max_fun

<p>Are we just assuming that there's going to be a digital R10? If Leica is planning to release R10 eventually, why would they stop production of R line products?</p>

Last one...<div></div>

Another...<div></div>

Whao, it worked...<div></div>

Thanks for the welcome. I'll try posting some more photos from the shoot...<div></div>

I don't feel that the R6 shutter lag is terrible, but it's not fantastic either. The SLR cameras that I feel really responsive actually are the Contax RTS ones actually. I had the RTS II and whao... you can really tell a difference with it. The Leica SLRs I'd used (R6/8), they're very responsive as well, but not as amazing as the Contax. I really loved the RTSII, if not for the d@mn film loading system.

Well, I'd kept to the <100kb and 511 pixel width, but still I can't get the photos to show... sorry about that.

Hmmm... let's try it another photo...

Hi everyone,

 

I haven't been around at all for I think at least a year and a half. There had

just been so many moves/changes in my life that I just didn't have the energy to

pick up the camera much. But now that I'm more settled down in my new (and

first) job in Singapore, I've started to load up my Leicas and practicing my

shutter release exercises. Here are some photos I shot 2 weeks ago at a local

Buddhist festival at a temple. Photos were shot with the Leica R6 using Fuji

160s film and the Leica 21-35mm/50mm/90mm R lenses.

I never bothered with K64, but I hated Provia exactly because of the blue hue. This is why for 100, I prefer Astia or Sensa.

I know that there are many M8 enthusiasts, but I'm sure there are still more film users out there who really aren't bothered about coded lenses and IR sensitivity. For them (including myself), this lens will be perfect for their travel needs... although the new Tri-Elmar is also a very viable option.

But with the intro duction of this lens, it makes me wonder if Leica will actually also make a 15mm f/2.8 lens.

My experience wasn't so good actually. I'd brought my G2 (without flash)to a club, which was obviously dark, and the autofocus was hunting and hunting and hunting... sometimes it will catch onto something, but most of the time, it failed. I'd had my Panny FX7 with me, and the focus assist light did a much better job at getting focus.

Anybody wants to hazard a guess on how much this will cost?

Actually... I love the look of the R8/9. Big, but great curves :) I loved it the first time I saw it, and it was even more amazing once I got to hold it. I'd say that the most beautiful camera I ever saw and used was the Contax RTS I/II, but it doesn't work as well as the R8.

Personally, I'm a bit bothered that the eyes aren't as sharp, and so it feels like there's a veil separating the subject and the viewer.

It does look very compact, and I can see using it as my general lens instead of my 50mm 'Cron. When it comes to my RF lenses, I'm all about the size. Which is why I'm still keeping my 35mm 'Lux.

Well, all I can say is that I've made use of this downturn to buy myself a mint condition R6 with motordrive for $650.

 

The problem with Leica gear is that most people can't afford the new prices, and so the only way to get people to buy them used, sellers have to lower the price to a level that people are willing to spend, which can very easily be half the retail price. This is in contrast to the used market for Canon/Nikon lenses, which is probably like just 10% lower than the retail price. This is especially true for the R line, which is less popular than the M.

Helen, thanks for the comparison. I have to give Portra 800 a try now :) By the way, did Kodak just update the Portra 800 this past PMA? It's supposed to be even better now.

Andrew, I'm going to dispute that Press 800 is finer grained than NPZ 800; my impression is the exact opposite. It was also said that the Press 800 is really a tighter controlled version of the Superia 800, which is also pretty good, but is also rather grainy.

Personally I don't know what the big deal is; film will always have grains. Wait till you try ISO 400 film and faster. The difference is that film grain really doesn't look too bad. Even when blown up, we're so used to seeing grains that it still looks acceptable. Digital noise on the other hand can look pretty horrible, especially if you use the jpg engine in camera. That's why I have absolutely no qualms about shooting ISO 800 Fuji NPZ film (sharp and nice colours), but I won't bother with even ISO 400 on most digicams short of a DSLR.

Rene, you've got some really nice street photos, but I'm going to go ahead and say that if you didn't say that in the Czech Republic, it would have been difficult to guess where most of the photos came from. Some very nice shots nevertheless.

Argh Carsten! You're not getting the point... I'm not saying everybody only shoot 1 format/style; I use both RF and SLR depending on the requirement. But just because they use only one format, it doesn't mean that other formats don't have their advantages, and similarly even if David switched to DSLR, doesn't mean that the RF will suddenly become loud, and the viewfinder become small and dark. The whole world can switch to DSLR, but the M will still remain the same.

 

You don't have to be defensive about switching to the D200; whatever rocks your boat man, but we are discussing how some people enjoy the advantages afforded by using the RF and there are also pros (not all) who will only use it. Other photographers may not agree, but that's just individual styles.

Carsten, my point is that each photographer has their own personal style. Some only shoot LF, some only shoot MF some only shoot RF. Just because your style slant towards one format doesn't mean that the benefits of using other formats don't exist. I shoot mainly 35mm but I will still acknowledge some of the advantages of shooting MF or LF.

Carsten, there's no rule that says that people can't change their preference; I was a fully SLR person for awhile. But it doesn't say anything about the advantage or disadvantage of using a rangefinder.