markwilkins

<p>I have to say I'm having trouble visualizing the situation in which I'd ever want to view a 72" print from 12 inches away. As your size goes up, your viewing distance goes up as well, because normally you'll want the entire image to be in your field of view. Much closer inspection may be necessary for applications like mapping, but usually not for posters or gallery exhibition.</p>

<p>Guido:<br>

Both those lenses are capable of performing very well, but they're manufactured inexpensively and as a result have some sample variation. It's probably a mistake to compare a Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D to a Leica lens that costs 10x as much money.<br>

The 35mm/1.4 is a much better lens than either one.</p>

Failure rates on mass-produced electromechanical devices across all manufacturers are routinely in the 1% to 2% range, mostly in the first 90 days, though they have elevated failure rates through the first year. Products that are made for smaller markets, in smaller numbers, tend to have more likelihood of failure, not less, because there's less room for extensive manufacturing testing prior to full production.

 

It's an issue with buying any high-cost, low-volume item, unfortunately, but many brands try to make up for it with high quality customer service. Leica's customer service is sloow but they usually do the right thing for their customers, at least from what I've seen.

 

-- Mark

<i>You will not see it from the drugstore, but if you are a competent darkroom worker, they are images difficult or impossible to make with other brands.</i><P>

 

I disagree, the main real differences are pretty evident with machine printing: nice rendering of out of focus areas, high contrast in the in-focus areas, and lack of serious optical aberrations shot wide open.<P>

 

-- Mark<P>

Bruce:

 

The test you propose is not likely to be an interesting or illuminating exercise.

 

The results I get with my Leica rangefinders are more striking overall than what I get when using my Nikon gear, but only when shooting wide open. Really, it comes down (for me) to finding a rangefinder easier to operate in low light, and the lenses being better corrected at the widest aperture than the competition. This results in much more contrasty details in in-focus areas and a smoother look to what's out-of-focus.

 

Stop down a couple of stops, shoot a scene under just about any other conditions, and you won't be able to tell the Leica vs. other-name-brand images apart. Really. Rumors about the "glow" etc. etc., in my experience, have not really held up to scrutiny. (I think it's worth pointing out, by the way, that my day job in the film industry requires careful attention to photographic quality, so while I wouldn't call my opinion definitive, I am confident that my judgment there is not simply a matter of impaired perception.)

 

Still, under favorable conditions, being interior lighting without flash and an ability to focus manually without losing the shot, my very best Leica images stand out from all the other photographs I take. At least for me, it really comes down to the differences I mentioned above.

 

-- Mark

You can mail film for processing to A&I and get it back pretty fast...

 

-- Mark

If you can see pixels in a movie theater, today, it's not capture that's the issue. It's most likely either your eye being drawn to a computer animated element in the scene, or it's digital projection in the theater (which is often done at lower resolution than digital image capture.)

 

Just about all big-budget films these days go through a digital intermediate process for color correction, so they're digitally processed before you see them. The practical advantage of film capture over digital in today's movie production is mostly that it's much more forgiving of over and underexposure, which allows the camera and lighting crew to worry about other issues on the set and provides more options at digital intermediate time.

 

-- Mark

I can't answer your question directly, since I still own most of the Leica equipment I've owned in the past.

 

However, a few thoughts:

 

First is that you should be careful not to tie up your disposition of a valuable item you've inherited with your emotional feelings for the relative who left it to you. If they left you the camera with a specific hope that you'd use it, then it's reasonable to give it a shot, but if your photographic interests are elsewhere and it was left to you without such an explicit expectation being somehow communicated, don't be shy about selling the camera.

 

Second, as someone who uses both digital SLRs and Leica equipment, let me give you some ideas about why you might in some instances choose to shoot with the M6.

 

I've found that (properly adjusted) rangefinder cameras are very nice to use in low light, for two reasons. The first is that focusing precision is very high. You have a great deal of control over the exact point of focus, which is essential if you're using a wide-aperture lens.

 

The second is that I've found that it's possible to handhold a rangefinder camera at much slower shutter speeds and get acceptable results. Often, when I take a well-focused photograph handheld at 1/15th sec with a 35mm lens, I'll get a result that's sharp enough to be pleasing. This kind of thing greatly encourages pushing the limits of natural light. In this context, the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH is a fantastic lens, and performs exceptionally well wide-open, when with good Canon or Nikon gear you often can have noticeable performance problems wide open with a fast lens.

 

My personal experience is that the results under such circumstances have been so striking that I will often bite the bullet and shoot film with my Leica, even when I'd probably rather have a digital result.

 

The Leica is often not my favorite for landscape or travel photography, though. Longer lenses are fiddly or don't exist depending on the focal length range, the differences between Leica optics and the competition melt away completely once you stop down a couple stops, and the convenience and automation of a good modern SLR is great when you have to grab photographs on the move.

 

Even in the photographic domain where the Leica excels, if your target medium is digital, you may find certain issues. Aside from the basic problems with handling and using film, one down side is that I've had trouble getting good commercial scans of images with lots of shadow areas. For some reason, places that use a Fuji Frontier system seem to make scans suffer from this strange, cloudy blue noise in the deepest shadows (where the film is most transparent.)

