thomas_krantz3

CR 1,5 means "Correction Red" factor 1,5 and is somewhat more coloured than a normal skylight which is factor 1,0.

Ken Reither , jan 31, 2004; 11:54 p.m.

Yup, but it sure takes nice photos.

 

No that's wrong, it's actually the lens which is responsible for the "niceness" in the photos. Surely you must know that the camera just open and close the shutter.

Cameron is right you know in his post above. I have used TMax 3200, rated at 800 which is the "normal speed" for this film for many years as my available light film. I soup it in a fine grain developer (I use Ilfords Perceptol) and I have tested the dev. time to give me the full 10-zone range. In my case it is 15 min. in undiluted Perceptol @ 20C. This creates much better "longer" negatives than TriX pushed to 800. And believe it or not it has less visible grain all the way up to 30x40 cm. prints due to the Metol based Perceptol developer.

Yes, this happens to me as well on my 24/2.8, but not on the 90/2.8, 50/2 or 35/2 asph, they are all chrome latest version. And yes you are right that it will go away with a CLA. I know that it sounds terrible that you should have to send them in for a CLA when they are less than 5-10 years old, but there you are! According to Malcolm Taylor, renowned Leica specialist in the UK, the new lenses and even the new M6, M7 and MP are not always up (his) standards and all of them benefit from a CLA (we are however talking about very minor things, something not everyone notice unless you have a "perfect" specimen to compare with).

Can't be a black dial since it had different shutter sequence running 30 40 60 100 200

However unpractical it may be in actual use, it is probably more like 25mm. Some people who don't like separate finders in the hot-shoe like to use the 0.72 in this way for 24mm lenses. I don't understand them but each to his own.

All three bodies on my body all the time buddy!

Charles

 

I'm not saying that Leica is the only brand which can create high quality, high resolution, big enlargement prints. I'm only refering to the technique needed to get there. However, most of us do not take full advantage of the research and effort put into the design and perfection of new lenses. That's all. For hand held shots on my kids etc, I am happy using my Nikon FM2n with 50/1.8, not much difference from Summicron 50/2 on kodachrome 64, and it's takes beating as good as a Leica, but cost less...

The Panda was only made on the M6 Classic not the TTL as far as I know. Once upon the time stupid camera dealers tried to market the Panda as a collector item. Today they fetch no higher prices than the normal M6.

See my earlier posts on how to get the most out of Leica lenses (since we never use the full resolution power in hand held shots). I always use a tripod for landscapes and architecture work. The tripod should be HEAVY, which means, no aluminium or other flimsy construction. The best is the wooden ones with three extension legs, not that expensive, i.e. 250-300 USD but very heavy. Obviously you don't want to carry these around for city tours, but for formal portraits or landscapes they are the best. The Gitzo's are not bad at all, but too expensive for what you get. Carbon fibre is not more steady than other metalæ when it comes to vibration, etc.

 

Tripod mounted latest generation lenses, with Tech Pan developed in Perceptol 1+0 blown up to 40x50 or 50x60 cm really shows you the different between high and extremely-ultimately-totally-amazing resolving power. The almost invisible grain with this combination even with these size enlargements makes it look sooo smooth. The lower acutance you get with small grain film and perceptol 1+0 is no problem with large prints. I must agree with Putz that you cannot see any difference between medium format and high quality, correctly exposed and developed, tripod mounted, Leica photos. It is a craft however, and not for casual shooting like most of you seem to be into. Hand held with TriX there is not much difference between Leica and many other brands, except irrational emotions and of course build quality.

Oh my god...!!!...does it take expertise and thorough understanding of the photographic process to take advantage of high quality cameras and lenses like Leica? I thought it was just "shoot and go" and that my untrained eye would be able to see a great difference from a small 1 hour print.

 

Stupid is all I can say. Sell you Leica, you are a snapshot photog amateur (which is fine with me, it's just that...oh never mind)

I own a 1959 Summilux and it is perfectly possible to find the original 43mm Leica filters for this lens (try Ebay). I have a yellow and an orange chrome filter for it.

It would better without the foot IMO. It's just too simple a trick to make the picture interesting. Sorry...

Comparing the CV 25 with Leica 24/2.8 asph shows a clear difference in corner sharpness and astigmatism. However, you need to work on tripod and enlarge more than 8 times to see the difference. Does it matter? Ohh yes to me it does, since I do a lot of landscapes on tripod. The build quality and (irrational) joy of the Leica-lenses is also far above the little CV's!

John, looking at your pictures I would have thought you used at least basic sensitometry :-) and not guess work. Of course you can meter the clouds! You just decide what zone they should be. The meter shows zone 5 and you stop down 1 stop to get zone 4, 2 stops to get zone 3 etc. The difficulty (and expertise) is in knowing how zone 3 looks like on print and knowing before you push the button how you want the image to look like (the old school of previsualization).

