blowingsky

<p>Thanks Craig, I checked, you are right. The lens was billed as 1971 but that was wrong. I'm going to go for it. I like the compactness and at that focal length I should get good blur at f2. </p>

<p>I am building up a Nikon film kit with used gear. So far I have a mint 20mm f2.8 AIS, a far from mint FM2n (but works well) and I am looking for an 85mm f2. Question is, should I wait for an AIS (begun in 1977) or buy a reasonably priced AI (1971). My understanding is there is no real difference though the coating changed from green to pinkish. <br>

Any opinions? Thanks.</p>

<p>Forgettabout it, I just look di tup. Smith used everything under the sun and mostly not Leica during that time period.</p>

<p>Didn't W. Eugene Smith use a Leica, notably for his Pittsburg series? Or do I have that wrong? That series, edited down, is in print now and it's good.</p>

<p>My granddaughter and her Dad about a year ago. Leica M6 and Sumi 50 on XP2.</p><div></div>

<p>I guess with the new arrangement the least MP is 9 and not 7.5 and 8. I'm finding the auto white board and the correction for it a bit difficult for indoor tungesten and some halogen, and looking at the LCD screen outdoors, even in the glare of an overcast day is a bit troublesome, but the quality of the image, especially when processed from raw, is worth it.</p><div></div>

<p>I live in L.A. and when I went to Oahu, I was up normally up very early because of the 3 hours difference. If you are traveling in that direction, then your family may be withyou at daybreak. Even so, it is a magical time and you will get good shots. I think the 17-55 is perfect. It will keep you focused and honest. I went with a Leica m6 and a 28, 50 and 90 lens and it was all good. Lately I have been using a 24-60 mm (35mm equiv) digital and finding that it is an excellent range for photographing everything from landscape to life.</p>

<p>Martin,<br>

the LX3 is not available and hasn't been available at the places you mentioned. They dried up apparently around Christmas. Or at least them donna gottem now. It's odd. Same for the viewfinders and filter adapters.<br>

eBay is about the only place you can still find them. Panasonic reps don't know when there will be more. But I have seen new LX3s on eBay for $470, which is fair, since places like B & H and Samys were selling it for $499. Just do the usual due diligence on the seller.<br>

That Lumix case is very nice but it is a bit more money than I can justify. So I bought a $12 LowePro.</p>

<p>The LX3 is available on the auction site here and there. Expect to pay between $470 and $500, though you might get lucky. I would not buy this camera used. It is too tough to spot abuses or things done to such a tiny bundle of electronics and optics that will shorten its life, though it does seem fairly well built.<br>

The big deal is that for some reason known only to Panasonic, the LX3 is unavailable almost everywhere it is normally sold. Same for the external viewer. It feeds suspicion that an LX4 is in the works as the next product in the pipeline, but that's weird, because the LX3 just came out last August, not 7 months ago. </p><div></div>

<p>The 24-60mm focal length keeps me honest.</p>

<p>One last thing that is often brought up. The sensor in the LX3 is larger than the G10 and developed specifically for the lens on the camera and the processing engine is new. G10 has more megapixels stuffed onboard, which is generally considered more a bow to marketing than to good image technology.<br>

Although you can kill most photo shop debates with the observation that you can't tell what camera took that framed 8 X 10 hanging on the wall and also that bad subject and composition negates all camera merits, I think the LX3 rises above this just a tad. I can still take a bad landscape, but just look at the way the light falls on them there trees! </p><div></div>

<p>oops!</p><div></div>

<p>One more. 60mm f2.8/160 ISO 200 Standard color</p>

<p>I went around the bend...twice, trying to figure out which to get, the G10 or the LX3. I am very happy I decided on the LX3. The G10 takes a nice picture, but the Summicron on the LX3...I don't know how to say it: it sees light differently. I am often surprised. I really like the G10 body and the fact that it has a viewfinder, though not much of one, and I HATE using a camera that only has an LCD screen, that is until I got the LX3. Now it's no big deal.<br>

The LX3 has me giggling over shots taken, it is really an abundant exchange for the money spent. If you talk to honest photo shop staff, they will, to a man, steer you to the LX3 over the G10. I've had that happen even in shops where the staff get spiffs for selling Canon, they have the G10 in stock and don't have the LX3.<br>

Two things though. Buy a second or third battery. Study the manual. The feature sets are worth using.</p><div></div>

<p>I just bought the Panasonic Lumix LX-3 and I really like it. I understand that it is essentially the same as the D-Lux 4, but at least $200US cheaper. It is best used with understanding of its potentials (study the manual and learn how to control it to your will) but you can also get great photos on automatic mode. The 24mm f2.0 lens is fabulous. I believe this is a landmark camera in the ongoing gap-narrowing between small and full size digital cameras.<br>

Just remember to get two batteries, and the panasonic batteries are not the best.</p>

<p>-- Peter </p>

Anybody have or tried or read any thing about the new Tamron 10-24mm lens that came out recently? I mean

besides the brochure data. I am interested in how it stacks up against the Sigma and the Tokina, in similar focal

lengths.

Great shot Lutz! Nice to see some old school principles used well.

I am going to buy either the sigma or the Tamron but I haven't been able to find anything on the Tamron. Even though

it was recently released, you'd think somebody ran it through a gauntlet.

The two wheels on the D80 come in real handy if you shoot in manual exposure. The D80 has most of the important controls at surface level on the body. You don't have to drill down in a menu as much as on the D60 and 40. I often shoot older AI lenses on the D80 and love it. Can't do that on the D60, I don't think.

Although it has been touch on here and many earlier threads, I'd love to see a thread that focused exclusively on each contributors definition on what they feel glow is. No other chatter, just step up to the line and define it. A photo example would be a welcome plus. Only then will real communication occur as everyone will know what the other is seeing. For example, blown out highlights and over development are sometimes touted as glow. Sometimes it is edge definition, or light wrap from unique lighting situations.

"The lenses are not important to me."

 

Orville, Really? But do you use Leitz lenses mostly? Your considerable expertise creating images seems sometimes enhanced by the quality of whatever lenses you are using.

it is a good deal indeed and the whole line of cron 35's are excellent.

M6 Classic: $1200

 

Cron 50: $900

 

Getting that Leica glow: ... $2100

THIS LEICA BUMPER STICKER

COST ME $1000

I'M A FRIEND OF ELMAR

 

GOT MY NOOKY ON EBAY

 

LEITZ, CAMERA, ACTION!