ksargent

I've used both as well - a Mac at home and a PC at work (I'm an IT professional for what little that means). OS X is a more elegant and (in my experience) more stable environment. Which is not to say that Windows is not stable - it is. But I do tend to have more problems with my PC than my Mac.

 

Will it improve your workflow? Probably not - at least until you become comfortable with OS X. Is the Mac more pleasant to use? IMHO, most definitely.

 

Ken

You might try DAG Camera Parts online.

 

Ken

Nice shots, Luis - especially number 4. The detail and the tones of that image are wonderful.

 

Ken

It is always frustrating when a newly-purchased item( camera or otherwise) has a problem,

but I would hardly take it as an indictment of either the camera or the company. As far the

recommendations to buy a Canon or Nikon go - a simple web search will rceveal that they

have have their problems as well. If you want ultra reliability then get a mechanical

camera and shoot film - there is no such thing as a 100% reliable electronic device. But

you made the decision to buy your camera based on (I assume) a lot of thought and

research. A defective example shouldn't invalidate that decision. You could have just as

easily bought another brand and had a problem with THAT example. Bad luck - and I

know it's frustrating - but don't let it cloud your judgement as to what you want to shoot

with.

 

Good luck with your decision - whatever it may be.

>>>Did somebody say there was something wrong with that???

 

nope. I certainly didn't infer any negative connoation from your comment - I merely picked

up on your wording.

<i>It's nothing more than nostalga.</i>

 

Todd, no more so than painting with oils or writing with a fountain pen or driving a stickshift.

There's nothing really wrong with wanting own a pedigreed brand with a history - if that's

important to you. I would be surprised if most Leica owners these days didn't have an

appreciation for the history behind the marque - unlike a photgrapher like Robert Frank

who, when asked, couldn't remember the model number of the camera he used in the

50's.

 

I would say, however, that people in love with their Leicas are probably more taken with

the feel than the history. I've owned a bunch of cameras - Nikons, Canons, Pentaxes - all

fine cameras, but none really had the feel of a mechanical Leica. Just like I've owned a lot

of guitars - Martins, Guilds, Larrivees - none of which have the feel of the Collings I play

now. Since becoming a Leica owner, I've been taken with the emotions that users of other

brands seem to have regarding Leicas - easily as strong and in some cases irrational as

those of Leica owners. I don't think it especially matters what brand of camera one uses -

but I do think there is something to the relationship a user has with his or her equipment.

For me, rangefinders are easier to focus and I like the looks of images made with vintage

lenses. Probably because my favorite photographers were active at the time those vintage

lenses were current. To return to the guitar analogy - it's the same thing with tube amps

and pre-war Martins: they may not be as accurate as modern designs, but they have a

personality that many people like and are willing to pay for. I guess what I'm getting at is

that a vintage Leica (or whatever brand is your favorite) is kind of like a tube amp. It's

hissy, finicky, hard to use - but the output is worth the trouble, if that's what you like.

Gail,

 

You may want to consider one of the DSLRs from Pentax or Olympus - they meet all of

your criteria and will perform better in low light than the typical fixed-lens camera. Point

and shoot is a technique, not a camera (contrary to much of what you will read here and

elsewhere). A DSLR used with auto settings and autofocus is every bit as much a point and

shoot as the lowliest pocket camera. It's optical viewfinder will match what the sensor is

recording - unlike any small camera's OVF (unless it is electronic - in which case it's not

optical). The disadvantage of a DSLR would be it's size of course.

 

Ken

Just a couple of comments:

 

Jeff Kelley advises: "Learn how to properly use flash and your photography will improve.

Ask any professional photographer."

 

"And no photographs taken with the aid of flash light, either, if only out of respect for the

actual light - even when there isn't any of it." -Henri Cartier-Bresson, "The Decisive

Moment"

 

I wouldn't hold up the typical professional photographer as the epitome of artistic

excellence. The ones that I know are competent photographers - just as people who write

for newspapers are (usually) competent writers. They do a job - often taking well-

exposed, but mediocre images. Before any professional here protests - I am not saying

ALL professionals. And in their defense, they are providing the services that their clients

want.

 

And Daniel writes about his upcoming photography course: "At least they're not making

me give up EOS and go ALL manual ;-)"

 

Daniel, if they don't make you put your EOS aside and use a manual camera, they will be

doing you a huge disservice. Learning the principles of manual exposure and focusing will

make you a better photographer. I'm not saying that you can't make great images with

auto equipment - obviously you can. But if you want to get beyond being a "happy

snapper," you are going to have to learn to control your images and having a solid

understanding of F-stops and shutter speeds witll do that. If I were teaching the class, I

would go one step further: I would require at least one project to be done without using

any light meter at all. Believe it or not, you can learn to live without one (at least in

daylight) quite easily. And having to think about your exposure is a wonderful learning

experience.

 

I'm not even going to comment about auto-focus - except to say that while it is great for

some specialty work, in most cases you will be a better photographer if you turn it off and

think about what you are doing.

 

Ken

Perhaps the best and fairest appraisal of the CV (and other) lenses for Leica can be found

on Sean Reid's site (www.reidreviews.com). It is a pay site, but very much worth the small

annual membership charge. Sean is a fine photographer and writer; I think you will find all

the information you need there - from a truly authoritative source.

