larry_horricks__prague__cz1664876400

Ahoj Jorn...

Maybe I'd like your Beat up Domke...I'll trade you a 1 year old Domke if your interested or I'll just buy yours if you want to sell. I use Czech Army Ammo bags that I get at a Army shop on Zitna, Call me if youre interseted on my mobile 602682658 or home at 257311424...I live in Mala Strana...been living in this country for 10 years. I have honestly never felt any danger in this part of the world as long as I keep an eye on my gear...and I use Leica M's and Rollei TLRs daily.

Maybe meet for a pivo if you have time.

Zatim Ahoj,

Larry.

<David Cuttler>...

Best point yet, I also feel it makes far more sense to Break it down this way, no offense to others here...and frankly I like Scott Eaton's posts...

Ed...

First of all I'll assume you have experience working with either system and perhaps have both. I'll also assume you chose this equipment with purpose and have used it long enough to know how well this equipment fits in with this purpose, and how you communicate visually. If this is the case then YOU know your gear...YOU know how YOU work and how YOU communicate visually, YOU know the nature of this trip and what YOU are trying to accomplish...

Break it down dude...and good luck in one of my favorite lands on the planet.

James,

Its true (at least for me) that a lens' technical performance is not the only thing to look for in deciding if its for you. I've ALWAYS bought used and have given the lens a try before purchasing. The only way to know is to give a lens a reasonable try with subject matter that you regularly work with or at least close to what you work with. I know this can be a touchy scenario for many shops, but if you have a good relationship with a shop and something to put down as security, often times they wont deny you this opportuntiy...thats the way it has worked for me. I love the characteristics of my older generation M lenses, others might not...I also love my new 24mm (again bought used and given a test run). I understand what you are saying as a couple years back I had a chance to compare results between my 1961 Rollei-wide TLR (55mm Zeiss Distagon) and my friend's newest version of the Zeiss 50mm Distagon...It was an amazing lens,incredibly sharp, but it just wasnt for me. I liked the characteristics of my older lens better for what I do with it. I have to say though that my 1970's 50mm Summicron is pretty damn sharp and cant imagine needing anything more, except maybe an extra stop now and then, but this is very much the exception for me, and hasnt been an issue enough to unload it. I'm sure you might get some heat on this item as some flks might think this heresy...I do get what your saying though.

Larry.

Its all a function of what I am working on...and for myself doesnt have much of a bearing on how productive the year has been, or anything else for that matter.

Movie still work:

On average 4-6 months a year of Unit Stills work on Movies: My usual daily budget on a feature film will be about 25 rolls daily,35mm color Pos. or neg. (depending on the deal I have cut with the studio)/ 5 rolls daily, 35mm Tri-X/ and approx. 100 rolls total 120 Tri-X. With an average schedule length of 60 shooting days for each film...(some can be double that length)

Documentary work:

Last year on two projects in Russia and Bosnia I'm guessing somewhere around 400 rolls of 35mm Tri-X (with my M's)and about 200 of 120 Tri-X (with my Rollei-wide)

I suppose a rough average would then be:

3000 35mm color neg/pos

1000 35mm Tri-X

400 120 Tri-X

Not sure why it matters but thats my average for what its worth.

Tomorrow its back to work on the set to burn more film ...hooray for Hollywood.!!!

Larry.

John...

Try this link, Theo Dewit is a knowledgable Collector and Dealer here in Europe.

<www.collectcamera.com>

Larry.

M6/24mm and finder.

Rollie-wide TLR (55mm Distagon).

Steven your right on...thats why I from time to time take out my Rollie-wide TLR. There's only two choices, make the situation interesting with what you've got or dont trip the shutter. Its good to challenge our personal visual conventions and convictions.

Most streets I work on, that running car would be gone before I got my second frame off, and with that run and gun approach you know they've got your number pegged if you ever want to come back. Dont know what Jay Maisels point was...but very funny responses...best thread yet.

Sparkie...

What is your reason for wanting to change from 35mm to Medium format, this might give us and yourself some insight into what might be a good choice, or if its really something you want or need to do. If you like your Leica so much that you wished they made a MF version, I'm very curious as to your reasons...has the type of work your doing changed to really require a larger neg...do you want to work in square, if so that narrows things down considerably. One thing for sure its not an upgrade, its a different world. I have seen so many people do this for all the wrong reasons, spend a fortune and dump it all months later. Not to imply that you dont know what your doing, it just seems odd that work that suits well the use of a Leica rangefinder would be suited better by MF. There is nothing in my line of work that would be improved by going to MF. I use my Rollei-wide TLR for doing Dynamic portaits of Actors or Artists I work with on the movie set and for some of my personal work. Its a different medium for a different way of communicating. They cant be compared.

