mitch_zeissler

No; too many shortcomings at too high a price.

 

Same thing for the Leica Digital R back and the upcoming Digital M. When Leica dithered and dallied, then finally announced their high priced digital offerings, I voted with my feet and unloaded all my Leica gear.

 

Now I'm in the EOS camp and am much happier.

You've all probably read about the numerous 20D improvements over the

10D already, but I'll quickly give you the highlights I find to be the

best, since I currently have both bodies in hand and am able to

compare them side-by-side:

 

A) The 20D has *much*, much faster power-up and through-put; the

difference is like night and day. The 20D addresses my number one

gripe with the 10D, and makes the camera much more natural to use

(very much like a film body).

 

B) Much improved low-light auto-focus. Where I used to manually focus

the 85/1.2 on the 10D in dim lighting, in the same setting and

lighting conditions with the 20D I can now use AF and obtain reliable

results.

 

C) Improved image noise reduction. I'm seeing this 20D benefit at ISO

1600 and 3200, with the result being less use of Noise Ninja on my

part. Now I feel confident about going with the higher ISOs when in

the past I would avoid using them if at all possible.

 

D) A little smaller and noticeably lighter body. I've always

preferred small and lightweight SLR bodies for some reason (my all

time fav for both was the Pentax MX), but not digicam toy-size small.

I find the 20D size to be almost perfect, and noticeably lighter than

the 10D. I see no difference between the build quality of the 20D and

10D I have before me; in fact, the 20D appears to be better designed

for lengthy use than the 10D. Examples: 1) The flash on the 10D is

not locked in place; using your fingernail, you can pop it open

without any effort at all. The 20D has hook latches to hold the flash

in place. 2) The 10D has a sliding door for direct AC adapter use,

while the 20D has a more robust rubber port covering.

 

E) Easier focusing viewscreen. Yes, the viewscreen is a little dimmer

and smaller, with a somewhat grainy appearance to the image being

viewed. However, the smaller and dimmer aspect doesn't bother me in

use (didn't notice it at all after a few hours of studio work), but I

find the grainier texture to be a big improvement, as dimly lit

subjects are much easier to focus than with the 10D.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps others that may be on the fence about

whether they should go with the 20D or not.

Check out the following two 3rd party solutions as well:

 

Zoerk

http://www.zoerk.com/

 

Horseman

http://www.horsemanusa.com/vcc.html

 

Neither is inexpensive. I have the Zoerk myself and will be unloading it on eBay shortly, as I just don't use it enough to justify keeping it.

If you want a laptop, look no further than a Inspiron XPS, as it is a laptop with desktop componants.

 

Expensive, yes, but it does deliver true desktop performance. It also weighs 9 pounds, with a 2-1/2 pound AC adapter (almost 13 pounds total). I evaluated one for a couple weeks in my last job and was impressed when it bested the benchmarks of all the desktops we'd ever tested (the sole exception being the Dell Demension XPS). However, it runs far to hot to keep on anything but a desk.

 

However, if you want flexibility and a better upgrade path, a desktop is recommended over a laptop.

 

And no, I would not bother upgrading your current machine.

Hmmm, let's see. Mine were all stupid mistakes from my much younger days...

 

1) Nearly fell backwards out of a 17th story window when I was in college, taking photos with my Pentax MX for an art project that was being dropped out of the 18th floor window above me.

 

2) Climbed to the top of an Idaho peak on our honeymoon to take shots with a Kodak one-use panorama camera, then discovered the only way down was through a rotten talus slope that collapsed with every step.

 

3) Nearly got nailed in Baxter State Park by a bull moose I had followed deep into the woods with my original Olympus Stylus.

It's a very good digicam, and is suitable for novice and experienced user alike. Here's a temporary link to some photos I recently took with mine:

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1ssgc/Colorado/index.htm

I'd recommend Bryce, even though it's some 450+ miles from Phoenix. Bryce has a lot of easy photo opportunites to get to once you're there, less crowds and little in the way of polution or haze. My wife and I passed through it on the way to Kodachrome Basin a couple years ago, and I wish now we'd stayed more than the hour or so that we spent there.

