jim_simmons

One more vote for the CL. When you drop by KEH, put that on your list of cameras to fondle. You may like the feel and pocketability as much as a screw-thread model. A high quality viewfinder at a reasonable cost. OK, they're not the visual work of art of a screw-threader, but they're more functional IMHO.

The 21mm Super Angulon is a big mother and requires an expensive external viewfinder, but it makes a nice sharp image and is a little easier to tame than the wider lenses. While you're making your mind up, buy used.

Come visit us in New Zealand, Tony. It's delightfully warm and the sun is waking me up at 5 AM! Happy holidays, and thanks for all your work on the forum.

Jim

No, Jim doesn't have an M6, regardless of size.

 

And, gang, my OTHER camera is a 4x5 monorail, so it's not like I'm afraid of a he-man camera. It just surprised me to see an M6 and an 0 next to a whole host of other 35mm cameras and see that the M6 wasn't all THAT much smaller, and that the Barnack was indeed a much smaller camera. Donald's picture says it all.

 

I spent a summer shooting a Minolta 16, and that was fun, but the prints made from 16mm film developed in hot Arkansas developer were the grainiest things you ever saw!

 

And yeah, I was considering a Rollei 35 for a half-second when I got my CL, but that was no contest. One, the Rollei was a tad too small for my big hands, and two, of course, no interchangeable lenses.

 

And yeah, when I bought the CL, it was in 1975 and it sat there next to an M5. That was no contest, either, but mostly from a pocketbook point of view.

Stretch the budget to get a combo spot/incident. I've got the Sekonic L508 and can't imagine I'll ever need another meter. (I don't use flash all that much.)

For a tiny fraction more money than you've spent so far, you will have your answers - pick up Real World Photoshop by Blatner and Fraser, Real World Color Management, or Mastering Digital Printing by Harald Johnson. Take your pick, or read all three. And then things will become much clearer for you. Like previous posters said, it's not as simple as "do this and you're done."

And good thoughts they are Stuart. Here here. If it were indeed a meritocracy, most cameras on the planet would be disposables. And Leicas would then be produced in even lower numbers and would then cost over $20K.

OK, I'm really just being a smartass here, but here goes. Today I

was in my local pro photo shop picking up some film, but couldn't

help ogling the glass cases. They had a new M6 and a new Barnack 0.

I use a CL and used to own a IIIf. I've used M2, M3, and M4 cameras

quite a bit also. So it was a shock to see how huge the M6 was in

comparison to the CL and the O. Caught me by surprise. Not a

criticism, as I have a Leicaflex SL also, but still... Makes me

realize what a great stealth camera the CL is. It even looks like a

P&S by comparison.

This brings up a good question - just why is it that scanner images are so soft and need so much sharpening help? Even if you put the film in an anti-newton glass mount so it's flat as a pancake and then manually focus, the image is still soft and needs lots of USM help. Why?

not lush like Craig's, just flash and rot<div></div>

So Frankish it gives me the shivers. Brrrrr!!!!

Current (affordable) digital cameras can only make a good print up to a certain size. A scanned 4x5 can make a much larger print of equal quality. If your print size expectations are within the limits of the digital camera you have in mind, then you'll be fine. If you want larger prints, stick with 4x5.

Do a google for Focalblade sharpener plug-in for photoshop. Costs $50 US. Does a great job. Has different algorithms for web and for print. Has the ability to fine-tune the sizes of both white and black haloes. Has the ability to sharpen smooth areas (sky) less than detailed areas. And I agree that you may not be working with a file size appropriate to your intended image size. I rarely print anything less than 240 pixels/inch.

Overkill for the job at hand, but i wish I had your boss. ;-)

It does not take long to adapt to how the meter works. Becomes second nature very quickly. Much easier adjustment than adapting from "backwards" aperture and focus rings on a Nikon.

I would add the lowest level the camera offers when shooting, then make up the difference with specialist sharpening software such as NIK, or Focalblade or another. I do a little sharpening when I scan my film, then the rest on the final file just before I print (Focalblade - cheap and excellent). My ancient crappy digicam adds so much sharpness outside of my control, that I tend to leave those files alone.

I guess I belong to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school. I would have no problem buying a used reasonably used CL and shooting it without getting a CLA on it. When it DID break somehow, then get the CLA. In the meantime, it should work as intended. I would, however, get one that had some sign of being used, as opposed to one that had sat in mint condition in its box for the past 30 years. The grease in that thing would be in a hard-fossilized state, I would think. Even better, buy it from someone who's been taking pictures with it for the past year and claims it's working properly. That's no guarantee it won't break the first time you use it, but the odds are incredibly slim that this would happen. They are not an M, but they are tough little critters. Mine's been beat to hell, but has dealt with all that I've thrown at it.

And make sure you get a jacket with gigantic Captain Kangaroo pockets to hold that Fuji.

You're welcome. Now, JDR, if you do elect to buy a CL, please let us know what you found, what you bought, where you bought it, what you paid, etc. There are some very nice examples on ebay right now, some with the whole 40mm and 90mm lens kits, and in excellent exterior condition to boot.

Standard costing issue in most manufactured top-of-the-line items: the last 5% of additional quality adds far more to the price than 5%. That's simply what it takes to get things "just right." Also standard is that next-to-best items usually represent a better overall value.

This is indeed creepy. Mr. Rose dost protesteth in a mightily Frankish fashion. But just on the outside chance that he's for real... yes, the Leica CL is a real Leica. It was designed in Germany, and the equipment to manufacture it was designed and built in Germany. Then the German factory techs went to Japan and brought the Minolta assembly plant up to speed on their manufacturing process. It's a German camera through and through, using Japanese labor. The 40mm Summicrons are all (I think) made in Wetzlar, and they are superb.

 

Yes, the meters are the weak link. I've used my CL with the meter only working about half of the 30 years that I've owned mine. But I've got a relatively new meter cell in it now, I've had the body and lens CLA'd by Sherry Krauter, and I expect it to last most of the rest of my life. As far as I'm concerned it lives up to the Leica legend. My other 35mm camera is a Leicaflex SL, so I feel I do have a fair standard of comparison. Would I like to have a nice M4, which I've used enough to know how nice they are to use? Yeah, but I can never seem to justify buying one, given how much I love the CL and what I know it's capable of.

 

Now, please oh please don't turn out to be Frank and make me feel the fool for having written all this. Please!

An oft-preferred film for shooting in mixed light - daylight, incandescent, and flourescent - is Fuji NPL. That's what I shoot most of my interiors with. A friend even foregoes the 85 filter when using daylight as the primary light source, but I like to at least help the film out with the filter. With NPL, I ignore the existence of flourescent, then tweak the green away in photoshop.

New Mexico - speeding.<div></div>

Good plan, Mary-Anne. Doing these two things will save you a good 20-30 hours over the frustrations that lots of folks make in trying to save money and go it alone. I wish I had taken that approach a couple of years ago myself. But once I went the Monaco EZcolor route and got two good books, life became much easier.

 

BTW, your "cheers" signoff and the timezone in which your write your entries makes me wonder if you are anywhere near my New Zealand part of the world?

 

Jim

FWIW, the Leicaflex shutter dial works ala the TTL and M7. Since my faux M is a vertically-dialed CL, there's no transposition problem, but after reading this thread, I'd have to consider a TTL or M7 to match my Leicaflex working pattern. I well remember what a drag it was to switch back and forth between my Nikon and the CL, just in terms of the aperture and focus rings working in opposite directions.