chuck_t

A. Does the Marco 90mm Elmarit lens require the google adapter for

doing Marco shot?

 

B. How is it compare with the R series 100mm f4 or 100mm Apo Marco

lens?

 

C. What is the purpose of the google adapter?

 

The lens itself is still expensive and even rare with the google

adapter. A recent auction ended with a price US$1400 with the

adapter.A insane and crazy price. R series camera with a marco lens

is much cheaper than the 90mm M lens alone.

I agree to what Lee said. Nikon D200 is a good camera but it does not have FF sensor, yet. Many of you said FF sensor is not important anymore because the Canon 1Ds Mark II is eqv. to the Nikon D2x. I disagreed because most of you did not compare the shadow details, highlight details, dynamic range, etc. I am not sure the how many of you brain washed 'cause saying the DX sensor is good enough is like saying 35mm film is enough and we do not need a Med. Format or large format.

 

If any of you watch a TV shows called "American Next top Model", Guess what the photographer used to shoot the models?

A Hasselblad H1 with a digital back.

Remember the old Nikon FM and FE days? You can flip the pin whenever

you wanted to use a Non-AI lenses. If the D200, FM2n and FM3A can

accept the AI and AI-S, why not change the collar a bit to accept

Non-AI lenses?

 

Do any of Nikon loyalists remembered the old FE model can switch the

focusing screen without the need of taken the prism off?

 

I wish Nikon can add these on their later models digital SLR.

 

I would like to change the screen because I would like to use a

center split-image for dim light manual focusing. By doing this, I

could achieve accurate focusing in dark environment without the fuss

of searching from the AF system. There is no point of using manual

focus lenses on a matte screen.

 

I heard some of you said the low-light AF assistance worried the

ability of the AF cam 1000. LoL..I don't care the AF or the 9 point

focusing...etc, if Nikon made a digital FM3D.

 

No one seems to mention it and I guess everyone nowadays are really

sucked into the electronic gimmick.

 

Nikon should be innovate on something like electronic split-image

finder, if interchangeable screen is too expensive to add on a DSLR.

Okay, I know what is Leica 1,2 and 3 cam. However, I have heard some

3cam R lens without ROM can only be use on R3 to R9.

 

I thought 3-cam lens can be use mount on any Leica. Then there are

some people said that not all 3-cam lens can be mount on the

Leicaflex SL or SL2 series.

 

For example. Leitz 50mm f2 summicron lens without ROM engraved at

the bottom of the lens barrel stated: LEICA R ONLY. MADE IN CANADA.

Does that mean it cannot be use on the Leicaflex SL and SL2 series?

"A 1970 Submariner is same as today modern Submariner"

 

Sorry, let me rephase it. A 1970 Submariner is "almost" as same as today modern submariner.

 

Yes, there are "subtle differences" changed, I agreed. Normal people will not see the differences, if both watches are new.

When I said Digital, I mean a digital number watch like Casio. Not the one with hands and quartz inside.

 

I doubt many people will own a Rolex and a digital watch. The people who brought their own Rolex will wearing everyday because they appreciate the work that done by each watchmaker. On the other hand, Casio watches can simply mass produce by machines.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention:

 

Rolex has announced and already increased the price on each watch by 15 percent. :0

I heard many of you said Leica is in trouble due to the following

reasons:

 

A. Not too many people are buying the new cameras.

 

B. Digital era effect the film camera sale

 

C. Leica is far behind in digital SLR

 

Well, I totally disagreed.

 

It seems like many think that Leica only handcraft the Leica M and R

camera. It is NOT. Leica is also selling other product as well. Such

as, expensive microscopes, binoculars, fieldscopes and few others

machines that related to optics.

 

A. There are many used but genuine Rolex watches in the market. Does

that mean Rolex is already in trouble? No. In fact, Rolex hardly

changes their design, unlike Omega. A 1970 Submariner is same as

today modern Submariner.

 

B. Does digital really effect Leica film sale? No and yes. The

problem of Leica is: They do not advertise their products. Now, if

we turn the clock back to the 70's. When Seiko developed the first

digital watch, many watch companies were following the idea, except

Rolex. Digital number watches are much more accurate, easy to read

and do not require service. Instead, Rolex focus on the long term

goal. In fact, Rolex still exists without produce one digital watch,

not even a prototype.

