bernard_korites

<p>I think your giving Leica too much of a free pass on this one, Gus. I doubt the Leica designers planned for slop in the fit and finish of their cameras expecting them to be used like Kalashnikovs. The way to keep out dirt and dust is with tight tolerances, not loose ones. The real question is why anyone would pay exhorbitant prices for Leica's when they exhibit this kind of poor quaity. And it's not the first time we've heard this sort of complaint, is it.</p>

<p>Try the 45p. I've compared it carefully with the 50/1.8 and found it has much better color and contrast and at least a much resolution. I also like its slightly wider field of view.</p>

<p>I saw an article a while ago by a professional photographer who was doing a shoot with a very expensive digital Hasselblad. He had a $500 G10 along also and happened to take some of the same shots with it. When he got back to his studio and enlarged the images from both, he couldn't tell the difference.</p>

<p>Very nice, Vineet, I especially like the first one, reminds me of a Barbizon painting.<br>

Can you tell us what camera/lens/film you used?</p>

<p>The Nikon 45p is a nice travelling lens, small and light with a slightly wider field of view than a 50mm which I find perfect for landscapes. It also has better color and conrtrast than the 50/1.8 Nikon. The Nikon FM10 with the 45p makes a sweet travelling package.<br>

When I was travelling in Europe last year I took a Nikon 8008 (about 2 pounds) and a Leica z2x (less than 1 pound). When I got up in the morning, facing a day of walking around a hot city, I couldn't bear the thought of carrying the 8008 around my neck all day so I almost always took the z2x which gave great results. I don't recommend any of the Leica p&s's, however, since they are prone to failure and they gobble up batteries. My z2x, for example, lasted the entire trip but the shutter failed 2 weeks after I got home.</p>

<p>1)Every extra pound will feel like 10 after a few days in your backpack so keep it as light as possible.<br>

2)Keep it as durable and failure proof as possible which means film, not digital.<br>

3)Some suggestions: Nikon FM10, fm2N, f3hp</p>

 

<p>Karim:<br>

I few years ago my house was struck by lightning. The bolt came in one end of the house and went out the other. Everything electronic was destroyed - computers, cd's, microwave oven, even the doorbell. One thing that did survive, however, was a box of 35mm slides that were sitting on the floor of a closet.</p>

<p>The cheapest way would be to display the files on a good quality monitor or on a wall via a digital slide projector then photograph the image with slide film. I've done the reverse - photo'd a projected slide image with a digital camera and the results weren't too bad.</p>

<p>The diameter of the Colorplan is slightly larger than the receiver of the Kindermann. However, the receiver is plastic and somewhat flexible so it is possible to push/screw the Colorplan into it. The autofocus seems to work fine. I think, but I'm not positive, that the autofocus works by moving the slide carrier back and forth, not the lens.</p>

<p>Hello Sergey-<br>

I have a Kindermann Magic 1500 AFS-IR. I had, at one time, a Leica P150 which I think is similar to the Leica P300 except for the bulb wattage. I also have a Braun projector with a slide viewer.<br>

In my experience, all projectors in this price range are similar, mostly plastic, mostly fragile with low quality lenses. There seem to be so many similarities between them I wouldn't be surprised if they were all made by the same manufacturer. Normally, the use of plastic in a machine doesn't bother me but there are some disadvantages to it in these slide projectors. For example, the plastic slide holder on my Leica P150 broke rendering it useless. On my Kindermann, the plastic manual focus wheel has loosened up to the point where there is considerable backlash. It still works, but it's aggravating. They do all project an image, however.<br>

Regarding lenses, I replaced the original lens on my Kindermann with a Colorplan lens having a curved field. The image from the Colorplan was much brighter and sharper than the original Kindermann lens but it was so sharp in the center that out of focus regions along the edges became very noticeable. So I returned it and bought a Colorplan 90mm P with a flat field. That has been much better but there still are some focussing issues, although they are not as bad as with the curved field lens. The Colorplan does fit in the Kindermann but it is a tight fit. I does not fit in the Braun. The Colorplan lens, while bright and sharp, seems to be very unforgiving. I have heard the solution to the focussing problems is to use a lens having a larger depth of field, but I have never tried it.<br>

A lot of focusing problems are caused by the slide mount. I tried remounting my slides in Gepe glass mounts but they developed mould spores under the glass after about a year. Also, Newton rings were very noticeable, especially in areas of flat color, like skies. I tried anti-Newton glass mounts but they seem to reduce the clarity, brightness and sharpness of the image. So I remounted all my slides in Gepe metal rim glassless mounts. While not perfect, they seem to give the best overall results as far as focusing, color and brightness goes.<br>

I hate to admit it but I think the ultimate image would be obtained with a digital camera file projected through a high quality digital projector. It would eliminate the focusing and dust problems that plague analog slide projection. An expensive solution but probably the best. But then, if we didn't have all these problems to fuss over what else would we do with our time....?</p>

<p>Gary-<br>

You wrote - "slide film has zero tollerance for error"<br>

Surely you intend that to be a hyperbole. Even the rankest number theorist would have to conclude from it that nobody has ever, or will ever, achieve a correct exposure! It seems you have had some critical applications that required unusual control of film and exposure. Maybe I'm just too easy to please but I think for the average slide shooter, no more than normal control of parameters is necessary. </p>

