erik_den_hartigh

About 5-7 years ago I had both the Mat and the Mat-124G. I have never been able to detect any quality differences, apart from the Mat-124G being younger and therefore in better condition. The lightmeter in the Mat-124G I found to be clumsy and not precise. I wouldn't buy a 124G just for the meter.

Eh, I'm sorry, but I seem to recall that there was an official press release that the banks have partly stopped their credit lines on Leica. Now everyone with a little business sense knows that with this happening to a company it's going to be tough to survive. At least there will be "restructuring" in any form, that we cannot predict as of now. I think we have some right to be concerned!

You cannot measure the exposure with an uncoupled lens (apart from full aperture). When you stop the lens down and lock it with the litle lock-lever, the exposure meter will not work. Not with uncoupled, nor with coupled lenses.

 

As fas as I know you can have most of the common lenses (30-250) retro-fitted with an E-ring, the coupling ring for the lightmeter. For the 50, 80 and 150 these are relatively easy to find. I know that at least for the 250 these rings are rare and therefore expensive.

 

I cannot comment about the reliability of the lightmeter. However, when I bought my SL66E (second-hand), it proved to have a defective lightmeter. The shop had to send it in for repair under guarantee. They were not happy with the bill of, I believe, around 200 euros (around 250 dollar). Luckily I did not have to pay for this.

 

In general, the SL66E/SE are newer than the SL66 and therefore - in my opinion - preferable. Personally, I love the convenience of the built-in lightmeter, because I want to meter while looking down on the ground-glass instead of through some awkward add-on prism. But others may feel otherwise.

Ray, the way in which Theo van Gogh positioned himself in the public debate by his columns in periodicals was considered by many people not to be in good taste. He was a very controversial man in this respect. Many lawsuits have been brougth against him by people who felt offended by his columns.

 

His films are quite different, being more 'art' than 'opinion'. An exception is one of his last films - Submission part I - which is a protest against the mistreatment of women in the name of Islam. This film, which he made together with a controversial Dutch-Somali female politician, raised a large controversy. Free speech as seen by part of the population, an insult of Islam as seen by others. It is believed that this film was also the reason for his murder.

 

This murder has really shaken our normally "neat and tidy" little country.

Actually, I think it's a very good thing that all the trash that we shoot will not be around forever.

Zeiss dimensions: 138 x 78 x 32 mm

Leica M7 dimensions: 138 x 79,5 x 38 mm

Hi Erik,

 

I do quite a bit of this kind of work, low-light scenes, bands playing in cafe's etc. Mostly use a summicron (1980's version) and Delta 3200 film. For me, this combination is excellent in rendering light sources and light-dark contrasts.

 

As Bob already said, try to avoid the use of filters, as you may get strange reflections in your pictures. Also always use the sunshade.

 

As for contrast and resolution: don't expect anything when you're shooting at 1/15 or 1/30. The slow shutter speeds, the impossible positions you sometimes have to stand in to be able to take the picture and the movement of your subject will kill all quality with respect to resolution. This is a problem of any camera/lens you might use of course. But the Leica is not superior in this respect.

 

I never used a summilux, so I can't comment on its quality. Still, consider that a summilux will get you 1 more stop of light, but also 1 less stop of DOF. In my experience, especially in dark and dynamic circumstances where you can't always focus completely accurate, you need at least some DOF. This means that the usefulness of Noctilux is doubtful i.m.o.

Sharpness or unsharpness in a photograph is a creative decision. Just like DOF, shutter speed, timing, color or B+W, etc. "Sharpness" of a lens is a non-issue, except, perhaps, for single-use camera's or Holga's.

Hi,

 

Csab' is not far beside the truth. These lenses were manucatured by the company 'De Oude Delft' (The Old Delft), which was based - surprise - in Delft, Netherlands. They made lenses for for all kinds of applications, among others (during the 1950s and 1960s) for photocameras. The company merged in 1990 with a manufacturer of industrial instruments - Enraf Nonius - and is now called Delft Instruments.

I think there is something like 'good' and 'mediocre' photography. In this respect I agree with what Rob Appleby said above. Obviously the distinction is not clear-cut. But also in art, I think many people would agree that a Van Eyck picture is 'better' than the one your neighbour produced after his first aquarel lesson (exceptions precluded).