Just my thoughts.

Larry

<Jay>

Curious, I use my 24mm more than any Leica lens I have, and I havent found I can be sharp much inside what the specs are...a little maybe but not significantly...not to the point of creating as interesting (sharp)foreground as I could with an SLR...I have come quite used to working with the Brightline finder for my 24mm and actually dont have too many complants with it from a compositional standpoint, but its still a bit of a funky way to work. Although I have certain beefs about working with rangefinders, obviously they're not weighty enough to force me to make sweeping changes in my gear...and like I said before the advantages for me for the most part outwiegh the annoyances. I do however,understand perfectly those who find the very concept of Rangefinders baffleing. Its interesting how Leica M cameras form these camps of people whom either have nothing but venomous contempt for them or are over the top in blind defense of them. I guess its the same with alot of things.

Larry.

Rob,

I only use color for when I'm shooting movie stills, and its only recently that the studio publicity departments are coming to their senses and allowing us to shoot color neg instead of chromes. On some shows the light levels are so low and the newer breed of fast movie stock so sensitive that its next to impossible to get the images required with chromes...especially on action movies. Anyway I have shot on the last few shows with Fuji Superia 400 and 800 and love it for this purpose...I know nothing about scanning but I can only assume there hasnt been any big problems or I would have gotten an earfull from some snot-nosed Hollywood studio wanker about it. I have to add though that these images, unless used for the Marquee or larger one-sheets rarely go bigger than full page magazine format. Dont know if this helps but good luck...and nice work by the way.

Dobry Rano,

<Marc>

dont know why you would get "flamed" (I liked that term)for your comment...Anyway I assure you I understand what humping gear is all about. Even though I'd love to just wander the world with my Leicas communicating my own personal take on life and getting paid WELL for it...its just not reality for me...so I spend 4 to 6 months a year with two F4s,and a small assortment of lenses stuffed inside two suitcase-like Jacobson blimps (neccessary for silent shooting on set,not even the quiet Leica can cut it in this scenario so I use them for B&W behind the scenes stuff)) fighting for my place on the set so I can get images that few seem to appreciate compared to the busloads of "Hollywood Sh--head" grief I get trying to get them...but clearly I could do much worse, and have few legitmate complaints. It's well paid work and I've traveled this little planet, working with some very interesting and creative people...but its no picnic. I am sure many of you here are in the same boat, when it comes to balancing the work you love and work that supports your lifestyle or the kids college expenses etc.

<Jim/Tom>

I was in my local shop here the other day and caught a glance at the FM3...didnt know it existed...it does look interesting...and I have often thought that a better package for doing my B&W Documentary work would be My M6 with the 75 and 50 and an FM or even older F2 with a 28mm and 24mm...probably wouldnt take up too much more space in my life either.

<Tom>

The wider M series lenses are not ideal for me either because of the limitiations with focusing distance but I'm phobic about complicating things in my life so I've stuck with the M's for the bulk of my B&W Docu. work, I am however, slowly leaning toward getting a used FM or F2 and a 24 or 28 to satisfy certain compositional needs I cant get with My M's, it seems like not a bad compromise...and maybe a downright good idea.

<Al>

I know what your saying, you use someting long enough and work a certainway long enough and and it all finds a way of working out, but I honestly have never truly 100% been comfortable with Parallax. Before switching "full-time" to stills, I made my living for 15 years as a Motion Picture camera operator. My still photographic approach and style is still somewhat cinematic in nature and at times I struggle just a little with Parallax. Obviously I've made the adjustments and work comfortably (to a point) with the Rangefinder...but only to a point. I've made a living my whole life with my eye at one eyepiece or another...compositional skills have been and still are my mealticket, but I still am not and not likely ever to be 100% satisfied with everything Rangefinders have to offer...but like I said certain other factors and benefits have made them my primary choice for my documantary work. My M's have been honest, hard working, well built tools that I have been able to rely on for years...and that counts for alot in my books, as i'm sure it does in yours.

All for now,

Oh and Jim..."Imagine all the Pivo" ... now imageine singing this to the tune of John Lennon's "Imagine". Some mates and I made a up a version of John Lennon's classic all about debauchery in Prague.

Zatim ahoj...hodne zdravi... vsechno nejlepsi a doufam tento rok bude spoustu radoste a silenost.

Larry.

BTW... I didnt mean to give the impression that Antonin is a gadget freak, in fact its the opposite. He uses Nikon FM's with (almost exclusivley)28mm's. His main beef with Rangefinders are the .7m minimum focusing distance and the innability to see lens perspective, especially converging lines...these are my main beefs as well. In a recent interview with Bruce Gilden, he also stated he would love to have the advantages of M cameras, but the these two factors alone keep him shooting with SLR's...look at his work and you'll see why.

