derek_stanton2

Don't take this as an endorsement or anything, but i did find it quite 'cool' to discover

that the 6008AF has a focus confirmation LED when using the non-AF Rollei lenses.

So, while you're not required to use only the AF lenses, you will always have use of

the AF sensor.

There are a few versions, i think. The post-war version is supposedly the coated

version. I had one for roughly a month, but sold it as i didn't feel it was significantly

better/different from my current 50mm Summilux.

Here are a few links:

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/tstar/sonnar/indexe.htm

http://www.davidde.com/zeisscopies.html

http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Lens-

LSM.html~mainFrame

The lens has its aperture ring on the front end, closest to the front element. It is

continuously variable (no click-stops). I think it only was made in chrome. If you find

one, have it inspected for haze.

The Rollei is the only one at present. I don't expect Hasselblad or Bronica to get into

that contest.

Ray,

It wasn't intended to be a backhanded compliment. I was trying to present an

objective assessment. Although the camera didn't operate in a manner consistent

with my expectations, it still works wonderfully for people who have accepted it for

what it is. I was wrong to have made certain assumptions about compact digitals, but

that was when i knew very little about compact digitals. It was my 'ignorance' that

resulted in the 'disappointment.' Now, if i do buy a little digital, i'll know not to try to

make it work like a film camera.

I can vouch for Anthony. Only one transaction, but a happy one. I'm also fond of Poon

at hksupplies.com.

If you want to minimize your risk a little, make the transaction in three separate

deals. Wait until you have the first package before ordering the second, and so-forth.

You won't have all your gear at once, but $1600 at a time is a smaller pill to swallow.

But, really, i wouldn't hesitate to make deals with either of these two people. And,

yes, a check of ebay ratings is always a good idea. But, don't just look at the number

of positive responses. Actually click on the item numbers to make sure that the

vendor is not inflating his numbers with small, insignificant transactions. I rememer

seeing an ebayer with hundreds of sales/purchases of items under $5, but he was

then 'selling' some big-ticket items....

Am i missing something here, as well? I can't find Michael's pictures either....

I already felt inadequate. I don't need this, too!

Wow. "Spice" or vitriol?

The thing is, regardless of all the tech rhetoric, measurements relative to shutter lag,

and mantric repetition of the phrase "decisive moment," i still have seen a lot of very

nice photographs made with compact digitals and a lot of garbage images made with

expensive Leicas. Personally, i've done both.

While i was frustrated by what i perceived to be shutter lag with the G2 i used to own,

i am also frustrated by rangefinder patch with the M7. While i love selective focus

capability with a real 50mm 1.4 lens, i also loved KNOWING i actually shot the picture

i thought i was shooting, well before the day that i could return back to my native

country and process the film. So, what's the point?

How does a digital catch flak simply because it isn't a film-based rangefinder? We

aren't critical of the rangefinder because it can't shoot with a 400mm lens at 8fps.

Any camera or camera system has limitations. Simply because it may not perform the

way an individual is accustomed to using a camera does not invalidate it. Although i

sold the G2 because it wouldn't make the kind of images i wanted to make with it, i

still acknowledge that it's just as valuable a tool as any camera i still have, in the

hands of someone who can use it as it's meant to be used.

Thanks, Roger, for an interesting set of dialogues. I can't wait to see the actual

PICTURES, instead of reading this swordfight. I'm sure i'll be objective enough to form

opinions about what images are captured despite my personal preferences in my own

practices and pictures.

Largest: 203FE

A bit smaller: Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar

Smaller (?): Contax N1

Definitely smaller still: Leica

Smallest: Contax T3.

Keeps you in the Zeiss family, except for the rangefinder. Have you considered the

Contax G2? Amazing lenses, and quick operation.

1. I read somewhere a couple of months ago that Canon may be introducing an

updated EOS3 this fall, to coincide with a digital EOS3-like body. That may all be

purely speculative, or even pure jive, but if you can hold on for a month or two, we

may know more.

