steve_ege

Sergio --

I would only buy a used M8 with the warranty, since you may be getting one of those had problems. Better to be safe, etc.

I have had my M8 for about a year now, without any problems, except the early banding issue, which was taken care of for free by the factory.

The M8 will provide beautiful, high micro-contrast files with incredible clarity. Just as important, it will make you a photographer again, where YOU choose the focus point, spend more time on framing, and begin to think again about the relationship between aperture and shutter spead. In short, it returns control to you, rather than pushing a button and seeing the the camera does.

I have Canon gear and am very happy with it, but the M8 can really shine and makes a much bigger difference, at least in my case, on the photographic art side of things.

Steve

Take a look at this:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html#post89115

As I mention in a later post I've seen these prints myself. They are immense and outstanding. Adamson has excellent credentials as a printer.

Steve

I have the Nikon 5000 ED, and it does a fantastic job. But to do every frame at 4,000 lines resolution

takes forever, and I am asking myself, with the negatives, why am I scanning whole rolls at that level of

resolution.

My question is what pattern do others follow, as to scaning and using digital images for storage. I am

beginning to think that the best approach is to scan entire rolls at low resolution, say 1 MB a file, with no

processing. Then review those images, and if any seem worth keeping, scan those few keepers at high

resolution. I can save all images to disk, as it is easier to view images from a CD than from the actual

negatives themselves. The negatives remain my primary source for the image, not the digital image.

Is this the approach that most use? Or is there an advantage to full scanning of all images, say older color

chromes that are starting to lose color, in which case, a full scan is made?

Steve

The build quality vs electronic advances question is an interesting one. After all, why bother with a well built machine, beautiful to look at, if the internals will become obsolete in, say, five years?

Ask a Ferrari owner. In the late 1970's and early 1980's Enzo produced the 308. It is the model featured on the Magnum TV series. That car remains about as popular today as a driving machine as it was when introduced. It is a great car to drive and has held up well, for the enjoyment it produces, against much more sophisticated machines having contemporary features, such as air conditioning that actually works. It is the driving experience that counts, and the 308 is terrific.

I suspect the same will be true of the M8 if it really delivers the M picture taking experience and excellent images of its film predecessors, at least at low ISOs. Its weakness at the high ISO end is directly addresseed by the superb Leica Lux lenses, not the least of which being the Noctilux. And is should hold a strong percentage of its original purchase price, maybe 50% at least for a few years, because of its beauty, functionality, and superb image capability.

I think the answer to your question is in the photographs (or files, if you will) that are produced.

One new user of the M8 has offered rapturous reviews of the results.

http://leica-users.org/v33/msg00375.html

Remember, we are dealing with a camera that is trying to conquer the Everest of handheld photography, its predecessor film cameras. If the results are, indeed, as stunning as reported, customers will follow.

Steve

Thank you to everyone for your suggestions. I am having a little difficulty coming up with a consensus, though.

I feel a little like Danny Kaye's character in a Technicolor extravaganza from the fifties. I think it was "Court Jester." If you've seen the routine you never forget it. Set in the middle ages, he is about to enter a jousting contest and has been given secret, but highly complex directions to avoid certain death. Something about the mortar in the pestal, as I recall. He tries to repeat these critical instructions to himself as he walks to what seems certain doom, but makes a complete bolix of it. A decade or so later Rosalind Russell reprised the routine to almost similar effect in the film Mame as she approaches a horse at Peckerwood.

Suffice it to say I am a bit confused by all the advice.

As to some of the suggestions made -- I have a Leica UV filter on the lens, but what about the back? I have read on Luminous Landscape, with regard to digital sensors, that canned air is NOT to be used, since they will spit out oil. I have seen the micro cloths referred to, but it seems to me they would get coated with oil and dirt from one's fingers. Perhaps I should invest in surgical gloves when cleaning the lens. I know I use special cloth gloves, available from B&H and elsewhere, when scanning negatives, so as not to soil them, and they certainly make a difference.

I think I will try moist breath and the microcloth recommendation, but only rarely clean the lens. I do plan to take photos at an auto track event (and have already done so) and will try to take heed of the photographic hazards presented.

Thank you again for all the suggestions and thought.

Steve

I dread the day. I have recently purchased a new MP and the 35 1.4 apsheric to

go with it. Soon I will have to clean the lens, and I am very concerned.

I assume I begin with a hand bulb blower to get rid of easily removed dust.

Then the next question -- use a lense fluid? Kodak markets one, but I think

somebody else actually makes it?

Best lens paper?

I am very concerned about damage to any lens coatings and, of course, scratching.

Thanks

Steve

Some interesting and thoughtful work, more than the usual views of floats. If you have more,

please post.

Steve

I reviewed the LX1 on Amazon shortly after I got it in November, based on Michael Reichman's strong endorsement on Luminous Landscape. In his most recent trip to Africa last month, he was still taking the camera along.

The camera has a lot of friendly features to it, including a charger about the size of a deck of cards with no cord, an easy to use timed delay that allows you to take some outstanding indoor shots without flash, and the lens is very fine indeed -- you really notice the difference. An its 8 mp full frame at the 16 x 9 aspect ratio. Light weight, easy to travel with and fun to use. A real winner in my book.

Steve

It is one of the best kept secrets in Washington, which I discovered on the way home from

work.

