victor_cruz1

<p>Very cool Josiah. Has an Ernst Haas feel to it.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16720812-lg.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p>Leica hasn't been the ultimate camera for more than 50 years. They are special though. I've owned a few and have also used among a bunch of others, Nikons and Canons. The one thing I can tell you is that once you become familiar with your Leica and shoot it consistently, it does become an incredibly personal tool. As one example, I was asked to do a location portrait for a friend, We walked around taking numerous shots with different backgrounds around the city. we came upon a scene and had him pose while I got in position. As soon as I snapped the shutter, I told him, that was the money shot. This was from a manual, no light meter, no SLR, non digital camera yet once I snapped the shutter, I knew the shot was perfect. If you've never owned one and have the money and time to use it consistently for some time, you might just get to understand the drool coming out the side of some Leica Forum members. I sold mine when I no longer had time to process and print photos and didn't want to spend $7K for a digital M. </p>

The elmar 2.8, as well as the summicron LTM (collapsible)are rare and can be pricey. And sorry Stephen if I left off the "f". I've used the summitar for years and don't have a problem wih it being collapsible.

Subhash,

 

this is a very nice nostalgic kit you are setting up. For small, you can't get any better (or smaller) than the elmar 3.5 LTM. If however, you need a faster lens, the summitar is a fine lens and collapses as well.

Ken, first thanks for responding to my earlier post regarding the r-d1. And thanks again for this link. appreciate seeing what a camera can do and how it compares to the shooting I do. I'm happy to see that there is indeed a digital camera that can be used the way I'm used to shooting with film.

Mark, like I said, "this is not breaking news" and I'm not a nature photographer, but if I was I don't think I'd use iso 50.

 

Derek, my point is iso 50 offers a wider range of exposure possibilities with the camera(s) I use, in bright daylight. And I'm not looking to add any in order to shoot wide open. Soon there will be just one film available at this speed for color transparencies. ISO 100 films are not hard to come by.

OK, this is not breaking news but, Fuji will soon replace Velvia 50

with new Velvia 100. Their press releases seem to imply that the new

film has finer grain and dramatic color than the 50. GREAT, but I

feel like I'm losing an f-stop of flexibility in bright sunlight

(1/1000 @f4 iso f2.8) so I'm not eagerly awaiting the old Velvia's

demise. What are your thoughts?

Sorry if I'm being little forward, but would anyone like to share pics of their equipment on a bear skin rug?

Francisco, my pleasure. Thanks for sharing. Gabriel, maybe its the euros, but I found everything sooo expensive. One more from the same farmer's market in Beaune.<div></div>

Can you believe the cost of fresh produce these days????

What day is it today?

I'd like to nominate Mr. Granovski for a hero icon.

blablablabla<div></div>

blabla<div></div>

blablabla<div></div>

I like film.

Summilux 35 on less than pristine CL shot with Velvia.<div></div>

Al, thanks as always. Minkey (as Ch. Ins. Clouseau would say), Is that another self portrait (a la Kaplan)? ...Noticed the hat

shadows, revisited.<div></div>

Room with a view. What 120 ($160) euro/night gets you these days.<div></div>

Oops, my bad.<div></div>

Biking around the Louvre.<div></div>

Got mine too, earlier this week. Not that I want to start a digi-film war either, but this could be because film rules!!!!! :p

7 is ok.