bernard_korites

There's an interesting photo exhibit coming to the National Gallery of Art in

Washington, DC in February:

 

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/parisinfo.shtm

Nice shots. Here is a link to a pic in the same genre taken by a film camera, a lowly point and shoot:

 

http://www.summitpost.org/image/64638/150406/everyone-awakes-to-glowing.html

I second the choice of film and the Olympus Epic. With digital you will be wasting a lot of time dealing with filled memory sticks and looking for places to download. My daughter went to Panama with friends, two of whom had digital and one a film camera. Both digitals failed and they ended up sharing the film camera.

 

I bought another Epic a few months ago at BH for about $80.

In spite of my misgivings about Leica, I was about to treat myself to a new CM in burgandy that I've been lusting after for a while. An important factor was the 3 year warranty being offered. Now I'm wondering if they will be in business in 3 years. I think I will pass on the CM.

 

I hear a hammering noise, the sound of the last nail being driven into Leica's coffin.

Bob-

 

I do mostly landscape photography with some street and action shots mixed in. I have been using a Nikon FM10 manual for scapes and a Leica z2x for the rest. Do you think the CM could replace both of them? I am concerned with not being able to set shutter speed and aperture independently.

You should ask yourself if you really need a polarizer.

 

I stopped using mine. It was messing up too many shots with over-polarization, making the sky unrealistically dark. Of course that's my fault but it's an easy thing to do.

 

Also I question the idea of spending good money on expensive lenses known for their "color and contrast", then putting a polarizer in front of them.

 

I have come to appreciate the natural look, get the scene as it actually is.

It's not exactly the same lens. According to Leica specs the CM lens has improved coatings, although I have seen tests where you can't tell the difference between the two.

Well, I have mulled over everyone's input and it sounds like my old 8008 is good enough for my need right now. I thought there might be something I was missing about the F100 vs the 8008 but it sounds like, for my purposes, they are about equal.

 

The 8008 is actually a neat camera. Just enough automation, the controls are intuitively laid out, and it has a great viewfinder with analog meter. I can't figure out if it's metal or plastic but it has survived 15 years of abuse and still works.

 

Shun, you said "One thing to keep in mind is that Rowell used to advertise for Nikon...". That may be the "subtle point" I was missing re the F100.

 

It is a bit disappointing though, I was looking forward to hearing the UPS truck pull up in the driveway. Maybe I'll just buy the old 8008 a new strap, and a new lens cap.

 

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. It is very much appreciated.

Michael-

 

Do you actually use the selectable metering points when shooting a landscape as opposed to using the center spot with autoexposure lock?

 

Do you find those metering points helpful?

My primary interest is landscapes, but I still do an occasional near focus

action shot plus some street photography. I have an ancient 8008 that still

works fine. I use a manual focus 45f2.8 on it most of the time. I just set it

at infinity for landscapes and focus using the autofocus arrows in the

viewfinder for closer shots.

 

I'm thinking of "upgrading" to an F100 before they're all gone mainly because

I have heard the F100 is great for landscapes. Galen Rowell's web site claims

it is "the best ever for landscapes." My question is, what is it about the F100

that makes it the "best ever for landscapes"? Seems to me most of the

automation is irrelevant for that. Am I missing some subtle point? Is there

something about the selectable focus/exposure points that makes it so great? Or

should I just stay with my 8008.

 

Thanks for your advice.

In my opinion, the way to use a flatbed is to scan prints, not slides or negatives.

 

A print is an analog enlargement of a negative. Assuming you can get a quality print made, most of the information is still there but in a larger format. When you scan a 4x6 print at say 1000dpi you get a 24 megapixel file and most of it is usable information.

 

I have a Scan Dual IV which I use on slides and I have an ancient Epson 636u flatbed. I get better color out of the Epson - no corrections required - while the SDIV files most often need extensive reworking in PS. I have compared the resolution obtained using both procedures and they are about the same. In some cases I get better resolution out of the scanned print.

 

But I still like slides.

Get a Leica CM, and don't look back.

Robert-

 

<You need to understand that when light is blocked, it will be darker.>

 

I am aware that polarizers change the amount of light entering a camera.

 

This discussion is about a second order effect namely the interaction of linear polarizers with split prism TTL light meters giving false indications via double polarization. Reread the posts above, especially Richard's and my response.

 

Any input you have that would shed light :) on this issue would be welcome.

Now I'm really confused.

