dankapsner

Anyone have an idea what a IIIf black dial user goes for these days? (I sold my IIIa a while ago and now I

find that I miss it; I'd rather have the rf and vf closer, so I'm thinking of a newer model. The lesson: don't

sell your Leicas--you just end up

missing them and buying more!)

Thanks,

Dan

I like much of what I see. There is a sense of adventure and exploration, and sometimes a bit

of mystery in some of the work. It's hard to comment on individual photos without having

them more readily accessible. Please onsider posting more here on photo.net and asking for

critique. Some members are very knowledeable, helpful, and generous

While it's true that a new model may come along, scanners seem like a pretty mature

technology. That aside, if it has an acceptable level of utility, and then something else comes

out, that doesn't really diminish its utility, and just means it's not the latest and greatest. I

like it when new models of electronic goodies come out; that makes the value of their

predecesors go down and they become more affordable. I'm still scanning with an old

Polaroid SprintScan Plus, and while it's not the fastest or most convenient film scanner

around, it seems to work as well as when I bought it years ago.

It's possible to get a film camera with lots of utility for far less than a used Leica. Film is fun,

and the results can be beautiful. I encourage you to explore, but at a low cost. RF cameras

have a certain charm; however,they do not necessarily have to be a Leica to be good. If you

are patient the right camera will appear.

<< may yet get one of those E510's to use with my "pedestrian" 14-54 and 50-200

Zuikos.>>

The 14-54 zoom was the best zoom lens I ever used-- one of the best lenses of any type,

actually I eventually traded it with my E-1 (a marvellous but maddening camera). It and the

50-200 would be an excellent match for the E510.

Alex, I commend you for developing your own B&W film. Perhaps you will come to like it,

or perhaps it will be a bore. Once you've learned to load film onto reels (I cheated and

used the easy to load plastic ones) it's a matter of time, temperature, and cleanliness. It

only took a few attempts to find a good developing time, and once I found it I

stuck with it as long as I got results that printed well. While I use digital

cameras exclusively in my work, I find that the process lacks the magic of traditional

photography. That doesn't mean digital is bad--it's quick, efficient, and cost effective for

me--but magic? Alas, no. I gave my darkroom away a few years

ago--3 enlargers, all manner of stuff--and now find I miss it at times, although not

enough to replace it. I do shoot a little film for personal work and have a

friend develop it.

I scan on a Polaroid SprintScan Plus connected to an ancient G3 and make an

occasional B&W print on an older HP Photosmart with a gray cartidge. While not perfect,

they're not bad. I like different types of negatives for traditional darkroom printing and

scanning. In the darkroom a prefer a denser neg, for scanning a less dense one. None of

the tools I use are the best, but they work for me. For my personal work I like the slower

process and forced patience that film requires.

I recently found a lens for my Canon P in the classifieds at rangefinder forum. Although the

lens was in Australia, I found everything went smoothly. For some reason I am more

comfortable trading in a non Ebay environment, although I've made at least 20 transactions

on it (mostly as a seller). I think in some of the forums I get a sense of the person, and that

gives me more confidence in the deal. Ditto for PNet--lots of smooth transactions here. I

don't know why I would be particularly suspicious of Europeans. Pound for pound (or kilo for

kilo) I'd guess we have as many crooks in the USA as anywhere.

I used the FL50 for a while with the E-1; while it was well integrated with the camera, I found

the recyling to be too slow. If I were to use one again I would have to have an accessory

power pack. Olympus says they are coming out with a newer high end flash unit this year; if

you can wait it might be worth it. (Note that Olympus has really dragged its feet in producing

promised items.) In the meantime there are some decent flashes around that can be used on

auto--albeit without emitting a focusing beam. The the Nikon SB28 and the Vivitar 285HV

come to mind

This individual has passed the feistiness test and should be admitted without delay to the

Leica area for further provocative postings. While it can be fun to guess the light--and with

practice I can get pretty good at it--sometimes I'll get it wrong. A light meter is an excellent

tool for judging the intensity of light and getting good exposures. Why should I, or anyone

else, be deprived of such a useful tool?

Thanks for the responses!

Dan

Does anyone know what lens or lenses this hood fits?

Thanks!

Dan Kapsner

I found the description of the process useful. I have shot situations where I went in "loaded

for bear" and ended up using little of what I brought. ( I have read of film directors who had a

scene set and lighted and then shot with almost all existing light--an expensive thing to

do--but the scene worked.) And I have gone into situations where what I was told and what

it was actually like were much different--I wished I had something wider to shoot with and

faster film. When I carry a really full bag of gear I often describe it as "all the impediments to

fine photography," but in truth sometimes having a certain piece of equipment makes a big

difference.

I have 2 10Ds; to me a good used one appears to be an excellent value. Sure they have their

difficulites (AF isn't the best, have to wait sometimes when shooting lots of raw files, and

they like to nap a lot) but they offer a lot for the money if you can put up with those

shortcomings. The files at ISO 1600 aren't bad--very usable. The 20D addresses these

problems and may be the best used value around, but of course you're going to pay more for

one of them. And either model gets you into the Canon lineup--a good place to build from.

I have opened .ORF files in CS2 (although from an E-1). However, I now convert .ORF files to

.DNG files with the Adobe Raw Converter (free download) because they make smaller files.

ORF files--at least from the E-1--take up an undue amount of space; the conversion makes

them approximately 60% of the original file size. DNG files also open in CS2.

I have it on good authority that the engineers at Olympus who were working on the long-

awaited follow up to the E-1 body acquired the leading Canon and Nikon gear, but while they

were studying it a sudden outbreak of sleeping sickness swept through their ranks and they

haven't been heard from since. Apparently the marketing and promotion people at the

company aren't aware of this tragedy and have been promising a replacement for some time

now.

I was disappointed but not surprised by the lack of a new pro body. What is offered seem

like very light, compact bodies. Although they may not be as responsive as some would

wish, the trade off in weight is appealing to me. I'll be interested to see how they perform in

a hands-on review, and I'd like to see some picture samples. Guess I'll just stay tuned.

Hey, OP, don't you go selling my bridge! I paid good money for it and I've got the certificate

to prove it.

Jati, I've purchased bargain grade gear from KEH that continues to function long after. BTW,

nice website.

A search of ebay for similar items in similar condition is probably the best indicator of what

people will be willing to pay for it.

I like the 4/3rds aspect ratio, although sometimes get myself into trouble when I'm shooting

with both 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios at the same gig and want to make 4x6 proofs. At times

cropping to 3:2 seems cramped and forced at the top and bottom of a horizontal, just as

making an 8x10 can get cramped on the sides using 3:2. I think what I'd really like is a

square format E-1 with about 10MP, and then I could crop to my heart's content or print

square. (I know it's a good idea to use the whole frame, but in the heat of action I sometimes

don't; it's enough if I can simply keep up. Not everyone can be HC-B.)

I, too, am curious to learn what Olympus' new offerings will be. I have seen statements to the

effect that top quality high ISO performance simply isn't in the cards for the four-thirds

sensor due to its small size, but sometimes internet pronouncements have a tendency to let

opinion outstrip fact. I honestly don't know. I do know that as much as I like the E-1, I want

its replacement to be more competitive in terms of performance without sacrificing size,

durability, and handling. Some fast prime lenses would be welcome, too.

Jeff, I question about the Picture Mates: can they be hooked to a computer, or are they strictly

stand-alone operation?

Thanks,

Dan Kapsner