spohn

Thanks everyone, as I feared, some serious soul searching is in order - mostly along the lines of determining what it is/was about the M6 I care about the most and hope to see reimagined in another beast (if that turns out to even be possible.) Thanks for the suggestions and alternatives - there were several great ideas and options I hadn't considered. Greatful to have you guys as resources!

I'm a long time Leica M6 owner that's ready to resort to digital photography for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is I don't really relish the photo finishing process and no longer have room for my down darkroom. What I'm most interested in is getting a digital camera that conforms as closely as possible to the Henri Cartier-Bresson school of 'street photography' in the same sprit as the Leica M6. I guess I tend to be most interested in maybe finding an "M" mount compatible digital and putting something like a Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 on it - if such a thing is even feasible. This is just an example - if a camera configured with a built in (or included) lens fills the bill, so be it... but let's just say a "retro feel" is a plus, but not at the expense of functionality. I guess I'd hope to keep the total cost under 1.5 or 2k, again, if feasible.

 

Obviously I have plenty of my own homework to do, but any nudges/suggestions would be appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance,

Al

<p>Jim, now that's a thought given that I am an experienced Femo clay practitioner. But that would probably involve also investing in a Kevlar vest - not an inexpensive proposition in its own right :-).</p>

<p>Tragic though it may be, I'm considering selling my M6, 35mm Summicron and case. Can anyone point me in the direction of where I can find whatever the equivilent of a "blue book" value is, and where I might be likely to get a good price? My wife lost her wedding ring, and with #3 on the way, this might be the only game in town. Thanks in advance!<br>

Al</p>

<p>Yeah, the irony is amazing. My M6 cost 3 times as much as any of my other cameras, yet it is the only one that I've ever "shot" a completely blank roll with (several, in fact.) I followed the directions to a T, and initially saw the takeup spool moving (although I confess to not watching it on every shot.) As a result it spends way too much time in my closet - simply because with my lesser cameras I am at least guaranteed an exposure. I love the thing to death, but having a little voice saying "I really hope that shot was exposed" with every shot takes the fun out of things. Anyway, reading this thread has inspired me to the extent that I'll give it another go.</p>

<p>Thanks. Yeah I have a pretty good process for archiving going now, but these photos were several workstations ago and pre-dated any organization on my part :-) Anyhow, thanks for confirming my suspicions.<br>

Al</p>

<p>I know this seems crazy, but I've lost a number of original images that I long ago uploaded to photo.net. I'm hoping there is a means for downloading them other than the right click, "save as" routine... but I realize that's probably not the direction the average person is going to want to moves images in. Still, thought I'd ask - basically a low def version of the lost photos is better than nothing at all :-)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Al</p>

I've noticed some blistering beneath the finish on the top of my M6 body - I've

pretty much pampered it all of its 12 years - is this a common problem? Any

suggested cosmetic fixes?

Thanks,

Al

I must say, this thread has proven to be a poster child for how good usenet groups *used* to be. Thanks so much for all the responses, entertainment and functional suggestions alike. I am still reeling from the euphoria of having correctly loaded a roll of film. What proved to be the difference for me was watching to make sure the holes lined up with the sprocket as suggested - I was thrown at first, since to a certain extent it's an act of faith since the film isn't flush with the sprocket until you close the back... but when I saw that rewind crank turn, I knew I was home free. Mind you, it's going to take patience and practice on my part to make loading a new roll of film not be a similar process to changing a watch battery each time, but I'll hang with it. I am now free to unobtrusively photograph my 22 month old participating in her first fall hayride, due in large part to you guys - thanks! If I come up with anything worthwile in the way of an image, I'll post it!

 

Thanks again,

Al

I've had problems with loading film in my M6 (bought in 1995 or so) on and off

since I've owned it. In the past, though, if I was hyper-vigilent about

putting some tension on the rewind crank and making sure it turned with each

film advance, I was okay. Still, I'd say there were at least 5 or 6 occassions

when I "shot" an entire roll that never loaded. I'd always assumed it was some

form of manual dexterity/technique issue on my part, although I've never run

into similar issues with other cameras.

 

Recently, however, it's come to the point where I can't get the film to load,

period. The leader routined slips off the spool, no matter how I preposition

it. I guess I'm finally ready to suspect a defect, although the mechanism

strikes me as so simple it still strikes me as unlikely.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions? Recently I had to leave the Leica behind and use,

in it's stead, a disposable Kodak camera because there wasn't time to grab

anything else. Sadly, I found it liberating to be shooting with the additional

confidence that the disposable afforded me, i.e., no wondering "I really,

really hope the film loaded."

 

Thanks in advance,

Al

Has anyone run across an equivilent of the variable neutral density

<a href="http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html" target="_blank">Singh-

Ray</a> filters out there? They only come in 77mm with an adapter

for smaller lenses - was hoping to find a variable ND filter of

reasonable quality that would fit my 52mm lense.