 

<p>As a slide shooter myself, I take a bit of exception to some of what Gary says above. While what he says may be literally correct, in my experience you do not have to be afraid of shooting slides because of exposure issues.<br>

Gary says "you exceed the 5 stops on either end and you have a slide to throw out". While that may be true, in normal use you may under or over expose a slide by a stop or less, but that does not necessarily make it unusable. I have hundreds of Fuji Astia, Velvia and Provia slides taken with all sorts of cameras including cheap point and shoots and the lowly Nikon FM10 yet I can't remember having a slide that was unusable due to incorrect exposure in years. I was in Paris and Switzerland last year and shot 8 rolls of Astia with a Leica Z2x p&s, shooting more or less at random, indoors, bright sunlight, rainy days, even night shots from the top of Eiffel's tower and I did not throw out one slide because of exposure problems.<br>

Gary also says "they would reproduce the exact same color every time." There are big differences in color between Velvia, Astia and Provia, for example. Perhaps Gary means one roll of Velvia will give the same results as another roll of Velvia, assuming both have been cared for the same way, and that is true. Part of the fun of slides is choosing the one that will give you the colors you want in different situations.<br>

Getting stressed over colors is somewhat meaningless anyway because the slide will eventually have to be viewed through some sort of projector , viewer or light table and the color of that light source will have more impact on the final colors than the pallette of the film itself. The same is true for scanning.</p>

 

It's a great idea!

I think I hear the fluttering of angel wings!

Last spring, in an attempt to get edge to edge sharpness, I mounted all my slides in Gepe glass mounts, both the

regular glass and the anti-Newton. The mounts did keep the projected images flat but I found the anti-Newton texture

to be very distracting when viewing landscapes with large areas of clear sky. Then early this fall I noticed several

slides had ugly spots of mold inside, permanently ruining some of my slides. So I am now remounting everything

again in Gepe glassless metal mask mounts which don't hold the film perfectly flat but pretty close. The slides don't

buckle under the heat of the lamp probably because the film is allowed to slide a bit inside the mount. On balance, I

would say you are better off sticking with glassless mounts unless you have a critical application and then I would

remove them from the glass for storage. I might add the projected images seem to have better color and clarity

without the glass.

Ken-

 

You're right, you don't need astro bino's for birdwatching. My wife and I use Fujinon 6x30 FMT-SX's which are made

to the same standards as the larger Fuji professional bino's. We live on a salt marsh which is visited by all kinds of

wildlife and the Fuji's are used almost every day. They weigh 1.75 pounds and we have no trouble holding

them for extended periods. They have a wide field of view - 8.5 degrees - which makes picking up moving targets very

easy. The 30mm lenses give sufficient light gathering power for daytime use. They have substantial eye relief (24mm

as I recall) so eyeglass wearers like me have no trouble seeing the entire field. As far as the center focussing wheel

goes, they do not have one since it isn't necessary. The depth of field is large enough so once you set them to your

eyes you don't have to refocus. They are rubber coated and seem to be quite durable. Mine have sloshed around in

salt water in the bottom of my canoe, they have been dropped, banged and been generally abused on countless

duck hunting and boating trips for about 15 years and they still work fine.

 

I thought I might be missing something so a few years ago I ordered a pair of Leica bino's but returned them since

they offered nowhere near the performance of the Fuji's despite costing more than 3 times as much.

 

I realize that not swooning over Leica bino's on the Leica forum will raise the hackles of Leicaphiles so all I can say

is - use whatever works for you.

Ken-

 

You're right, you don't need astro bino's for birdwatching. My wife and I use Fujinon 6x30 FMT-SX's which are made to the same standards as Fuji's professional bino's. They weigh 1.75 pounds and we have no trouble holding them for extended periods. They have a wide field of view - 8.5 degrees - which makes picking up moving targets very easy. The 30mm lens give sufficient light gathering power for daytime use. They have a substantial eye relief (24mm as I recall) so eyeglass wearers like me have no trouble seeing the entire field. As far as the center focussing wheel goes, they do not have one since it isn't necessary. The depth of field is large enough so once you set them to your eyes you don't have to refocus. They are rubber coated and seem to be quite durable. Mine have sloshed around in salt water in the bottom of my canoe, they have been dropped, banged and been generally abused on countless duck hunting trips for about 15 years and they still work fine.

 

I thought I might be missing something so a few years ago I ordered a pair of Leica bino's but returned them since they offered nowhere near the performance of the Fuji's despite costing more than 3 times as much.

 

I realize that not swooning over Leica bino's on the Leica forum will raise the hackles of Leicaphiles so all I can say is - use whatever works for you.

Astronomers are very discriminating about their bino's. If you browse through some of the threads on cloudynights.com, you will see they tend to favor Fujinon porro prism's, which are half the price of Leica/Zeiss/Swarovski.

 

To my knowledge, Leica makes only roof prism bino's which are inherently less bright (10-15%) than porro prism's. Roof prism bino's cost more than porro's not because they're better but because their design requires tighter tolerances in manufacturing.

