roger_hicks1

Of course Paul is right: I did include the weight of the (rather big, heavy) lens in the weight of the camera because it really wouldn't be much use without one. I apologize if I have inadvertently misled anyone.

I'll reiterate: for me it's not just the (relatively) light weight and hand-holdability of the camera: it's the set-up time.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Marco,

Yes, I think there is a false assumption there, namely, the 1/125 second shutter speed. The bigger the format, the less magnification (indeed, most people will contact print 8x10) and the longer you can hand hold it. In the days of 4x5 press cameras it was quite common to shoot 1/25 and even 1/10, and 1/5 was not out of sight (I'm using the old shutter-speed sequence, of course).

Admittedly the 8x10 is a LOT heavier than the 4x5, so there's the question of tremor induced by weight if you hold it too long, but if you rest it on your lap; raise it to your eye; and shoot, then, you should be able to hand-hold at 1/30 with confidence, 1/15 surprisingly often, and 1/8 or even 1/4 if you use the old trick of slouching against a door frame.

The other point is that it's not just the hand-held aspect: it's the almost zero set-up time compared with a conventional 8x10.

It's certainly never going to be a million-seller, but I'd expect it to sell scores, maybe even a hundred or more units, so it's a question of grab it while it's available if you think it'll be useful -- or if, like 99.999% of photographers, you don't think you'd ever use it, spend the money on something else. Fritter it away on food and rent, for example.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Mark,

Yes. I picked one up at photokina (for review in Shutterbug, and my wife Frances Schultz is reviewing it for Black and White in the UK). We have been using it since with the 150XL Super-Symmar. It's a fascinating piece of kit, though at 10 lb (nearly 5 kg) you don't want to hand-hold it for too long: your arms get tired. I normally use either a monopod or an ultra-light (1 kg, 2-1/4 lb) MPP tripod but where you need to hand hold it (e.g. on a boat where the vibration of the engine would be transmitted to the camera) it is eminently hand-holdable.

The only hint of a problem was that at first, I sometimes pushed the film-holder past its correct location, but once you train yourself to feel the little click as the locating ridge seats, that's no longer an issue.

In the interests of speed (and weight) I normally leave the ground-glasa out (you slide the GG out before you slide the holder in) and carry it with one holder in place. The others are in a satchel over my shoulder.

The more I think about it, though, the more I would be inclined to specify the 110 XL, the widest lens that will cover. I've been thinking about a series on vintage shop interiors (especially old ironmongers') and this would be the perfect set-up for it.

Like all Fotoman stuff, the quality of the finish is improving all the time. their earliest stuff was well engineered, but crude in places. This is a much more 'up together' piece of work.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Unsurprisingly (and I have used all three, and own both Leica and Voigtlander) the best Leica is a Leica, followed by a Zeiss Ikon, followed by a Voigtlander.

You can find an old M-series Leica for only twice the price of a used Voigtlander, and about the price of a new ZI.

After that, the choice is yours. Any can take better pictures than I can (though the Leica and ZI focus better with fast lenses) and unless you are unbelievably good or habitually use fast lenses at maximum aperture, the only big advantage of the more expensive cameras is that they are more of a pleasure to use. Of course, with a canera you like more, you get better pictures...

Cheers,

R. (www.rogerandfrances.com -- with LOTS of Leica and Voigtlander shots, and a far amount of ZI, especially in the Spain gallery)

Dear Thomas,

Wedge a bit of matchstick underneath. This is how I have used mine for 20+ years. Ignore all Dire Warnings about how disabling rangefinder locks will do any harm to your lens, as they are complete nonsense. I have been disabling infinity stops for a third of a century and have yet to see a single disadvantage: check my website, www.rogerandfrances.com, for decades of rangefinder pictures -- or look for my book Rangefinder from GMC Publications.

Cheers,

Roger

I tried one at photokina, alas without my own SD card. I was well impressed: easy menus, good finder, real 'M' feel, slightly odd shutter-cocking noise. I'm currently waiting for a review camera. When I get it. there'll be a report in The Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com

Cheers,

Roger

Off topic: the Viso III fits (I tried it).

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Ilford DD-X is expensive but has a wonderfully long shelf-life (12 months +), even in half-full bottles, and delivers a true ISO 64-80 with Pan F. Exposure and development are however more critical than with faster films.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Dear David,

I've owned most RF Leicas including IIIg, and used many of those I've not owned, and I have to say that although the IIIg viewfinder is vastly superior to any other screw Leica, I'd go for an M instead. The 'collector' premium on a IIIg makes it unrealistically priced, in my view, next to an M or indeed a IIIc or IIIf.

The Leica will offer you more than a Rollei 35 (and again, I've used those too -- there are Leica, Rollei and many other pictures on www.rogerandfrances.com). Faster lenses, interchangeability and better lenses too, though even the Triotar is surprisingly good and the other Rollei 35 lensea are better. If you're happy with the Rollei 35 image quality, don't change.

Cheers,

Roger

Yeah, and I'll only eat fillet steak for the whole trip...

Is this not a somewhat idle fantasy? If you don't have to do it, why fantasize about it?

