dayton_p._strickland1

Matt,

Many newspapers hiring new folks are requiring a college

degree (some kind of conspiracy I think). One of the finest in the

country is Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. There isn't an issue of

the National Press Photographer's Association magazine that

doesn't have some kind of input from this fine univesity (I never

went there, but my money and my daughter did). The other way to

grow is to shoot a lot, learn from your mistakes and read, read,

read, and did I mention, read? Education is a life long adventure

even for those of us without a so-called "formal" education. I

learned my craft through a military trade school called the

Defense Information School which has graduated many fine

photojournalists. If you keep your ear to the street you will find

many stories in your own backyard. Once you have established

yourself there and learn as many foreign languages as you

possible can absorb then think about traveling. Best of luck to

you. The more story tellers there are in the world the smaller this

universe gets and just maybe the better it will get.

I've read about the new Leica CM on their website, but have been

unable to get an idea of when it will be available and the cost.

Has anyone seen one, tried one, own one? How much does it

cost and how does it stack up against the Contax T3 or the

Ricoh's? Is there a neck strap available? B&H and Adorama

don't have it listed yet.

I've gone back and worth from one brand to the other for various

reasons, but if you are thinking about going to Canon and you

use autofocus at all, here's something to think about. You've got

that big hunk of glass tracking something with your Canon and if

something comes in between the subject and the camera the

Canon will lose track of your subject. The Nikon will stay

focus-locked onto the subject. This is a very important issue if

you shoot sports. Having said that, I am amazed at how many

sports shooters shoot with Canon. Go figure.

Andry,

Two things to consider, one repeated here over and over � if you

can't afford the top of the line zooms you would be better off with

a couple of prime lenses. The very inexpensive 50/1.8 is very,

very sharp, for instance. The second thing that no one has

touched on yet is that "out of the camera" the D100 images can

look soft. Nikon decided that with this camera to keep the noise

level down to not do a lot of sharpening in camera which I

personally think was a very good decision. I sharpen all my D100

images in Photoshop using the following settings in unsharp

mask: 100, 1.0, 4. Any further sharpening in unsharp mask for

reproduction should be done in lab color under lightness

Rumour has it deep inside the bowels of Leica-land that it will

finally be a Leica M-D1.

Made by Minox ...

Al,

I used to own both when I was shooting professionally. I used

the 20 sparingly at best and kept the 24 on the camera as my

standard lens. Why, because, for me, the 24 was how I saw

things. You might find you "see" better with the 20 or maybe a 28.

The only way to find out is to buy used at a good price and try. For

me the 24 was a great all-around lens.

AIN'T TECHNOLOGY GREAT!!!

I'm taking my Leica and film and moving to the Amish country. I'll

use a gerbel-powered generator to run the enlarger.

P.S. � I'm half serious. I hate f**king computers and honestly

believe so-called technology is sending us down a slippery

slope.

I hope your press photographer friend does a better job of

getting his cutline information correct than he did passing along

this totally bogus information about Kodak to you. As a freelancer

and former press photographer myself I don't see the demise of

film for a very, very, very long time. But then again, vinyl rules!

Me-shy-el,

Love picture number two the best, the guy raising the maß in the

background. Lived in Munich in Perlacher Forst from 1987 until

1991. Probably the greatest city on earth. I really miss the bier

gartens and the jazz clubs. How about some pictures from the

Englisher Garten, if you know what I mean, but be sure to put a

warning on them!

DAYTON

I put more than 30,000 images and 9 months on my D100

before the central autofocus sensor went out. I also had a couple

of dead pixels, but that's nothing with a digital camera. Nikon

Professional Service repaired it, but it took about two weeks

longer than normal (3 versus 1). The camera is much better built

than people say and can take a lot more abuse (a friend dropped

his on a wooden floor in a church just before he started to shoot

a wedding and it didn't miss a lick). I've used mine in the rain,

dust, etc., as a photojournalist who buys his own equipment and

refuses to pay more than 2 grand for anything with a computer in

it. KEH.com is selling them for $1,500 which is a deal. I would

buy another in a heart beat but am going back to film until things

sort themselves out. By the way, this is the most ergonomic and

intuititive camera I have ever owned.<div></div>

My Olympus XA. It's the one camera that hasn't gotten traded for

something else in the past 16 years (Canon T-90, Nikon F-5,

Nikon N90s, Canon EOS-3). Or my trusty Nikon D100 just back

from three weeks at the Nikon farm in Melville or my newly

aquired Nikon F-4S. The more mechanical the better. The less

LCDs, menues, etc., to deal with, the better. But for me, batteries

are not a problem. Sorry, just had to say that. As a side note, my

5-year-old granddaughter and I went on a short photo safari with

her 2-year-old sister the other day, all three of us with cameras.

