clayh

I replaced my Focotar 40 with the Schneider APO-componon 40 and it is just a better lens than the focotar. The grain is

sharp all the way into the corners. No regrets at all. Snag one if you can.

I would make a whole new camera with the sensor used in the Nikon D300, with a useable

ISO of 3200. Put an IR filter over the sensor instead of making lame excuses to cover up a

f**kup. Make the rangefinder an electronic autofocusing affair with an optical viewfinder with

accurate projected frame lines that account for the focusing distance. Allow for manual

focusing using electronic feedback in the viewfinder. Create 4 new 1.4 lenses to put on it for

a 35mm equivalent focal length range of 28/35/50/90. Make it the same size as the original

Leica IIIf. Watch them fly out the door.

This has got to be one of the buggiest and poorly executed pieces of software I have used in a while. Crashes are common, and the user interface is inscrutable beyond belief. When it works, the raw converstions are usually as good as those from Lightroom, ACR and Raw Developer. It is figuring out how to get there that is a problem.

 

The absolute worst thing about this software is that the moment you point your working directory to a folder with a bunch of raw images, it automatically creates a bunch of sub-folders filled with all of the thumbnails and other processing information it needs. For a folder containing 2GB of card info, this program will add a couple hundred of megabytes of disk effluvia without asking you if it is OK.

 

The whole things strikes me as presumptuous for some reason. I hate everything about it except that it sometimes can create a reasonable conversion on a problem raw file. When I need to use it, I just copy a single file to its own directory so I can minimize its profligate waste of disk space.

 

Is there an internet emoticon symbolizing a person pinching their nostrils closed?

This is a question to all of you who own the GRD: Does it have significant shutter lag? That is

an absolute deal-killer with a lot of the smaller digicams. The Panasonic LX-2 that I got last

year for the non-photographers in my family makes me crazy with the push the button, and

let me think about it' performance of the shutter.

So it looks like LSD had made its way to German factory towns by the late 60's. Only logical

explanation, IMO.

How about the Pentax 43/1.9 ? The little bit shorter focal length helps the depth of field, and

it is coated and of a modern design. I like this lens. Only downside is that it is considerably

larger than a 50/3.5 elmar.

I have one of these M7 Betriebsk cameras that I got from B&H about 3 or 4 years ago. Works the same as any M7.

i concur with the necessity for cleaner+swabs. I think the M8 shutter is throwing around

great gobs of grease when new, and it goobers up the sensor pretty godawfully. Eclipse

cleaner, swab and a steady hand will do the trick.

D-19 for 8 minutes at 72 deg. Gets you a Gamma of about 1.1-1.2 on on most films. That is very contrasty, but still continuous toned. It is used a lot by aerial photographers trying to goose contrast.

 

Also try diluted Dektol 1:3 for about 4 minutes. Very sharp, very grainy.

Anybody know if we will be able to get Series VII IR/UV filters for this lens? IOW, I'm keeping

mine. It is a bit like a not-quite-right musical instrument that you have used for years, but

have learned to compensate for its quirks.

I have had paint jobs done by Shintaro on an M3 and by CRR on an M4 and M2R. I prefer the

CRR paint job. It like the CRR paint - it is smoother and has less gloss, and seems less prone

to damage. But it just depends on what you are looking for. Peter at CRR will return you a

camera that will literally look and behave like as if it just rolled off of the assembly line

inWetzlar in 1962.

I can see no mention on Paterson's website of FX39 being discontinued... where did you hear

this?

 

B&H stopped carrying it last April. I wrote Paterson an email and they responded that they are

discontinuing their photo chemistry products. I think their website is out of date in this

regard.

Yes, I began using it after FX-39 was discontinued. It is a very close substitute. Maybe slightly more grain, but you have to be a real print sniffer to tell. It seems to have the same sharpness. I enlarged some TMZ up to 15x a few weeks ago, and it had very sharp, but agreeable grain. The times are shorter. I dilute FX-37 1:5 and develop for 9 minutes at 72 degrees.

 

Quote "Clay: I noticed you use FX-37 for your TMZ. Just curious if you ever compared FX-37 with FX-39 on this film, or perhaps you switched after FX-39 became unavailable?"

