graham_welland

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>I think you've settled on the ideal, money no object, starter combination. Leica MP & new 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. You really cannot do any better than that IMHO for a single camera, single lens outfit if 35mm is your preferred base focal length.</p>

<p>Bryan,<br>

<br /> I've been through a similar thought process as yourself, i.e. what's the best, simple platform for photography that will last me for some considerable time. I started with the M6TTL, transitioned to the M7, (on the digital side M8, M8.2 and now M9), and finally found my lifetime film camera with the MP.</p>

<p>Coming from a DSLR background you might find the M7 easier to accommodate due to the AE capability but that automation comes at the relatively minor expense of having a Leica M that is almost entirely battery dependent. If the battery dies you do still have limited manual capabilities although to be honest it's not a great concern unless you see yourself trekking many many miles from civilization or need absolute dependability off the grid. The discussions about the exposure dial being 'the wrong way round' are really only applicable if you've come from a legacy background of using 'Classic' M6 or earlier. All current M's (MP excepted) have the same dial orientation and for a new comer it's actually intuitive because you turn the dial in the direction indicated by the under/over exposure arrow, just as you do with the aperture dial.<br>

If you are buying a new M7 then you'll find it to be a wonderful camera platform. Earlier M7's had a mechanical DX sensor that made film removal a PAIN - current models don't have the contacts touching the film cartridge and are much easier to unload.</p>

<p>I finally transitioned to the MP because I figured that I would be keeping one film camera for the long term and the pinnacle of Leica film camera production is the MP. It is beautifully made, has a mechanical feel that will encourage you to love shooting with the camera plus will last you a lifetime. For me it includes the minimal level of automation that I want, i.e. the metering, and is a purely mechanical camera built for longevity. You can certainly argue that any of the earlier M's have the same build quality but to be honest you're looking at 30 year old cameras for this mechanical excellence and then you'll have no metering in camera which for most of us IS a big deal.</p>

<p>If you do decide to get the MP you might want to consider getting one with the original rewind control. I've personally damaged the angled rewind dial on both my M6TTL and M7 due to field accidents and the rewinder will bind against the body and need to be replaced (not difficult). It's pretty soft but doesn't take knocks very well in my experience and Leica's comments seem to reflect that vulnerability, and not just quaint throw backs to older cameras.</p>

<p>If you're selecting just one lens then I'd definitely recommend the 35 Summicron ASPH. It's a great all purpose lens and pretty much has no serious flaws. It is a high contrast 'modern' lens but on film that translates to great micro-contrast and almost 3d rendering of content. If you want something longer then the 50 Summicron is also a perfect partner and is a great value (in Leica terms at least). I personally prefer 35mm for my general lens and to that end actually use a 35 Summilux as my main lens. However, this lens does focus shift slightly as you stop it down but I know that and how to accommodate for it. The new 35 Summilux supposedly is less susceptible to this but if you're new to rangefinders the 'lux's tendency to focus shift could result in missed or soft shots which isn't a great motivator to someone new to the system.</p>

<p>I do shoot mainly with my 35mm but I confess that I do have a small outfit of the 16-18-21/4, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/2 and 90/2.8. I can get away with the 35/1.4 & 90/2.8 for probably 95% or more of anything I encounter. Most Leica M shooters have a small setup of 2 or 3 lenses and you'll find endless threads here discussing the 'ideal' lens set up. For the folks that stick with one lens (and there are many) it tends to be either the 35mm or 50mm.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your decisions. I fully understand the sentiment behind getting the best tool up front as it saves money long term. I know that I should have bought my MP first although I did enjoy shooting with my M6's / M7 which were cheaper and easier to find when I started. Get the best glass you can because that investment lasts a lifetime, even if you decide to go digital RF at some point.</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

Obviously this isn't appealing to YOU. However, as one of the obviously gullible Leicaphiles with an M8 (and a newer M8.2) I actually chose to upgrade my camera with the new framelines and Sapphire LCD cover. And you know what, I'm extremely happy with the fact that the camera that has served me well for the last two years now has matching framelines with my M8.2 and also has an LCD cover that won't scratch up. I went through the 3rd party LCD covers, including the Giottos glass, and they were either awful or in the case of the Giottos great right up to the point where it shattered.<br>

Anyway, regardless of what third parties and non-owner's and nay-sayers might say about the upgrades, I'm very happy with mine and also pleased with the extra year of warranty too. For me personally it was a worthwhile exercise and brought my cameras up to spec with each other operationally and for a lot less than the hassle of trading & upgrading a perfectly reliable camera.</p>

<p>I've had both the Nokton 1.2 and the Summicron and used them with M7 & M8.<br>

In my experience the Summicron is the better all round lens primarily because of it's superb sharpness and rendering, plus obviously it's much smaller size and lighter weight. I can't fault it.<br>

The 35/1.2 is however a superb lens if you want some more creative shooting at extra shallow DoF and interesting bokeh. It's usable as a walk around lens but it is bulky and also encroaches into the viewfinder view significantly, particularly when using the hood. I found that the focus action is also heavily weighted compared to the Summicron and the lack of a focus tab made it more cumbersome to use. The flip side of course is that the lower gearing provides more accurate focusing at wide open apertures and I actually fitted a Leica Goodies Steer on to the lens to make this much easier.<br>

