kosmoskatten

Hi Paul,

I have the latest R 28/2.8 and have some experience with the M 28/2 as well.

It is a very fine lens indeed and on par with the best offerings there are.

I have owned for Contax SLR the Distagon 28/2.8 and for the Contax G the

Biogon 28/2.8 as well. Between all of these lenses I can say there is no

superiority either way - the Summicron for M is maybe the "sharpest" (by a

hair) of the lot whereas the Biogon is the most flare resistant and the best

distortion corrected of the lot. To me there is no easily discernable difference

in performance though from viewing similarly sized prints from more or less

same places with same film and under same conditions the Biogon and

Summicron look slightly better enlarged to 8x12" than both the Distagon and

the Elmarit. We are talking very minute differences here. The build quality of

the Leica R28/2.8 is top notch and the flare resistance is very good - when no

UV filter is attached.

Kind regards, Henke Rundgren, Stockholm, Sweden

Hi folks,

just got me a second hand R-E.

After putting the first roll of film through the camera it seemed like I wasn't

getting it right with the focus - even with medium apertures and reasonably

fast shutter speeds on the macro 60. Strange I thought. So in goes another roll

and only then do I realise it doesn't focus on infinity; it doesn't focus slightly

PAST infinity like most cameras do but it stops just short of it.

Aah-hah! I thought and checked the focusing screen; it didn't seem to sit

"right" in place. I gave it a wee nudge and then it would focus on (i.e slightly

past) infinity again. Settled. I thought. But upon examining the screen again I

noticed that the catch that holds the little tab on the screen didn't seem right.

There are two catches but one catch is gripping the tab from the side and the

other is behind the tab..? Or..?

Is this how it should be? Or are the catches supposed to grip the tab from

either side? Has one of my catches been bent by the previous owner so it has

ended up behind the tab instead of being on the side? They sort of look the

same. Or is the little catchlooking metal thingy behind the tab just there to hold

the screen out some to keep it level? I simply don't know what it's supposed to

look like on the R series. Since I bought it from England and I live in Sweden

and have this wedding thing going on this weekend I was hoping I wouldn't

have to send it back. Especially if there is nothing wrong with it.

Anyone with a Leica R-E / R5 / R6 out there that would care to have a wee

look and tell me what it's supposed to look like? I have one more day

(tomorrow) to sort it out and develop one more roll of film but I have to know if I

am on the right track. I hate to be sweating the small stuff but I just can't risk it.

Kind regards, Henrik

(At least I did check the camera BEFORE the wedding... ...phew)

I work on Imacons and with the Flextouch on (ICE like dust removal) and

scanning 6x7 negs/slides it is a fairly swift affair. The Imacons have great

optics, great handling, great dynamic range and they deliver remarkable

scans. The flextight with them magnetic-bendering-gizmos keep the film flat.

And you can calibrate the whole system so you know your focus is spot on.

I'd be surprised if the Nikons come close but it is also a matter of what you'd

be doing with them? Large scans? Get the Imacon. Fairly large / filing / web?

The Nikon will probably serve you well. I haven't a clue as to the price of the

Nikon in your neck of the woods but sometimes you can find a second hand

Imacon in good nick and you know they are a great buy. We had an old one

for quite some time and upgraded it twice before switching to the big one that

scans A3 reflective as well.

Actually from what I remember we scanned 120 Velvia (6x7) on the old

Imacon and output was on Epson printer A4/A3 and the quality (phew - it was

amazing) was what got me into the hassle of printing on inkjet papers.

We sell scanners but I don't see Nikon being any different (i.e. better) than the

competition in their price range based on our customers feedback but then

again most of them shoot 35mm. Mind you I haven't used any late model

Nikon scanners myself. I actually just got me an Epson 4870 for home

tinkering and it scans MF with ICE and does it well, good enough for my

intended output up to A3. With ICE on it takes it's time though. For the price it

is an absolute bargain. Another photo.net poster claims it is as good as or

better than his dedicated Polaroid sprintscan for MF.