 

C. Rolex is also far behind in mechanical watch designing, too. I do

not see complicate movement like the Tourbillion. Their blue-print

in the movement is identical compare watches back to the 1940. And

yet, Rolex still survive.

 

My conculsion: Since digital watches is better in every way,

everyone should wearing it today. I do not see this to happen any

time soon.

 

Leica is in trouble has something to do with:

 

Organizing. Period.

Stick with split image. You do not have to ROCK BACK AND FORTH each time you focus. Split image does distract you a bit at the center but it is the most accurate focusing device in photography. AF and Matte vs. Split image is no comparison at all. When you just want to get the "eye-ball" sharp in a girl portrait, split image wins. Nothing can be that precise.

Of course, I forgot to mention that I will keep the Leica M. (Not selling it and get a Rollei).

I had Leica M but want to get a Rolleiflex 2.8F. I have used and

owned Hasselblad but I hate it because pulling in and out the

darkslide really bugs me. Besides, the 80mm lens is not as sharp as

the Rollei unless I buy the Hassy 100mm f3.5 lens. The 100mm lens is

indeed the sharpest lens in the Hasselblad family but it is hell

expensive. I sold the Hassy kit without looking back.

 

When I enlarge photos to 16 x 20 inches or larger, Medium format

wins. (Believe it or not, MF is still ahead of the game compare to

most DSLR cameras.) Overall, Rolleiflex is a much quieter camera.

 

The thing is: Rolleiflex 2.8F is even more expensive, espeically the

later one, than most Hassy kit. Shooting a roll of Medium is also

EXPENSIVE and only have 12 shot in a roll. I also need a tripod to

achieve max. sharpest, or else, it would be a waste.

 

However, I do not use Medium format often but when I need it, it

would be useful. I usually limited myself to shoot three to four

roll in a year due to the expensive cost of MF film and processing.

At last, there is no Rolleiflex can be rent nowadays.

 

Rolleiflex or NOT?

In the old film days, many people think that Leica produces the

sharpest image. A 12 MP suppress the film quality and the new Canon

1Ds MarkII with 16MP will beat Leica very badly. A new MP with the

summilux ASPH cost about the same as to the Canon 1Ds with a cheap

50mm f1.4 lens. Certainly, the Nikon D2x with a standard lens is

cheaper.

 

Will you be tempted on a good digital DSLR?

 

After a long consideration, I will stick with the Leica M for few

more years but I am not sure how long I can hold it. I mean you

cannot tell others of how sharp your Leica lens is anymore. A good

and affordable DSLR will do a better job with a low cost lens. I

also knew that Leica digital M with 10MP is coming but it will be

too late. By the time it comes out, a Nikon DSLR with 10MP will be

much cheaper.

 

PS. It is harder to get 100 ASA film in the shopper market. I have

not seen Kodak 100 ASA in a pack for a while.

If you are a loyality to Nikon, you know Nikon F series camera are

the best SLR made, espeically, the F2, F4 and F5. Each of

those "new" cameras introduce in every decade, not within 2 or 3

years.

 

Now, my question is why Nikon are introduce the D1, D1x, D1H, D2H

and D2x so fast without a breath and slow down?

 

For example, the F2 are in the market for 12 years before the F3

introduced. The F4 stay in the market for a long time before the F5

introduced.

 

Leica M does not have a digital camera yet because they are really

take the time and effort to introduce an affordable full frame

sensor with promising decent picture quality. Leica is the only

company to introduce their cameras that does not exist until the

next few years. I think this is a good thing, at least I can start

manage of living style and save up a few k in a bank before the

camera introduce. I mean who can and will spend few k all the sudden.

 

I admited that Leica is a bit behind in the digital but their

quality is usually better than the rest. It is a better to be late

than screw-up because we are talking about few k of spending here.

 

Back to the topic, I am not saying D2x is not good, but I don't want

to see the trend of Pro digital cameras are like computers. That is,

the goods obsolete for about every year. I repeat, I am talking the

Pro digit cams only, not the consumer-level DSLR digital cameras.

Don't get confuse.

I don't know why you ask this question. I think that you want to stir things up. Why don't you share your own experiences first before we open our mind and share with you, uh???

GET THE CRON or LUX!!! Jupiter 3 is worse than a Pentax lens.

