nee_sung

April 28, 2011

There is a shutter-release counter at the bottom of the camera. If the counter reaches 5000 you're supposed to have the shutter serviced. This is the only camera I know that has this feature.

For some models the Fuji undertaking might have expired, please check. Fuji undertook to service the cameras for 10 years after discontinuance of the model. At least that's what was stated on the manuals for my two Fuji's, which I bought brand new, but I sold them some years ago. If the undertaking has expired for you model, Fuji might not service the shutter, but I think you can get third party service.

April 11, 2011

Personally I found all modern Leica lenses too sharp for portraits. They have to be uncoated or single coated, which means lenses from 1950's or earlier.

The reason for using 90/75mm lenses for portraits is because of nose distortion. Caucasoid noses tend to be higher and so, in a head & shoulder portrait (meaning the head + shoulder fills the entire picture area) with a 50 lens, you're quite close to the subject. The short distance exaggerates the distance between the tip of the nose and the face, so the nose appears larger than it really is. With a longer lens this distortion is removed.

This is the reason for choosing a longer focal length and the ONLY reason. You have to know this because it is not a rule, but simply an operating constraint. As an artist you should decide for yourself what effect you want.

For a Mongoloid, such as an Oriental like Japanese/Chinese, the nose is flatter and they may actually prefer to have the nose look larger. So you can flatter your Oriental subjects by taking a Head + Shoulder portrait with a 50mm. A Negroid subject is usually the same, but this is by no means universal. There are Mongoloid and Negroid subjects with high noses.

A far more important consideration is what effect YOU want to achieve. You may deliberately accentuate the nose for artistic effect, or you may want to compress the nose for an opposite effect, in which case you may want to use a 300mm (yes, I've seen it done).

Know the technical aspects and then use it to make your art.

April 4, 2011

Indeed almost all problems with Hasselblads are operator error, in fact I can't really recall having heard or experienced myself any problem that is not operator error, but that simply means the ergonomics left something to be desired, which is a fault itself.

That is why I have exited the Hasselblad system some years ago. If I were to have only one camera, it would be a Rolleiflex.

February 18, 2011

Ray, Thanks for including the shots with the 1939 Elmar! Shows that I am not missing much when I use mine!

</blockquote>

Yes, I sold the 1954 Elmar and kept the 1937 one.

February 17, 2011

Here's the definition from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 6th Edition 2007:

1 In Rhetoric, a form of argument involving an opponent in choice between two (or more) alternatives, both equally unfavourable. 2 A choice between two (or several) alternatives which are equally unfavourable; a position of doubt or perplexity; a difficult situation or problem.

</blockquote>

The Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1994, is a bit more strict:

1. In Rhetoric. A form of argument involving an adversary in the choice of two (or, loosely, more) alternatives, either of which is (or appears) equally unfavourable to him. (The alternatives are commonly spoken of as the ‘horns’ of the dilemma.) 2. Hence, in popular use: A choice between two (or, loosely, several) alternatives, which are or appear equally unfavourable; a position of doubt or perplexity, a ‘fix’.

</blockquote>

So it would seem that "dilemma" has, by usage over time, come to mean two or more choices (the Oxford Dictionary is 13 years older). Rather the mis-use (if we can call it that) seems to come from the fact that none of the choices are unfavourable, whereas in a dilemma all the choices are supposed to be unfavourable. I rather suspect that even this restriction will eventually be removed by popular usage.

February 15, 2011

I have used these 50mm lenses:

70's + 90's versions of 'cron

F/1.5 Summarit

Pre-war and post-war (50's single coat) 50 Elmar

Noctilux F/1.0

'Lux Asph

40mm C 'cron

45mm Planar on Contax G2 plus almost all the other focal lengths for the G2, except the 21mm

My experience is actually the Planar was sharper, to my eyes, but I sold the whole G2 set and stayed in Leica. I just like the Leica look better.

My comments (cannot call it advice) is that you owe it to yourself to try the 'cron, because you're trying the Leica system. If you don't like it, you can always sell it, with either minimal or no loss. You can then try the Zeiss. Heck, you should try them all and then settle for one.

You will, eventually, try all the brands, anyway. Trust me. And no advice here or anywhere else can clear away that nagging feeling that you've missed out on something it you don't.

February 7, 2011

a user has shared this link, a test of four different MF camera. <a rel="nofollow" href="On%20another%20topic,%20a%20user%20has%20shared%20the%20very%20interesting%20link%20%28http:/www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html%29.">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html</a>

</blockquote>

Yes, that was the link that prompted me to sell all my MF cameras except the Mamiya 7 II and a Rolleiflex TLR. But that was many years ago. I wonder if anything has changed.