She kept asking to see the picture on the back of my M-6ttl (I

usually have the D100 or my Oly 5050 with me). I told her that

was the fun of photography, the waiting game and practicing so

you aren't disappointed.<div></div>

I have had very good luck with the same set up (except 180/2.8

instead of 80-200). Here's how I shoot: ISO 1,600, manual

settings for shutter at 1/180th if you must use flash, lens wide

open at 2.8 and flash set for TTL at -7 for dark uniforms and at 0

for light uniforms. This has given me exceptional results under

all conditions. Ideally, you want to shoot without flash at at least

1/400th of a second. Always shoot sports in manual settings for

aperature and shutter settings by taking a light reading off the

grass before the game starts. As for the comment about the

D-100 shutter lag � big bunch of baloney � if you are a

photographer it's not a problem, if you are a technopuke who

rides the shutter and motor drive then you might miss a shot.<div></div>

Tom,

I have shot a lot of high school sports action "under the lights"

with the D100. Shoot wide open with a 2.8 lens or faster (the

80-200/2.8 or 180/2.8 are good choices), use a monopod, shoot

at 1,600 ISO, and to keep from letting the light meter getting

fooled by the backgrounds, etc., make a manual meter reading

(meter off the grass) and try to keep the shutter speed at 1/400 or

higher if possible or supplement with flash (1/180th highest on

D100) and anticipate the action because you won't be able to fire

off a bunch of shots and "hope" you get the peak action. You can

shoot sports with a D100, but you won't be able to use it like

some techno-puke who rides the motordrive hoping he gets the

shot. Good luck and as they used to say "burn lots of film."

Sue, try focusing using other than the central focusing sensor. If

it focuses fine on those that means you have a problem with the

camera. After owning my D100 for about 8 months the center

focusing sensor went tango uniform (toes up, dead). It took

Nikon three weeks to fix but it works better now and than ever so

that makes me think there might be a problem with some

D100s. Be sure to try the other suggestions above also.

If you make it, they will come ...

The point and shoot digitals are NOT rangefinders. What makes

a rangefinder is the mechanics of the focusing.

I agree that a Canon G-5 would be a good jumping off place for

such a rangefinder if they can solve some of the problems that

didn't exist with the G-3.

I used the photo taken with the 180/2.8 only as an example of the

incredible lack of noise/grain at 1,600 and to show how you can

get correct color under difficult lighting conditions. I wouldn't

expect or probably need such a lens on my Leica-sized

rangefinder.

As a point of note, I have used the Canon G-2 extensively and

currently own the Olympus C-5050 as my "back-up" digital

camera. What I hate about these cameras is the autofocusing

and the shutter lag time. Other than that I like them both quite

well, except they are a wee bit on the wee side.<div></div>

After using digital cameras now for a couple of years I have just

one request of the camera makers of the world � PLEASE,

PLEASE, PLEASE, will someone make a manual focus

rangefinder digital camera?! PLEASE! It doesn't have to be Leica,

although Leica-like quality would be nice. It doesn't have to use

existing lenses. It does have to have the kind of digital quality

image a Nikon D100 can produce. It does have to be manual

focus and of course it has to be a rangefinder. I mean, really,

how hard can that be? Also, I don't even care if it has a screen to

see the images. I want to be able to have the things that digital

cameras offer the best of � changing ISO/ASA in midstream,

using compact flash cards instead of film which is prone to dust

and scratches and going out of date or being screwed up during

processing. All I'm asking for is a completely manual digital

rangefinder camera. If it has to have a fixed 35/2 lens I could

even live with that for now. Thanks � and get with it pronto!

NOTE: Attached photo is straight from the camera (D100 with

180/2.8 lens), shot under auditorium stage lights at 1,600 ISO.<div></div>

Robert,

You are heading into a new world of photography by switching to

Leica. About a year and a half ago I traded my spare EOS-3 and

50/1.4 for an almost new Leica M6ttl, 50/2 and VC 28/1.9 plus a

lot of cash. The Leica belonged to a photojournalist friend who

just couldn't get the hang of it. I had previously owned an M-3

with 50/2 and regretted for years ever selling it. Everytime I

looked at my Kodachrome slides from that camera it just brought

tears to my eyes. After receiving the Leica I started carrying it on

assignments along with my EOS gear and found that subjects

much preferred having me point that little black camera at them

than that cannon with white lenses. I soon found that I was

taking much better pictures because I took a lot more time to

compose, double check the lighting and I seemed to blend into

the background a lot more (didn't have little kids mugging at me

like they do the TV dudes at events). Shortly after this our paper

went digital, first with Canon G2 point and shoot cameras and

then later I purchased a digital SLR outfit myself for sports (went

with Nikon D100 because of the quality and dumped all my

zooms and went with quality primes). Digital was nice for

deadlines or when a lame reporter or editor came in with some

last minute assignment (not breaking news mind you) after I

had already run my batch of film for the day. The savings to the

newspaper also was great. Anyway, to make a long story short,

the Leica will make you feel like you are taking pictures again

instead of being some geek behind a computer with a lens

attached to it. It's hard to describe, but I say get the Leica

(probably a newer M6 with 50/2, then add a 28/2.8 and 90/2.8 �

you don't need the fastest glass with rangefinders to facilitate

seeing through the viewfinder or to make the autofocus work

better) and start enjoying photography again. I recently quit my

job as a photojournalist for a daily newspaper and I have to tell

you it has been like a huge weight has been taken off my

shoulders.<div></div>

The only way to know for sure is to use a large gray scale card,

not a computer screen. The D100 under evaluates some to be

sure to capture highlights without washing them out which can

easily be fixed in Photoshop.