 

The cultural relativism that speaks from most of the above posts is perhaps very polite, in the sense that we are all trying to be nice to each other, but it is not very productive. How are you going to improve your photography or the photography of others if you don't have a concept of what is 'better' and what is 'worse'? If you adopt the relativist stand, then you can just say that 'a photograph is good' because you personally have a positive emotional feel about it'. If it is so personal, then why post it and share it with others? In the same way you will get comments like 'this photograph is total crap' from people who have a negative emotional feel about it. Both reactions contain exactly zero information.

 

As I understand Josh' initiative for the CRIT posts, the very idea of these is to argument why you think a photograph is good or not. Argument beyond the level of just 'I like it' or 'I think it's crap'.

 

NB don't misunderstand me, I think we should remain at all times polite while criticising each other's photogrpahs. But we should also give honest critique.

I don't know about the technicalities of desaturating slides in Photoshop. Probably they will think of something that will make your slide film look like tri-x. If it not already available, it will be next month.

 

What I doubt is the ability to visualize and compose in B+W if you *know* there is color film in your camera. If you see a beautiful color subject, you will probably shoot it because you've got color film anyway. And there you begin sliding down. At least in my experience it is extremely difficult to shoot B+W and color at the same time and be good at both. I fear that by using slide film you will end up doing so and the quality of your pictures will suffer. But then again, I mau be the only one who has this kind of problem.

I would have kept my original Minolta X300 and spent thousands of euros less on gear and more on film.

I have an old beaten R3. Payd around 120 euro for it (about $100 at today's rate). Like the others said, it's a very sturdy camera with great ergonomics. E.g., I'm left-eyed and the wind lever is not poking in my right eye when I'm focussing. It holds nice. It is not very noisy, I always feel it's less noisy than my R-E.

 

A disadvantge is the comparatively dark viewfinder, which may make it difficult to focus lenses with smaller aperture or wide-angle lenses (I had a 24mm which was difficult to focus with the R3).

 

Everyone always talks about electronics problems with the R3. I have not experienced those (yet?), so I'm not sure whether R3-electronics are failure-prone or that it's just a goose story. Perhaps somebody else could comment on that.

 

I experienced one real problem with the R3. At a certain moment the advance lever got stuck. It cost around 50 euro to repair (local repairman, not Leica).

 

Regarding batteries: the camera doesn't take a lot of current, but there is one thing to be careful about. It has an on-off switch (o horrors!). When you forget to switch it off, the camera will draw current continuously and your battery will be gone in one or two days. If you put it in the bag and don't use it for a week or so, the battery is dead when you take the camera out again. I've had this at least three times, very annoying.

 

Biggest advantage of the R3 is its price. Since nobody seems to want R3's, you can have them very cheap. Often for less than 250 euro ($200). So if it breaks, rather than having expensive repairs, you can just buy another one.

Although I can see the advantages of it, i'm not a fan of the digital process either. For me the problem with Photoshop is that it makes me feel like the bookkeeper of my own photogrpahs, while I should really be enjoying my hobby. I'm spending much of my working life behind a screen - first thing I do when I arrive at work is turn my computer on, last thing I do before I leave is turn it off. Why should I spend more time behind it in my spare time? (well, except for visiting Photo.net of course)

 

What I don't get is your problems with Photoshop. While it has 50.000 possibilities, chances are that for 95% of your photographs you will only 5. For B&W these are:

(1) cropping, same as in traditional darkroom;

(2) image size to determine print size, same as in traditional darkroom;

(3) levels to control contrast and lightness/darkness, much more convenient than the different paper gradations in the traditional darkroom;

(4) sharpening, admitted, this is more complex than turning the wheel of your enlarger;

(5) cloning, to correct spots, this is much more convenient than working your finished traditional photographs with paint and brush.

 

Really, there is no more to it. If you can't do it with these tools, which are not too difficult to master, there's something wrong with the input, with the way you took the image, with your camera, or whatever. For Photoshop, as for tradtional darkroom, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applies. There is no way you're going to fix something that was not right in the first place.

 

NB For color it's somewhat more complicated, but that was the same for the traditional darkroom. Ever tried to filter a slight (less than 5%) color cast out of a print? Ever tried to calibrate a color analyzer?

On the website of Erwin Puts there is, in the report on the Leica M7, a part where he desribes his experiences with the null-series.

Come on Wentong, don't be so serious! The best jokes are those that not everybody immediately sees through. Personally I thought this was one of the best jokes in a long time here.

