larry_anonymous

April 29, 2004

I sympathize with your plight. My sister asked me for pregnancy photos a little while ago and I didn't want the psychological baggage of seeing her topless so this is what we came up with. I made her tape her sweater to her breasts to keep it in place.<div>

0087PU-17815084.jpg.7d840296fc7f164d00173eabc5004053.jpg

</div>

April 29, 2004

Pierre Verlhac , apr 29, 2004; 12:01 p.m. wrote

I think I am unable to enjoy a single print from my DSLR. That's my decisive factor, print result and feeling. Not on-screen display.

You can get very nice prints from decent digital cameras. If you can't, then there is either something wrong with your camera, or, more likely, something wrong with your process. I recently bought my first digital camera (not a DSLR...but it has dedicated controls for aperture and shutter so please spare me the nannerings about sub-menu this, sub-menu that) and depending on the lab I went to, the prints were either quite good, or quite flat. The lab that was closest to me and had the fastest turn-over time (same day processing, even if I sent my files via the Internet) produced flat prints. So I made up 3 test files, each with a specific amount of colour saturation added and had the lab print them with no colour corrections. The result is that I now know what saturation level I need when sending to that lab, and I have created a saved batch action that I can apply to multiple files at once. I do not have to spend hours with Photoshop.

It is a machinegun which makes me lose capacity to concentrate and wait for THE moment, rather makes me shoot 10 photos when 2 would be enough.

This sounds like something that LF shooters said when the Leica first came out. ;-)

RAW mode allows to compensate for badly exposed shots,

So does Tri-X and other great b/w films.

USM compensates for shaky arms etc ...

Likewise, RF shooters often tout the lack of mirror slap allowing them to shoot at lower speeds.

These are all benefits that many, many RF users rely upon. Why are they disadvantages when seen on a digital camera?

In fact M allows to fly manual vs. computer assisted and saves hours of Photoshop.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying your DSLR allows no manual control?

RF cameras are FUN to use and I'm sure there's a huge pleasure in using a fine piece of equipment like a Leica. Quit trying to come up with objective reasons for why you NEED one. Buy one if it'll make you happy. But if your goal is better prints, you really should concentrate on your process.

April 29, 2004

Does the flash have it's own metering so that no matter which mode you are in (PASM),the flash will try to give the right ammount of light? (assuming no flash compensation is applied)

Yup. With the Maxxums that have no separate flash exp. compensation, the main exp. compensation will also control the flash output. With Maxxums that do have flash exp. compensation, the flash exp. compensation may be relative to the main exp. compensation, or can be completely independent (I speak only from my 7 experience which allows you to choose btwn these two types of flash exp. comp.).

Which are the 'good' bodies? Now i KNOW the latest 7 is just awsome but are there older ones that really stand out as being well above average?I presently have a 600Si classic.Focus is very slow but man,what an awsomely good interface it has!In many ways it's the same as the EOS 50/elan II-all the important functions are controlled by big dials/levers while the less used ones are button controlled.

Depends on what you're looking for. Only since the 600Si classic did they become retro-ergonomic (AFAIK). But even before that, they had some rather good, reliable bodies. Generally speaking, all of the 7-9 series are good. This includes the 7000 series, the 7xi, the 9000, the 9xi, the 800si, etc.

If you mean which bodies are good in comparison to modern cameras, I think anything that is 7-9 from the xi, si, and current series can be considered good. My 7xi is over ten years old and I wouldn't have any problem using it today. The only reason I don't is because the 7 is so much more enjoyable to use.

I would avoid the xi lenses, though. Those are the ones with the fly-by-wire zoom control rings.

The Maxxum 5 is also a great camera, btw. It's an extremely good value with almost all the features an advanced amateur could want.

April 12, 2004

Not to discourage you, and I would love to have a Maxxum 7. However with the Maxxum Digital 7 so close to release maybe what a bit to see what pricing looks like? Or even better yet I�m sure the pricing on the Maxxum 7 will fall with the release of the Digital 7 so it will be worth the wait $$$$. Nothing worst than paying full price and a month or two later the same thing can be had at a great discount. Just my .02

Unfortunately, I think you're wrong. The Maxxum 7 is already selling at an extremely competitive price when you compare similarly equipped Canons and Nikons (ie: don't compare based on pricing tiers). The existence of Nikon and Canon digital SLRs hasn't dropped the price of their film cameras and I don't expect the Maxxum D7 to do so, either.