Cheers,

Roger

Or buy almost any book ever written on the subject.

R.

Dear Afzal,

Quite honestly I'd go for Voigtlander instead. Summarons were very good in their day but they are now a very old design. I've used them and I'd FAR rather have a 35/1.7 or 35/2.5 Voigtlander for optical quality, though the Summarons are delightlfully smooth and sweet-handling.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Robbie,

I think he's being wildly optimistic, even with the processing machine. Half that, I'd guess. But of course I've not seen it. It's a question of whose nerve breaks first -- yours or his.

Cheers,

Roger

Dear Richard,

Yes, glass for everything. There's no great advantage except with developer, but it's always best. The extra surface area of concertina bottles may actually make things worse than non-concertina! There is little or no advantage in compressing them. I threw away all my concertina bottles years ago when I learned how much use they were.

Indeed 'any old bottle' will do but if it's not dark (green or preferably brown) it's a good idea to keep it in a dark cupboard.

Many screw-on bottle caps are interchangeable. When recycling ANY bottle make sure it is CLEARLY labelled so that it can't be mistaken for e.g. Perrier water.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Dear Richard,

Concertina bottles are a snare and a delusion as the vast majority are oxygen-permeable. Glass is vastly superior. As others have suggested, store dev in several small bottles, not one big one.

Overexposure will make grain coarser, not finer.

Oxidized ID-11 should be brown. If it isn't, then quite likely it either isn't oxidized or isn't ID-11. Phenidine-based developers can lose strength through hydrolysis rather than oxidation, still looking clear but not working, but ID-11 ain't Phenidone-based.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Another Billingham vote.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

When it comes to Ilford, it is the only choice.

Cheers,

R.

The reliability of mechanical versus electrical/electronic devices is an intriguing question. The electrical/electronic device is normally more reliable -- until it breaks with no warning. The mechanical device often gives more warning (roughness, noise) and the fault is often easier to trace and fix in the field. This is not invariably the case but 40 years' experience of mechanical and electrical systems in cameras leads me to suggest that it is a good guideline.

The vast majority of electrical/electronic breakdowns are at the electro-mechanical interface (crudely, switchgear and other contacts). Source: engineer (Navy, oil industry) with 35 years' experience, not me. Where reliability is a matter of life and death (eg SAS vehicles or indeed spacecraft) electronic systems are often duplicated or more. Mechanical systems rarely are.

As for 'not an engineer' I'd suggest that anyone who thinks electronic cameras are inherently more reliable than mechanical has not used either under arduous conditions for long periods. Or if he has, he's been lucky with the electrics.

Cheers,

Roger

I love mine and it is one of the greatest advantages of an MP -- FOR ME. Others do not feel the same way. It's a mechanical trigger base.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Dear Ian,

We are in substantial agreement, especially about the relative capabilities of cameras and photographers. Our only difference -- which is very much one of opinion, not indisputable fact -- is that I have about 10 camera bags (and sometimes use no bag at all) so the spare batteries are not quite so easy to take for granted. And, of course, there's the 'backwards' speed dial. I've never missed AE: you are all in favour of it (and I've had cameras that have it). Trying to find the consensus...

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.cim)

Well, I love 35+75, and unless I use an external finder, this rules out a lot of early Ms (no 75 frame). If I could afford it I'd have 2x MP. As it is, MP + M4-P, and the 75 frame on the M4-P is marginal.

This is not however much help if you want 28mm + 90mm... I really wouldn't bother with 100mm as there is no frame for it. The same goes for earlier Ms and 28mm.

Although the 75/2 is now my standard slightly long lens, I have also taken portraits that I like, and which are in what amounts to the National Gallery for the Tibetan Government in Exile, with my 90/2 Summicron. I don't recall if it was on the M4-P or an M2.

Personally I hate battery dependent cameras and wouldn't go near an M7, the more so as the shutter speed dial on both the M7 and M6ttl go backwards as compared with all other Leicas. This is no problem if they're all you ever use but if you have other Leicas or have been using Leicas for a long time (30+ years in my case) they are a disaster. There's so much personal preference involved that all you can do is compare as many responses as possible and try to spot any consensus that may come out of them (unlikely).

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Dear Steve,

Good point. Wish I'd thought of it. But I think a 'zoom' finder is very unlikely (assuming that's what you mean by 'variable' -- apologies if I misunderstood).

Cheers,

Roger

Dear Terry,

You don't get 'super contrasty' high-speed films, at least when developed to ASA standards, and HPS was Ilford's standard super-fast film, much like Delta 3200 today.

Remember too that until about 1960, B+W films had a one-stop safety factor built in. When this was taken out, film speeds doubled overnight, i.e. ASA 250 became ASA 500 and indeed HPS went to 800.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Which would you prefer:

(a) Expensive Ilford films?

(b) No Ilford films?

Not a hard choice for me.

Also, don't forget the miserable weakness of the American dollar. When Dubbya first came to power, a euro cost just over 90 cents US. Today it's $1.25 or so. The dollar hasn't weakened quite so much against the pound but it's still a lot weaker than it was.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)