2. You should check the luminous landscape article that compares the Canon 28-

70 2.8L with the new 24-70 2.8L. Not just for the zoom comparison, but because the

50mm 1.4 is inserted into the equation. You can judge for yourself whether or not

primes have an advantage for you. I have the 28-70 2.8L and thought it was amazing,

but i have since gone primarily to primes, although it's Contax N glass now. I would

highly recommend the 50mm 1.4, and prefer its bokeh at most apertures to that of

the 1.8. If bokeh's not important to you, you can save some dollars with the latter

lens, but be aware that the construction is not 'pro-level.' Someone on the

dpreview.com site said that it sometimes feels "as if it might squirt water..." As well,

the manual focus ring is not as nicely implemented, and the lens 'squeaks' rather than

'whirrs' as it focuses. But, still, it's a pretty sharp lens. Maybe not Summicron level, as

the 1.4 version may be, but closer to Summilux?

Have you considered using Leica R lenses on an EOS via an adapter? I know the issue

is with focus problems, hence the AF solution, but does anyone know if manual focus

lenses on an EOS will trigger the Focus Confirmation LED?

Leica lens magic.... I've read that Canon lens designers have strived to 'emulate' Leica

bokeh. I don't know if that's true, but i believe the results with primes are similar -

moreso than with Nikon. If, by magic you mean bokeh, you'll probably find that most

good zooms will give you that. The 28-70 is beautiful in that regard. Same for almost

any 70-200. But, then you have to weigh the zoom vs prime issues.

Either of the Canon 70-200 2.8L zooms are highly regarded. You could save some

dough, though, with the Sigma 2.8, which i had. It was equal to the 28-70 2.8L lens

in sharpness at 70mm. For critical work, though, i'd recommend either of the 85mm

lenses, or either of the 100s (macro or standard). As well, if the issue of weight is of

importance, the L zooms are rather large/heavy. You'll have to balance the concern of

whether you can effectively work with one prime, or if you'd need to carry a bag of

different focal lengths....

I don't know which range of lenses (Leica vs Canon) is sharper. You could assess them

all by the MTF charts, but that's not a 'real world' scenario. Unless you shot everything

on a tripod, you'd probably lose those minute differences in sharpness between

brands. As well, not every lens from any manufacturer is a top performer.

Have you considered getting a 10D instead of EOS3? Canon digital SLRs are really

quite amazing. And, it would eliminate the chance of poor processing, and/or poor

scanning. The only real drawback is the conversion factor, which also gives you a

smaller viewfinder. But, you get immediate feedback, and the chance to correct all

your 'errors' on the spot.... THAT, to me, is invaluable; the reason pros shoot

Polaroids. You KNOW if you got the shot.

Frankly, the constant disparaging of a camera type with the label "point&shoot" is

rather ridiculous. A G5, or whatever compact digital is being discussed, is a "camera."

It captures images, just like any film camera. It has certain limitations, namely the

depth of field issue, but Leicas have limitations. None of us here would cast aside a

Leica because it can't do macro or long telephoto or rapid-fire sequences, or spot

metering.... You use it in the way that the camera allows, and that is all. Regarding

the depth of field issue, there are a great many Leica/film photographers who DON'T

utilize shallow depth of field, and yet their work is 'accepted.' You can, effectively, use

a G5 the same way.

The value of a tool is in the way it's used. Personally, i don't find a greater nobility in

a "grab shot" snapped with a Leica versus a carefully composed and considered digital

image with the camera set to "auto-everything." Effort is one thing, and chance/luck

is another. In the end, what difference does it make? The end result, and the

enjoyment derived toward that end are what matter.

If you don't find a compact digital to be a 'valid' instrument, then don't use one. But,

why, essentially, chastise others for using them? Clearly, in this forum, they're not

being used as a shortcut. No one is 'cheating.' A photographer is a photographer,

regardless. G5, 1Ds, MP, Sinar, Rolleiflex, Holga, pinhole, whatever.