 

If you want a really nice pair of bino's look at the Fujinon professional series porro prisms. They are rubber armoured and waterproof with the best optics, albeit a bit on the heavy side, maybe more appropriate for piloting a supertanker into New York Harbor at night than birding in the back yard, but I like mine.

I think I would go back to Paris.

I don't use levels anymore. If you slide your left slider to the furthest left point of the histogram you are saying the darkest pixels in your image are black. Do the same with your right slider and you are saying the lightest pixels are white. But what if there aren't any blacks or whites in the image, such as a landscape on a foggy morning where tones fall within a narrow range? By using the sliders it's easy to create more contrast than is in the original image. The white and black eyedroppers work the same way.

 

The best way to correct color cast, I have found, is to use the "remove color cast" eyedropper on something grey.

I use a Nikon FM10 with the 45mm pancake. I don't find the weight or size to be a problem when biking. It's totally manual so you don't have to worry about batteries running down. I also have a Leica Z2x (bought for $30 on Craig's list) which is nice and small and light but you never know when it will decide to stop working.

I went through the same exercise about a year ago. During my research I came across a web site (in Denmark, I think) that did a thorough study of various projector/lens combinations. They carefully examined resolution, uniformity of light distribution etc. They found the best results came from a Leica 90mm Colorplan lens with an inexpensive Kinderman projector.

 

Both can be bought new. I have that combination now and I like it. The only thing objectionable is the Leica lens is so sharp that slight differences in focus due to slide buckling are quite noticeable across the image. I tried mounting my slides in Gepe glass mounts but Newton rings are often visible unless you use mounts with anti-Newton glass; but then the anti-Newton texture becomes visible. So now I'm remounting my slides in Gepe glassless mounts with the metal mask.

 

These mounts seem to work quite well since the film is free to slide at the edges. This means it won't buckle under the heat of the projector lamp. Also, the Gepe mount, which is stiffer than the cheap cardboard or plastic mounts that you normally get your slides in, eliminates jamming in the projector.

 

The problem with Kodak stuff is it's all used. Having been burned before on "the bay", I prefer to buy this stuff new whenever I can. Also, if you prowl the internet, you will find Kodak lenses and aftermarket lenses such as Buhl are not as highly regarded as the Leica Colorplan.

 

The major advantage of the later Kodaks is the higher wattage output. You don't need that much light with a 1:2.5 lens, such as the Colorplan, but what it allows you to do is use a 1:3.5 lens. This combo gives you the same projected light but increases the depth of field which will help correct loss of focus due to slide curvature.

I have a Sony 717. A few years after I bought it, well after the warranty had expired, the sensor died. Apparently

dampness had affected the adhesive holding the sensor wires in place. I contacted Sony by phone. They emailed me

a prepaid UPS pickup label. I sent the camera to them. I got it back a few weeks later, fixed, shipping paid, no

charge, even though the warranty had expired. Now that's a company I'll do business with again.

 

I'm sure many Leicaphiles will say my Sony 717 doesn't take the same quality images as a M8 . I'm sure it doesn't

but I'm also not sure which is better! My 717, for which I paid about $600, wears a very nice looking Carl Zeiss Vario-

Sonar lens. It takes very nice pictures and it doesn't require a special filter to correct for infrared.

 

Personally, I think Leica is ripping people off. Leicas were once sold in Hermes boutiques and I believe Hermes was

once a part owner of Leica. If you visit the Hermes web site you will find $975 beach towels!!! Also, this myth of the

invincibility of German engineering is just that - a myth - that probably had its genesis in the Second World War -

Tiger tanks, V2's, etc. But that's over now.

 

Save yourselves, learn to love all things Japanese (:>.

I once had an Olympus Stylus Epic that cost about $80. One day while sea kayaking I found it sloshing around

in 3" of salt water in the bottom of my kayak. When I got home, I took the film out, flushed the camera with fresh

water, then dried it as best I could with a hair dryer. After a few days of air drying, I then used it without problem for

another few years.

 

If Olympus can make a waterproof camera for $80, why can't Leica make a waterproof M8 for $6,000, or whatever it

is they cost?

I have both the 45p and the 50/1.8.

 

A few years ago, after having buyers remorse for paying so much for the 45p, I took both lenses, a tripod, an 8008

and a roll of Astia on a landscape test trip. I would set up the camera, take a shot with the 45, change lenses, then

another shot with the 50. I used up a roll of film that way, shooting under a more or less random variety of conditions.

 

The conclusion I came to is both lenses are about equally sharp as far as ability to resolve distant objects goes. This

is surprising since the 45p has a wider field of view so it must be gathering more information that the 50.

 

The biggest difference, as far as I could tell, was the color. The 45p has much better color rendition than the 50/1.8.

They seem to be much deeper and richer. Also, while the 45p has equal resolving power to the 50, its images seem

to have a softer, more pleasant, look.

 

I paid $300 for my 45p when I bought it new from BH. When you consider the cost of cameras, film, processing,

photo trips etc, a few hundred dollars more, for what I consider to be the best lens I have, isn't that significant.