andy_eulass

A Summilux or a Noctilux would be nice, but you're also talking about several hundred additional dollars to have one, in the case of the Summilux, or an additional grand in the case of the Noctilux.

 

Have you considered other focal lengths? My first Leica lens was 35mm Summicron aspherical and its still my mainstay lens. Well worth the investment.

I kinda like the grit.<div></div>

I've not noticed play with my 35 Summicron. However, as a far more experienced Leica user suggested to me, if ain't broke, don't fix it. If you're having no problems with the focusing and you're happy with the pictures you're getting, I'd just leave it alone.

Outstanding images Roger. I was in London last June trying to catch some of London's street life but was hobbled by my "elephant gun" of a camera, an EOS 3. Now that I have a Leica, I can't wait to go back in a couple of months and try again. Thanks for sharing these great images.

Ah, but where I see part of the fun, and where I guess I substantially disagree with Jonathan, is in the way photographs standing alone can construct a perception of reality that may or may not accord with reality itself. The Adams photo, as discussed above, is a perfect example. I'm proud to say that I have one such photo in my own portfolio where the perception created by the image runs contrary to the reality that created the picture. To me, its an endless source of wonder how the fragments of reality we catch in our cameras can wind up creating new and imagined realities that spiral miles away from the truth (however one chooses to define the term, "truth"). Therefore, I disagree with Jonathan and believe that photos as stand-alone documents are far more compelling (assuming they have something compelling to convey) than those which rely on the spoken or written word to create perception for the viewer.

 

One other point. Jonathan, you say that you don't care about whether you are perceived as an artist and that you would far prefer being perceived as critically engaged. The question I have in response to this position is simple: when is an artist not critically engaged? If we understand criticism in its "generic" sense (i.e., not the popular notion of criticism being the act of saying something negative), isn't all art an act of critical engagement? Criticism in its general sense means a conscious act of interpretation of some thing (be it tangible or intangible). What is art but an constant act of interpreting something to convey the maker's own sense of what that something means. Look at your own shot of the vaporetto stop. There is within the very finely made image a constant action of interpretation going. Choices pertaining to how you caught the scene through your lens to how you chose to render the final image are all acts of critical thought about the vaporetto stop, but they are also artistic acts in response to the impact the vaporetto stop had on you. Not at critics are artists, but in my view all artists are inherently critics. By virtue of your chosen medium for critical engagement, namely photography, you are in my view inherently both critic and artist.

 

Excellent thread Jonathan. Much to think about here.

Hey pal. I've noticed a slight variation like that myself, but its very very slight. But I've also found that no one whom I show my prints to has ever noticed it unless you point it out to them. And really the only time its been something that I catch is when I'm looking very closely at my prints after they've dried. I've just come to live with it as a tiny quirk in an otherwise lovely camera. I've been looking at your work steadily on here and its not something that jumps out at me when looking at your images. I'd live with it unless its really driving you nuts.

Yo, Dave. Drop me an email sometime with a link. I want to check them out.

I dunno, I guess I'd defer to some of these guys, but I have an MP and I'm happy as I can be with it. I also own an M6 Classic which I also love but the MP is my preferred camera to use. The one thing that really leaps out at me about the MP is the viewfinder which is absolutely awesome in low-light situations. I spent a couple of nights during the carnage of the Cubs' collapse at Wrigley Field using both my M6 and MP and found that the MP was far superior for being able to get a bead on something and focus it accurately. I guess the M7s are now being fitted with the MP viewfinder, but I'm not sure. The other thing is that the MP, as far as I can see, is built like a brick sh*thouse. Though I wasn't happy about it, my MP took a couple of whacks while wading through the crowd at Wrigley Field and it was fine. I'm sure you'll be fine with either the M7 or the MP but my preference was for the MP.

 

By the way, I'm not sure what this price issue is that some of the others are talking about. Last time I checked the B&H website, the MP and M7 were priced exactly the same. No getting around it though, they both are expensive and aren't likely to get cheaper unless the Dollar rebounds against the Euro in a serious way, which is unlikely anytime soon from what I can see.

 

Good luck with your search. Whatever you buy, I hope it brings you as much joy as my Leicas have brought me.

Roll and a half. Tri-X.

Yeah, I think you're right Chad. Watch it get an 18 because I cut off the guy's hand. Maybe even less than 18 for the title...

Oh, and one more. This is from out on Waveland Avenue right after the Cubs clinched.<div></div>

Hey Beau, thanks for the compliments.

 

Eric, careful buddy, after yesterday, Yankees fans should hang their head in shame. Someone needs to tell Bernie Williams to go back to the recording studio cause he sure ain't playin' like an All-Star centerfielder. Talk to me when the Yankees and the Braves are sitting at home pickin' their noses.

Yeah, I know what Peter is talking about. We have this wonderful egotistical way of putting all our sports events on a universal plane. Still, its been called that since the World Series was first played in 1903.

 

Anyway, I hope somebody out there noticed the Cubs took the first step on the road to the ultimate victory last night by beating the Atlanta Braves in Atlanta. First win on the road in the playoffs for the Cubs since 1945. There's this faint feeling of destiny, but its faint.<div></div>

The glory of the voices of long-suffering fans loosed in victory...<div></div>

Umm, Dave, you're wrong. The jury photos on PP are chosen by a group of site members chosen by the site leadership. Jury awards are therefore open to photos that have two points or two thousand points. It has nothing to do with ratings.

I like the idea you've proposed. Admittedly it will take a bit of brain-power to come up with an equitable way to determine which images make the cut. But I think there are assuredly enough brains among the talented and thoughtful members of this site (often people Bob Atkins might refer to as "the usual suspects") who can hammer out that process. There's no question that the sorted and ranked lists of images have fostered an almost inane level of cheap competition among a pretty significant spectrum of the membership. As a starting point, Photo.net ought to look at some of the things that the new kid on the block, Photopoints, has done. The so-called awards and honors on that site are, for the most part, completely divorced from the ratings process and it seems to work extremely well. There's still some of the odious mate-rating, etc., but the bad habits have much less impact on the complexion of the site than is the case here on PN. I don't see how anyone can completely prevent corrupt ratings practices, so figuring out a way to minimize their impact seems the way to go in my opinion. Carl's proposal has the potential to take a big step forward in that regard and I hope its given some serious consideration.

xx<div></div>

I recently purchased a used M6 and its in fine shape. However, the

seller couldn't tell me when it last had a CLA. Its fairly old for

an M6 but wasn't used much by the prior owner. Can you tell me what

a good rule of thumb is for when I ought to consider a CLA for it?

xx<div></div>

xx<div></div>

Excellent link Doug! However I bet the Fiend without a face never had bicycle horn.

xx<div></div>

xx<div></div>

Picasso sculpture as playground equipment.<div></div>

Hey, this one got its share of crappy ratings too.<div></div>