February 6, 2011

I don't think people have mentioned a lens hood. It is the NUMBER 1 factor for a sharp image, even before tripods. Yes, it only increases contrast and not sharpness per se, but for apparent sharpness it is of utmost importance.

The lens hood should be equal to the focal length of your lens. So most hoods are too short. Have one custom-made, if you want maximum sharpness.

February 1, 2011

So do you need to be concerned about scratching the lens every time you wipe dust off the front element?

</blockquote>

I don't really think so :-). I owned the lens in the 1980's and I knew nothing about the soft coating. I just cleaned it with normal lens cleaning paper. Never had a scratch.

I was not satisfied with the soft image when wide open, which was why I sold it. I soon found that the Summilux, which I bought, was also soft wide open. So I ended up with a Summicron.

I would dearly love to buy back this lens, though, because I found that the BW shots it took for me were just marvellous. In those days BW wasn't really that popular and so I sold it to fund other Leica equipment.

I can confirm that it is prone to flare. Use a hood, an extra-long one, of 50mm, custom-made, would be best.

January 30, 2011

I'm not adverse to digital: if there is a digital TLR I'll be among the first to buy. Look at all the advantages I listed for TLR, they all apply equally to the digital medium. If there is a mirrorless digital Hassy-like camera I'll buy it too, because it will have a quiet shutter and no parallex error. Just as long as they're not too expensive.

January 29, 2011

I forgot some other advantages of TLR: when you look down, most people don't realise you're taking a photograph and your chance of a real candid is greatly increased;

you can turn the camera sideways and shoot the people to your left or right, but because you're looking ahead, very often they're not aware that the lens is pointing at them. This is the reason why I went for a 3.5 lens, it's much smaller, so even fewer people realise that the lens is pointing at them. All this would have been spoilt by the very loud mirror of the likes of Hassy.

January 27, 2011

Doug: you're right. I just thought I threw that in. Actually, you can do that with any format, film or digital. I used it as a disaster salvage measure when I wanted to shoot say the spire of a church and I couldn't move any further.

It is interesting how the up to 20-something's find MF film exotic. The younger generation always tries to be different from the previous, and in so doing very often goes back to the generation before that, i.e. their grandfathers'. I remember doing the same thing in my youth. This is part of human nature, I think.

Every generation thinks that it has improved upon the last, when in most cases they have just been different. But it is the occasional brilliance in a random generation that has taken mankind to where it is today. So we had better humour our youth.

January 26, 2011

The TLR looks down at the view finder, this is far less intimidating to the subject than a horizontal view finder. This makes a crucial difference to the resultant photo. This is an advantage that the likes of Mamiya 7 don't have.

The TLR's shutter is very quiet, and therefore does not disturb your subject or surrounding people. This is an advantage that the likes of Hassies don't have.

It is not that much bigger than a Leica M, especially compared to the new M9.

It has a normal lens, which gives you the most comfortable view to the human eye, which is why most great shots are taken with the normal lens. So you're covered for most of your shooting needs.

You can crop to achieve a telephoto effect, at some loss of image quality, but the film is 4 times the area of 135, which means you can crop out 3/4 of the film area and still retain the same image quality as 135.

You can achieve a panorama-like view by tilting the camera 45 degrees and using the diagonal strip in the middle. Same comment as to loss of image quality applies.

You can shoot over a crowd by raising it over your head and turning the view finder downwards towards you, periscope fashion. The length of the camera helps you achieve a greater height over the likes of Hassy. Plus it's quiet.

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5F. I use it for street photography.

January 25, 2011

The OP has not yet responded but I think there might be a "voice to text" error. Maybe the word "reliable" should be "enlargeable". In that case it would make complete sense.

January 25, 2011

I have had the original Helia for many years now, maybe 8. Vignetting is noticeable, but how many 15mm lenses are out there? I imagine on an M8 vignetting is less of an issue because it uses only the central portion of the image circle.

I have taken some spectacular images with it. In fact, every time I used it. Every image is dramatic, even if not great.

January 24, 2011

I own both. I also own Leica M's.

The range finder is not as good as Leica, but actually very good. If you have used Leica's, then most likely you have to adjust yourself in the first few rolls.

The meter: the manual does not tell you the area it's measuring! But search photo.net and you should get the answer. People did it through trial and error. The meter is very accurate, in my experience.

I found the 150 difficult to focus. There had been many discussions on this on photo.net throughout the years. But the image quality is great.

The 210 does not couple to the range finder. You have to guess the distance or use a separate range finder.