 

As far as build quality goes, while the CVs may not be quite up to Leica standards, I think

that you will find that they are usually superior to the so-called professional SLR lenses

available from Canon, Nikon, and others. Image quality is a personal matter - I happen to

like them a lot - but build quality is not a reason to look elsewhere in most cases.

 

Ken

I think you are best off shooting RAW - especially if you have CS3 or Lightroom. I find that

even using the default RAW conversion gives better results than JPEG. You can then adjust

the noise suppression to your liking. I usually convert to B&W and do little or nothing about

the noise (beyond the basic LightRoom defaults). But then, I don't mind the look of grain -

and the D-Lux's noise has a very grain-like texture in B&W.

Jerry, that doesn't seem to be the case with all LTMs. My 5cm/3.5 Elmar doesn't line up at

12:00 (it's close) on my IIIF; and looking at pictures online and speaking with other users,

that seems to be common.

 

I agree about the DOF with the 15 - focus will likely never be an issue.

 

Ken

I'm using a Voigtlander adaptor for my CV 35/2.5 and it was a little tight, but it seats

properly and brings up the correct framelines. The dot at the center of the DOF scale isn't

centered (it's actually abit to the left of center) - but that really isn't an issue imho. I have

to agree with AJ - you are better off buying name brands which have a proven track

record. The Voigtlander is only $55 new - so it isn't that much more than what you paid.

And they are guaranteed etc. Perhaps you should see if you can return the one you

bought and get the Voigtlander instead. It has the added bonus of coming with a rear lens

cap which doubles as a removal wrench. I certainly wouldn't mess with filing anything that

is going to be exposed to the interior of my camera - but that's me.

 

Ken

Well, the old saying is "never sell a Leica" isn't it? But seriously, while I haven't sold a Leica, I have sold some very fine guitars (usually to buy another fine guitar). I never look back.

 

Interesting, though. I just sold a DSLR to buy a Leica IIIF. Horses for courses as they say.

 

Regards

Ken

Hi all,

 

I just wanted to relate my experience with Sam Shoshan at Classic Connection.

In short, I cannot speak highly enough about Sam and the service he provides. I

recently bought a IIIF from him which turned out not to be what I wanted. When

I called, he gave the option of returning the camera or trading it for another

body. I decided to get another body; not only did he cheerfully assist me with

my decision - he actually shipped it out that day. Before I had even shipped

the IIIF back to him! I have dealt with many online/mail order photo dealers

over the years - KEH, Cameta, Henry's, B&H, Adorama to name a few. All have

been great, but Sam really goes above and beyond the norm to take care of his

customers. He has my highest recommendation - buy with absolute confidence.

 

Ken

Raid,

 

Actually I not only live in Pensacola - I work for UWF in ITS. Hopefully we will get a chance to

meet and chat sometime soon.

 

Regards, Ken

Thanks, Raid. You are correct of course - the shots were from the Seville Square area.

Pensacola is my home as well.

Very nice and sharp, Luis. Was the first shot taken with B&W film or was it a conversion? I'm

voting for the former as the tones are really excellent.

John, I agree VueScan is a hassle with respect to film positioning while NikonScan seems to handle it automatically. I'm actually thinking of revisiting using NikonScan for C41 film strips. As I said, both work perfectly with OS10 as well; I'm more worried about the CoolScan hardware failing. But it's going on 2 years with no problems at all, so I'm probably just being paranoid.

I can understand the time factor - however, I have to say that film scanning is no trouble on my Intel Mac. It may be that the Nikons are more Mac-friendly than some of the others, but I've had no problems at all. I've used both the Nikon software and Hamrick's VueScan with good results. But - if you can get acceptable quality by having the lab do it, it will save you a good bit of time.

 

Ken

I originally bought my film scanner when I was thinking that digital was going to do the trick for me. I bought it to digitize my old negatives; I assumed that I would use it, finish, and sell it. SO much for thta plan - at least the "selling it" part. At any rate, it worked out to be cost effective for me because I had the cache of old negatives which would have cost a lot more to scan than I paid for the scanner. Of course you have to factor in your time (and it does take a while even using batch methods which I do), but I think you get better results. I've settled on a group of settings which output 35-42 MB files and I like the results. If I maxed out the scanner, they would 100+ MB - haven't seen the need for that.

 

I am getting better results at home than I ever got from standard lab scans. But - you do have to allow for the time to do it. I do very little correction at scan time - I try to get the image and then do my work in Lightroom or Photoshop.

I should add that I scanned with a Nikon CoolScan V and cropped in Lightroom. I'm an incurable cropper; I'm not one of those who likes to leave an image "as shot" if I think cropping will make it better.

 

Ken

I mentally rated it around 200-250, but I wasn't using a light meter - so it's hard to say what the exact ISO of any given shot was. I adjusted the exposure slightly in Lightroom and the contrast in most cases. The aperture for all of the shots was F/8 - I adjusted using the shutter speed. I'm also shooting XP-2 Super - I'm interested in how the two films compare.

 

These films are very flexible with respect to post-processing exposure adjustments.

 

Ken

Luis: Thanks. I wasn't using the hood on any of these pictures as I hadn't received it yet. It was late afternoon and I was facing west; it may have been a bit of flare which gives that picture its glow - if so, I'm glad I didn't use the hood.

 

Ronald: I assume you mean the Naval Museum here. I haven't been in 5-6 years, but they have a great display of early aircraft there. When I go next time, I'm sure I'll have a camera with me.

and an historic building here in Pensacola