 

Another issue I've had on more than one occasion is becoming confused about whether the camera is loaded, and opening the bottom plate with film wound on the reels.

 

Bottom line is: I would recommend looking at what kind of photography you do. If you enjoy (or want to experiment with) indoor available light photography, I'd shoot at least 20 rolls of film with the Leica before selling. Take pictures of people, get close, and make sure the rangefinder is accurately adjusted. Use 400 or 800 speed film and push the limits of low light. You may get completely hooked.

 

If you pretty much only photograph subjects where the Leica doesn't have such an advantage, you should not feel bad about selling the camera and using it to get the equipment you'd like to have.

 

Hope that helps!

<i>To get the same angle of view with the DX camera, I'd use a 20mm lens. But then perspective would look totally different and the mountain would be distant and smaller, and not the shot that I was after.</i><P>

 

That's simply not true. A 20mm lens on a DX sensor produces exactly the same field of view and rendering of perspective as a 30mm lens on a 24mm x 36mm sensor. Zooming in is exactly the same as cropping, and cropping is what using a smaller sensor does for you.<P>

 

-- Mark

So here's the thing: this kind of thing happens with every complex electronic product for a very small number of the people who buy them. Usually, after a few unsuccessful shots at repair, the solution is to replace the unit.

 

My similar story was a first-generation dual 2 GHz Power Mac G5 and Apple LCD monitor that I ordered in 2003. It worked beautifully except for green static on the display when I was using 3D-intensive software (which happens to be what I bought the computer to do, so it was a problem!)

 

Replaced the computer. Replaced the video card. Neither fixed the problem, though it did get markedly better with the new video card. Finally, they suggested trying it with a different monitor, even though the one I had worked fine with a different computer. With the new monitor, my system was trouble-free.

 

Turns out that the combination of video card and monitor were causing me trouble. Sorting all this out took MONTHS, but then when it was all done, the system was absolutely rock-solid and has served me well for more than two years.

 

I wonder whether the lens may be part of the problem. I wonder whether some aspect of the camera or the repair they're doing is sensitive to shipping. I also wonder whether they clearly understand what the problem is.

 

Anyway, if you've had three tries at repair, it shouldn't be that difficult to talk them into exchanging your camera for a new one. You might try getting one of your friends with a D2x to let you try your lens on their camera and see if you get better results...

 

-- Mark

I'm sorry, Dave, I was replying to David H. Hartman. I would have been more clear on that had I noticed your name in there. Take care!

 

-- Mark

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In my case, the shutter was closed, though it was not in the correct position and one blade was stuck on the edge of another blade, and the mirror was stuck in the up position. My point was that the mirror getting stuck up may be because the camera's detecting a fault with the shutter mechanism that, unlike in my case, was not strictly evident to the eye.

 

-- Mark

Well, Dave, while your points are all reasonably made, you'll notice that my comments above were predicated on the assumption that there were only $500 to spend. My suggestion that lighting is the first priority seems to agree with the ideas put forth by the only person on this thread with real-world food photography experience.

 

However, once the budget goes up, I agree that different lens choices (or different camera choices!) may well make a lot of sense.

 

-- Mark

I guess it depends a lot on the style of shot, and the 60mm f/2.8 macro would be a great

choice for the occasional extreme closeup or where you're looking for very shallow depth

of field, but most food photography is all about color and light and not that sensitive to

distortion.

 

Since most food photography is artificially lit, a slower lens is not a big deal unless you're

really going for shallow DOF shots (which again is a question of style preference --

shallow DOF and macro are very popular these days in food photography.) The 60mm f/

2.8 would be a great second lens for those kinds of shots, I think.

 

However, I'd also ask the question about whether more and better lighting equipment

might not be a good choice. Do you have a full set of C stands, a good multi-head strobe

setup with enough power, spare modeling lights (those things go out when you breathe on

them, and they're expensive!), gels, gel holders, reflectors, umbrellas, etc. etc. Spending

$500 on lighting accessories (assuming you're not talking a new flash unit or head) will

greatly expand your palette of choices of look in a way a new lens will not. (For example,

while I like the images in your gallery, the specular highlights look a little large and hot to

me for the kind of photography you're trying to do. It's a cool look, though!!)

 

Just some stuff to think about.

 

-- Mark

BTW, Gerald, when the buffer fills up generally the camera just won't take another picture

until it's freed up enough memory. It should not generate an ERR message.

 

-- Mark

That behavior can be a symptom of failure of the shutter mechanism. I was having the

same problem intermittently with my D70 until one day it just locked up. I removed the

lens and a little screw on one of the hinges of the shutter blades was stuck on the edge of

another shutter blade that should have traveled under it!

 

Since I was at LAX, boarding a flight to London about 20 minutes after this happened, I

took a chance and reached in, freeing the shutter blade with my fingernail. Amazingly, the

camera operated fine through the trip, a little over a week, and we took about 150 photos

with it...

 

When I got back, I sent it in to Nikon service, and they immediately replaced the entire

shutter mechanism based on my problem report.