I think grain is a 'taste' thing like preferences in beer. I prefer the TMZ grain to the Delta

3200 grain because it seems sharper and more defined to me. But if that is not the effect you

want, then the 3200 might be a better bet. I like TMZ in FX-37 for the sharp grain combined

with some film speed gains.

I Just got an LX2, but I am wondering if it was wise to pass up the chance to take advantage

of Leica's well known competitive advantage in digital camera color balancing. The faces of

people in my photos just don't look quite as ruddy as the ones from my M8.

Calling this an M8 essay is stretching the new word 'Truthiness' to the breaking point. The

pictures are wonderfully seen, but if you take a look at the dates along the bottom of each

photo, you can see that only 2 or 3 of the 61 pictures could possibly have been made with

the M8. The vast majority were taken in the 80's and 90's, and unless Constantine also has

a Leica Time Machine, they could not have been made with anything other than a film

Leica loaded with Velveeta or whatever. This is about the gazillionteenth time I have seen

this referred to as an M8 essay, and sorry to say, that is bunk.

 

But the photos are really nicel. Just don't sit at your computer screen getting the M8 urge

from looking at this work.

I think that the way this whole fiasco has been handled by Leica and the subsequent response

of some its customers prove to me beyond any shadow of doubt that Leica has mixed up one

huge barrel of Kool-Aid that has a pretty sizeable line of people waiting to dip their cup into.

I had one of the original cameras and returned it after three days of tests. It was a complete

joke for a camera in that price tier. Hopefully, the 'upgrade' will fix one of the more egregious

defects, but the way they are handling the IR issue is frankly insulting.

Lynn,

That is interesting. I use FX-37 at 1:5 for 6 min at 72 deg, and I get a very carefully measured EI of 500. I use calibrated densitometers and carefully exposed test strips (sans camera using the BTZS system) I shoot for a CI of 0.55. If anything, I find the grain to be too fine for my tastes. I dunno. As always, YMMV.

The newer Tri-X has slightly finer grain. Otherwise, it is identical to the old stuff

sensitometrically. One thing that may be happening is that people who do not presoak their

film may be getting reduced development. Kodak's says the new film has a harder emulsion,

and that may be making the film a little slower to absorb the developer for those who do not

presoak. I always presoak for 5 minutes, and my times for the same CI were identical to the

old stuff. In my opinion, it is different only in the sense of being better.

Also look at the threads about focus issues with IR-rich light hitting the sensor. Reminds me

of doing wet plate camera work and worrying about 'optica'l versus 'chemical' focus( wet

plate collodion is sensitive to mostly UV light)

I had the M8 for three days before returning it to the dealer. It will be a great camera, I think.

It is not one at the moment. When conditions are optimal, it is quite nice. When conditions

are not optimal (i.e. Leica M camera-normal) it pulls up short. I'll now wait and see what Leica

do to improve things.

Do you think the extended IR response will allow the camera to see through clothing like that videocam (since recalled) a few years ago? Like I mentioned somewhere else, Leica could market directly to the well-heeled perv market.

I think the 'long' and 'short' ends refers to leftover film from full rolls that

cinemaphotographers return for credit. Because the supply of the ends depends on how

much of this film is being used at any given moment, I found it easier to just gut up and

buy a whole 400 foot roll. It was around $112 if I remember correctly. I just spool it into

cassettes in my darkroom and dispense with using a bulk loader since the roll is so big. It

definitely has the old style feel to it. Part of this is the lack of the super-duper modern

anti-halation backing (Which also means it doesn't stay pink as long in the wash. The

other part is the grain pattern resembles the Tri-X I learned with 35 years ago.

FWIW, I think the double-X film being referred to is the new, still-manufactured, Eastman

5222 Double-X, which is quite similar to the old Tri-X, except maybe a tad slower. It comes

in 400 foot long cine rolls here:

 

http://www.tapesuperstore.com/5222bw200.html

 

I use it when the new TX400 is too fine-grained and pretty for what I have in mind.

I live in the US, and I still send work to CRR. His work is superb. That said, DAG also does

fantastic work. I think the scope of what CRR is willing to take on is a little more than

perhaps DAG might do.