 

I tried Richard's experiment above. I aimed the FM10 with Nikon 45/2.8 lens and linear polarizer at an incadescent goose neck lamp using a tripod. The FM10 uses a 3 diode metering system; over, correct, under exposed. I aimed the camera such that the exposure was correct with the under expose diode just about to come on. When I rotated the linear polarizer, the under expose diode came fully on the went off as I continued to rotate. The diodes seem to be one f stop apart so I think the difference in exposure readings as I rotated the polarizer was a fraction of an f stop, maybe 1/4 or so.

 

I tried it again with a halogen lamp, same results.

 

Thinking the source was perhaps was slightly polarized due to reflections off the lamps bulb shield, I tried it again with a plain incadescent bulb, no shield. Same results.

 

I tried the same experiment with my Sony 717 digital camera for which I have a circular polarizer and the meter reading did not change. The Sony's meter is a lot more sensitive that the FM10's since it can indicate 1/5 of an f stop whereas the FM10's diodes are 1 stop apart.

 

A quarter of an f stop or so isn't much, especially when shooting outdoors, but it does indicate there is some interaction with a linear polarizer and the FM10's metering system. What the metering error would be when shooting polarized light outdoors rather than unpolarized incadescent light is a question for someone who understand more about these metering systems than I do.

 

If you check various web sites of filter makers and filter sellers you will find about as many opinions on this issue as web sites.

 

I even called Nikon's technical support. The gentleman I spoke with said a linear polarizer would be ok with the FM10 even though it clearly isn't.

 

So I would say, if you are shooting slides where exposure is important, and you're using a polarizer, unless you know exactly how your camera's metering system works you would be safer using a circular polarizer.

What got me going on this question is BH lists a circular polarizer as an accessory for the FM10 while Adorama lists a linear one. But then, in the description of the linear polarizer, Adorama says:

 

"Circular -- for all types of cameras: required for beam splitting metering systems commonly found in auto-focus SLR's and in most current TTL Slr's.

 

Linear -- for older metering systems. "

 

Various filter web sites say you need a circular polarizer for any camera that uses a beam splitter for light metering. Apparently the beam splitter causes double polarization with a linear polarizer and light metering may be innacurate.

 

I guess the question boils down to whether or not the FM10 uses a beam splitter for light metering.

 

So far I haven't had many problems other than the occassional under or overexposed shot. Now I'm starting to wonder if that was due to my error or the linear polarizer.

I have a Nikon FM10 which is manual focus but has TTL light metering. I want to

use a polarizing filter with it. The issue is whether or not the linear

polarizer I already have will work ok with it or if I need to get a circular

polarizer. My understanding is a linear polarizer on a camera with an internal

beam splitter will mess up the autofocus (which I don't have) and the light

metering (which I do have). So I guess the question comes down to whether or

not the FM10 uses a beam splitter in its light metering system. Does anyone

know?

I brought my 8008 into a camera shop with the intention of trading it for a F3HP, primarily because of the F3HP's higher eyepoint viewfinder (I wear glasses). I compared the two side by side, and while the HP's viewfinder was a bit better, I didn't think it warranted giving up the 8008's analog exposure meter and other creature comforts.

I have used Provia 100 and Sensia 100. I found Provia to have a cold, bluish cast whereas Sensia has more natural colors. The National Geographic website not too long ago mentioned most of their photographers were using Provia. Now they're shooting digital.

<It cost me $165 to have it repaired...>

 

Not to gloat, but simply to put things in perspective, I would like to mention that Sony fixed my 717's sensor and paid shipping both ways, and it was well beyond the warranty period.

The most important feature of any camera is the lens. My Nikon system got stolen years ago and I switched to Canon with the insurance money. What a mistake! The Canon lenses were pathetic compared to the Nikons. So I sold the Canon and went back to Nikons. I have several of Nikon's best lenses and my lowly Leica z2x will match any of them. Granted, it doesn't offer the controls of an slr but, after all, it is a p&s!

As far as pocketability goes, it doesn't get much better than the Olympus Stylus Epic with fixed lens which you can get new at BH for around $80 . Slightly bigger, but better picture quality, is the Leica Z2x which can be found on ebay for less money.

<I'm not saying the sky is falling,...>

 

The sky IS falling, but I'm not going digital until all the pieces are on the ground.

Guy-

 

Those are great pictures. Who cares what lens was used, it's the content that matters.

Kevin-

 

Re "I use the 50/1.8 indoors as my available light lens ...."

 

Sorry, that should have been 50/1.4. At my age I get a little confused sometimes.

I have the 50/1.8, the 50/1.4 and the 45/2.8. I use the 50/1.8 indoors as my available light lens and it gives great results. I tested the 50/1.8 against the 45/2.8 and found the 45/2.8 to be far superior to the 50/1.8 in term of color and contrast so now I use the 45/2.8 as my outdoor lens. The 50/1.8 sits on the shelf.