In summary, think about how you want to use the lens. If it's going to be your primary street lens then consider the Summicron the better choice. If you want a more "artistic' rendering lens wide open then maybe the Nokton is a better choice. Best choice - get both :-)</p>

<p>I've had both Zeiss and Leica M lenses and when it comes to comparison of the Zeiss f/2 lenses I'd say that they exhibit a little bit of extra micro-contrast compared to the Leica equivalents. For film this works well to improve acuity if you like a modern super sharp 'look', but with digital (M8) I did find sometimes that the Zeiss look was a bit too high contrast compared to Summicrons.</p>

<p>If you're comparing the Zeiss to pre-ASPH lenses then this difference is more pronounced. The comparable faster Zeiss has that same characteristic 'glow'.</p>

<p>The Leica Summicron's also have excellent sharpness and micro-contrast - I'd just say that they exhibit slightly more subtle rendering and for me produce a slightly (and I mean slight) more natural sharpness. This is a bit hard to explain objectively - it feels kind of like explaining the character differences of two very fine wines.</p>

<p>Bottom line for me was/is that I wouldn't think twice about shooting with the Zeiss lenses on film and saving considerable money compared to the Leica equivalents. For digital, I've found the subtler rendering of the Leica glass to be preferable but unfortunately at the expense of my bank account. :-)</p>

<p>Hope that helps a little. Just my $0.02.</p>

Bjorn, I assume that's your modified 28 PC? I wish mine had tilt ...

 

You are quite correct about the CA with DX cameras. Perhaps I should clarify my definition of

'fine' with the D2X - I didn't find it too problematic with my lens but images did require some

post production clean up.

I have the 28 PC and D3 combination and it works fine. The 28 PC does exhibit some CA but

this is correctable in post processing. It also worked fine with my D2X before. I don't tend to

use the full 11mm extension but stick to a maximum of 8mm.

 

As regards the Schneider lens - it's a different league and is priced accordingly. You should

expect superior results from a lens that cost 3x as much.

Jonathon:

 

I have a mint condition Kodak 645M that I've had a lot of success with on my Mamiya 645AFD outfit. I now shoot with a couple of D2X's which are certainly more flexible but ultimately I still find the quality of the Kodak images to be superior to that of the D2X, especially if you use PhotoDesk or Kodak Capture with looks. Colour and immense resolution jump out from images and I always find that they require less work straight out of the camera compared to smaller DSLR platforms.

 

You're probably aware of the issues relating to the 645 backs - primarily the problem of fried firewire/external power connections which require a new motherboard (I had another back that had this happen and it was a $2800 fix!). One thing also to watch out for is making sure that you have the correct focussing screen for the body too - the back has a 37mm square sensor and the focus screen shows this correct framing for the back in square & 3:2 modes. These are impossible to find but I am aware of at least one source of an after market screen drop in.

 

I always shoot at base ISO. This is an area where a 1Ds or D2x is superior although at ISO 100 and properly exposed the images are essentially noiseless.

 

I can give you lot's more practical information about using the back if you would like. I've had four years of success with mine (2 of them) and really it's only the limited wide angle support of the 645AF platform and greater flexibility of the D2x and Nikon platform that have made me change.

 

If you are serious about wanting a well cared for back, mine is currently on consignment at $4k, great condition, no dead pixels etc, no firewire/power problem, spare IR filter & 645AFD focus screens and loads of batteries/power stuff. 12500 actuations. PM me if you are in the US and have interest ... (apologies - this wasn't meant as a sales troll btw)

The film holders are not interchangeable between models - you'll need the 645AF/AFD roll holders. You can pre-load roll holders (in fact they come with a storage box to hold the holder with film if you want) and then load them as necessary. You don't need multiple film backs to do this and I've never found them to be sensitive to different holders (unless badly worn).

 

As regards the focussing screen - the standard AF screen isn't optimized for MF focussing, although it's not a problem to do. If you use the focus screen with split center you can still leave it in place when using AF. It won't affect operation at all although it might be a little distracting. I certainly wouldn't bother changing them over unless strictly necessary as you'll just end up wearing the clip and introduce dust.

Could someone share the more extensive list of differences/improvements between the AFD

II and AFD? I currently have an AFD but I'd like to find out whether I'd gain very much by

upgrading the body to an AFD II or not. The AFD is used with a Kodak 645M - I assume ht

enew camera is backward compatible with MSC?

 

Thanks

As mentioned, the 150/3.5 is probably the best choice although you could also go with a different approach using the 105-210 zoom. Quality is excellent at the cost of an f-stop vs.150.

I have a 645AFD that's just gone back to Mamiya for a failed shutter - my camera folks

charge $425. For the AFD is was a close choice on whether to have it fixed or just get another

one (not new).

Two days asking the same question doesn't seem like being blacklisted to me.

