tom_duffy1

Kevin,

I particularly like the first and fourth. Good, full illumination in the shadows and good use of the vertical elements. Nice job!

Patrick,

for years I used a 21mm SuperAngulon f3.4 on my Leica M4. It vignets very nicely. I'm trying to think of the name of a Washington DC based PJ who used the lens extensively and published a lot of pictures taken with it on Kodachrome. I believe his name was Fred Maroon. If you can find any of his work I think you'll be impressed.

 

Take care,

Tom

3,500 USD???

WAY too expensive. 200 rolls of color film with processing and prints. 1,500 rolls of B&W. Think of the things you should do with that money...

 

Take care,

Tom

Mike's response actually says a lot about all this drooling over the "sharpest" optic.

 

I own a 50mm Summilux and a 35 ASPH Summicron. I like the pictures from the lux much better.

 

take care,

Tom

Thanks for the update, Alex. I'm thinking that my 35 Summicron ASPH would make a damn sharp 50mm equivalent and my 50mm Summilux would be a fantastic short portrait lens. Sounds like a it's an excellent first effort for a digital M.

Yeah, this is one of those "what ever happened to..." questions.

Jill displayed a tremendous talent.

 

I owned a copy of Circus Days, which I unfortunately lost years ago in a move. I always considered this to be one of the premier examples of 35mm Tri-x documentary photography. the photos themselves and the reproductions were excellent. I remember seeing her "firefighter" book in the store but never bought it - the reproduction quality was bad and ,probably based on the subject matter (running into buildings with the firefighters), many of the pictures incorporated overt and over powering flash. (She needed TTL :) ).

 

I, too, would be very interested in knowing what she's been up to since.

I'd have to hang on to my 8x10 (nothing like a contact print) but my M6TTL would be the second last to go.

If you can compare a traditional B&W silver print with your inkjet output and don't see a difference - then you are indeed not missing anything by adapting your "color slide workflow".

Sounds like your negatives were underexposed by at least 1 fstop. depends where you were pointing your camera's meter. When using a selective meter, such as the one in a M camera, I rate tri-x at ei 200.

Unlike slides, for B&W you have to expose for the shadows. try some exposure bracketing at indicated, indicated plus 1 fstop and indicated at plus 2 fstops. I think that's your problem, especially if you're shooting in bright sunlight.

take care,

Tom

I usually expose for the ambient light and dial in the full minus 3 setting on the SF20. sounds like a lot, I know, but gives a hint of fill in the eyes and shadow side of the face. just enough fill.

I don't agree Al. TTL allows you to dial in flash exposure compensation for any fstop at any ISO. the vivitar is limited to 3-4 fstop choices; f1.4 or f2 being out of the question if the flash is set to iso 400. try to adjust for minus compensation in sunlight and your upper iso is pratically around 100.

when the MP was introduced, I couldn't believe it didn't have TTL. they had to put in a circuit board for the meter anyway. I find TTL dialed in at minus 3 with a soft diffuser to be very useful, even outdoors. I consider the M6 TTL to be the best of the Leicas - primarily mechanical with just enough electronics.

I had the same issue when I used a 6x7 RZ. I frequently found myself shooting at f32. your 6x7 neg at f22 will most likely still be sharper than a 645 neg at f11.

BTW, the DOF problem is one of the reasons many dedicated landscape photographers use a view camera. Forward tilt on the front standard will often let you use a significantly larger fstop.

Alright, i've seen the error of my ways. this old dog can learn new tricks. so, how long do you leave this sensor chip thing in the Rodinal?

don't need to; I have my own darkroom :)

 

but seriously, I'm not talking about an image on a monitor, I'm talking about a hold-it-in-your-hands print...

I've handled the E-1 and it is, indeed, a well built camera. (lenses are a bit expensive, maybe, but people with summiluxes shouldn't throw stones.)