Hi Fred,

 

I didn't wear glasses when I bought my .85, but I have to now. So in hindsight I should probably have chosen the .72. However, if you plan on using the 90 or the 135 a lot, go for the .85!

Beau,

 

The 24R is a good lens, but as an older design it will not quite match the newest Leica designs. Ask yourself if you really need the latest equipment, after all, your Nikkor has been working perfectly and I would guess that the 24R is at least on par with the Nikkor.

 

I have owned one of those lenses and I have to say that it takes perfect pictures. For top performance you need to stop down a bit. This lens has one really big advantage: because everybody believes it's a bad lens (which it isn't) and because it's a Minolta design (which is not a bad thing in itself) it can be had relatively cheaply.

 

For some info on performance and for MTF graphs of this lens, you may want to check the latest R lens report by Erwin Puts on the Leica Camera website.

Oef! Painful question. One camera is more than enough. Yet, over the years they seem to accumulate. Until a few years ago I used to sell superfluous cameras, but at current second hand prices I'd rather keep the stuff.

 

I don't need more than one, but I have ten:

Leica M6ttl + 35 + 50 + 90 + 135 (use intensively)

Leica M4-2 beater (first Leica, used to be main camera, now backup only)

Leica Visoflex + 200 + 280 that will also fit Leica R

Leica R-E + 35 + 50 (use seldom)

Leica R3 (use seldom)

Konica Hexar (use intensively)

Konica Big mini (backup only)

Yashica MAT (first MF, lens dusty, not in use anymore)

Hasselblad 500C + 80 (beater, use heavily)

Rolleiflex SL66E + 50 + 80 + 150 + 250 (recently acquired, started using, will replace Hasselblad)

Kodak CS3800 digital 2mpix (toy camera, use sometimes on outings with friends)

Not to mention a whole bunch of accesoiry rubbish.

 

In other words, a completely rediculous amount of stuff. What's worse, it will slow you down because you will either bring too much gear or spend too much time selcting the gear you're going to take.

Come on guys! Don't be negative only. Give this thing a break. It's actually the first digital that looks like a camera instead of a computer.

 

The small CCD has disadvantages, but the bonus is that you get a relativelt compact 2.0-2.4/28-90 equivalent lens. Ever thought about the size of such a lens for a bigger CCD?

 

Let's see how it performs. Might be a nice stepping stone to that digital M.

If you need a camera that is easy to lug around and if you need a light meter, I think you have not understood Zen at all. Practicing for ten more years to perfection the art of taking photographs with your old Rollei TLR, now that would have been Zen.

Is it my distorted view, or are these photographs heavily dramatized (look at the edges) and the colors 'photoshopped'? Why? Isn't the situation by itself dramatic enough? What effect is the photographer trying to achieve here?

Looks like a classic dilemma. What does he want to be: an artist or a reporter?

Vic, unless you're really working at the edge, I think the quality difference of MF is not the big issue. If you want quality start using your Leica with slow film, put it on a tripod and use the cable release.

 

For me, the big issue with MF is the finder. Looking down on a 6*6 groundglass makes deliberate composition so much easier. With a Leica, composition is bound to be more instinctive. I think an MF camera is the perfect complement to a Leica. It can be had relatively cheaply now, so why not buy one.

 

Processing cost is bound to be much higher for MF when you are having prints made. You immediately get into 'professional' processing, which has a 'professional' price level attached to it. I usually have only the film developed (=relatively cheap) and then print it myself in the darkroom. If you develop yourself you will hardly notice the price differential, also because with MF you will probably shoot less frames than with the Leica.

I have not used a G2, but i once held one for a minute. I was immediately put off by the viewfinder. It really belongs in a p&s, not in a quality camera system.

In the past years I did only B+W. But befor that I used a lot of Agfa RS(X) professional slide film. The 50 and 100 asa had very neutral colors. Unlike most people I don't like the vivid and saturated colors most current films will give you. It's a matter of taste of course. The Agfa 200 asa has a distinct 'pastel-like' color rendition. I think it's the only slide film that has this. In the past Agfa even used to make a 1000 asa slide film. I only once used one and it was so incredibly beautiful with very soft colors and very visible grain.

 

I don't know so much about scanning film, but I remember from enlarging in the darkroom that color negative film is much more difficult to calibrate than slide film. With color negative film it's very difficult to filter out tricky color casts. I suspect, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you will encounter the same problems with color negative in the digital darkroom.