Located in the basement of the National Geographic Society is their fim development

laboratory. You can mail in your undeveloped film.

Reasonable prices.

http://www.nationalgeographic.org/labs/index.html

Steve

I�m afraid this thread is confusing two different cameras. My comment is about the small one, or in my case, a Panasonic Lumix LX1, which I got in black. I found out about this camera on Luminous Landscape and went out and bought it from Amazon (at a lower price and better availability than B&H). I have been delighted with it. It has a 2 second time delay which you can use as a substitute for a cable release, allowing narrower apertures at slower shutter speeds when you brace the camera on a nearby support (or on yourself). This permits you to take dramatic, fully saturated photos of interiors at low ISO. It and its battery charger are petite and easy to carry around. I now realize that, in addition to its camera friendly features, what most impressed me was the quality of its lens. I had never seen a camera producing such clarity of images. So much so, that I finally broke down and purchased a MP with at 35 1.4 ASPH attached. My bank has called me in for counseling. I am still shooting my first rolls with the latter and haven�t seen results yet. The big test comes this holiday weekend. Check out the LX1 photos referenced earlier in this thread. They are representative of the qualify of pictures the LX1 can produce.

Steve

There WAS an easier way. Clean the print heads! I was about to reformat my hard drive

and reload OS X from scratch, figuring there was some corruption in the color

management program, when I tried the Epson utility program that does test prints. Sure

enough two print sources were clogged. After using cleaning program several times, I was

able to print normally, including the Nikon prints. I had mistakenly reported earlier that

10D prints were printing normally, they were not, and had the same green cast.

My apologies for posting on something I should have trouble shot a little more before

seeking expert help.

Steve

Bruce, thanks for your suggestion. I will try iPhoto, for example, and see how the files look.

As to choice of color space suggested by one of the commenters above, the choice at the bottom of the list in the Nikon Scanner dialogue IS the one that I used and whose designation is quoted in my original post. I suspect that is the culprit.

I did not see a choice for Adobe RGB 1998 which would have been my choice. I am using the OS X version of Nikon Scan 4.02

I will scan a color negative using all three color space choices and then try printing again. I know my monitor is properly calibrated, because my prints turn out just fine from my Canon and Panasonic LX1 digital files.

I think I also may have the choice to save in Nikon's proprietary .NEF RAW format, and perhaps I can then open Nikon View and save that file as a TIFF file in Adobe color space.

There must be an easier way. Again, thanks for all the input.

Steve

I should add that the image was a Kodacolor negative. In response to earlier comments, I

have calibrated the monitor using a Spyder attachment, and calibrated the printer using a

product available from Pantone.

If I load digital images from my Canon 10D into Photoshop Elements 3.0 for Mac, they

print without a problem.

I think there is something wrong with the colorspace from the NiKon scanner, which is not

being adequately dealt with by Photoshop Elements 3.0.

Steve

Using Nikon Scan I have been able to derive what appear to be excellent images that open

in 16 bit in Photoshop Elements 3.0 for Mac. When I attempt to print, however, I seem

unable to print with anything like the colors seen on screen. Regular digital photos print

fine, and my monitor and printer have been calibrated. When I print, the Source Space

shows as "Nikon Apple_CPS 4.0.0.3000" I have tried using "Same as Source", an

individually profiled paper setting, and printer color management for Printer Space, all

with or without color management. I have also converted to 8 bit and tried saving the

image in Adobe RGB 1998. All to no avail. In each case, my prints have a heavy green

caste to them.

Did I select the wrong color space when I scanned in Nikon Scan? As I say, the images on

the monitor are clear, well balanced and saturated.

Help from you experts would be appreciated.

Steve

Robert --

I get the same results in Elements 3.0 for Mac. Also, the help file says it only edits in 8 bit,

which, of course, is not true. So Adobe needs to clean up its help file.

I tried Vuescan 16 bit images and got the same "partially locked" error message. I guess I

have to shell out $600 for CS2.

Thanks for your comments.

Steve

Thanks for the comments. I double-checked the Adobe website, and it clearly states that Elements 3.0 supports 16 bit editing, which I assume includes the stamp tool. So something is coming over from Nikon Scan that is locking the image somehow, it seems.

I have tried unlocking the small lock on the layer, as suggested in one of the comments, but nothing happens. When I double click on the layer, I'm informed its "partically locked." I will try scanning in Vuescan demo version, if that puts out 16 bit, and see what happens.

Here is the URL for the Adobe reference:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelmac/pdfs/psem_fhs_fnl.pdf

Steve

I have recently acquired the Coolscan 5000 ED and have begun scanning

some old color negatives and slides. I am using the provided Nikon

Scan software in OS X, Tiger, version 10.4. In general, I have been

quite pleased with the results.

However, when I load a 16 bit impage in Photoshop Elements 3.0, Mac

version, and try to use the stamp tool (to eliminate some residual

dust), I am advised by the program that the background layer is

"partially locked." I am able to crop the image, but most menu items

in photoshop are greyed out. If I convert the image to 8 bit, I am

able to edit, a suggested work around in the Adobe Photoshop Support

site. However, I would like to work with the nice 16 bit image.

Is this a problem with the Nikon software, or do I need to upgrade to

Photoshop CS to get more functionality with 16 bit images? The ICE

feature works very well, and I am reluctant to try VueScan, as its

infrared feature did not fare so well in a recent, uk, review.

Steve