 

If you want to compare the weights and sizes of the various viewfinders you only need to

go to www.mamiya.com and it's all there.

I have the 645AFD & Kodak DCS 645M and I'm extremely pleased with the quality of the

results that this combo produces. However, you are quite correct about the lens 'feel' of

the AF lenses. I have an almost full set but primarily use 35, 55-110, 120, 105-210 and

300 AF lenses and whilst their performance is excellent the manual focus rings can lack

that silky smooth feel that you get used to with traditional lenses. The 45, 55, 80 and

300mm are really nasty in this respect, The 120 macro is excellent (it's manual anyway).

The 35 and zooms are ok but definitely not as nice as the older 645MF lenses. AF is ok

when you need it but this is MF technology and you'll find it hunts in moderately low light.

The 300 is a great lens optically but has poor AF performance combined with a limp

manual focus ring.

 

Great lenses optically but the shorter primes are pretty plastiky. The 120 is superb in all

ways and should have been the model for the rest of the lenses. The zooms/35 are much

better built that the primes. I don't have the 150/210 to compare though.

 

You can use the Mamiya MF lenses on this camera too although only in stop down mode

which I found too limiting for my use so I went with the AF lenses.

 

The 645AFD eats batteries. I also find that I have to be very careful with light entering the

view finder and affecting metering - not too much of a problem once you're aware of it.

One aspect I don't like is that if you use AF and then decide to mirror lock then the camera

won't shoot - there's no AF lock so you need to shift to MF which isn't a problem but can

be a little annoying.

 

 

It's an excellent performing system. If I were buying again though I'd probably go for the

Contax for it's more robust feel and give up the zooms for fewer primes. The Contax feels

a lot more solid and the lens feel is more traditional and silky smooth. For lenses it's $$ vs

$$$$.

 

p.s. I'm still looking for the really cheap Mamiya 645AF stuff you allude to - cheaper than

Hassy/Zeiss maybe but hardly 'cheap'.

Has this just fallen off of Mamiya's radar?? I haven't heard anything about this lens for

ages. Is it dead?

Here's my perspective as an owner of both the XPan and Mamiya 7II systems:

 

If you just want a pure panoramic camera then the XPan is ideal and the

viewfinder really assists in accurately composing a wide image. Secondly, the

double width 35mm images are extremely sharp since the XPan's Fuji lenses

are, for all intents, medium format level glass. The convenience of the XPan's

size, even with the 30mm/viewfinder, is a real advantage over other larger

panoramic cameras. Build quality is excellent and the camera holds up to

travel knocks very well - the paint does fall off the edges after a while.

 

Downsides? If you don't scan your own images and print them then you'll find

the running costs of the XPan to be horrendous. There are very few labs that

will process/print films or mount panoramic slides. If you can scan the images

then you'll find total ownership costs to be very low since you can get film

processed and delivered un-cut. Scanning XPan images requires either a

decent flat-bed such as the Epson Photo 2450 or a medium format scanner (I

use a Minolta Scan Multi-Pro). The best value for money film scanner is the

HP S20 if you want to scan panoramics. Otherwise, you'll have to scan

panoramics in 2 halves and join them digitally - I've done this, it's a real pain.

 

M7II: It's a 6x7 medium format camera that is extremely portable and very

useable in the field. I enjoy the full size medium format slides that it produces

and the 43mm lens is outstanding. With 6x7 the process/print issues are

identical to the XPan - it's MUCH cheaper if you are able to scan/print. The

Mamiya doesn't feel as 'solid' as the XPan although that's really due to the

different materials used - i.e. titanium vs, poly-carbonate. The same is true for

the lenses as well.

 

Portability: I find that my XPan with 30/45/90 lenses can be quite heavy after a

while compared to the Mamiya with 43 & 80mm lenses. Compared to my

DSLR kit though, either of these outfits is a feather-weight - there's not a lot in

it. Mamiya lenses are definitely seem lighter than those of the XPan.

 

Conclusion: If you just want panoramic, go with the XPan. If you want medium

a portable medium format camera that can also produce panoramics then go

Mamiya. I wouldn't bother with the Mamiya 7II panoramic adaptor unless you

want to shoot 35mm - imho the worst of both worlds since you're getting XPan

image size without the benefits of a decent panoramic viewfinder.

As a D1X owner I'm very interested in the 12-24mm lens but a couple of

things prevent me from wanting to rush out and move to this range:

 

1) F4 - since we are targetting prime cameras why not a F2.8 or better??

2) Loss of the manual F-Stop ring on the G series lens. I hate this - I always

use the manual stop ring on my lenses so this is a pain.

 

Personally I agree that the 'full frame' holy grail is somewhat bogus for purely

digital shooters - it's almost irrational but as betamax vs. VHS has proven in

the past sometimes the more 'popular' view sets the standards. I think that

Nikon will HAVE to come out with full frame DSLR to compete for new digital

converts.

 

One other thing: Why don't Nikon publish the fact that the D1X will shoot

10Mpixels? With Nikon Capture and now most of the 3rd party image capture

utilities my D1X produces 10m pixel raw images.

 

Graham Welland