nee_sung

<p>When I first started to buy Leica gear, I threw away the boxes, only to regret it when I came to sell them. They fetched a lower price.<br>

Then when I bought brand new Leica gear, my dealer told me several times to keep the boxes, and indeed they sold for higher, when I sold them many years later.<br>

Leica knows this. Some of their equipment came with a plain, brown outer box with the nice "real" box inside. My dealer said I could throw away the outer box but I thought "why bother"? So now I keep even the brown outer boxes, just as a protective layer.<br>

Irrational? Of course. But if this increases the value of your assets, who's one to argue?<br>

I think you are perfectly justified in asking your dealer to replace the box, unless, of course, a reasonable explanation is given, one which could satisfy the future buyer.</p>

<p>Occasionally I use a tiny third party flash, but mostly I tried to avoid using it, not because it's supposed to be a "street camera" (I use it for everything) but because the 1/50 speed just isn't fast enough to stop my shaky hands. Yes, the flash speed is much higher but the ambient light is often strong enough to "fog" the shot a bit.</p>

<p>Throughout the years I was able to get several artistic shots on account of the "fog", though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Hassy SWF was slightly tilted upwards, and the M7 shot downwards, I think.</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>The wider the lens, the more prone to distortion it is if it's away from the vertical. I think both shots could benefit if the cameras had been held closer to the vertical. Both lenses are excellent, and can benefit greatly from being held vertical. Lesser lenses are not worth the bother.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have not ever needed to sharpen .dng from my M8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once again, the just-discontinued model has become the greatest competitor of the current model, fully in keeping with Leica tradition...and the virtues of the old model are now suddenly sharply focussed by the new model...and all the vices are now suddenly realised to be "trade-off's"...</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The M9 sensor has worse color (both in respect to gamut and in respect to metamerism, as computed over a 4000 spectrum database in multiple domains) than the M8 sensor. A consequence of attempts to improve the high ISO capability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm in the market for a used M8/M8.2!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica should have built a sort of modular body, like Mamiya. The backs would be the gizmo electronics easily changed and updated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I felt compelled to say here that I mentioned this 3 years ago. In fact I suggested inter-changeable sensors, inter-changeable chips and inter-changeable firmwares, all made by different manufacturers, and photo.net can have a sensor forum and a firmware forum, much as they have a film forum now.<br>

Leica and other camera manufacturers can then go back to doing what they used to do in the film era, body and lens only. As things stand at the moment, there are just too many 3rd party manufacturers in a camera body for Leica, or any camera manufacturer, to take responsibility for.<br>

And by that time even point & shoots will be full frame, with a size similar to the tiny 135 film point & shoots that we saw in the late 1990's, just before digital hit.<br>

What I don't hope to see, however, is a PCB (printed circuit board) forum!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i heard how silly people thought i was, thinking to have a lever on a digital camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad at least someone did not think me complete wacko. But in between my last post and this I had a jog, which I use for dreaming. And I was thinking, one stroke of the film advance lever probably does not produce enough power. Why not divide the processing into two parts, the first part powered by the film advance lever, and the second part by the rewind crank! That way we can bring both of them back.<br>

And just for old time's sake, the camera will stop operating after the 36th shot, and you have to turn the rewind crank, which generates the power for the second part of the processing and writing to memory card. I know it's getting a little bit absurd, but it was fun while I was thinking about it, and I thought I'd just share. Sorry for hijacking the thread.</p>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember about 15 years ago Leica announced that they will make a last run of the screw mount (LTM) spare parts, almost 40 years after the last model was discontinued, and 70 years after the first model was introduced! Up till then I had no idea they were still making LTM spare parts. And then they went on to say "of course we will continue to support these cameras even after the parts are depleted". The article I read (which is almost certainly Leica Fotografie) then went on to say that only the manufacturing of the parts would be discontinued, there was still a sizeable inventory on hand, which should last quite some time.<br>