I also expect the Maxxum D7 to be quite expensive because it is essentially a Maxxum 7 PLUS a very expensive APS sensor. I would guess that it would cost about USD$500-700 more than a MAxxum 7. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Larry

March 17, 2004

I know my input is too late to be of use to you, but I find my 24-105D to be sharper than the 28-105. I've had the 28-105xi AND 28-105 and didn't like either lens. Besides being sharper, the 24-105D is also smaller, and has a larger focusing ring that doesn't rotate during AF.

Larry

March 13, 2004

Rangefinders aren't exactly known for their exact framing. I think a 35mm finder would be fine for 32mm, for example.

March 13, 2004

Minolta Maxxum 7 and 70-210/4 on HP5+

- Larry

March 1, 2004

I wouldn't exactly say that the bokeh of that lens is particularly good. Of course, it depends on what you like in your out-of-focus areas.

- larry

February 29, 2004

I bought a 3xi for my sister-in-law and it had the aperture ring fail after 2 yrs or so. On my 5000i, 9000, 7xi and 7, I've never had a problem except that the DoF lever on the 9000 broke once.

- larry

February 27, 2004

BTW, I forgot to mention that the Minolta A1/A2 digicams do NOT have an aperture ring or shutter selection dial. That really is too bad because I find them much easier to use than the jog wheels found in Canon/Minolta/Nikon SLRs.

If that is really important to you, I would suggest going for the Panasonic which will save you a few hundred bucks.

- Larry

February 27, 2004

Come on, guys, to call «point and shoot» a «prosumer» digital 5 meg 2/3" CCD sensor camera offering manual focus, manual aperture and manual zooming around the lens like your favorite Leica lens, plus a very fast AF at will, a very fast shutter release, three metering modes, four exposure modes, dioptric correction to the VF, six white balance settings with fine-tuning of +-1500 K, and an incredible LCD screen (I've seen it),

The Minolta A1 has the features you mention (it has a higher EVF res of the Leica but I don't know how the image quality compares). Because of the release of the A2, the A1 is now selling for around USD$500-600. The A2 has a resolution of 8MP (although image quality has yet to be determined) and its EVF is almost 4x denser than the A1 and Digilux The A2 is selling for about USD$1000. Both the A1 and A2 have built-in image stabilization. The focus ring is fly-by-wire and the zoom ring is a mechanical connection. What about the Leica? Are both rings mechanical?

without mentioning, of course, a LEICA fast aspheric f:2-f:2.4 zoom, and Leica tradition for solid built (event if it's made in Japan) sounds a little insincere.

If this lens matched the quality of other Leica lenses, the cost would be far, far higher. At least if you believe Leica's reasoning for its high prices (ie: high quality lenses as a result of time-intensive work done by highly skilled labour and ruthless quality control).

The Digilux may not be perfect, and it is expensive (though much less expensive than an M with a 35 asph. compare to, say, a Bessa R2 with a 35 aspheric Ultron) but a POINT AND SHOOT? Come on!

I would classify it as a prosumer digicam and at a price of USD$1850, it is horribly overpriced. For that much money, I'd buy a D70 or 300D which would give you a much better sensor for those high ISO (ie: 400 and up) shots which that 2/3 sensors are not very good at. I quick Google search shows a price for the D70 of USD$1300. With the $550 diff the D70 and the Leica, I could buy 2 or 3 good primes or a zoom.

So, given that the Minolta has about the same features for less than 1/3 of the price, and the D70 with better image quality and interchangeable lenses for about 3/4 of the price, it would be quite silly, IMO, to spend USD$1850 on the Leica. Perhaps the street price will be much lower.

- Larry

February 24, 2004

Mark K , feb 21, 2004; 04:04 a.m.