If I need to go bigger I have the Imacon at work. So I guess I am blessed.

To sum it up: Imacons are top of the line for most applications. You'd need a

drumscanner to cram more out of the negs and I guess you can't anyway as

you'd end up with a few hundred megs of grain/noise. All other MF scanners I

have come across are compromises. So is my Epson but a very good wallet-

friendly and seemingly workable compromise it is. ;-)

/ Henke

Jonathan,

if you haven't totally settled on the H1 yet you should look in to the

Hasselblad V series as well. Thought they shoot square you still have the

option to crop down to the H1 format without wasting negspace. Yea, you'll

get a few shots less per film but I find square MORE creative and sometimes I

crop, sometimes I don't. When I shoot other formats I often find myself

cropping to squares anyway. They've (Hasselblads) worked for many a great

photographer in the past. And you should be able to get a sweet deal on one

considering the decline in MF sales as a whole. A nice portrait lens can be

found "cheap" too.

With the H1 you'll be more into the future (what with digital and all) and if you

wear glasses the H1 has arguably the best finder of them all. I've only toyed

with the H1 as it is out of my league, moneywise. But then again I am poor by

default.

Best of luck,

Henke

Sorry for the Swedish and the odd characters - it doesn't show up well on the

board.

Still, email me Helge if you want me to find out if he's got it still. At least we are

on the right side of the ocean ;-).

/ Henke

Sorry it should be:

Andreas; (keep going from there)

Fred, the Imacon flexyourthighs are great. I have the biggest one at work ;-).

But, they only deliver if you deliver i.e. if your negs and (especially) your

slides look great. I'd back that red Porsche right out of my garage (third one on

the left) for a MF full frame digital back. If only I could find the keys to the

Lambo that's in the way.

The biggest I printed (6x6 neg) is 21.5x21.5" / 55x55cm - which actually is

hanging right in front of me for inspiration - from an Imacon scan and it looks

plenty good. The neg was good though and had I had a current digitalback I

wouldn't have got the picture as my Hassy Superwide had to stretch out all the

way to get it in.

With a less than perfect neg you do get to do some serious work before it

looks good, we do a lot of scans on aerial photography (Pentax 6x7) shot with

Fuji NPZ800 and they look awful to start with but somehow they come out

good in the end.

With a nice digi back you get to do it right, right there. I hope somewhere

down the line a fullframe version of the selfcontained Kodak proback (though

they stopped making MF backs already...) would show up for some 2-3K.

I'd be honking my horn in my Porsche behind you guys, trying to pass on the

freeway on my way in.

/ Henke

Antonio,

the reason the Epson failed (and probably most other scanners too) to get

your scanning right is that if you scan as a Negative the scanner will assume

some basic corrections thinking you are feeding it a "true" negative base

which is orange. Sort of.

If you scan as Transparency (which is basically what your slidefilm IS though

it's been crossprocessed) it will use different parameters to set color

corrections and it will no longer assume your filmbase is orange.

Keep messing it (the film) up. BTW if you want to crossprocess and make it

look like "real life" but with coolness of crossprocessing you should try

"Tungsten" film. This crossprocesses much nicer and you get less color shift

but still the right "look".

/ Henke

Good on you Adnan, let us know how it works out and if you could cope with

that pathetic excuse for viewfinder... ...oops sorry - starting to sound like Jay.

Just kidding. Everytime the SWC is brought up Jay doesn't miss the

opportunity to have a swing at it (and given his size he packs quite a punch)

but I'll give him credit for his postings (well... most of them) as he is usually

commenting on stuff that he has actually used, and has his facts straight.

I have the old style megaphone finder and like it better and for me it is an

advantage not having the viewfinder blacken out on me when I hear the little

"ka-schnik". Just went through some old Superwide stuff (travels in Cambodia

and hikes in Banff, Canada) and I am amazed everytime at the quality coming

out of that clunky lil' box.