Trevor

 

For these type of shots you have to use the zone system or equivalent thinking. You would use a spot meter to meter the cloud and the building. Find out the difference in Exposure Index (EI) between the two. Say that the cloud reads EI 7 and the building EI 14 (the numbers doesn't matter). This is a 7 stop difference. You now decide how you want the cloud and building look in the print. If you want a very dark cloud you would place this on zone 2 or 3 (3 would give you texture, zone 2 would only get you a sligther greyer shade than totally black). "Placing zone 3" means that you take the reading on the cloud (i.e. 7) and close down 2 stops (since the meter always puts the value at zone 5 or middle grey - this is how all meters are calibrated). You know that the building is 7 stops lighter and the building would thus fall on zone 10 which is totally white (paper base) In this case you would need to pull the film in development to get the zone 10 down to zone 8 to get any texture effectively reducing contrast, i.e. a normal minus 2 development. Bracketing would not help you understand and manage the contrast, it would just place the cloud at zone 2,3 and 4 (if you would use one stop bracketing).

 

If however the difference between the readings are only say 5 stops you could place the cloud on zone 3 and building on 8 and use normal development.

 

Kind regards

 

Thomas Krantz

Hello

 

When you use more than one M-body, do you use it to hold another type

of film, i.e. one body with B/W and one with slidefilm, or do you use

it with the same film but another lens "permanently" attached to

avoid slow lens changes in the middle of a shoot, e.g. B/W in both,

one with 35 and one with 90 lens?

 

Ultimately you would need 5 M-houses right (tounge in cheek)? Two for

TriX with 35 and 90 and two with Kodachrome with 24 and 50 plus one

with TMAX 3200 for available light with a 50 summilux. But all these

bodies would be a bit too heavy to carry around for a travel where

you would need all bodies. What a great luxury problem!

Christoph

 

I have actually tested this by photographing grass (seaweed) against a river, no wind, high contrast lighting. I did one photo on tripod, the other handheld, same shutterspeed (1/1000 to be sure) same aperture, i.e. completely the same shot. You will not see any difference in smaller prints, but on a 40x50 or 50x60, there is a clear difference in the sharpness and crispness of the thin grass against the dark background.

Hello

 

Obviously big prints mean heavy tripod, at least if you are after high perceived sharpness in the print. I have printed several landscapes on 40x50cm (full negative size) with a heavy tripod and latest generation lenses (24/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8). Film was tri-x rated 200 and developed in Perceptol 1+3. There is no problem in getting razor-sharp prints in this size. Howéver, your technique will be the critical factor, not the resolution capabilities of the lens, film or paper. It is of utmost importance to have a very HEAVY HEAVY tripod and perectly aligned enlarger (I use the late grey Focomat 1C) and not lease to expose and develop the film correctly to avoid excess grain. I'm not into digital, so no scans possible (don't even know how a scanner works...

It depends on film and situation. I carry an M3 and M6 both loaded with Tri-X rated 200. There is a 24/2.8 asph "fixed" on the M6 and the latest 50/2 on the M3. For available light I use my IIIF and SBOOI finder with Nikkor 50/1.4 in ltm-mount loaded with TMAX 3200 rated at 800 developed in Perceptol 1+0 for "normal grain". An Elmarit 90/2.8 is also in my bag for "carving out" landscapes or daylight portraits. At home I have an M4 loaded with Technical Pan rated 25 for tripod landscape work, normally used with any of the lenses above or the 35/2 asph, which I rarely use (the 24/2.8 and 50/2 is a better kit in my view)

Apparantly not if you read HCB's own desription. He found the spot where many people crossed and waited for the right moment havíng already "built the picture" so to speak. No doubt he was also very aware of the poster in the background showing a ballet dancer in the same pose as the jumping man. Nevertheless it is a good picture which perhaps gets the credit because of its age (first one counts, just as the first man on the moon is more famous than the second man, any remembers his name?)

Two best finds:

Leica Elmar 35/3.5 coated, last year of production,, no haze or fungus - USD 75 at a so called "photo shop" I got it cheaper because it didn't have a hood to it!!

Voigtlander VITO CL, mint with everready case, never opened, with yellow and orange filter and correct hood, from an "antique dealer" - USD 30

I totally agree. Kertezs for example was the guy who inspired HCB to become the photographer he was. This is coming from HCB's own mouth in an interview. It is also evident from Kertesz "post 1928" pictures (the year when he acquired his Leica and stuck to it for the rest of his life) in that the motif and composition is the same as the later HCB. Kertesz pictures however are often exposed more correctly than HCB's. HCB apparently did not have a great understanding of the basic principles of sensitometry. The object alone seemsed to interest him. Boring attitude I think, since the craft is as necessary for making a great photo as the object.

Which condition? Should it be original or repaint? Why do you want it? I saw a repaint mint cond for 1500 USD recently.

If I would to redesign my setup for really low cost and extrem portability, I would go for an M2, Summaron 35/2.8 and Elmar 90/4. Both with E39 filter flange. After all you would use the 35mm 80% of the time and the Elmar 90/4 is soooo compact so you can carry it in you pocket without noticing!