Minolta pays a lot of attention to camera handling and has invented a number of functions which were not found in either Nikon or Canon system: 1. wireless flash guns 2. high speed falsh syncronize 3. MF/AF clutcher which enalbes manual focusing while you are focusing automatically

As far as I know, this feature only came about on the more recent lenses, such as the 24-105D lens. And I'm pretty sure that Canon USM lenses already had that ability.

Minolta definitely loads up their cameras with much feature sets than equivalently priced Canons and Nikons.

But having said that, Nikon DOES make good cameras and they provide good support for pro users, as does Canon. I still enjoy firing a few rolls of film through my hand-me-down Nikon F bodies and the F2. But because the lenses for those cameras are the older non-AI style, none of the newer bodies would work with them, so I had to either modify the lenses or buy new ones. Yes, the Nikon backward compability is a myth. So I stayed with Minolta when I bought my Maxxum 7 (I've had a 5000i, 9000, 7xi, and now a 7), even though Minolta had not, at that time, announced a DSLR. I just liked the Minolta ergonomics and features much, much more than Nikon's. Besides which, as another poster already mentioned, the range of lenses only matters if you can afford them. Myself, I'm well served as long as the lenses range from 20mm to 300mm. Fast zooms would be nice, and Minolta makes them, but they're so damned expensive! Just like those by Canon and Nikon. I guess the downside with Minolta is that you can rent Canon and Nikon lenses but try finding a Minolta renter.

February 23, 2004

Warren Jackson , feb 22, 2004; 02:23 p.m. wrote:

Ditch the Nikon and especially the Minolta. If you can afford the M6, you can afford to shoot w/ it all the time.

Given his various stated needs, an M6 is not going to be enough, no matter how good the lens is.

Besides, eventually you'll get tired of toting those " tanks" once you get use to your rangefinder.

SLRs are definitely bigger and often times heavier than a rangefinder. I carry my RF every day and only bring out the SLRs when needed. But when I need them, I much, much prefer to use them over the RF. The RF is a great slice-of-life camera but for accurate framing, fast focus, fast action, depth of field preview, ND GRAD and polarizer filter use, and focal length range, the AF SLR is the first choice. There are good reasons why RF cameras were superceded by the SLRs.

OR, ... you can try the poor boy route...... I'm a camera salesman @ athe last Mom & Pop shop in Atlanta, GA. I can't afford Leica's myself, ( tho' I've shot w/ many), - so I bought a Voigtlander Bessa R, $250. I've also got a Leitz Summmaron 35 f/3.5 w/

[snip]

The Bessa is not as quiet as your M6, nor does it have the build quality - but it's the equal or better of your Nikon, and better than any Minolta.

I also went the Bessa R route. Much less expensive yet it let me try the RF experience and gave me access to a huge range of lenses. As for the Nikon being better than the Minolta, I take exception to that. I've got two Nikon Fs, an F2, and had a 401 and 801s. Comparising cameras in similar price ranges, I find the Minoltas to be FAR better value for the money and they hold up just as well as their Nikon equivalents. Feature-wise and performance-wise, they're better than the equivalent Nikons. And there is nothing about the Bessa that makes me think it is any more durable or even AS durable as either my Minolta 7 or 7xi. The latter has been dropped on pavement twice and continues work function perfectly after over a decade of use.

February 17, 2004

I agree that you will learn more with a manual camera BUT if Georges is having difficulty finding time to develop his shots, then at least with a digicam, he can see the results of his shots regularly. The faster he gets feedback, the more likely it is that he'll learn from it. Trying something out and then trying to remember what it was a week later doesn't impart a strong lesson. Sure, he could write notes etc but a digital would make the learning easier. I've shown some friends how to use their digital cameras (most decent digicams costing USD$200 and up have manual modes these days) and it is very easy to explain and illustrate the effects of aperture and shutter selection on the final image. It's even easier to show them why you'd want to combine a long shutter speed with flash, etc.

He doesn't _NEED_ to a prosumer digicam nor does he need to manipulate all of his images in Photoshop. Just seeing the results on the LCD or on his computer screen can provide very valuable feedback. Freeing himself from the cost (time-wise and money-wise) of film processing allows him to experiment with different techniques as much as he wants. Everything he learns can be applied to film work. He can do the experimentation with the digital...a kind of proof-of-concept test tool, and then using what he's learned, try the shot using film for the finished product.