 

-- Mark

One more thought, Aaron:

 

Most college-level introductory photography classes require their students to buy one

camera, usually a manual film SLR with a single 50mm lens, and they teach entirely with

that. The digital equivalent would be to get a D50 with a single 35mm f/2 lens each --

but even then, that's a huge increase in complexity on the camera side with little benefit to

teaching the photographic side.

 

People learning photography for the first time need to be taught about composition, light

and shadow, practical use of perspective with a single focal length, and basic technical

issues like exposure. Anything else is loading the students up with complexity that will

get in the way of them learning how to make a picture. They should be using the simplest

equipment and workflow possible and having their images critiqued regularly on the

impression they form on the viewer.

 

That is, that's what the class should be if it's an art class and not a vocational class

intended to teach them how to get a job without going to college...

 

-- Mark

Yeah, I did a ton of photography in school (and worked with some great students who

turned out first-rate work) and we didn't have any of that stuff. We mostly had cheap slow

variable-speed zooms and cameras where the autofocus, if it was there at all, didn't work

so well. I didn't get to use the kind of equipment you're talking about until I bought my

own.

 

What we DID have was instruction that emphasized the value of good light, either artificial

(we had a Norman strobe unit that we used to death) or natural (like catching the sunlight

at the right time.)

 

If you want to go with current digital equipment and have a few thousand dollars to spend

PLUS YOU ALREADY HAVE COMPUTERS TO USE FOR PROCESSING THE IMAGES, get a few

D50s with kit lenses, a couple of 35mm f/2 lenses for people who want to try low-light

stuff, two accessory flashes, and a pile of 256MB CF cards.

 

Don't forget the most important thing, tripods and stands for flashes.

 

If you don't have computers already, save your money and get some used SLRs for pennies

on the dollar and shoot film.

 

End of story.

 

-- Mark

Aside from the issues people have mentioned, here are some significant advantages of a

digital SLR like a D50 over a point-and-shoot:

 

* Larger imaging sensor allows you to more easily achieve shallower depth of field, which

can be a good pictorial technique for emphasizing your subject.

 

* The larger camera body means many key controls are larger and easier to operate.

While many point-and-shoot cameras offer manual modes, they're easier to use on a

digital SLR because of the placement and size of the controls.

 

-- Mark

On reflection, "never" is a strong way to put it. However, I can't see any dynamic that would

be driving the semiconductor market in that direction.

 

Remember, demand for large semiconductors in this market will just not be enough to

provide the market forces necessary to drive the necessary research to reduce cost per

semiconductor area, and there are few other markets where how big the actual chip is

matters that much.

 

-- Mark

I do not believe full-frame sensors will ever be cheap, from any manufacturer. Why?

 

Because while high-volume semiconductor manufacturing costs have been rapidly

dropping when measured per component (such as a transistor on an integrated circuit),

they have not been dropping fast at all when measured by cost per unit area on the chip

itself.

 

Cheap full-frame sensors would require changes in the manufacturing base for these

sensors that yield lower prices per chip area, and there's not much history of that

happening. A full-frame 35mm sensor is a very large semiconductor chip.

 

Costs might be more reasonable if a manufacturer were to find a good way to place

smaller chips edge-to-edge, because it would increase total percentage yield, but that

hasn't happened yet.

 

-- Mark

1950s technology was better for manually focusing because the ground-glass screens were

not partially transmissive!

 

-- Mark

Funny, the very day I bought my M7, I was out shooting a test roll with it in Pasadena and a

woman approached me to say "That's a nice camera..." I responded "Thank you," and she

said, "No, I mean that's a VERY nice camera..."

 

Nobody (at least not a stranger) has said anything much since. :)

 

-- Mark

I'm sorry, I read your ideas and I thought they were interesting. Thank you for posting them.

 

-- Mark

To get at the core of what you're asking:

 

In terms of actual exposure times, f/2.8 will always have the same exposure as f/2.8

regardless of focal length.

 

As far as what's hand-holdable, the general rule of thumb that 1/f where f is focal length

is an appropriate worst-case shutter speed has to be made more stringent if you're using

a Nikon DX-sized sensor like in a D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 or D2-series camera. In that

instance, you should use 1/(f*1.5) as your worst-case shutter speed.

 

Practically, the 28/2.8 is a bit over 1 stop slower than the 50/1.8, and is about half the

focal length, so they'll be pretty close in terms of the light conditions in which you can

hand-hold them. If you were using them on a D200, for example, the rule of thumb

everyone seems to like suggests that 1/42 sec is a good hand-holdable shutter speed for

the 28mm lens, while 1/75 sec is a good hand-holdable speed for the 50. In identical

light, the 50 wide open at 1/75 will be a little brighter than the 28 wide open at 1/42, but

it's pretty close.

 

Honestly, either lens is quite usable from a speed point of view. I'm not that familiar with

the expense or image quality of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which will be a lot easier to hand-

hold than the 50mm f/1.8) but you might also consider the Nikkor 35mm f/2, which is not

that much wider than the 28mm but gets you an extra stop in speed.

 

-- Mark