 

Thanks,

Al

How long does a given "Featured Portfolio" stay in place? The

current one featuring the stunning work of David Troyer is one of

the strongest I've seen, but by the same token it seems like it's

been there a *really* long time.

 

Thanks,

Al

Wow, thanks. This is quite a relief (it was indeed just a min. aperature setting problem.) -

well worth the intense embarrassment :-) Thanks again, Al

My D70 suddenly began reporting the Lexar 1 meg disk I'm using as

full, e.g., "F--" in the LCD. At no point in time is the card any

more than about 5% full. I assumed right off the bat it was a

problem with the card, so I called Lexar, and they said to do a

windows FAT reformat on the card. Unfortunately it made no

difference, and worse yet, the same thing is happening now with a 128

Meg SanDisk card. About 50% of the time I can clear the problem by

randomly fiddling with the controls, pulling out the card and

replacing it, etc... doesn't seem to be any consistency to what ends

up fixing it. The problem can (and does) return at any point in

time, regardless of whether or not power has been cycled on the

camera. Has anyone run across an issue like this?

Thanks in advance,

Al

I beg to differ - this isn't a serious matter. As a matter of fact, to jump to the conclusion that, in the absence of any supporting evidence, this person may well be some form of white supremecist is downright comical. On top of that, what if he/she is? They're a person participating in a public forum - not my day care provider... consequently I couldn't give a hoot.

 

- Al

No problem with your English Stefano, nor your attitude in expecting a somewhat more informative reply. But you should feel terribly ashamed for having clicked the wrong button by mistake :-)

Alberts of the world, unite! :-) Mr. Darmali, I must say, you certainly make the most of your "crappy" equipment! Very nice portfolio. My situation is the opposite - my photos are crappy, but I want to at least be given credit from dropping $$ on my D70 and M6 :-)

 

Seriously, the fact that we're looking at web photos that are by definition severely degraded is a good point. But I still maintain there are situations where knowing the equipment can be useful information. But that's the call the poster has to make - I wouldn't dream of ever making equipment information a required field. I think it should ideally be something you have to dig for when the mood strikes you.

FYI, my brother's FTb is still going strong, as are his various FD lenses. The same is true of my TLb (smaller brother to the FTb) with the exception that the meter finally bit the dust. Not bad for a camera that I bought new 33 years ago, though. I think the FTb would be superlative learning machine. I think the automation options of the A series would serve to muddy the waters of the learning process.

Eric, nice photo! Thanks for the feedback in general, too. I suspected some of the rationales listed here were afoot. Again, for me it just represents an additional learning opportunity on occassion, but again, certainly not a hill to die on. I guess I can't honestly say for sure that it has no effect on what I think of a photo, although I would hope such is the case. I like the idea of burying the details in the tech description so the viewer doesn't process the equipment info on the first pass.

 

As far as the "who cares?" argument goes, that's fine - but to assume that everyone's interest in photography lives and dies exclusively with the impact of the final image is completely unrealistic (but it resonates well in the ivory tower.) That doesn't mean everyone should feel compelled to yield tech details for the sake of the gadget freaks, but I don't think anyone should be mortified that someone is interested in the technical background of a photo. Being a gadget freak and having an aesthetic sensibility are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

It might be my imagination, but I seem to be seeing more and more

photos with "unknown" for equipment. Is anyone else noticing this?

If so, I wonder if it's just a question of folks not wanting to

bother filling out the info, or if they have a reason for not

wanting to share what equipment they used? Not a big deal in my

book, just curious...

 

- Al

Understood, thanks for the feedback.

 

- Al

Unless my browser is somehow flaking out, I noticed my recent POW

comment disappeared. Did I perhaps make a content transgression?

I.e., I wasn't commenting on the POW, but rather on the POW process.

 

Thanks,

Al

Actually, I don't see a problem with the ability to rate your own photos, provided you only get one "vote." In my view this is clearly more justifiable than, for instance, allowing "1" ratings with no comment. That indicates zero objectivity to me, whereas a photographer at least has the potential to be objective about his or her own work. If I were to self rate, I think my self assessment would be very close to most of my existing averages. As a matter of fact, self rating combined with a comment could be very insightful for other viewers and/or raters.

 

- Al

I think this is a big improvement also. But let me throw this out - if a minimum of, say, 10 ratings to qualify were implemented, it would take out a few of those 7 photos with only 1 rater. On the other hand, maybe it's good for those to slip in there since their mettle would quickly be put to the test with an onslaught of additional raters. Now that I've articulated that, I guess I'd opt for leaving the system "as is" (otherwise most of my stuff will never see the light of day :-)

I would propose that if you can't articulate beyond "I don't like it at all" on a 1 or 2 rating, then it's time for some self introspection as to what your really motive might be in assigning such a low rating.