brett_davis1

Sorry, I always make these things too big to start.<div></div>

On a recent nine-day trip to northern Italy, I decided to travel light,

photographically. I took only my 0-Series, an old Gossen Luna

Pro and an even older FOKOS rangefinder. Armed with five rolls

of the new Kodak BW400CN chromogenic film, I decided to try

street photography, Italian style. No bag, just a camera tucked in

a pocket, and sometimes tethered to a $5 wrist strap. (Two

people actually recognized the camera, both, oddly enough, on

the island of Murano, near Venice. One was doing street

photography of his own, carrying an R4, and the other worked in

one of the glass shops. He said he was a big Leica fan--he was

even wearing a red Leica lapel pin--but said he could not afford

one. I hope he can someday.) Anyway, here are some of the

results.<div></div>

Well, I just happened to spy it while it was still on the book cart ... not even on the shelf yet!

Just saw a new book, "Leica: Witness to a Century" at a Barnes &

Noble. It was shrink-wrapped so I couldn't paw through it, which is

of course the idea. Looks interesting, though. Here's an Amazon link,

which includes a so-so review:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393059219/102-5087735-

1923343?v=glance&s=books

I like the first one particularly, but the busy background takes away from it. I think if you had dropped to one knee and shot up, you could have had a really nice pic; that flag really pops out.

Finally, decent weather in DC; this was shot in the National

Arboretum. I took a couple of these but this was the best one in

terms of the way the branches splayed. The light could have

been better. What do you think?

 

Technical: 0-Series, 50mm Anastigmat, Kodak Gold 200, f/12,

1/500.<div></div>

There is something inhumane about cutting off his nose in your picture!

Don't forget it's a pain to set the shutter speed, too, as you have to do it before the shutter is fully recocked. It's a fairly easy thing to use it as an "aperture priority" camera, though, as changing the aperture is done in the standard Elmar style. The viewfinder takes some getting used to but I have found it to be accurate, although you could also consider getting one of the Cosina/Voigtlander 50mm finders. It isn't the fastest camera around, that's for sure, but it is tiny and easy to carry, takes great pictures, and isn't that hard to use smoothly once you get the hang of it. I do not enjoy the film-loading process, I have to say.

 

I'm considering carrying mine as my only camera on a trip to Italy (but I probably won't).

 

What are they selling for now, by the way?

Does anyone know if Luigi makes a half-case (or full case) for screwmount Leicas that might be good for the 0-Series? It would need to have straps that attach to the case since there are no lugs on the body. I would like something that will allow me to use external finders, rangefinders, etc., which the case that comes with the camera won't allow unless you don't mind having a big top cover flapping around all the time. I have looked at Luigi's website before but find it confusing. Thanks for any advice.

"Beach at the end of LAX runway" is terrific!

Thanks for the responses. Steve, to answer your question, I do

like the camera a lot, although I would say it's not for everyone. If

you search by my name you should find a few other posts I've

made here and there. My not-very-good scanner is hooked up to

a suicidal computer so posting is sort of hit and miss for me. For

some reason, I got these developed at Ritz Camera; when did

their printing get so lousy? They are garish inkjet prints now. I

was actually planning to post a different picture but could not get

it to scan well at all.

I was actually just trying to figure out if the roll in the camera was

24 or 36 exposure, so I was banging off a couple of extra shots.

This is terribly underexposed but I kind of liked the effect.<div></div>

I did a quick eyeball search of the forum but didn't see anything that looked like a link, so I posted it. I won't bother next time, and apologies to Jay for wasting valuable time he would no doubt otherwise spend out shooting.

Not to start another film-vs.-digital debate, but this column might

be of interest:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm

I recently bought something from Dennis Couvillion and resold it to John Fleetwood; they could have just cut out the middleman!

You can get a permit, I just didn't have one. Apparently it's an old

rule mandated by Congress, that probably dates back to the wet-

plate days ... the guard said members of Congress didn't like

having their pictures made much back then. They seem to have

gotten over it.

The U.S. Capitol Christmas tree; no tripod allowed, so I had to

up the ISO to 160 and shoot handheld, at about 1/6 of a second

or so; fortunately, this works pretty well in this camera. Happy

holidays to all.

Does nothing for you and some things TO you!

 

 

 

Oh, I'm kidding.

It is funky, no doubt, and would have been a lot quicker to use if they had built a new Leica II or something. The uncapped shutter and slit widths are indeed odd, but not that odd once you get the hang of it. I saw it as a good way to get a brand-new screwmount camera with a brand-new (and very good) lens, and it is--although I didn't buy it when it cost $2,500, and wouldn't have. It's also easy to lug around.

 

But anyway, all of these points have been hashed out ever since the 0-Series was introduced. Poor ron so was merely seeking user reports on the camera, which nobody in this posting was able to provide but me (and ron, please do a search in the archives and you'll see other user reports as well). Also, Pop Photography did a write-up on it in 2001 and you can buy a copy of that if you are so inclined.

 

It IS an anachronism. It CAN be used for virtually anything, including photojournalism-style pictures (helps to be a good judge of distance). It IS well made (my shutter problems notwithstanding, and it would take pictures even then). I AIN'T gonna sell mine. I do have other cameras for when speed is of the essence. Including -- gasp -- a couple of digitals (not Digiluxes, though)!

No problem. It isn't my finest shot, that's for sure.

You haven't seen a picture, but you assume it's no better than with a plastic-lens disposable? Nice logic. If you had bothered to READ anything about the camera before posting, you might have learned it has one of the best lenses around, probably better than anything you're squinting through. (You don't have to squint with this camera; one plus). I can assure you the pix are not in the same universe as a disposable camera. Based on experience.

I appreciate the concern of those who fear I have mis-spent my money. Such concern on this board is heart-warming, especially from people who have never shot with the thing.

 

I like my 0-Series fine, although it had a shutter problem that had to be rectified at the factory. Do a search and you'll find several of my pics, which are much better in person due to my non-professional scanner. Yes, I am the "sad case" who posted the picture of the airplane. Vic, I'm sorry to offend your eyes with proof that it's actually capable of taking pictures.

 

Once you get used to using the thing, it's nearly as quick as any other manual camera. If you don't like it, don't buy one.

Matt, are you related to the guy at the costume shop?

This gentleman was NOT at the military history display.<div></div>

I'm sure someone will beat these easily, but I thought I'd get

things started ...<div></div>