derek_stanton2

Alex,

1. The word is "bokeh."

 

2. I'm curious about why you'd choose to use a 'wide-angle' lens to shoot model portraits. Of course, it can be done, but the general practice is to use longer than 'normal' focal lengths in order to avoid distortion, especially of facial features. Are we talking about female models? It would be especially difficult to use a 35 with women, especially if you're talking about close-ups. To minimize distortion, though, try to keep your camera focus plane parallel with the model's face...

 

3. You're comparing bokeh of a wide angle lens with that of a medium telephoto. The 135 will more easily give you out of focus backgrounds. With the 35mm, you really will have to be shooting pretty wide-open. There really is no comparison of bokeh between these lenses. With a 35mm, your background will have to be significantly further away from the subject.

 

4. I don't have the 35 1.4. I did recently buy the 35 f2. It does, though, have nice bokeh, but that was countered by significant flare when i shot backlit subjects outside. I don't consider it problematic, as i knew i'd get Some flare.... The 35mm f2 is pretty sharp, as i recently shot a 'cat portrait' indoors, against seamless, with a D60. Sharp.

 

5. If you really want to shoot model portraits, but don't have a lot of room, my first choice would be an 85mm 1.8, on a film camera. If you have a digital with a 1.6x crop factor, the 50mm 1.4 would be great, as well. If you have more room, longer primes or the excellent zooms (70-200 2.8 or 4L, or a Sigma 70-200 2.8) would give you more 'compression effect.'

 

6. Your English ain't bad. Where are you from?

Andy,

Thanks for the comparisons. But, when are you planning to take down those Christmas lights?

The 50mm 1.8 CAN do bokeh 'well,' but not consistently. Depends on the circumstances and exposure settings. The 50mm 1.4 is really very good in that respect. I've read that Canon has been trying to imitate Leica bokeh. Although i don't know that this is true, the 1.4 reminds me of the Leica M's 50mm Summilux.

 

And, no, although I had previously believed that bokeh characteristics are primarily determined by the number of aperture blades, I'm finding that not to be entirely accurate. I've felt for a while that one of the best lenses for bokeh is the Rolleiflex TLR's 2.8 Planar - witness Avedon's work out of studio. But, the Rolleis have only 5 blades. As do the Hasselblad 80mm lenses, which usually don't do bokeh the way I like it....

 

There is also the factor relative to the shape of the blades themselves. Apparently, some lenses with (relatively) few blades have CURVED aperture blades, which helps to smooth things out somehow....

 

Sorry. Got carried away. Can you tell i'm obsessed with this subject? I could give you a list of all the lenses with 'great' bokeh.... but you only asked one simple question, right? Sorry. Canon 1.4 is much better.

In general, my answer to your question would be, "No." But, a while back, I stumbled upon some images by a wonderful photographer named Adam Jahiel (http://www.adamjahiel.com). This stuff, shot with a Mamiya 6 (sorry, not Leica), is what convinced me to buy that camera, and go back to Tri-X, after an 'experimental' period with a D60.

 

So, I suppose the best answer would be: "depends."

Victor, the shadow area on the left side of the UFO was caused by the mothership hovering just above the ship captured in this frame. I meant to shoot all six spacecraft in formation, but my rangefinder's framelines just aren't as accurate as i'd like....

It was a commonly held sentiment that photography, in its infancy, was mimicking painting, which had an inherently "deeper emotional essence."

 

I would have thought we would have learned and grown a bit since then.

http://www.photo.net/photo/1093017

I also love the look of Scala slides, but i've not yet had any manner of success with scanning them myself. I tend to get 'lines' and such in the files, when i'm trying to draw detail out of some shadow areas or an underexposed frame. Also, that beautiful silveryness just doesn't translate into a digital file. I've read, though, that the former issue is largely dependent upon the scanner used. Anyone have a recommendation there?

 

I've not yet had prints made from Scala. But, i would suggest using a process that doesn't give you colour tints.

 

Please follow up and let us know the 'secrets.'

Yah, i don't agree with the implied "heirarchy," with Leica at the top of the

heap. Leicas are extremely well-built tools, but there are alternatives.

 

I've owned a G2 for about a year. I liked it, but never did exploit its potential,

as i seem to always be too involved with too many other cameras. Recently,

though, after digital, i'd been toying with the idea of getting back into film, and

thought seriously about buying a Leica. But, having played with a few in the

stores, I've realized that focusing any of the M-series just wasn't working for

me. It's not a rangefinder problem, though. Just the Leica (and Konica) RFs

weren't working with me.

 

Conversely, i really did feel comfortable with the Bessa R2's finder. And, it

works with Leica glass, which would be my only reason for considering any of

those cameras. I'm not going to get into the discussion about who's glass is

"better," but from my bit of research and observation, i feel comfortable in

saying that i really like the Leica bokeh, far and above that of any other brand.

