ken_reither1

I went through the same questions two years ago when I bought my M6ttl.

 

My baseline was my Nikon F, for which I used a Nikon accessory diopter labeled +0.5. A Photonet poster told me the F comes from the factory -1.0, and that Nikon labels its accessory diopters based on the end result, not on the actual value of the diopter. Thus a Nikon +0.5 accessory diopter has actual value +1.5. You screw it in, and you're adding +1.5 to -1.0, yielding an end result of +0.5

 

I called Leica. The rep said the M6 comes from the factory -0.5 and that Leica accessory diopters are labeled according to value added, not the end result. Thus, I bought a Leica accessory diopter from B&H labeled +1.0, yielding a net +0.5 (adding +1.0 to -0.5). The diopter did the trick.

 

Further, I set my Nikon N75 one click from the top. The manual says the range is -1.5 to +0.8.

 

I don't know how these relate to my eyeglass prescription.

I need to clarify something in my earler posting. When I said I don't know of a meter with matrix metering, I was referring to HAND HELD meters. I know of no hand held meter incorporating matrix metering systems such as those in a Nikon F100, N90, and so forth.

 

Good luck with the F. It's a great camera.

Suggest the following as a good source to learn exposure: http://www.nyip.com/sub_idx_pgs/referidx/ref_technique_idx.html

Many manual camera photographers don't use exposure meters. It slows them down. Instead, they memorize a few rules such as those outlined in the recommended website and get there through trial and error.

 

I don't know of a meter with matrix metering. All meters I have owned read a scene, assume it's middle gray, and assume the photographer will adjust exposure from there. I've had good luck with Seconic and Pentax spot meters, but they aren't cheap.

 

At a 5x enlargement (5" x 7"), ISO 400 would still have sharp resolution, as probably would ISO 3200. I haven't tried the latter for decades. I get great 11x14's from ISO 400 film. I see the grain, but they have sharp resolution. (My prints go on a wall, not under a microscope.)

I painted my Leica flesh color. Then I hit the streets naked. No one ever notices the camera.

I use a monopod with mine.

Excuse me, but how can a post be "trolling" when it's about a Nikon lens, posted on a Nikon forum, and without even a hint of mention of some other brand?

Two Leica person HERE

Grandson, 20 plus years ago.

Thanks Jim. When I first saw EV type finders (on Minolta and Nikon digitals), I was not at all impressed. The Digilux-2 sounds better. Hopefully someone in the Houston area will have a demo to look at one of these days.

This is addressed to those who own or have actually tried out a

Digilux-2: Can you focus easily and accurately with the EV finder

on the Digilux-2?

Here's mine (again): http://community.webshots.com/photo/67237403/67240910RmgBWY

to Jay: Don't you have something to do?

http://community.webshots.com/album/67237403ZxxGda

I like my M6TTLs a lot.<div></div>

Yes, another Canon troll. I've had three Canon cameras, two were point and shoots that literally fell apart, the third was a G2 that didn't know how to focus.

 

I've had at least forty other cameras and probably 30 lenses. Most of the latter were (are) wonderful. Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, Mamiya, Pentax, Yashica, Schneider, Hasselblad, and of course, Leica. I make 11x14 prints (or bigger) and I put them on walls. I don't waste my time on tests or lines per millimeter charts viewed with a microscope.

 

One of the best lenses I have is a 50mm f2 screw mount Nikkor that came with my Tower 46 (imitation Leica IIIf made by Nicca). Another is my Nikkor AF 60mm 2.8 Macro. Two more are my Leica 50/2.8 Elmar and my 35/2 Summicron ASPH. Another was the normal lens (I think 90mm) that was on my Pentax 6x7. I could list many more.

 

More definition is lost due to camera shake and focus error than in differences between the lenses.

 

Is Leica better than Canon? Probably not as a practical matter. Is this a waste of time? Yes.

I made mine out of thin but firm cardboard (from a pkg of Epson photo paper, I think.)

Jay, you replied, "So then you're saying you feel your color work is expendable but your B&W work is worth saving?"

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm back to shooting film b&w along side digital color because properly processed b&w negatives and prints will probably last 200 years or more, just sitting in a box in the closet. Digital images will require constant maintenance and conversion to new storage formats, thus will probably be lost over time.

 

I'm not an HCB. All I do is take portraits of my family. I recently inherited family photos from the 1860's. I want my photos to last that long, too. That's all I'm after.

 

Digital is vastly superior to film when it comes to the ease and convenience of the process itself. With my D1x, Photoshop, and Epson 1280, I can make 12x18 prints that are stunning. And for all practical purposes, the quality is about the same as a film print.

 

These digitally produced prints will probably last no longer than a color print made by film processes. Maybe even less. But there's little I can do about it. So I shoot b&w, too, using film cameras.

www.badgergraphic.com is an outfit in Wisconsin that advertises Shen Hoa for sale. I know nothing about them, just ran into the URL a while back.

Yup, but it sure takes nice photos.

For what it's worth, my "last M6" has s/n 2721902. (Black, .58). Does that mean there are 12,320 Leicas between my "last" and the one you found on e*ay? Looks like there are some laster than others.

All of the above and Polaroid.

Has anyone seen any film negatives from 1889-1950 lately? Nope, because the film base was cellulose nitrate, which deteriorated over time (or worse, self combusted.) Fortunately the prints survived.

 

Although nobody ever accused a CD of self combustion, CDs do deteriorate and they are easily destroyed by heat. Hard drives can be destroyed with a magnet. Formats and storage media will change. Example: Kodak's FinePix standard is already kaput.

 

Until someone invents a permanent, long term storage method for digital images (probably won't happen), I'll keep shooting b&w film and color digital side by side.

Brett, I didn�t find the article to be a pile of rubbish. Also, I missed it in earlier posts and thank you for the reference.

 

When I got my D1x 30 months ago, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. My first prints were stunning. I thought film was dead and began selling off my film equipment. Fortunately I kept my darkroom, although it lay dark indeed for a couple of years.

 

Then I began to think about the probable lack of permanence of digital images as storage media, formats and software change over time. And realized we�ll probably end up with a lost generation of images through changes in technology.

 

So I went back to shooting film for my b&w, but using digital for color. I replaced the Leica I had sold, as well as my Zone VI 4x5 view camera (bought a Wista DX), and filled in with a MF, too.

 

I keep the Leica loaded with Delta 400, the 4x5 with T-Max 400, and the D1x with fresh battery charges and lots of CF cards. And choose the best camera for the image I want to make. Yesterday, I made fiber paper b&w prints for the first time in over 10 years. Had to dust off my print washer and dry mount press.

 

For me, digital and film are doing well side by side.

 

Thanks again.

I use a Nikon 4000 for 35mm, and an Epson Professional 1680 for 120 and 4x5. Both scanners give very sharp scans and I've had no trouble with either of them.

Nice shot, Jack. Nice camera, too. Enjoy it. (I think this thread got a bit off track.)