 

My wife owns a Canon 10D (equivalent, I think to the Olympus in terms of image quality) and I print her pictures on an Epson 2200 printer. Film provides a different looking output than digital. Nothing I've seen on digital comes close to a film-based original. If you print B&W, then it's really no contest.

 

Then, there's the experience of actually taking pictures with the Leica M, as opposed to an auto everything DSLR. If you don't appreciate the difference, I'm not going to be able to convince you.

 

I sincerely hope everyone who likes digital migrates quickly and leaves the rest of us alone. No one has to justify the use of a view camera any more. It will be nice when those who shoot B&W film and print it themselves are ignored in the same way.

Take care,

Tom

You would only notice with a side by side compare of slide film and this will vary by film manufacturer. with my 50mm Summilux (modern coatings) and Kodak GX film, I switched from a UV to a skylight for an extra bit of warmth. Fuji film to me has a distinct yellow cast and a UV works fine on the same lens. BTW for accurate colors, I prefer the GX and a skylight filter to Astia and UV. Shoot color neg film and none of this is an issue.

film, especially B&W, will not disappear! It may come from eastern Europe or China, but it will be available. Long term, you may have no choice but to develop and print it yourself, but that's an advantage. If you can't see the superior rendition of of film-based images compared to digital capture, then sell your camera now, buy the $1500 digital version of the Elan 7. Get it over with and lose the angst!

Cute, but wrong. film, especially b&w, will be around for a long, long time. long enough that you could purchase a new Leica today and use it till it wears out!

the Noct does completely unbalance the camera. that's the main reason I now use a summilux.

Yeah, leave Brad alone. my local dealer has a used M6 Titanium for $1895. a new one should be worth the same even with a direct sale via photonet. wish I could afford it, right now. I think this is the most beautiful Leica ever made.

Don't let anyone talk you out of trying the Sinar P/P2 as field camera, if that's what you want. I've used a 5X7 P2 as a field camera since 1998. This includes sand, wind, snow, etc. While it's very heavy, I can manage it and 3 lenses in a large LL Bean duffel bag. the admitted difficulty of "getting it there" is more than made up for once you do.

 

The ease of set up, precision movements, precise DOF control, and most importantly the stability in strong wind more than make up for the weight. I can set up for a shot in less than a quarter of the time as it took me with a wood field camera and my hit rate of technically good pictures (focus, sharpness, etc.) has never been higher.

Take care,

Tom

I always had the problem of cutting off feet with an M6 and a 28mm lens. .72 viewfinder and no glasses. I learned to compensate after a while. I used to enjoy looking for news pictures where the feet were cutoff so I could tell which PJs were using a 28mm lens on a Leica :).

I used a noctilux for years. I now use a 50 Summilux on an M6TTL. I consider this to be a vastly superior combination. the noct "unbalanced" the whole camera and was too big and cumbersome a package for general shooting. the summilux is little bigger than the summicron and a full stop faster, while being vastly sharper than the notilux. In very low light levels the direction of the light is as important as the quantity. an SF20 dialed in to minus 3, with a little diffusion, along with the ttl function is, to me, a better way to go.

Phillip,

I owned a Canham 5x7 wood for about a year and half and enjoyed it a lot. A beautiful camera with more than adequate bellows extension and good controls and easy to carry.

 

But... I replaced it with a 5x7 metal monorail for two reasons. With a 355 G-Claron (not a huge lens) the front standard wasn't up the the task of support and there was a bit of flex at maximum extensions. secondly, it's a wooden camera. coming from a 35mm and medium format background, it didn't seem precise enough for me. I'd have to stop down to f22 to get all four corners of the groundglass in focus simultaneously.

 

I think 5x7 is the perfect large format camera. twice the negative area of 4x5 and none of the depth of field problems you often find with an 8x10. I wouldn't consider the 5x7 a good contact print size, though. If you don't plan on buying a 5x7 enlarger, you'd be better off using an 8x10. (the Canham 8x10 metal would be ideal.)