera, until I looked through a M viewfinder.. sigh, I never should have walked in that store, and never should have touched a M. Suddenly, the II was like looking through a keyhole. The II get's little use nowadays, I use my M6 now for 95%. But it's the big, bright viewfinder, not the focussing.

 

Mh, hyperfocussing. OK, I understand the concept - but how do you obtain f11 or even f8 for streetphotography? With 100 or 200 ASA films, my concern is to have shutter speeds above the 1/60 sec to avoid blurring due to camera movement. And faster films have just to much grain, at least for my taste, to use them for everydays shooting. Perhaps I should get out of bed earlier, and see if this works in daylight?

not exactly answering your question, since I've got the 35mm pancake, (I'm still out of funds for any leica 35mm glass!) But now, after roughly a year of hefty use on my m6 and a couple of screwmounts - everything is sill ok. I was hoping for some brass to shine through the black paint, but nothing yet. I've no means to compare to leica glass of the same focal length, but I really have nothing to complain about. You won't be frustrated using any VC lenses.

Roland,

 

that's a couple of decisive moments! And the deer really has absolutely no connection to anything in the picture (like some sign that all is happening in a zoo, e.g.), the pic looks absolutely surrealistic. Nice!

Sid,

 

given the weight and form of the leica, it should be very effective. But - that really depends on your combat technique and experience. Generally, I would advocate to run instead of beginning a fight with people who will be, in general, more ready to use violence and have all experience they need to do so. Think about it - I prefer losing money or equipment, instead of jeopardizing my health or even life..

 

Jean

Roger,

 

it's neg film scanned on an photo cd. Histogram indicates clearly the underexposure, what explains the funny colors. While the small pic posted here seems quite unsharp, the neg (and the original, quite big photo cd file) shows surprisingly much detail, though soft, with little contrast compared to modern lenses.

Gerald,

 

that's right, underexposure of course.. and nothing to do with the lens. That's funny, now you mention it it's pretty obvious to me! Thanks for the information about what's wrong with the shutter, I was really wondering what causes this effect.

 

Jean

..at least combined with a defective shutter! I just found this

picture while browsing my photo cds. It was my first roll in my

first leica - a leica II with collapsible elmar. I paid way to much

for it, (like always on ebay) especially considering the shutter,

but that's another story!

 

I recall some questions what the old leica lenses look like, and if

they're good for color. I never saw a pic proofing anything, so i

thought this one might help a little to give an idea. The lens looks

absolutely fine, no haze, no scratches, and is coated. Yes, the

entire film looks like this. Yes, I have shot a couple of rolls from

the same batch with my slr, and they look absolutely "normal" - so

this look seems specific for my elmar. Given the age of the lens,

though, i would not take any bets that another elmar would produce

the same effect! While details are rendered quite good, there are no

strong contrasts (macrocontrast?) what makes the image look kinda

soft, but very pleasing.

 

BTW - an important lesson i learned: test new equipment first,

before using it for anything important. I've always neglected this

happily, it always worked out, but it seems i ran out of luck in

that department!

 

And just out of curiosity, can anyone determine the shutter defect?

I'll send the camera to solms for a cla some day, but i'm curious..<div></div>