While it isn't street photography, Nana Sousa Dias has an interesting folder of

portraits in this site's gallery. Some were made with medium format (Pentax 67, 645),

some with Canon 35mm film. Some with a "point and shoot" Fuji digital. I would

suggest that NONE of these images are "point and shoot" photographs. Just

photographs.

All of these rants about 100-page manuals and pages and pages of LCD menus are

rather amusing. ALL of these digicams are remarkably easy to use. No one need

memorize a 'phone book' as they are sometimes called. The menus on every digital

i've ever touched have been pretty intuitive, without referring to a manual. And, 95%

of the functions need not be fussed with after setting them once. Even on the D60 i

had, the only menu function i ever changed was ISO speed. Batteries? No one

complains about cell phones.

I thought Leica-users were supposed to be more educated/intelligent than the rest....

But, i keep reading that anything with more than two dials, two arrows and a dot is

overly complex. Clearly, we're all using computers here.

Okay, now here's the obligatory smileycon thingy, to keep this 'light,' and to protect

me from retaliation...

:-)

Thanks, Marc. The results should prove to be interesting. Fodder for some intense

debate, i'm sure.

I'm hoping to gain some insight into what i should be considering regarding an

impending digicam purchase. Although i was terribly disappointed in the G2's

inability to effectively control depth of field, i now know to evaluate compact digicams

with different criteria. I'm now trying to decide whether i should buy a 'serious'

compact digital like the TVS or just get something smaller and cheaper, like the

Konica KD-510z. Have you seen the sample images from the 500? The pix on steves-

digicams.com look rather noiseless and smooth relative to any of the others,

including the Contax and Canon. I was surprised at this, since no one ever mentions

this camera, and it is the smallest in the 5.0MP range.

Marc, do you have any posted TVS B+W pix? I'm almost hoping they AREN'T so good,

since i just bought a T3. I don't know how i'd justify having both....

Thanks, all.

I'm a bit confused by this. What criteria will be used to decide 'superiority?' Are we

trying to see if the G5's 'sharpness' matches that of Leitz? Who can come up with the

'best' image, regardless of media?

I have a feeling the choice for me will be simple. Unless all the Leica shots are made

at f11 and smaller, i'm likely to favour shots with shallow depth of field/selective

focus. That's the primary reason i sold a G2 last year and went back to shooting Tri-

X. Although i'm contemplating now a Konica KD-510z, it'll only be for extremely

casual picture opportunities, when i've conceded the idea of doing anything 'artistic.'

I'm certainly not challenging the Canon G5. I've seen great images by talented

photographers made with compact digicams; many times those photographers would

shame Leica purists.... But, are we trying to prove that 'real photography' can be

accomplished with small digital cameras? Who's doubting that?

Manfrotto (Bogen) Digi.

I believe there are now two versions, the original with the ball head and a new one

with a standard pan head. I bought the former, to supplement a larger, heavier

Bembo. It's great, and i prefer using it versus the Bembo. It's smaller and lighter than

the Carbon Fiber pods. I bought it specifically for travel, and use it with a Contax SLR,

Leica M, and Hasselblad (although so far only with the small Hassy 80mm).

I highly recommend it, and i did compare it to the Velbon Chaser.

The general 'rule' with the carry-on X-ray machines is that they expect you to subject

the film to the machine's processes unless it is 'High Speed' film. I think the criteria

for speed varies from airport to airport or nation to nation, but no one will consider

100 ISO film vulnerable to the machines. But, i always request hand-inspection, even

though i'm generally transporting TriX and PlusX. If they initially deny me because it's

not rated above 1000 or somesuch, i sometimes tell them that i'm shooting it at

1600.... Even when they don't really understand that, they usually concede. That, and

i tell them it's for professional purposes and i cannot take the risk of a loss of value,

or i tell them that the machines have a cumulative effect and i've already been

through three airports.... Whatever. I've only been denied once, and then i only had to

ask the security supervisor, who then waved me through.

I would also advise keeping all the film in a lead-lined bag, in case you don't feel like

dealing with various language issues or are refused because of the ISO rating

specifications.