 

I believe i will eventually buy a Leica, but not until i can get one with aperture

priority. If Voigtlander comes out with one before the prices on an M7 come

down, i'll consider it. I'm not a devotee of the camera-as-brick philosophy, as i

don't abuse my stuff, and rarely (never) shoot in wartime conditions....

 

So, in the meantime, i've recently bought an altogether different RF system - a

Mamiya 6MF. It's entirely comfortable, relatively small, quiet, has ApPriority,

and excellent lenses. I may love the 120 negs so much that it will be difficult to

go 'back' to 35mm film, even if i were given an M7.

 

So. The bottom line is for you to decide WHY you consider the Leica the

crown. If it's for the qualitative characteristics of the glass, you can buy a

camera that's compatible with the lenses. If it's just the RF form factor, you

have many choices (CL, Konica, Bessa, Contax, and in MF, Mamiya, Fuji...).

$1300? Well, i just bought a Mamiya 6MF YESTERDAY, with the 75mm, and

paid about $1500US, from Adorama in NYC.

 

Over the last month or so, i had thought i would be buying a Leica or Contax

G2, but in reviewing the images (by other photographers) that most inspired

me, i found that the added neg size was a critical factor. So far, i really like the

camera. The simplicity of it is a marked change from the EOS3, D60, and

Mamiya 645AF i've been using lately.

 

I can't really answer many of your questions regarding framing and such, as

i'm just now shooting my first "test" roll, but all preliminary indications are

Positive. I will be adding the 50mm lens in short order, and i'll skip the 150, as

i've read a lot about how difficult it is to focus. I'll rely on the 645 or 35mm for

more demanding close-up work.

 

There are a lot of reviews of the 6 online. I probably read them all 3 times

before making the jump. Yes, read the Rockwell review, but also there are a

number of reviews on www.photographyreview.com. And, of course, there's

quite a bit of discussion here on photo.net.

 

Good luck.

In addition to the Awful shutter lag on the G2 (and the

accompanying LCD 'freeze'), you will need to take a LOT of

redundant images just to ensure your subject is In Focus. The

LCD screen is not large enough or high-resolving enough to

really show you if your subject is in critical focus. Sometimes,

your focus will "just miss," but you won't know anything's wrong

until you view the images on the monitor.

 

Also, make sure that you are shooting with enough depth of field

to get all of your subjects within the plane of focus. And, whatever

shooting mode you use, be sure that you monitor your shutter

speeds, even if you use a tripod.

 

Yes, i would agree that using an SLR would be a better option for

this type of project. Not that the G2 can't do the job, but it does

present additional challenges.

Ray,

"Attack?" I thought i was being defensive. Defending the idea that

anyone can be a Real Photographer, with Any piece of

equipment. It just so happens that Leica is the only brand for

which 'elitists' include the brand name when defining the person.

A "Real LEICA Photographer."

 

I also don't believe i mentioned "cost" as a factor.

 

My comments were not exclusive to THIS board. My comment

with regards to that was: "each time i come to A Leica board." I

really was discussing the sum of experiences in this forum, the

one on Leica's website, photographyreview.com, some other(s),

and conversations with dealers, users, etc. I certainly have no

issues with anyone believing strongly in their choices of

equipment. I may or may not like the way in which certain people

advance./present those sentiments, though. But, i guess that will

continue to be MY problem.

You can (sort of) get the best of both worlds if you do buy the

digital SLR. I've been shooting with a D60 since its release, and

i now dread the idea of shooting film and dealing with the issues

of scanning, retouching, spotting film, etc.

 

I'd buy the d-cam, and then if you do need top quality scans for

possible film work later on, send the film out for drum scans. At

about $30 each, unless you're likely to have large quantities of

them to do, you may not feel the occasional, incremental pinch

as much as if putting down a grand or more for the hardware to

do them yourself.

Thanks, Boon. You're correct, but, i furthered the

miscommunication by not realizing that the John who took

offense was not the one to which i was responding.

 

So, to Mr. Abela, nothing in my posts was directed to you. I was

responding to (my interpretation of) a subsequent post.

To clarify:

1. My post was strictly relative to what i perceived to be YOUR

condescension. Correct me if i'm wrong, but were you not

implying that a Real Leica Photographer doesn't use an M7?

 

2. I sincerely asked for an explanation of why a great deal of

Leica "enthusiasts" sneer at the concept of Aperture Priority

shooting modes, versus using two arrows in a viewfinder to

direct the photographer toward 'appropriate' exposure. I would

sincerely like to understand how using the latter makes one a

better photographer.

