lawrence_beck2

<p>As long as we're dreaming, here is what I'd like to see in the DMR's replacement (this is a bit of a stretch... but the technology is proven and has been used by Contax and Sony):<br>

1. Image Stabilization in-camera: for those of us who use Leica telephoto lenses up to 800mm this would enable us to use our long glass to maximum advantage. I'm finding it nearly impossible to get critical sharpness with my 800 when using a Gitzo Series 5 CF tripod from a sitting position (minimizing leg resonance) and an Arca B1 head with or without a Wimberley Sidekick arm. Before chiming in with "you should use a full Wimberley", read the FAQ's on the Wimberley site written by JW himself: "There is no loss of stiffness or stability with the Sidekick as compared to the Wimberley head. The Sidekick coupled with a good ball head is actually stiffer than the Wimberley Head..." Stiffness equals stability, so the Sidekick is no less stable with long glass and nothing apart from more mobility would be gained with the full Wimberley. Don't confuse the benefits of Canon's IS or Nikon's VR with the vibration dampening qualities of the full Wimberley. IS or VR is what is allowing sharp images to be made on flimsy tripods with Wimberley heads, not the head itself. A Leica R10 with in-camera IS would put Leica back in the game for wildlife photographers who use long APO glass, as well as those who shoot in low light with wide and normal lenses.<br>

2. Auto Focus at the film plane, like the old Contax AX. This technology does not have to compete with the speed of Nikon or Canon's AF. It would enable all Leica manual focus lenses to achieve auto focus due to a moving sensor plane and this would eliminate the overwhelming cost and time of redesigning all Leica 35mm lenses to incorporate AF motors. Existing lenses could all be used and the value of used Leica glass would appreciate.<br>

3. 16 bit capture and no anti aliasing filter, along with 20+ megapixel sensor. No AA filter provides better sharpness and would allow better IQ (especially with the Fuji software incorporated into the S2) than Nikon, Canon and Sony's latest offerings. <br>

4. Size similar to the 5D11 rather than the Nikon D3x<br>

It's too late in the game for Leica to start from scratch with these ideas... but since they've revealed next to nothing about the R10, this is what I'm hoping against all hope for. <br>

</p>

<br />

Andrew Rodney reviews Noiseware here: http://www.ppmag.com/bonus/2006/08/review-imagenomic-noiseware.html

Scroll down to the images of the white dog... where he writes "Photo: A before and after of an image shot at ISO 1600. Notice the detail in the dogs hair in both. (Click image for larger view.)"

I clicked on the image, looked at the detail in the dog's hair and there is none in the image treated with Noiseware. Grain is entirely absent from the treated image... but after showing this example to several friends, all agree that the dog looks better in the image not treated with Noiseware.

Rodney is infinitely more knowledgeable in this area than I am, and he cites Greg Gorman as the person who turned him on to Noiseware. Both are very credible in my book. I just don't understand why he would chose an example that illustrates the opposite of what he alleges in his review.

Until I saw this example, I was ready to order Noiseware. Now I strongly feel that more research is in order.

I have an early version of the Arca Swiss B1 head. I'd like to replace the stock

clamp with a Really Right Stuff Lever Clamp as I need something more "secure"

with which to secure my heavy Leica R glass. RRS indicates that the newer

version of the B1 head uses an 11mm bolt to secure the clamp to the B1 head.

This can be removed with an 11mm socket.

My head predates the version RRS referred to and has a round, flat retaining

screw that has no surface to grip. RRS advises sending the head to Precision

Camera in Chicago to have the clamp removed. I'm assuming they'll drill the

existing screw out, but would rather not be without the B1 head for several

weeks while the head is in Chicago. A machinist could probably do this... but

I've just moved to a small town and would rather not trust this job to someone

I'm unfamiliar with. I'm hoping that someone on this forum has tackled this at

home and can advise as to how to proceed.

Thanks,

Lawrence<div></div>

Peter,

Your email address is bouncing back. I've written an evaluation of the 180 2.8 and 3.4 APO and tried to send you some images shot wide open with the 2.8 lens... but your email bounced.

Send me your correct email and I'll send you the images and review.

Lawrence (leicaman94044@yahoo.com)

Thanks Tom,

The teleflash adapter can't be angled down as it is made to fit the Metz flash. Even if it were possible to tilt it downwards, only a portion of the flash would be amplified by the fresnel teleflash lens. I need as much light as possible as the distances are fairly long at times. I'm looking for something sturdy as I occasionally need to rotate the camera to shoot verticals. A tilting flash bracket that screws into the camera tripod socket would be ideal. I'm just not aware of any out there... hence the query.

