nee_sung

>>A run-of-the-mill Pentax K1000 has a horizontal running cloth shutter!<<

The Pentax K-1000 is no run-of-the-mill.

When Leica came out with the M3 in 1954, it was so advanced that it was immediately clear to the Japanese that they had no hope of catching up.

That is when the Japanese, Nikon in particular, decided to pursue the SLR route in ernest and abandon the range-finder line. Up to that time, the pros and cons of both systems have been hotly debated and nobody had an answer as which is better. Leica's M3 sort of decided it for the Japanese. SLR was the only openning left.

What then happened was a classical case of Leica becoming a victim of its own success.

BTW, the theft story is most probably true. I was old enough in the early 1960's to see clearly that the Japanese were copying the Germans. In fact, everybody in those days knew and accepted it as a fact of life. But what happened in my city was that everybody lusted after the German brands and switched to German brands the moment they could afford it. The Japanese cameras became a sort of sales promotion tool for the German cameras. (I switched to Leica 3 years after I started working). That is why it never occurred to me, in my youth, that the Japanese would one day take over the camera market.

I don'r read Japanese either, but I read can read the Chinese characters.

My Japanese friends told me that I can pretty accurately guess the meaning by just reading the Chinese characters. I think the person was saying that:

1. purely his personal opinion;

2. the 8 element is good for collection;

3. the 6 element was an improvement;

4. the 7 element is the best; and that

5. the ASPH has no character (this one I'm pretty sure).

Last week I shot some street scenes with my M3, without meter. Normal lens. I simply guessed the exposure and then bracketed. All shots came out great (that is, one in three).

I felt good. And the film advance was sooo smooooth. It felt better than the M6, mainly because it's a bit heavier and the extra mass seemed to dampen the shutter better.

David

The noise in the D2 images is a design choice made by Leica. It was deliberate and not a defect. It was reported in the issue of LeicaFotography when the D2 came out. Basiccally their reasoning is that most Leica users are sophisticated users. Aggressive in-camera de-noising would truncate too much detail from the image. So they decided to go for higher noise in exchange for detail and let the photographer decide which he wants: detail, or clean image, since de-noising softwares abound and the savvy Leica user should have no problem de-noising the image.

I believe the noise in the Panasonic is lower, for precisely the same reasoning, but the other way round, so to speak.

After seeing your pictures, I am glad that I have not "upgraded" to the FZ20.

I have the FX2, FZ3 and FZ10 plus Leica M & R gear.

I also agree that the tripod is the sharpest lens. The second sharpest lens is the lens hood.

Please see this:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AtA0

I lived with both systems for about 18 months.

I had the EOS 1v + 28-70/2.8 L and the flash.

I had M6 + R5 and sundry lenses.

From here on it's strictly personal opinion:

I didn't like the look of the Canon lens. It was very sharp, contrasty and colour was well saturated. But I just didn't like the look.

I shot both negative and slide film. They looked great, until you put them side by side with the Leica images.

I used the EOS for about 6 months. And then I started to use it less and less. Towards the end I only used it when I wanted to look professional (I'm an amateur).

The greatest satisfaction I got from it was the look on an old colleague's face, who thought I would do poorly when I started my own business, and he wouldn't recognise a Leica.

After 6 months of not using it even once, I sold the whole ensemble of body+lens+flash.

p.s. The weight was also an issue for me.

I have used double exposure by pushing down the rewind lever on the M3, M4 and M6, i.e. every M I have ever owned, and never had any problems. I have been doing this for at least 21 of the 25 years I have been using Leica.

Before I did this I actually consulted some Leica books. It's some where in my home but I just can't find it now.

I had a focussing mount made for the Elmar, and then it was attached to a T-mount. Then a Minolta adaptor was attached at the back.

I had it made it Hong Kong, where I live, but I'm sure you have craftsmen in your location who can do the same.

OK. While I'm at it. Here's another contraption, with a pre-war Leica 90mm Elmar on the 7D. I think the lens was made in 1937, and the camera in 2004. 67 years!

http://sungnee.smugmug.com/gallery/369902

The WB for the 5.6 was set wrongly, but I can't change back because I've already changed the written words.

As promised I have uploaded some images.

The image "TheCamera" shows you the set-up. It was taken with an A1. I

am sorry I was not able to use handheld + anti-shake because the

ambient light was simply too dark.

http://sungnee.smugmug.com/gallery/369872

A very important reason why Nikon lenses are more expensive is that all lenses must be capable of handling the highest fps speed of the Nikon professional bodies. All materials used and tolerances must be manufactured to that standard, because Nikon has no way of knowing which lens will go on which body, or when. It could be 30 years after it's made.

As you will note this has got nothing to do with image quality. Since I am not a professional photographer and do not need high fps, I understood, when I learned about this, that I would get more value for my money by using cameras lines that do not have such high standards of manufacture, which I have no use for. That is why I now use Minoltas and Pentaxes.

Thanks everybody.

I will try to post some images. Trouble is, I can't put people's pictures in the public domain without their consent. I will try some non-human subjects first.

Hello everybody

On dec 29, 2004 I posted a question on how to correct small distortion

caused by a 90mm Mamiya lens (on an RZ body).

I must now retract that assertion. The lens in question in fact showed

far smaller distortion than I first thought.

I must post this because some people might be put off Mamiya lenses

because of my post.

I have now found the distortion to be within my acceptance range for

family members. That means the distortion is extremely low.

I found out about this last night when I scanned the same negative

myself on a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. The previous image, on which I

based my post, was processed by a professional lab, reputedly one of

the two best ones in town, and the more expensive one, I might add.

What is odd is that I think the print was made by a traditional

enlarger, and not a scanner.

I moved house and was only able to use my own scanner last night.

If you know of people who have read my post but may nevertheless miss

this one please inform them.

I feel badly about contributing to mis-information on the internet,

which I detest.

Hello everybody

I have an Imagon 120mm soft image lens. I bought a Minolta adaptor

long before the 7D came out, thinking that I can use it on the AS 7D.

Last night I tried it and the 7D simply refused to fire, saying

stubbornly "no lens attached". I think it needs some kind of metal

contact on the lens to sense lens presence?

How can I overcome this hi-tech thing?

Thank you all in advance.

I would not buy any of the prints.

Even I can do better if I were at those locations and have the time and resources at my disposal.

First: Olympus Pen half-frame, no meter, no range finder.

Work: Leica M6

Like to have: a camera that produces images exactly as I see them, no more, no less, so that the viewer can see what I actually want to show him/her. This would mean a curved film/sensor plane, same as our eyeballs, just to name one amongst many factors.

Pulling the whole photo from the side seemed to do the trick. Thanks! :-)

I let my wife did the "fine-pulling" but I think she over-did it. My daughter agreed with me. So we told her we'll be doing the pulling from now on. :-)

Hello everybody

I need to be instructed on how to correct small distortion digitally.

I used a 90mm Mamiya lens (on an RZ body) to photograph my wife. The

pictures came out with her face slightly fatter, or maybe "broader" is

a more accurate description. This kind of distortion would not affect

commercial work because you can't remember faces that accurately if

they are not your family members.

I have tried Image Factory's Debarreliser but couldn't get the effect

I want. The background got severly twisted and even then her face did

not appear completely right.

I would be very grateful for pointers to either softwares or

techniques in Photoshop that can correct this problem.

Thank you all in advance.

Regarding the viewfinder: it may also be that your glasses are thicker than mine?:-)

I have one of those super thin glasses and my optometrist adjusted the frame so that my eyelashes just miss the glass. This means that my eyes are as close to the viewfinder as possible. :-)