"These are the AF28-85/f3.5-4.5, the AF85mm/1.8 and the AF75-240mm/f4.5-5.6D. The latter one is cheap plastic, but the first two should be pro grade"

 

Excuse me? As far as I know, non of your lenses are "pro grade". What do you call for the AF17mm-35mm zoom f2.8 with constant aperature through out the range? What do you call if you own one of the AF 85mm f1.4 and AF 70mm-200mm VR lens? As a professional photographer, I hate the varied aperature through out the zoom range. Why? Very difficult to do manual exposure when I do not trust the camera metering.

 

One more thing, non of the zoom are considered "pro", in my opinion. I am more favorite the prime lens because they are really good for low light work.

Buy her a Leica M3 with a 50m summicron or get a used Leica minilux with a 40mm f2.4 lens. Forget about the olympus point and shoot, they are not as good as the Leica. Not even close. A used Leica minilux on ebay is well within your budget. DO NOT buy any ZOOM point and shoot because their aperature is somewhere f4.8 to f7.8. Not good enough for dusk or sunset photos. A Nikon 35T Titanium is another good point and shoot with a fixed lens that is within US 400 to US 500 on ebay.

The guy is right, Zeiss deliver twice the resolving power of a pentax lenses. Shadow details are much better with Zeiss.

 

There is no camera as Pentax 634N. Did you mean Pentax 645N?

There are a lot....he he

 

Should I buy Nikon D70?

 

Nikon D70 vs. Canon Digital Rebel?

 

Is Hasselblad better than Leica?

 

Is Medium format better than 35mm?

 

Which format should I use 35mm vs. medium format?

 

Which lens is best for ....?

 

Which is the sharpest lens in.....?

 

How much is xxxxx camera cost in used market?

 

I need to travel. Which format should I bring?

 

Should I sell my .... or trade my.... for the new....?

 

I live in...Where should I send my camera for repair?

I am not sure why you asked such a stupid question here. The F5 AF use a faster AF chip and I forgot the number. The F4 AF chip is like the same as the N70 or F70.

 

Why I said is a stupid question? Look what you have asked again.

 

"does anyone know why mechanically the F5 is quieter than the F4"

 

They are two different camera and ten years apart. It is like asking why my old vintage Ford T is much slower and noiser than my new Ford car? You should rephase it like this:

 

Does anyone know the AF system in the Nikon F5 vs. the F4? I am just curious of how they worked.

 

If my words are sounding harsh to you, my apology. I just want to express how I feel after reading your post.

Nope, Calagary is a small city and I think is better to travel to Vancouver BC or Seattle USA. It is hard to find a high price used camera in small city, especially, Leica. To be honest, how many people can afford Leica back in those days? I live in Vancouver and it is hard to find a used Leica M4 and Leica M6 in these days. Those two are the common models. You can forget about getting a Leica M2 or M3 in a shop. I looked hard in Vancouver for about 6 years, including going to pawn shops, I start to give it up recently.

 

The best and the easiest place is to shop online. Go to ebay.ca or ebay.com

Keh.com has good cameras

kerrisdalecamera.com has some good used cameras

I had a R2 before but I sold it on ebay without looking back. You will soon get rid of the camera. The more you use it, the more you hate it. Why? The focusing patch disappearing at time is annoying enough for us to get rid of it.

 

After I sold the R2 for around US$400 dollars on ebay, I got a Leica M3 for US$600. Oh, man the extra US$200 dollars is well spent. The focusing patch never, never, disappear in whatever light condition. Plus, I have a quiet shutter.

 

Soon you will say "Enough is Enough". Trust me!!!

You can not get good deal in Vancouver BC, Canada. I compare the price against ebay and ebay has the best bargain against all camera shops in the world. Trust me!! An exception is once a while you may find something good in Garage sale or Pawn shop but I doubt you have the luck to find it. Chances are same as winning first price in a lottery ticket.

I have not take any photo yet. But as you know, single coating lens easily to get flare and ghosting image. Plus, lower the overall contrast.

I recently brought a M 135mm f2.8 lens. However, this lens is like

the f4.5 135mm that only have simple amber purple coating. To be

correct, I think the f4.5 is amber light blue. And I saw the 35mm

summaron f2.8 with google that also have a simple blue coating.

 

Why photographers are still lust for them? They are not consider

rare but price are still high. Will the multi-coating Nikkor or

Canon lenses are much better after all?

 

I asked the above question because I am not sure if I made a mistake

for buying this lens. The 135mm I got seems like a early Pentax

coating lens, no kidding. I am a bit worry.