Regarding trying to buy 120 film during your travels -- i wouldn't recommend it,

unless you know specifically that that city has a respectable pro shop and that it will

be open to you at reasonable hours. Best advice: take what you need with you, and

process it as soon as possible.

What, exactly, is the official story about having the older M7 rangefinder replaced

with the new? Who does it? Where? At my expense? How much? My M7 was purchased

in November....

Has anyone here done this?

The comment about the Hasselblad really being a 6x45 camera is relative to

cropping. It's true, in a practical sense, that the 6x6 image will, by necessity, be

cropped to approximately the 645 proportions and size in order to fit standard

magazine publication pages. But, this is only true if you're shooting for magazine

publication. If you shoot CD covers, fine art, fine art books, or for exhibition, et al,

you can, of course, retain the full 6x6 square.

Don't know if i'm ambitious enough to try that myself. Perhaps i'll just sit back and

admire the results of others....

Your comprehensive instructions, though, are very much appreciated.

Nice work, Lawrence. I read recently of someone else who had duct-taped a

Rodenstock 6x6 loupe to some other component for the same purpose. I'm now

tempted to try it myself. Does the tape allow you to manipulate the 'focused' area? I'd

appreciate more information about how much of the lens cap you had to remove....

Did you just leave enough of it to maintain the security of the lens mount and give

you a surface for tape?

Also, (has this been mentioned?) a company called Zoerk makes an expensive lens

accessory that allows similar effects.

Thank you all.

Hi.

I just bought a 203FE and 80mm. I shot some 'portraits' in Brasil a couple of weeks

ago - my first images with a Hasselblad (the "2003 Folder" here on photo.net). The

minimum focus distance is a bit limiting, and i wanted to get closer, so i also bought

a Proxar 1 filter. I'm using the set-up for travel portraiture, and not 'beauty'

portraiture, so i'm not so concerned with compression effects and the like at this

point. If i were trying to 'flatter' the subjects more, i'd certainly want to be using a

longer lens. Eventually, i imagine i'll get a 180 or 150, but for now the 80 is very nice.

Avedon and Penn are my idols, so i'm content for the moment with emulating their

'simplicity.'

Although the standard reply regarding 'portrait lenses' is that you need something

equivalent to 85-135mm on a 35mm camera, it's worth noting that some of the best

beauty/fashion/portrait photographers use primarily 'normal' focal length lenses on

medium format and 35mm systems. If you look at the current issue of American

Photo, Tony Duran uses a 105mm (normal) almost exclusively on a Pentax 67. Same

for Sante D'Orazio in his books/editorial (magazine) work. And, Peter Lindberg with a

50mm on a Nikon. This is said just to emphasize the point that you need not spring

for the long glass unless YOU decide you want it. And, since we're talking about

medium format, you still get the same kind of bokeh you would get with a short

telephoto on a 35mm camera.

...+door.

[Venezia]<div></div>

I do get rangefinder patch flare. Maybe it's the structure of my face.... It's worsened

when trying to shoot verticals. Other than that, though, i have no issues with the M7.

Film loading isn't a problem, although i do favour a swing-back versus a bottom plate

loading process.... But, it's the nature of the beast, and not a matter for complaints, i

guess.... I haven't used an M3, though, so i can't speculate on whether or not you'll be

disappointed.....

Hi, Phyllis.

It's hard to tell how grainy the first image is, just from viewing a web file. But, it looks

pretty good, and consistent with what Tri-X is going to do.

You're shooting with a 'classic' lens on a 'classic' emulsion, and posting in the Leica

forum. I think you're going to get a better response from the image that looks like

what Leica photographers expect to see, rather than the filtered, NeatImage version.

If you don't want grain, you might as well just shoot digital. I think the audience here

is going to be more receptive to the old school approach and results.

By the way, how do you like the DR 50mm? Do you have a standard 50, as well? I

guess you're using the 50 with eyes, right? Do you find it convenient to 'switch-over'

between ranges? I've never used one, but think the added close-focusing range might

be nice, relative even to my current 50 'lux. I can go to .7m, but i've recently

'discovered' Ralph Gibson, soooo.....