todd_tebaldi

I am pretty sure the differences in optical quality are rather marginal. IMHO it's much more important that Hasselblad and Zeiss have stopped supporting C* lenses (at least in Europe). So go for anything older than CF lenses only if you get a really good price.

What would you pay in todays market for the following kit if the

price should allow to sell the kit in 6 months without loosing money?

 

500CM, 2xA12, Lenses 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, build in 1978, minor usage

signs, used by amateur, no CLA in the last 25 years, on first sight

everything works perfect (all shutter speeds work, back curtain not

sloppy...)

 

Always dreamt of a Hassy but have concerns from an investment

perspective. Would you at all buy a Hassi today or wait another year

until the last fashion/editorial/catalogue photographer has thrown

his analogue equipment on the used market?

Thx for all your comments. It is good news that all meters mentioned are useful tools without hidden traps to avoid.

 

For me their is only one open issue left, which is the power consumption of the 608.

 

Could anyone with practical experience make a bit more understandable what the general reproaches above mean in daily usage?

 

How often do you exchange the battery?

 

Is battery drain an issue in all modes or only in the flash/ radio transmitter mode?

 

For how long works a lithium cell in the 608 compared to a AA cell in the 508?

Just read through the luminous landscape review mentioned above. A bit thin to use friendly words. I am not really sure if the author has used the 608 for some time. It reads like the typical "writer gets the product for free and the manufacturer gets a good review" type of thing.

 

At least I learned that the 608 needs a lithium cell compared to a AA cell for the 508. Assume this change was necessary due to the build in radio transmitter. Looking at battery costs isn't this more a drawback for people not working in a studio?

thx Bruno, I check luminious landscape sporadically but obviously missed this one.

 

Is anyone aware of a comparable Gossen Starlite review which is available online?

Recently I made my first step in MF and bought Fuji GSW & GW cameras.

Wonderful machines! Thanks a lot for all your valuable input in

making this decision .

 

Now it is time to upgrade my light meter (Gossen Pilot). I prefer to

go for one device including spot- and incident metering. After going

through the specs I shortlisted Sekonic 608, 508 and Gossen Starlite

with a slight preference for the 608.

 

On this forum the indepth discussions on these meters are at least 2

years old. Has anything changed in the meantime?

 

Do the Sekonics still have the calibration drift problem and are more

or less useless for accurate metering?

 

Does the display cover of the Gossen Starlite still break after at

most 2 days of use? Is the user interface still counterintuitive and

a pain to use?

 

In other words: Should I forget my current favourites and go for a

Minolta Autometer instead?

 

Please refrain from discussing the 1001 features all these meters

have. I am more interested in overall reliability, accuracy and ease

of use.

Need to decide between the Fuji GS and GSW without having the chance

to try them out.

 

As I have no experience w/ the 6x9 format yet, I am a bit uncertain

which lens is the right one. In the 35mm world a 35mm or 28mm would

be the one to go for.

 

My question is:

Is the 90mm lens in 6x9 comparable with a 50 or with a 35 lens in

35mm? (If its a normal lens for 6x6 or 6x7 it should be a moderate

wideangle for 6x9, right?)

 

Is the 65mm lens in 6x9 comparable with a 24 or with a 28 lens in

35mm?

Just for clarification: I shoot b/w negs (tri-x) and slides (Fuji, Kodak) in MF and 35mm.

I am a newbie to digital stuff and plan to digitalize a few of my

best b/w and colour pics for doing some experiments with different

output devices.

 

As a quite conservative Leica/ Hasselblad photographer I am not yet

convinced if digital is the right thing for me. My main goal is to

get a feeling for what is the state of the art in digital printing.

Price and convenience are not so important in this stage.

 

As I understand I have two options for creating good sources for

further experiments:

 

1. Scan the negatives/ slides with a 4000 dpi semi-professional

scanner or with a professional drum scanner

 

2. Create some perfect prints and scan them with a good flatbed

scanner

 

What approach would you recommend?

Is a drum scanner still visibly better than a 4000 dpi film scanner?

Can a consumer scanner (1600dpi) be used for scanning 8x10 prints or

is some kind of high end machine necessary if quality is key?

 

Looking forward to your comments

/Todd

Thx for your advise. Have sent it to Solms yesterday. They told me it will cost USD 100+ as the lens needs to be dismantled and newly adjusted. Serious money for tighten a screw!

Please help:

 

On my 2/50 Summicron (1985) the focusing lever is about to separate

from the lens. At first sight it looks like the lens needs to be

dismantled to fix this.

 

Has anyone fixed this problem by himself or do you recommend to have

the lens serviced? Do you have an idea what Leica/Solms whould charge

for such a minor repair?

 

Thx a lot!

 

Todd

Being in Hamburg you should check out PPS too. The following links brings you to their second hand occasions. http://www.pps-online.de/shop?000000420000004600018530000000116f51138f

 

In Germany it is often easier to find a bargain at eboy than at dealers. So don't expect too much...

Thx Brian, have seen the mentioned data at digitaltruth too. But in their forum you'll find a different opinion:

 

Lowell Huff mentions that 400TX is the first real 400ASA Tri-x and therefore should be developed like Neopan 400 or HP5 but not like the old Tri-X. At 1:50 this would mean 11 instead of 13 minutes.

Has anyone tried to develop the new tri-x tx400 in rodinal?

Are changes necessary compared to the old tri-x? If yes, what times

and dilutions to you recommend?

 

Kodak states on the packaging that development times have been

changed. On the Kodak and Agfa websites I haven't found any specific

information on the 400tx/Rodinal combination.

 

Also the general discussion on the 400TX leaves me very confused. The

opinions seems to stretch from "best tri-x ever", "besides the

packaging nothing has changed" til "throw this crap away"!???????

 

Thx a lot for your help!

 

/T.

Thx for all your comments. Agree with most said above, but my question goes more towards the differences between SLR and RF in general.

 

I know what lenses I like. In the 35mm SLR world "my" lenses are: 24, 35 and sometimes 50mm. My question as a RF newbie is: Will that be the same with a M6 0,72?

 

Isn�t the 0,72 finder build to work best w/ 35 and 50mm lenses?

 

Isn�t the 28 on a 0,72 M6 a compromise, as it completely fills the finder and forces you to press your eye towards the finder, like non-HP finders on SLRs do it?

 

Aren�t 24/21s better fitted to a SLR, looking at the inconvience in switching to an add-on finder?

 

To me Leica lenses are simply too expensive for buying a 21 or 28 just to find out that these focal lengthes are better fitted to my SLR.

 

Did anyone went through this learning curve? Where did you end up?

(I think I will start w/ the 1,4/35...)

Assume a Nikon SLR guy is about to buy his first M6 (0,72 finder).

For now he can afford only one lens. With his Nikon F3 he took almost

all photos with a 35mm and a 24mm lens. He has to choose between the

following two lenses: Elmarit 2,8/28 (build 1981) and Summilux 1,4/35

(build 1984).

 

As I read somewhere Wiliam Klein and Gary Winogrand opted already for

the 28mm. Which of these two lenses would you choose as your one and

only for quite some time?

 

T.

Think of buying a used M6 in mint condition, BUT it has a very

noticeable scratch in the black chrome finish of about 7mm x 1mm.

 

Is there any professional leica-approved way of fixing this?

 

Not being a collector I don't care about some wear. On the contrary I

like it if the camera has some patina.

 

But this is not patina it is just an ugly scratch on a completely new

camera.