FWIW, I don't have a decent digicam but I even sometimes find myself using my beater Epson 850Z to test my strobe setup (no Polaroid back available for my camera...not that I could justify the cost, anyway).

February 17, 2004

Assuming that is true, this would be quite a breakthrough - a camera with a real rangefinder for manual focusing as well as a tilt and swivel LCD for those times when we are too lazy to get down on the ground on our bellies.

This won't work, assuming that the lever for cocking the SHUTTER. In other words, because the camera has a shutter, you aren't going to get a live LCD view.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to use this Cosina chassis as the basis for the camera and expect anyone to pay much more than $600-700 for it, even if it does take M lenses.

The Bessa R2 already sells for USD$500 at BHPhoto...and people are buying them. For an APS sensor that takes existing lenses, I'm quite certain people will pay up to USD$1500 for it.

February 16, 2004

Georges made an excellent suggestion. Digital will give you the fast feedback that you need to turn given your lack of time to dev/print. By the way, if you have a 4 or 5 reel developing tank, developing one roll of film takes the same amount of time as five. Doing a contact proof sheet of 5 rolls doesn't take much more time than one. I shoot about 2-4 rolls of film every two weeks.

As for a goal, I have joined the ranks of Photo-a-week people. I have promised myself to post a picture every week. Due to time constraints, I usually update my site every two weeks.

February 16, 2004

Neither. It sounds like the worst of all worlds- the limitations of a CCD sensor which doesn't capture as much info as film coupled with a lack of the software processing and speed shooting capabilities that compensate for the small CCD in a decent digital made by Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Pentax. The only folks who will shell out for either are people who care more for the concept of a camera than its actual output.

The Epson/Bessa offers some unique features:

<ul>

<li>It would be the smallest, interchangeable lens digicam.</li>

<li>It would allow the use of affordable, high quality, wide angle lenses - a downfall of many DSLR systems.</li>

<li>Given the lack of AF and powered shutter/mirror cocking, and it's very good optical viewfinder, it might be extremely power frugal, allowing much longer usage from a single charge. This is speculation, of course, since i have no clue how much power shutter cocking uses up.</li>

<li>If the sensor provides good, noise-free, low-light performance, it will be a superior low light digicam due to the bright RF viewfinder.</li>

</ul>

Basically, the features that made a film RF more appealing to some of us than a film SLR will still apply in the digital realm. As far as lack of "software processing," I'm not sure what you mean by that. Details about image processing weren't forthcoming at the show.

If the battery life is good, I think a digital RF would be a great street photography camera. SP usually involves lots of spur of the moment shots that can eat up a lot of film. Ideally, they would get rid of the mechanical shutter but I guess they need it for their chosen chip...I don't know if the new Pana-Leica camera will be quieter. AFAIK, it doesn't have a DoF scale on the lens which is something I'd like, and a reason why I like fixed focal length lenses.

February 16, 2004

I also vote for no-built-in screen. However, for those moments when one might be useful, why not have a plug-in screen that will do the job when necessary and stay in the bag/pocket otherwise.

Why? Because it's extremely useful and doesn't take up much space on the camera. Why is there resistance against having a screen? Aesthetics? The screen won't suck up any power if you turn it off, and all the digicams I've seen that have an optical or smaller electronic viewfinder allow the larger LCD screen to be turned off.

February 16, 2004

I do not see any need for an external screen. It is battery consuming and confusing with all the menus normally presented.

The LCD screen is extremely useful for a digital camera. For starters, it allows you to save a lot of interface space by assigning multiple functions to a small number of buttons/dials. Very frequently used functions should, of course, have physical controls dedicated to them, but it only makes sense to map the rest to multi-use controls.

Menus will only be confusing if Leica screws up the interface design.

M photographers are experienced enough to take pictures without such a screen and to wait with studying their pictures until a later stage.

Riiight. Maybe these photography masters are experienced enough to wait until a lab has developed and printed their film before studying the pictures, and don't need a digital camera in the first place.