The 43mm lens is worth buying the 7 all by itself. It used the same 38mm Biogon formula on the Hassy SWC, only it used the original 10-element 90mm Biogon for large format, instead of the abridged 7-element formula for the Hassy. Mamiya came out with this lens when the patent on the Biogon expired. So it's an exact copy.

The RZ is a studio camera. Its natural habitat is the tripod. The lenses are all great. My own particular reason for keeping it is solely because of the 180 soft portrait lens, so that I can get rid of the Imagon, which is for 135 format. But I also keep the 90.

January 21, 2011

Desmond: you are of course correct. I don't need to do the test. I shoot 135, MF and LF and I experience it all the time.

January 21, 2011

Christian: it need not cost you much, just buy a 70's Summicron. If you don't like it you can always sell it for close to what you pay for it. Just treat the difference as rental for the lens.

I just thought that despite what people tell you, you really ought to decide for yourself.

People keep on saying that it's the photographer, not the camera, that counts, but as the artist you should be free to choose the tool that presents the images you want. Choosing the right tool is part of the job of the photographer. It is only by trying out the tool that you can tell whether it does a better or worse job than your existing tool. It's your perogative as an artist. Exercise it.

January 20, 2011

If you have never tried a Leica lens, then you ought to at least try, shouldn't you?

When Konica made the Hexa, they were out to get Leica. I think it was because Leica's range-finder patent had expired. I remember that reviews were initially skeptical but later on it was almost all praise. But by then it was too late, Konica threw in the towel and the rest is history. At that time I was on the verge of buying into the Hexa myself.

I can confirm the focussing issue. In fact, if I remember correctly, Puts wrote an article on it.

I had a fixed lens Hexa for many years and the lens was very good, but contrast was not as high as the Leica lenses. This is not a sign of inferiority of the lens, but the preference of the Japanese consumer, at which the Hexa was targeted.

So in the end it boils down to personal preference. If you like rich colour and high contrast, the Leica is probably for you (but only the ones from the 1970's and later).

January 20, 2011

It is a well known fact that DoF is a function of the focal length. Therefore a normal lens for MF (let's say 80mm) has less DoF than the normal lens for a 135 format (50mm). That's the main reason why so many people want full frame digital: the DoF of smaller digital cameras are just too great to isolate the foreground.

Is that what all these posts are about?

January 20, 2011

I suppose in the old days, when all photos are printed, print size is all important. Nowadays the confusion probably arises because the vast majority of photos seem to be viewed on screen, one type or another. The size of the screen then becomes important. But I don't think any DOF scale published has been based on an (assumed) screen size.

January 13, 2011

Germany went through a sea change in the last 10 years. Companies can now operate with much more freedom than before. They can now at least get rid of non-performers, although still not easily.

When the MP came out in 2003, it was made by a straitjacketed German company, like all other Germany companies. So it is almost a miracle that they managed it at all. So there were bound to be infrequent quality issues.

The German government has since made tremendous changes and German companies have become leaner and more nimble.

So what am I saying? It probably pays to buy the later MP's, or a brand new one. This also accounts for the rather wide variance in quality reported in these threads.

January 12, 2011

I live in Hong Kong and my first Leica was a used M4, bought in 1982 from Kinefoto. I've been buying from them ever since, old and new. Their prices are not cheap but they're very reliable.

I also buy from a shop on the Kowloon side. Cheaper but the products are more worn and sometimes need CLA, but they never hesitate to fix the problem or refund. It's name has been changed due to the divorce between the couple who used to own it. I don't know what the new name is.

I chose those two shops on intuition, I'm usually good in that.

Search photo.net and you'll find a lot of threads on shops in Hong Kong. What they state are accurate and not yet outdated. I only wish to emphasise one thing that those threads said "DON"T buy from shops on Nathan Road".

January 10, 2011

If you're comfortable with the square format, use it. It's your art, nobody else's. Remember this, as an artist you are unique. The world will never, ever, see your visions if you did not exist. It doesn't really matter whether it's good or bad art. It's unique. Therefore you should not really allow yourself to be influenced too much by other people, when it comes to personal feelings, because that's your art.

You can learn the techniques and the engineering aspects, to improve your skill, but you should not defer your feelings to that of others, that's surrendering your art.

January 10, 2011

I cannot believe a question like this has generated the largest number of posts I have ever seen on photonet.

I guess there is some truth in the impression that Leica users are snobs then.

I have already received some hateful stares when I used an M7 in the street, and when I received no response to the suggestion that the easiest way to avoid being branded a snob is to use 2nd hand Leica's in another forum, I knew the snob impression was not entirely unjustified.

I guess this thread seals it.

I am seriously thinking of sanding all my new Leica gears, or selling them and buying used ones.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by nee_sung