rgerraty

<p>Should the last heading not be the Wages of Greed......?</p>

?! They did not deliberately avoid palindromic serial numbers. So they occurred.

<p>Richmond</p><div></div>

<p>M6 and 50 Summicron. The Voigtlander is too big and heavy for a year. The M6 is probably a bit lighter than the M3 and the meter is great. Small package. A hotshoe mounted meter never ever attracted me as a concept: M6, or M3 and hand-held meter or Sunny 16.</p>

<p>Beautiful shot, Brad.</p>

Love that shot Steve Lewis.

<p>Weather vane near home.</p><div></div>

<p>Can't disagree with Gus. I've got one. Mind you, I never dropped it. But I have dropped my modern Zeiss C Sonnar 50 three (aaaahhh) times, and it still works perfectly. Saved by a hood once, the filter the other time and nothing the last time.</p>

<p>Charlie, that is so beautiful.</p>

<p>Moreton Bay Fig (but of course look elsewhere to see a sharp photograph)</p><div></div>

<p>Winter</p><div></div>

Knut, your "public scale" is a wonderful composition and more.

<p>Hyde Park Barracks coutryard, Sydney</p><div></div>

<p>Hawthorn, above the river.</p> <div></div>

All the others are discussing this fully on Rangefinder Forum.

<p>The DNG+JPEG option on the M9 allows you then to choose the settings for the jpeg which do not affect the RAW. You need to set up Lightroom to display both the RAW and jpeg for a given photo. When photographing at some evening function where there is invariably horrible coloured lighting you can have the jpeg set to black and white, even if you don't want that later, just so you don't have something horrible to be reviewing on the LCD. You still have the colour raw image to work on if you want to or need to. The black and white jpegs out of the M9 are very good I reckon. </p>

Beautiful Barry. That first one has real presence.

<p>Ray there's a great thread on RFF of M9 black and white conversions which certainly made me wonder why I had added the Monochrom to my stable. While there are good reasons, the black and white from the M9 can also be stunning.<br> http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139399</p>

All shots taken have this? What is the effect of a lens hood? The focus looks accurate. What about rectilinear subjects like buildings: are they straight? Looks like a major flare of light from reflective metal perhaps. Is everything tight with no wobble?

<p>Weeping Cherry</p><div></div>

<p>The Advanced Black and White with the Epson 3880 is very good, and the 'Warm Tone' output is subtle and pleasing if you like that. The original Monochrom does a Sepia jpeg output that is less subtle.</p>

In reverse order of importance: 1. Stunning capability. It is nothing to shoot on the shady side of the street with ISO 3200 and enjoy the luxury of f8 and 1/1000s. Doable with other cameras, but no other Leica when it was released. 2. The resolution allows very useable photographs from a fraction of the original frame. 3. The noiseless shadow detail can be pulled up from near black. 4. It only does black and white. You think like you've got Tri-X in the camera (or a mixture of Panatomic X and Tri-X). 5. The tonal gradation is so subtle. I took a photograph in Paris in late afternoon sun of two men talking at the entrance to a bookshop. The recreation of the light of that moment is magical, never more evident than in an Epson 3880 print on good Ilford paper. Some shots hardly need any post processing at all. The flatness is evident in other shots, leaving you a flexible platform. I add no clarity or sharpening in Lightroom, ever. Mostly I am increasing contrast, moving the Black and Highlight sliders in opposite directions and raising the Shadow slider. Did I find the original Monochrom worth it? Utterly.

I would have the M-P, just as I do have the M9-P. The tedium of screen protectors and the garishness of decoration put me off the straigh M9. I've used mine a lot and hardly think of the entry cost now. I just think of how perfectly suited to my purpose the camera is. It looks like a digital M2. So that's one thing: the M-P with its Cyclopsian or rather anti-Cyclopsian visage is not quite in the M (in the old sense) line. I haven't read much on it but I would hardly hope the buffer or anything internal would be better than the M. Maybe I'm wrong.

<p><a title="L9994314.jpg by Richard, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8768/16485976963_c1b92727af_z.jpg" alt="L9994314.jpg" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

<p>Evening walk</p><div></div>