;-)

Professional photographers manage quite well with the LCD displays on their non-Leicas. While they might not be as experienced "M photographers," I would tend to listen to their ideas of what works best on a digital camera, since their livelihood depends on producing pictures. I can't imagine why Leica would pour millions into developing a digital M and then crippling it by eliminating a histogram display, image review ability, and other tools that require the LCD panel. I mean, why would a Leica user prefer to check white balance back home, rather than while at the photo location? Experienced or not, it is pretty difficult to guess the results of mixed lighting.

February 14, 2004

Furthermore, a D lens will allow your 7 to display a depth of field scale on its LCD panel; and the focus ring on the 24-105D doesn't turn during AF (ie: it is clutched). I like the 24-105D because it is very small and provides very good results.

February 13, 2004

Fred B. , feb 13, 2004; 02:54 a.m. wrote:

Even if Leica comes up with a digital M, I don't want it ! I still want to be able to pop film in my M6, shoot my 36 pictures roll in the afternoon or more, send the film to my lab, wait 1 week to receive my prints and see the result. Get exited when I open the package, discover shots I forgot, see the magic of my summicron at work, keep the bad shot as well and rediscover them a month or a year later and go outside and shoot again instead of spending 2 hours in front of the computer with photoshop.

As far as process goes, it's up to YOU as to how you want to change it. Most labs these days will burn all your digipics onto a CD for you AND give you an index print. No one is forcing you to immediately delete the pics you don't want. If you're already letting your lab develop and print your film, why would you assume that you are going to manipulate your digital images in Photoshop? Just get your lab to print them...or leave them on a card for a few weeks if you want to forget the shots you took, first. ;-)

Even Leica makes a digital camera, it's not going to impact you at all. It's not like THEIR creation of a digital camera is going to kill film production.

I like shooting b/w film and developing it and printing it. OTOH, I also like the rapid turn-around that is possible with a digital process. I also like the ease of repeatable results and lower cost of colour printing using digital techniques. So for b/w, I will continue to use the darkroom but for colour, I will move to digital for most of it.

- lars

February 13, 2004

gerald widen , feb 13, 2004; 10:23 a.m.

>Even if it has a relatively small sensor VC has all of the wide

>and ultra wide lenses available at reasonable prices to satisfy

>the average M shooter.

For many shooters, including myself, 35mm is their std focal length. The APS-C has a crop factor of 1.5. This means that I would need a 23mm lens to use with this camera. CV makes a 21 and 25 BUT the problem is that they are slow (f4). If this camera hits the market with an APS-sized sensor, I hope Kobayashi-san will roll out a 21 or 25 lens with at at least a 2.8 aperture.

I've been wanting a 21 for my Bessa R, anyway. ;-)

- lars

February 13, 2004

The other consideration is this: might Epson or Cosina or someone else then adapt this model ("manually operated" digital camera) to build cameras that will use other manual focus lenses, like the Canon FDs and Minolta Rokkors? After all, Cosina was building re-badged, low-end SLRs for a variety of manufacturers. The same thing could be done with a "manual" digicam body.

Good quality manual focus SLR lenses are really, really cheap these days (depends on the manuf. of course).

- lars

February 3, 2004

No one has mentioned this yet, so here's a tip from me: to get excess water off the film, I drop the loaded 35mm reels into a salad spinner. Arrange them evenly so the spinner will be somewhat balanced, and so the reels' axes point to the center of the spinner (imagine the cylinder configuration on a radial engine like on those WWI airplanes). Then spin away as much as you want. I find that this removes just as much water as the squeegee does. I can get 4 reels into the spinner at a time.

Larry

January 26, 2004

The last time I was there in the winter would be about 11 years ago.

You can get some great pictures of the locals skating on the man-made lake at the Summer Palace. The cold, clear air should also improve your chances of getting great photos of the Great Wall. Definitely wake up early (before the sun comes up) and walk the streets and market alleys. Lots of great street photography opportunities will await you. Because land is at a premium there, people use public spaces for exercising in the morning.

Bring spare batteries. I walked up a very tall section of the Wall, only to watch my OM2 freeze during a self-portrait. It was extremely cold and I was the only tourist in the area. And still I was approached by locals wearing much less than I, hawking souvenirs.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by larry_anonymous