Judging from the durability of the cameras, I believe you can still get brand new spare parts for the screw models. I'm not saying that you will still be using the M8 seventy years from now, but I really would not worry too much. These digital range finders have very little wear & tear, so as long as you are happy with the shots, you can use it.<br>

Judging from the experience with the M5 and the Leicaflex models, the non-availability of the battery might be the first thing to hit. That's why I think Leica must eventually design a power generator using the film advance crank. This is not as crazy as it sounds, Seiko has used a traditional auto-wind mechanism to generate electricity for their watches for over a decade.<br>

Or maybe a solar cell. But I digress.</p>

<p>I've tried many Leica portrait-focal length lenses. The only lens that does not receive any complaints from my wife and daughter (of being too sharp) was the pre-war 90mm Elmar. So now for portraits, I use only it.</p>

<p>Despite being a pre-war (1937) production with no coatings, its colour accuracy is extremely high. In fact, unless my eyes are fooling me, the colour is more accurate than the post-war lenses, which tend to make the colours richer than they actually are. However, I suppose most people like it that way. or else Leica wouldn't have made the change.</p>

<p>Sorry for the late reply. I haven't watched this thread for several days.<br>

I have the whole set at home, and I think mine is:<br>

T2 adapter - custom made focussing mount - Hektor Head<br>

It's difficult to say if it's worth it, but as others have mentioned the Hektor is not particularly sharp. If you want sharper images you're better off with an Elmar 135. I don't think it costs much more.<br>

I sold an Elmar 135 to get the Hektor because I actually prefer the softer images. So it is an informed choice, so to speak.<br>

The whole history for my 135 Leica lenses was first Hektor then Elmar then back to Hektor.<br>

Oh, one final thing, use a lens hood. The length of the hood should equal the focal length: 135mm. You should be able to make one yourself.<br>

Enjoy yourself!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do I need a focusing helical?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, you need to have a focussing mount, or helical. What you saw is the lens head. The lens head fits onto the Visoflex, which has its own focussing mount.</p>

<p>So you need to have: lens head+ focussing mount+adaptor</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Bronica RF645, Mamiya 7, Plaubel Makina, Fuki GS690 variants</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used all the above except the Plaubel Makina. I have also shot Leica Ms (M2, 3, 4, 6 & 7) for 26 years. But I have not tried the GA645. I have also owned and used Hasselblads (several versions) and Rolleiflexes.<br>

After using them all, I settled on the Mamiya 7 and the M7.<br>

I kept the Leica M7 because I just couldn't bear to be without a Leica. I kept the Mamiya 7 because it allows interchangeable lenses, has a large 6 x 7 format which is rectangular (very important for maximum use of film area), and the lenses are all great. The only problem I have is with the 150mm which I found difficult to focus with the Mamiya 7's range finder. But when it is in focus, it also gives great images.<br>

I have also owned and used 2 Fuji 690's (the normal lens and the wide angle lens versions), but I found them to be too big and heavy, and there was no meter. The images are great, but not greater than the Mamiya 7. I originally wanted to keep them when I really needed 6X9, but I found when I really needed larger negatives I used a 4X5 view camera. So it occupied an embarrassing position; which was why I decided not to keep them.<br>

This is just my own personal experience.</p>

<p>The fact that Olympus is spending so much money on a truly blanket advertising campaign, and the fact that all the promotional literature emphasised on handling, lead me to the conclusion that there is some major flaw with image quality and possibly some other defects.<br>

Anyone who buys the new Pen will be paying mostly for the advertising campaign.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>anything cheap just costs money to keep working.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That must the gem for this day and age. So true.</p>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>The Sonnar is supposed to be soft wide open. The lens was revived for its soft, classical look at F1.5 which could no longer be found in modern lenses. So it's really just for people who specifically want that soft, classical look at F1.5. If you want a sharp lens at F1.5/1.4 you really shouldn't buy it.<br>

All the above were buried somewhere in photonet. I bought the lens after reading those threads and I use it only for that purpose. That must be about 2 years ago. My copy is optimised for F2.8, I think.</p>