I'm using a Metz 54-MZ3 w/teleflash adapter mounted on my R8 hotshoe. The flash,

when angled down to it's lowest position, shoots over the area covered by my 280

APO lens. Wider angle settings on the flash unit decrease light output and

still don't solve the problem. I can physically bend the flash down while

shooting and this works but I can't refocus on the birds I'm photographing if my

hand is on the flash and not on the lens focusing ring.

Can anyone recommend a flash bracket that will allow me to angle the flash

lower, so I get full coverage with the Metz Flash?

Really Right Stuff makes brackets that will mount on the lens plate of the

lens... but these run $240 + off-camera shoe cord. Looking for a more

cost-effective solution. Thanks in advance. Lawrence

I have two black R8's and both had to go back to Leica to be brought up to DMR compatibility. It has everything to do with the age of the camera.

Lawrence Beck

I don't wear glasses, but sometimes use reading glasses with a 1.0 correction for reading late in the

evening... or when the eyes are tired. Could anyone advise as to which diopter 1.0 reading glasses

might equate to? I'm assuming this might also help to get better focus with a 150mm lens.

Thanks,

Hi Jonathan,

There are a couple of amazing deals on DMR's with an R8 or R9 on ebay right now. If I

didn't have one, I'd be jumping all over one or the other.

It's an amazing system... and you don't have to buy the latest APO glass to get

phenomenal results.

The attached image was taken with the old (very cheap and available everywhere) 180 3.4

APO with the 2X APO teleconverter, Metz 54-MZ3, from 10 feet away. The consensus

from those who have never shot with this lens is that its terrible at close range. Were it

not for the jpg compression here, you could clearly see every feather (in the plane of

focus) on the bird. Don't believe everything you hear. Test one and you'll be sold.

Best of luck,

Lawrence<div></div>

I spoke with Jim this morning and he stated that the magnification is closer to 1.75. This is

from Jim, not me. I don't know how this will impact the finder, but Jim assures me that it

results in a significant improvement across the board. I'll know more in 2-3 weeks when

mine arrive.

Guy,

You da bomb, bradda!

Thanks for your tireless efforts in educating the rest of us DMR owners. I ordered two of the

viewfinder magnifiers as soon as I heard about them early this morning. Critical focus is

imperative when one prints as large as I do, so thank you again for helping to improve the

system.

Lawrence

Salvatore,

Your's is the answer I was looking for. Since your serial number indicates an earlier

production number, one would think mine would be OK.

Thank you for taking the time to look up your number and answer. You made my day!

Lawrence

Bruno and John.

That's waaay too logical, guys. I already did that and Leica service said "send it to us and

we'll check it out,"

I'm going on a trip in a week. If I were to send it to NJ, it wouldn't be back in time for my

departure. They have a list of serial numbers of R8's that have been modified and I guess it's

not in the realm of possibility for them to look up a few numbers.

Lawrence

I have an R8 with a serial number of 2464265. I was wondering if there is anyone using an

R8 with an earlier serial number who has used a dmr back on their camera? Some R8's are

compatible and some have to go back to Leica to have the electronics modified. If you have

an earlier R8 body that has not been modified and you are using the dmr, please let me know

as I won't have to send my camera back to New Jersey for modification.

Thanks,

Lawrence

Troy,

Thanks for the photos of your lighting setup. With respect to using digital to photograph

paintings, would a 14 megapixel camera (Kodak slr/c) be sufficient to photograph an oil or

acrylic painting as large as 35x47?

I normally shoot 6x7 format or 4x5 but would like to go digital as I live far from a lab and

would love to eliminate the time scanning and all that proper film file prep entails. I am

on a very restricted budget and am looking for the most bang for my buck.

Though the slr/c has many shortcomings, my research indicates that it is well suited to

copy work. The color rendition is quite good and the bodies can be obtained used for

between $1,500 and $2,000. Also keep in mind that such a large piece of art is viewed

from 6 to 10 or more feet away... so 4x5 quality is not expected.

The white balance feature of digital cameras makes accurate color of copy work much

better than film... so there would be many advantages (for me, at least) in shooting digital.

Many thanks for your input... as well as the comments of all others on this subject.