I have been using the D100 since mid-November as a daily

newspaper photojournalist. I work for a small paper so the cost

of everything is on my shoulders. I have owned both Nikon and

Canon for years including the F-5 and two N90S's. My F-5 gave

me fits before I switched over to Canon, but because of the cost

of the Canon EOS-1D and the poor quality of the D-60 I went

back to Nikon. I shoot nothing but with prime lenses now, no

zooms. I have shot American football, soccer, basketball, frisbee

dog championships and numerous other sporting events with

the D100 with no problems. You have to anticipate the peak

moment with this camera because you are not going to be able

to fire off a sequence of shots and hope of get a good one. The

SB-80DX flash unit is much superior to the Canon EX550 I was

using with the Canon cameras. I have used the camera in the

rain with no problems and I have shot concerts in available

darkness at 1,600 and 3,200. At 1,600 the results are absolutely

incredible, so noise free to be unbelieveable. At 3,200 you get

some noise, but more like what you get at 1,600 speed film. The

only drawback I have found with the camera is the 1/180th flash

synch. I sometimes get flash blur because of that, but only have

found that in shooting basketball when the action is very, very

fast, otherwise no other problems. The ergonomics of the

camera are great I don't seem to have a problem with the

coverings of the camera coming apart like on the D1-series of

cameras I have heard about. My only film camera now is a Leica

M-6 TTL with 28 and 50 lenses. I don't regret going digital what

soever. I look forward to what Nikon is introducing next month at

the PMA. By the way, the color with the D100 is the best I have

ever seen from any camera, period. As with most things, it's

mostly up to the user, not the equipment, to get the best from it.

Best of luck in your decision.

Patrick, congratulations on your expanding family. As for digital

camera choices I highly recommend the Canon G3 or the Nikon

D100, but not the Nikon 5700 unless you are used to looking

through a video camera viewfinder, otherwise the 5700 will drive

you nuts. We had one in our possession for about a week, every

staffer tried it and hated it with a passion and we shipped it off to

one of our weekly newspapers and they were delighted to have

anything digital. The Canon G3 is a lot like a Leica especially

since they have improved the shutter lag and the Nikon D100 is

a gem of a camera (I've been both a Nikon and Canon shooter

for years), nice and light with incredible results and very low

digital noise even at high ISO settings. Good luck in your choice

and don't worry about a digital being out of date next year; if it's

good today it will be good 10 years from now.

DAYTON

Peter, have you made a decision yet? I have used the Canon G-2

professionally since March and the D100 since early November.

I work as a photojournalist and also own and use a Leica M-6

and Olympus XA. As an old friend once said, "It ain't the arrows,

but the Indian that hits the target."

I have taken photos with the Canon G2 that have been blown up

to broadsheet sized photos with incredible detail and of course

the incredible depth of field you get from those small sensors. I

found the G2 frustrating only in capturing quick moving subjects

or expressions. For art work or landscapes I can't think of a

better camera for the money except the G3 which has made

many improvements. The D100 is a very capable camera. It has

exceptional battery life and the digital noise levels all the way up

to 3,200 ISO are unbelieveable. Out of the camera the images

have a tendency to look a tad soft to some people. Depending on

the ISO setting I will go into Photoshop and knock out any digital

noise in the blue channel and sharpen the entire image in RGB

to about 100 to 200 in unsharp mask with a radius of 1 and

threshold of 4. I have taken nighttime football games in the rain

available light that I still marvel at. As for ruggedness, last week I

got creamed on the sidelines at the Georgia Dome and the

camera kept on ticking although I have a hell of a

helmet-induced bruise on the side of calf below the knee. If you

need really fast autofocus I would buy the Canon EOS-1D. If you

are married to Nikon and need really fast autofocus and fast

frames per second then the D1H is your choice. If you are

shooting art and people and don't throw the thing to the ground

just for the hell of it I would suggest the D100. So far it seems

plenty rugged, has incredible battery life and is very lightweight

which means you will have a tendency to use it more when you

might leave a heavier beast behind. As for the 1/180th shutter

synch speed for flash, it is a bit of a problem, but if you need a

higher speed than that because of the light try a reflector instead

of flash. Hope this rambling helps.

Jack, at first I thought it was just me being wrapped up in

learning my newest camera (Nikon D100 for work) that had

taken my interest away from this forum and using my Leica's, but

I must say you are correct, I find myself visiting here more like

once every week or two versus a previous twice daily. It's too bad

the Dexter's and Hadji's of the world can't be civil and this once

great meeting place has turned into a flame zone for people

without lives and possibly no concept of what photography

brings to the world. I hope to hear from you on the digital side as

I have only been using it since March and find all the bad things

people say about digital to be full of smoke and hot air. I still love

my Leica M-6, but if you make a living from photography digital

makes your living much easier and more predictable. DAYTON