 

3. I said, "what about the pictures." Pardon me if i wasn't clear. I

was not questioning your abilities as a photographer, since i

have never seen any of your work. I have no criticism of your

images, constructive or otherwise. There was none in my earlier

message. This particular comment was intended to represent

my feeling that characterizing a photographer should be based

on the images that result, and not because of the brand of

instrument that is used.

 

4. Am i the snob? Can't see how that conclusion is logical. The

last sentence of #3 should illustrate that i don't hold any

allegiances to brands, nor do i feel there's any (added) nobility in

the use of the so-called Premier brands. My questions were, in

fact, in defense of those you SEEMED to impune in your post.

 

5. No, i am no Godlike Leica photographer. I do not (yet?) use

Leica cameras. I'm here to research reasons for possibly buying

into the system. But, each time i come to a Leica board, i find a

lot of pompous, arrogant proselytizing, and each time i have to

re-examine my potential desire to join such a group. Am i the

snob? Still don't see how. I don't want a Leica because of the red

badge, or to represent myself in any particular way. I just want a

compact camera which is capable of aesthetic results that

match my particular standards.

 

6. Yah, it has a few (more) automatic features. But, can't the

camera be still used in manual mode? So, now, to be more

comprehensively accurate, wouldn't one have to not only

determine which M was being used, but also in which mode - in

order to determine the status of the photographer? It's this kind

of judgementalism that leaves me flummoxed. But, if you're not

part of that, you shouldn't be offended. I didn't use any names,

and i didn't "call anyone out." I did, though, ask for clarification, as

i just don't understand the pontificating.

 

If i went to far in saying that i felt disgusted by comments i have

read recently, and in the past, i apologize. But, i was reacting to

your comments, which i first found offensive. So, in defense of

the Other Guy who uses an M7 and feels he, too, is indeed a

Real Leica Photographer....

 

Peace.

The Leica Digilux 1 and Panasonic LC5 are both very quick and

responsive. However, i owned both, and returned them due to

the very widely reported problems with image posterization.

 

However, there are (seemingly) a good number of people who

are happy with these cameras and either do not

see/notice/acknowledge/admit any image problems. And, if you

really only want to make 4x6 or 5x7 inch prints, this issue may

not be of any significant consequence. I suggest you read a lot of

the posts on www.dpreview.com - the Forum entitled Other

Digicams....

 

As for other solutions? The new Canon G3 may be better than

the current G2, which i owned and was horrible in that respect.

Great image quality, but bad lag. I'm hoping the G3 will be

improved. Also, the Contax TVS digital has been announced at

Photokina last month. Hasn't yet been reviewed, though. Really,

check dpreview, steves-digicams.com and imaging resource

online for loads more info.

Tim,

I hope this question is not found to be offensive....

 

But, you say, "The Leicas have a wonderful 'something' about

them which is impossible to define or quantify. The G2 certainly

doesnt have it; however, i USE the G2 and it takes beautifully

sharp pictures."

 

If the Leica's "magic" were of a significant value, why to you

"USE" the G2? Aren't you concerned about missing that certain

'something?' I would have thought that the reason for having

either of these systems is because you/we believe strongly in

the pursuit of some manner of magic that superiour optics can

capture. But, if you have both systems and have firsthand

experience with the differences, why would you use the 'inferiour'

system the majority of the time? Is it because the Leica is a less

'friendly' camera and that the G2's convenience outweighs the

Leica specialness?

 

I had a (black) G2 system, and rather liked it. But, i never found

any magic in it. It certainly looked and felt beautiful, but i sold it

when i got into digital with a D60. Now, i regret not having a more

'carryable' system, and i'm looking (back) to rangefinders.

 

Thanks for your (or anyone else's) further comment.

I trust you've already gleaned a working definition of the word.

Definining it in terms of good/bad, however, is another thing.

Good and bad bokeh is, certainly, a subjective matter. Speaking

as a non-Leica user (not yet), i'd have to say that i believe the

most beautiful examples of bokeh are found in Richard Avedon's

classic old b+w work with a Rollei TLR. I LOVE how the out of

focus, blown out highlights wrap around and halo objects in the

background.... Kind of 'ghosts-away' faces and whatnot...

 

I find it amazing to read responses that discount the out of focus

areas of photographs. You buy lenses only for the

sharpness/contrast as reflected in the critical focus areas of your

images? Unless you shoot only closeups, or shoot everything at

f8 or smaller with retrofocal lenses, isn't the majority of your

image going to be out of focus to some degree or another? You

honestly believe those areas not to be of importance?