Sergio has a lot of good information in his post, but you can still have an enjoyable trip if you select your camping waypoints with care. My wife and I did a car camping trip with our tent down there awhile back, starting on the Miami side, going across the Everglades, and coming up the west side as high as St. Petersburg. Some suggested parks to tent camp at are as follows:

 

- Collier-Seminole State Park (close to Naples)

- Little Manatee River State Park (close to Wimauma)

- Myakka River State Park (close to Sarasota)

- Bahia Honda State Park (close to Key West)

 

There are also many places along the Tamiami Trail to pull off and tent camp, but they tend to be pretty primitive and populated with a lot of RVs. They can also have large populations of gators, though they never came out of the water to bother us at night.

 

One other route to consider; have you thought about possibly renting a sail or power boat around the Ft. Myers area? My family did that many years ago and it was far more enjoyable than just driving around and being disappointed by what was paved over.

Correct.

The Noct is my primary lens (I use it for 90+ percent of all my images), and I've owned and thoroughly used three of f/1.0 version, but not the f/1.2 version. Mine consisted of one of the very earliest of the batch with the E58 front and detachable hoods (serial number dated to 1975, seemingly before they actually were released to retail), one dated from the mid-1990s with the E60 front and built-in hood, and a current production version I picked up late last fall. My findings are as follows:

 

- I prefer the imagery from the latest version the best, as the colors it reproduces on film appear to match reality closest of the bunch (the one from the mid-70s rendered a cool cast to the images, while imagery from the two later models are virtually identical). If you're shooting with mono film, I don't think you'll see a difference between any of them (I certainly couldn't). While there are certainly improvements in the coatings since the lens first came out, I don't think you could go wrong with a used version that dates from the mid to late-80s.

 

- Build quality is the same between all the versions, but the later ones have much improved lubricants. My E58 Noctilux had lubricants that were so stiff I was concerned about wrenching the lens mount out of the camera body, a condition that only got worse in cold weather. I originally sent the lens to Sherry for servicing, but she couldn't fix it after a week of intense effort (neither could Leica in New Jersey), so it eventually went to Solms for three months and came back in perfect condition.

 

- Flare control appears to be the same level among all versions; it's simply fantastic. Once you've used it, you'll not want to ever go back to another lens. I have not been able to see differences between the old and the new with the type of shooting I've done with the lens.

 

- I prefer the detachable hood of the first version the best, but got around that on the later versions by ripping off the built-in hood with a pair of pliers and replacing it with a screw-in metal hood (and, no, I'm not joking). I strongly suggest and promote the use of a rigid hood on the Noct, as it provides protection to the front element that the built-in hood does not.

 

- There is no real difference that I can see to the different front diameters; they all vignette to the same degree when used wide open. I had read sometime ago that Leica decided to enlarge the diameter of the front element to lessen the vignetting, but I sure don't see that on my images.

 

- When using filters with the Noct (polarizer and ND filters only), I use a step-up ring to go from E60 to 62mm. I use this same ring for the screw-in metal hood. Any vignetting that I see appears to be from the lens itself, rather than anything I've put in front of the front element, and that's based on comparative testing.

 

- I've used the Noct and Delta 3200 at one wedding, and the bride and groom liked my available light images better than those from the pro they hired to shoot medium format images with a flash. Indeed, at one time during the festivities, the pro strutted over smirking and asked if I was getting any images at all, noting that I didn't have a strobe; I simply showed him what I was using and said I was shooting between 1/250th and 1/60th. He shuffled off, muttering to himself.

 

There's more to read and see at Andrew Nemeth's Noctilux FAQ website:

http://nemeng.com/leica/040b.shtml

 

Regards,

 

Mitch

Read it here:

 

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/9027723.htm

The Elmarit with the goggles, which was used to shoot this portrait...<div></div>

Used both and hated the CV 25. The CV is slow, not rangefinder coupled, and the original viewfinder isn't accurate (no brightlines and too much in the field of view to frame accurately). No problems with the Leica.

 

Got rid of both of them because I wanted a wider FOV and went with the CV 21. Again, too slow, but none of the other problems of the the CV 25. Finally replaced it with the Leica 21. Much better.