Lawrence

Aleks,

The enlarger came with the 40mm focotar. This lens was mated to a cam that

allowed for autofocus once the lens/enlarger was calibrated. When Popular

Photography Magazine tested this lens, they noted less than 1/20 of a stop in

light falloff from edge to edge. I've used it, for years, along with a Zig Align

mirror alignment system and the results are superb.

The Schneider lens can be used... as well as the Rodenstocks, Nikkors etc,

but you won't have the use of autofocus. Not a big issue... as far as I'm

concerned.

The light mixing chamber in this enlarger provides results that are without

equal... in my experience (I've used Beselers, Omegas, DeVere's and Durst

enlargers and this one takes the cake).

From Kodak's website:

Dwayne?s Photo Service

415 S. 32nd Street

Parsons, KS 67357

UNITED STATES

Tel: (620) 421-3940

Fax: (620) 421-3174

Toll Free: 1-800-522-3940

Dwayne's will not accept Kodak's prepaid mailers unless the mailers are sent,

with film inside, to Kodak. Kodak will then trans ship the film to Dwayne's. A

bit archaic... but then... that's Kodak for you. You'll have to phone Dwayne's

toll free number and ask them for Kodak's address (for Kodachrome mailer

accompanied film) as I can't find it at the moment.

Their Fairlawn N.J. lab stopped processing Kodachrome as of Aug. 25, '04.

If you're not using Kodak's mailers, send the film to Dwayne's and they'll run it

straight away.

Best of luck,

Leicaman94044

Thanks for your input. I think I'll go with the 90 2.8 (non leaf shutter version),

shoot at f4 and do what minimal perspective corrections are needed in

photoshop. I've done this before, on several occasions, and the results are

wonderful. I've heard that the 90 is quite good wide open... so at f4 is should

suffice for big enlargements.

Your feedback has saved me a bundle! Thanks again.

This question is directed at anyone who owns the 90 2.8 and/or the 75 shift

lens: I'm leaving on a trip in a few weeks and will be shooting architecture.

For the type of shooting I'll be doing, something a little wider than the 105 will

be ideal. I'm considering the 90 2.8 because I want to shoot slow films, and I'd

like to shoot wide open so I can freeze the motion of any passersby.

The 75 shift lens is marginally wider, but I'll be able to shift the front element to

correct for converging verticals. The drawback here is that I'll need to shoot it

wide open at 1/250 or 1/500 sec exposure.

How will the sharpness of these two lenses compare when shot wide open?

I'll be using a Series 5 Gitzo with an Arca Swiss head, mirror lock up and

cable release. Sharpness is of paramount importance as I print images very

large on a wide format Epson.

Thanks for any feedback you might have,

Lawrence

My thoughts exactly, Stuart. Here's the link:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws3/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=3819315832

main item here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3819315832

I've been following this item on ebay as it is a lens I've been looking for for a

long time. I've tried repeatedly to contact the owner to determine the history of

the lens as well as a proposal for an escrow.com payment method... and the

seller does not respond. I have not bid and will not bid unless the seller

responds. Does this appear legit? Seller has only been an ebay member

since May 10, 04 and has no history or personal info available.

Thanks for any feedback you might have on this item.

Subject: Response to Stopped Today from Photographing by Airport Security

Subject: Response to Stopped Today from Photographing by Airport Security

Apart from Michael Bender's astute observations, there's a whole lot of fear

mongering going on in this thread that indicates a plethora of flag waving

zombies who are clueless as to what is happening in this country. For starters,

read this from General Tommy Franks, who says that if the United States is hit

with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the

Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government

(written Nov. 21, 2003).

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html

Then have a look at the following url's from CNN that show the passenger lists

of the four 911 flights and show me the Saudis and Egyptian terrorists you

speak of... let alone a single Arab "terrorist".

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

911 was a "planned event" used to justify perpetual wars against every

country that has resources this government wants. The evidence to support

this is legion.... precisely why Bush has blocked the 911 investigation since

it's inception.

If you want to see the grand plan from a founding member of the Trilateral

Commission, Zbigniev Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor),

have a look at his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard". The maps in this book

(Middle East/Southern Russia) indicate precisely the location of US troops

since Bush took office.

Several more interesting pieces for those of you who care about preserving

what remains of this fragile democracy:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/puzzlePieces.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Ppuzzle.html

Wake up you ciphers! A mind is a terrible thing to waste...