I never know what to do with my time off...

Larry

Greetings again from Prague...

I guess by comparison I am relatively new or at least not very active

on these forums (especially Leica). But I have had some rare time

over the holidays to relax a bit and enjoy alot of what many people

here are saying, and have appreciated the repsonse to my queries. One

thing I have found interesting is the Mystique and interest that

these little German Tanks have rustled up over the years. Its odd, I

have been using M's for some 25 odd years...not excusivley...but

certainly a sizable chunk of my work, and I still have a love hate

relationship with them, although I suppose you could say I've pretty

much settled in with them and their dogmatic design. A couple of

years back while working on the set of Fox's feature film "From

Hell", I got into a rather lively debate with my friend Antonin

Kratochvil, who was here shooting a feature on Johnny Depp for NY

Times Mag. He really kept needling me about the M4-2 I had over my

shoulder and why I would chose to use such a limited tool...Antonin

has a real bug up his _ _ _ about rangefinders but he had a point, in

fact he had many. Indeed many of his criticisms I shared but have

learned to live with in return for certain benefits...what

benefits?.. Well of course I went through all the usual pro

rangefinder arguments ( many discussed on this forum)and he just

wasnt convinced and frankly neither was I, until it finally clicked

why I have doggedly stuck with my M's for all this time...the single

most important reason I have stuck with them. It was clear...I hate

gear, I hate anything unweildy (which doesnt take much for me).

Essentially I have a challenged work ethic, and on the days when I

wake up and just cant bear the thought of tramping around for hours

humping a camera bag of gear around, there is relief in the ease of

having an M and the two lenses I use the most (24mm and 75mm)on my

person on literally a daily basis...in many ways it has kept me at my

work because its no more trouble to carry around than a half a

pastrami sandwich and a recent volume of Granta. In this fashion the

M has saved me from myself, it is the most simple decision I make

every day. Hearing this, Antonin grinned behind that fat Cohiba

permanantly stuck in his gob, and said "Now that's an answer I can

live with".

Good Shooting,

Larry D. Horricks

Prague, Czech Republic

Thanks again for all the help...

<Mark> I'm kindof just getting up to speed with the whole scanning and computer scenario, but hope to be able put up a website not too long from now and should be able to post something soon as I'm having a fair amount of my work scanned this month...I'm a bit of a techno-gearphobe. I seem to stick with what I know perhaps a bit too stubbornly. Been shooting with these Leicas and an old 1961 Rollei-wide TLR forever. The only other system I use is a pair of Nikon F4's and a handful of older Manual focus Nikkor primes for when I'm doing "Unit Stills" work on movies (which is about 4 months a year). Only reason for choosing this system is that I got a good deal on two Jacobson silent blimps and tubes that were designed for this gear so there wasnt much choice...anyway this is way off topic.

<Jay, or anyone else> have any idea what these older Leica lenses of mine might be worth?

Larry D. Horricks

Prague, Czech Republic

Thanks for the replies so far...does anybody know of a site or publication where I could match up my serial numbers with the manufacturing year.My 35,50 and oh I forgot about my 90mm Tele-Elmarit 2.8 (I rarely ever use it, even though it is a lovely compact little lens) are all pre-integrated lens hood versions with serial numbers:

35mm #2711505/

50mm # 2453655/

90mm #2728429

I got all three of them years ago for 500 bucks all in including the lens hoods and UV filters...not sure but I think that was a bargain.

Thanks again

Larry.

Greetings...

I have a few questions re M-Lenses. I have been making my living

with Leica M's (M6&M4-2's) for twenty-five years now. My lens package

includes 75mm Summilux, 50mm Summicron (Leitz Canada), 35mm Summicron

(Leitz Canada) and the new 24mm ASPH. My 50 and 35 are both 1970's

era lenses and have served me well through some very rough scenarios,

and the image quality I get seem to be no less than my new 24mm...in

fact, I think the 35mm and 50mm made at Leitz Canada seem to be as

sharp or sharper. They also seem to be built much more solidly than

the newer versions. Every once in while I get the urge to replace

them for the newer line, but I'm having a hard time justifying it.

Maybe someone who has made such a switch can comment on what they

found. I bought the 24mm ASPH not for the lens design, but for the

perspective, I was waiting a long time for a 24mm. Although I use

primarily my 75mm and 24mm, I wouldnt mind a faster 35 and

50...perhaps somone might also comment on how the new line of

Summilux compare to the Summicrons as I really feel my 1970's

Summicrons are sharper than the Summiluxs' of the same era...BTW, I

shoot almost excusively B&W so I'm not concerned about color pallette

or saturation. Hope my questions make sense, thanks in advance.

Larry.