ken_reither1

Fred Picker's last newsletter was #83, dated September 1995. In it, he announced his resignation from Zone VI, which he had earlier sold to Calumet. Calumet continued publishing the newsletters, but they weren't the same. Didn't have the spark that Fred's had.

To me, the issues are:

1. With the electronic viewfinder, can I focus accurately and see the subject well. (I've had a couple of point&shoots, neither of which focused accurately.)

2. Image quality, of course.

3. Shutter lag (in this respect, my point&shoots were simply AWFUL, but my digital SLR is great.

 

The concept of the Digilux2 looks great to me.

Krystin. July 1985<div></div>

For the first time in 45 years of developing b&w film, I encountered

white specs in my prints (black specks of stuff on the negs). After

a lot of investigation, it turned out to be trash in the water. I

bought a water filter, and that took care of it. Drove me nuts for

a while, though, till I figured it out.

Bill, your photographs deserve publication in one of those "retrospective" books. Nice work. Very nice.

yup Bushop VC. Sure looks blushing to me.

Yeah. Rock on.

I want a small, quality digital camera void of extraneous garbage (What good are those tiny movies, anyway?) I don't want auto exposure or a built-in meter. One of those screens on the back (as on current digitals) would quickly teach how to set aperature and shutter. In fact, this is one of the real advantages to digitals -- it eliminates that nagging question always present with manual cameras -- Did I get the exposure right?

 

Above all, I want one that will focus with accuracy. I've had three consumer digitals. One (no need to name names) focused accurately only about 80% of the time, and gave erroneous feedback. Not acceptable. I dumped it at a big discount two months after purchase. It's focus method hid behind the big DOF you get from those small focal length lenses. Good enough for 4x6 inch prints, but not for a real photographer.

 

My big digital SLR (which I love) focuses with great accuracy, but I want something less than tank size.

 

I'm afraid that no one is going to build what I want. In the

"less than tank" sizes, they're instead offering light placticky point and shoots with zillions of complicated options -- layer upon layer of menus. But not a one of these things comes remotely close to the quality, precision, and heft of a manual Leica, Nikon or Canon.

 

Yes, I know. The images they take post well on the internet and make nice prints. Provided you're prepared to deal with the half second or more delay from when you hit the shutter button to when it actually takes the picture. Again, not acceptable. Not exactly what you need to capture the decisive moment.

 

Maybe I'm old fashioned. I guess that's why I shoot Leicas and Nikon F's. Unless I'm shooting my big tank digital SLR.

It happened to me years ago. Probably has happened to every Leica owner. To make sure it doesn't happen again, every time I load a new roll of film, I insert the roll, place the leader into the takeup spool, close the back, install the bottom cover and advance the film one frame. At that point, I turn the rewind knob very slowly only until I feel tension, then continue to advance the film to frame one. If the rewind crank isn't turning at this point, the film hasn't caught and is not being advanced, in which case I re-start the film loading process.

Thanks for all your responses. My intent was that the focus be on the bike's admirers, not the bike itself. Unfortunately, their expressions get lost in the small screen size.

 

As to motorcycles, I've owned Harley, Honda, BMW and others. I love them all, but my ride of choice these days is the BMW GS. I sold my Honda Valkyrie last year. A used Valk will buy a ton of Leica stuff, you know.<div></div>

Woodtick Races, at Woodtick Inn, Cuyuna, MN 6-14-03 (M6TTL, 50/2.8

Elmar-M).<div></div>

Just watched "Spy Game" on Direct TV, a 2001 CIA flick staring

Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. During a brief part of the movie,

Pitt goes undercover as a news photographer, mostly using a black

Leica (M6?) with motor drive. Looked authentic, even to the point

of switching to an SLR for long telephoto shots.

Chuck, I'm deeply offended. You mean, no one really cares when I shoot with my Brownie Hawkeye?

 

By the way, just what in hell was the point of your posting?

Sorry, I meant Brownie

My thing is 620 negatives from a Brownine Hawkeye. I get all wet and sticky in anticipation of the scan.

I don't know why this unfortunate fellow was injured. Perhaps the Police confused him with looters and rock throwers. There are some of us who believe the BBC distorts the facts to satisfy editorial leanings, therefore don't believe a thing the BBC reports.

 

In any event, this forum is supposed to be about Leica photography. Morphing it into tirades against US and UK involvement in Iraq is totally off topic. Let's get back to picture taking and Leica stuff.

Bracket more than I did (I shot it with 200 Ektachrome and Tri-X in '84 with an M4-2 and an M-2). I braced the cameras on the pews and columns, as I recall. And take me along. ;<)

And some are even over 60.

Maybe viewfinder flare contributed to the difficulty focusing the M6TTL. It has for me from time to time.

 

I don't understand the hubbub. I've been doing a similar test for about 10 years, taking the same photo of my house in the afternoon sunshine with just about every camera and lens I own.

 

It's taught me, for example, that I didn't need to shoot 4x5 any more; that my 30 year old Olympus Trip35 does an amazing job; and that my 35/2.0 ASPH is stunning. These tests show the tone improvement when I move from 35mm ISO 400 to 35mm ISO 50 and on to 6x7. I keep the prints and refer to them from time to time. I think it was useful to see this for myself.