 

Personally, i love shallow depth of field. But, i don't really shoot a

lot of landscapes and such. So, it really does depend on your

subject matter how important bokeh will be to you. And, yes,

perhaps you have been shooting for a hundred years and only

recently heard of the word. It was new to me, too, a few years

ago. But, that doesn't mean that the effect or the importance of

the affect is new or insignificant.<div></div>

Thanks, Paul. Very nice site, and inspiring images.

 

I generally abhor colour, but i love yours. Has a very vintage,

timeless feel to it, which i don't know if i should attribute to the

'cheap' scanner(?).... Either way, i'm feeling like i should start

shooting colour film again.

 

I've been shooting a D60 lately, and loving the instant feedback,

but i'm also contemplating a(-nother) compact/rangefinder

system. Thanks for adding to my confusion :-)

 

I think i know what you mean about your D30 making you a

"dumber photographer," but would you expound on that a bit?

 

Any other pix i could see?

If one is only a "Leica Photographer" based on the particular

model of camera used and NOT the actual images captured....

well, that doesn't do much to negate the negative stereotypes of

you folks, does it?

 

Kind of like the Ferrari owner who doesn't know what an Apex is

or how to negotiate it....

 

Perhaps someone can explain to me how it's a more noble

achievement to accomplish accurate exposure by "making the

arrows go away" versus choosing an aperture toward a specific

DOF goal.... By extension, i guess one is only a 'real

photographer' if one grounds his own glass, constructs his own

box, coats his own emulsion.

 

Seems the Leica 'snob' label is well deserved in too many

cases. And, now it's even applicable within your own ranks. Kind

of disgusting, if you ask me, to think that some of you believe you

belong to some kind of worthwhile club because of the brand of

metal and glass you use. What about the PICTURES?

Thank you for the information. I'm encouraged to hear about the

M-mount. I'm just hoping now that the viewfinder is as good as

an M6/7. I recently tried a Hexar and was disappointed to find that

i couldn't focus it as well as a used M6. I thought it was

supposed to be the other way 'round.

 

Where did you come to find this information? Any links you could

post? Do you know if it will be available in black, as well?

 

I'm still curious about the three lenses they're making. Why? And,

since the switch on the top apparently correlates to those focal

lengths, how will the rangefinder/guidelines react with a 35mm

or 28mm lens? My ideal situation would be 35mm, 50, and

90-ish, so it seems the 35RF will not be ideal for me....

 

Regards,

Has anyone seen/heard about the upcoming release of a new

Rollei 35mm rangefinder? The Rollei 35RF

(http://www.k-repair.net/topic/topic_rollei6000AF.html)....

 

I was initially very happy to see such a thing, but upon noting

focal lengths of the accompanying lenses, i'm perplexed. Seems

they're starting with three lenses: 40mm, 50mm, and 80mm.

What? That doesn't seem to give one much variation in range. If

we are to consider the 50mm 'normal,' the 40 then doesn't seem

wide enough to be wideangle, nor does the 80mm seem to be

long enough for a reasonable telephoto/portrait lens.

 

What gives? Does anyone know if if the mount makes this

camera compatible with another camera's range of lenses?

Unless this is the case, i can't see why anyone would want to

own one.

Information about the G3 has been "leaked," and links to

pictures were posted on dpreview.com. Doesn't look too

promising, at least, not as a 'significant' upgrade. Plus, it's pretty

darn ugly.

 

It's now got a 4x zoom. If they've fixed the shutter delay issue, it

should still be a very nice camera, even if its aethetics are none

too pleasing.

You disparage a camera because it, on the surface, is too

complex for you to come to grips with?

 

The thing is, my D60 is easier to use than any other camera i've

used, because it's Idiot Proof. I know, a second after exposure, if

i've done anything wrong. And, once you know certain basics, it's

as simple a camera as you want it to be. The power is in being

able to choose how many of the functions you want to use.

 

Obviously, you typed your initial post on a computer. That

computer is capable of doing more things than you could ever

comprehend. But, you've isolated your use to only the things you

need in order to accomplish a given task. Same thing with

D-Cams.

 

And, it's pure folly to assert that the simpler the camera, the more

creative the operator or the results. Creative? I've yet to ever see

a 'creative' rangefinder user. RFs are 'traditional' tools, used by

traditional people, in traditional ways. Where's the revolution

there?

 

Then, you go to reliability. Well, i've owned three different MF

systems. Canon 35mm film and digital bodies, Contax G2

system, Rollei TLR, Contax T2 and T3.... and i've never had a

reliability issue with ANY of them. What are you doing with your

cameras?

 

If the issue at hand really is an inability to concentrate on more

than one thing at a time, perhaps the blame is misplaced here.

 

If I want to laugh, i read the sanctimonious preachings of

shallow-minded Leica owners. I came here because i was

interested in buying an M7. I'm not so sure now that i want to join

that club.