Burn a hole in your shutter curtain like I did, and you become a fervent believer in lens caps. Just don't use the crappy plastic ones; use the screw in metal variety. And, no, I keep the lens cap off when shooting and the lens carefully pointed away from the sun when the cap is off.

 

/Mitch

The M simply delivers the images I want, while my limited experience with digicams revealed they aren't there yet for my wants/desires/needs.

 

/Mitch

I should add that the Xenon is largely considered a collector's lens, rather than a shooter's lens. If you want the fast speed, go for a Summarit instead, as it's got lens coatings and other improvements to deliver better images.

 

I personally found the Xenon to be extremely flare prone, and the one I had delivered many unwanted reflections, produced odd bokeh (see the image above) and was difficult to work with in general. The best results tended to come from indoor or shady outdoor shots, without hard reflections.

The third image from the bottom:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007tis

 

Leica IIIf, 1936 Xenon, f/1.5 @ 1/30th, Provia 100F

The same gentleman taken during the holidays with the Noct...<div></div>

Here's a new one taken last weekend with the 135mm goggled Elmarit.<div></div>

Guess you haven't tried any of the Leica zooms. The Vario-Elmar 35-70mm macro is my favorite, and there are times when I wish I still had it. The only real issue I see with the Leica zooms is that the fast ones cannot be purchased at reasonable price, even on eBay.

 

/Mitch

Another from Dulles. Vapor, tungsten, daylight and florescent all in one.<div></div>

The Enterprise space shuttle at the new Air & Space museum annex at Dulles, in the Washington, DC area. That facility is one of the worst illuminated that I've encountered, and tripods are forbidden.<div></div>

Trevor...

 

It all depends on the 50mm you're talking about and the amount of money you wish to spend. I've gone through a ton of LTM, M and R gear, briefly switched to digital, then came back to the M world a whole lot wiser.

 

And yes, I'm a spectacles wearer as well.

 

I still have a IIIf, but consider it more of a museum piece than a shooters tool, mainly because the shutter leaks and Sherry has never been able to make it stop, no matter how many times she's had it. I don't sell it because I don't want a war on the home front (it was my father-in-law's and my wife dearly loves it). The same thing occurred with my M3; went to Sherry for servicing over and over, and at the end of the day still had the light leak issue with the shutter. I eventually replaced the M3 with a new M6TTL .85 and loved it.

 

I'm now shooting with the MP. If you want the closest thing to the M3 experience, without the worry of constant repair and better film loading, get an MP and leave the batteries out. If you want to take really good flash shots of the family during the holidays, get an M6TTL or an M7 for the excellent flash support (much better than what I've been able to cobble together on the MP).

 

I know there will be other postings of outrage about the "M3 that has never seen servicing and still works perfectly after a bazillion rolls have been run through it", but my experience has taught me to buy the glass used and get the bodies from an authorized Leica dealer with at least a one year warranty on them (new or demo is fine, no gray market or cheap overseas sources).

 

Before you buy *any* Leica body, be sure you have seen and played with the viewfinder (.58, .72 or .85) you think you want and make sure you're comfortable with it. If your style of shooting is mid to far distance images with the slower glass (f/2.0 and below), then go for the .58 or .72 and don't look back. However, if you *ever* decide to step up to 'Lux or Noct to use in close focused territory, you'll kick yourself blue for not having gotten the .85.

 

My primary, 95-or-more-percent-of-the-time, lens is the Noct (I ignore all the naysayers, forge ahead and have fun anyway), on an MP .85 with a 1.25x magnifier constantly in place. For close focused portraits, you can't do better unless it is with an original M3, or an M6/M7 of similar configuration. I've found the high magnification of this rig to be perfect for critical focusing situations.

 

For those instances of mid-to-far distance shooting where I don't need the high mag viewfinder, I use a SBOOI 50mm brightline viewfinder on top of the body for framing. The SBOOI can be had for roughly $150 or more on eBay, while the equivalent (or better) from Cosina/Voigtlander can be had for $128 from Stephen Gandy's website. The accessory viewfinder gives the brightest view available and no other framing lines are visible. Makes for very fast framing with zone or hyperfocal shooting.

 

Hope that helps you.

 

/Mitch

Mine.<div></div>

Vienna, Austria...<div></div>