Someone once said, "A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches never knows." Or something to that effect. Same with meters. In 40 years, I've NEVER had two exposure meters match over the entire range of light. It used to drive me crazy.

 

Today, I use a Seconic L-508 in spot mode when shooting with a meterless camera. I got rid of all other different type hand-held meters to avoid the confusion. I take a spot reading and adjust according to brightness of the subject and the zone I want in the final print.

 

I'm not recommending that you dump your meter in favor of the L-508. Your meter is probably just fine, although I long ago dumped my Luna-Pro and my older incident reading Seconic because I wanted ONE meter, not several.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendation posted above: Shoot some slide film, carefully recording the readings, bracketing as you go. Study the slides carefully afterward, then do it again. After a couple of rolls, the light will dawn.

 

When shooting my two M6TTL's, I use the in-camera meters. The two seem to match close enough. I haven't tested them against the Seconic. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!! Knowing would just confuse things.

 

The M6TTL's yield excellent exposure readings, but after 40 years, I still get surprises. Like at the beach two weeks ago. It was fairly solid overcast, yet my M6TTL was giving me "sunshine" readings. I noticed this after shooting an entire roll. I regretted not overriding the meter by a couple of stops (+1 for the light colored sand and the reflection it would give, -3 for overcast skies), but it was too late for that. I came away convinced I had underexposed the entire roll and that something was goofy with the M6TTL meter.

 

But after development, the negatives showed proper exposure. I guess I had misread the blocking strength of the overcast clouds. I'm still puzzling over it and have decided to stick with what the M6's tell me through thick and thin. Until next week, I suppose, when I get another surprise.

I'm farsighted, wear glasses, and just went through the process of figuring out what correction lens to buy for my M6TTL. Here is what I found and recommend.

 

Leica Technical Data says, "The viewfinder eyepiece is calibrated for -0.5 diopters. Screw-in correction lenses are available."

 

In my case, I bought a +1.0 correction lens. The net result was +0.5 (-0.5 plus +1.0 = +0.5), but what worked for me will probably not work for you. These numbers bear no direct relationship to my eyeglass prescription numbers.

 

I bought mine from an on-line seller that stocks them and has a good return policy. My initial order was a guess that turned out to be wrong. I had ordered a +1.5. The box that came said +1.5, but the lens inside was actually a +1.0. Lucky for me, the +1.0 worked great.

 

My recommendation: Go to a seller that stocks them and try them out till you find the one that works best for you.

When taking available light photos of my 22 month old great grandchild at f2.0, 35 of 36 are out of precise focus because she moves around so much. I just keep shooting and hoping. I also find, by the way, that my picky feelings about precise focus are not shared by those viewing my photographs. They think the other shots are just fine and are not offended by the fact that the eyelashes are not crisp.

 

Sometimes I move her to my tiny "studio" where I keep a white hanging background and two Novatrons. There, I use my D1x set at F16. No problem keeping the eyes in focus, but the shot is entirely different. (By the way, I'd use three or maybe even four lights in my "studio", but there's not enough room for more than two.)

 

Lastly, my odds of precise focus improve markedly in the available light shots when I switch to my autofocus F100. I make the switch often.

One camera, one lens, film. What a wonderful idea. When I went to Europe in '84, I took two Leica's with 35/50/50/90, plus a Nikon F2A with 20mm, 35/1.4, 70-200 zoom, and flash. ENTIRELY TOO MUCH EQUIPMENT!!! I had to lug around all that weight, plus worry about it. Couldn't set it down anywhere. What a bummer. And the shot was gone by the time I decided which camera/lens to use.

 

Today, I'd take one M6TTL and my 35/2 ASPH and a bunch of Ilford Pan F Plus. To that I'd add my Rollei 35, loaded with Ilford Delta 400 (for indoors of churches, etc.). And a cable release and a tiny table-top tripod of some kind. This would all stuff into jacket pockets, and into a soft briefcase during the plane ride. The soft briefcase would also hold tickets, maps, etc. For walking around, the passport, tickets and money/credit cards will fit in one of those small holders that hang from a string around your neck, under your shirt. Keep your map out of sight, too. No sense in advertising that you're a tourist.

 

Lastly, leave your Ohio State (or whatever) cap at home. When you get where you're going, see what the locals are wearing and buy that. Helps to blend in.

 

Darn. I'm envious of your trip.

I use ordinary 8.5x11 looseleaf notebooks with Avery "diamond clear" hw sheet protectors. Available at any office supply store. Cheap, easy to maintain, easy to reorganize. Most important, it keeps the fingerprints off the prints.

My darkroom is regular room temperature, so I don't have a temperature control problem. But I use a presoak with constant agitation to remove bubbles from film, whether 120 or 35mm. I use Patterson tanks. My standard practice is to start with a water bath same temp as the developer. I pour in the water bath, then invert the tank a dozen times or so for 30 seconds, then pour it out, and pour in the developer.

 

I had a heck of a time with bubbles until I started doing this. Haven't had any since. What I discovered, through some open tank testing in the daylight, was that rapping the tank on a counter didn't remove the bubbles. The liquid seemed to act as a cushion. And if I rapped hard enough, there was danger of cracking the tank. So I converted to the pre-bath method.

 

Also, I found that a pre-soak was mandatory when developing 4x5 sheet film in trays (using the interleave method), otherwise the films would stick together.