A good sense of humour is always handy, especially when you head out on a

marvelous autumn day when the light is just right, you brought your darling

SWC/M all along and you forgotten ALL your film back home. My company

didn't mind but I missed a shot of an old perfectly backlit oak in full colours

which looked just perfect for the superwide and by next week/next op the

leaves had turned brown (the few ones that had not fallen off) and the scene

was absolutely flat out dull. I have my fingers crossed for this autumn though...

/ Henke

Hej Helge; det 䲠ingen stor skillnad p堷/7II.

N䲠du sp䮮er slutargardinen (f�r att byta objektiv) p堷 m峴e du dra hela

v䧥n p堥n g宧 (p堷II g岠det i etapper om man vill). Jag har haft b䧧e

och tycker de 䲠lika bra. S�karen har lite mer kontrast i 7II med lite tydligare

markering men man kan uppgradera en 7. Det finns eventuellt en man i

Stockholm som kanske vill s䬪a en av sina (han har tv婬 ev med objektiv.

Kontakta mig om du 䲠intresserad s堫an jag fr姡 honom.

Mvh Henrik Rundgren, Stockholm

kosmoskattenrtw@hotmail.com

Don't sweat the small stuff Adnan; focusing a Superwide is easy. And I was

not a good guesser to start out with. At first I was going crazy trying to work

out the distance then after I realized the depth of field covered me for the most

part and I gradually got better at guesstimating I have been happy ever since.

For street shots / landscape it's hard to miss. I have used the Superwide on

numerous trips and even fairly close up I have yet to miss. Real close (under

four-five feet) you'd probably need the ground glass adapter but I have

managed without it - then again I don't use it much for close up. The depth of

field IS vast enough for most purposes. I have the old style lens with red

markings coupled to the aperture for depth of field, as a rule of thumb I keep

the hyperfocal distance one notch under the given value. The superwide IS

(sorry Jay) a great camera and dead easy to shoot with. Stopped down to f16

you have all in focuse from right here to next week (juz kiddin') and it doesn't

look too diffractionally shabby at f22 which gives you from slightly over two

feet to ?. Don't let the obnoxious little crap finder fool you - it delivers the

goods.

Once you get the hang of it, with guessing the distance and all it'll be a

pleasure. The Superwide is flareprone and shooting into the sun is a hit and

miss. I have used the Mamiya 7II with both 50/4.5 and 43/4.5 lenses and they

are worth considering - the 50 is probably the best wideangle lens I have

owned, period, but it doesn't like shooting into the sun either. It being a

rangefinder I was a bit weary of the fact that it can go out of whack which

happened to a friend who got quite a few rolls from an extensive overseas trip

ruined.

I ditched the Mamiya 7II (do miss it occasionally) and kept the superwide for

the pleasure of shooting with a no-fuss, no batteries camera with an optic that

puts most others to shame. Love it. But you should take a long hard look at the

Mamiya 7 system and what it offers.

/ kind regards Henke

Hi Bartek,

having used both I might add this:

On straight enlargements (RAW files) from both they are virtually impossible

to tell apart.

On jpegs the Canon gives a much more pleasing result. The Nikon jpegs

have harsher contrast and more noise. I think the Canon has a better image

processor for Jpegs; smooth tones and still clean skies whereas Nikon seems

to be more aggresive in contrast/sharpening to the point it looks unnatural.

I own neither brand (but have Nikon background before switching to Contax

then medium format and have occasionally used Canon digi-EOS with Leica

optics) but I sell them both and work at a fairly good lab.

At first we thought the Nikon jpegs (both enlarged to 8x10"s) were so poor we

thought we'd done something wrong and did a reshoot. We even shot Canon

on 200 for a more "fair" comparison (though unfair to Canon as Nikon's D70 is

optimized for 200) but still the same.

NOT ONE SINGLE CUSTOMER has preferred the Nikon picture over the

Canon (marked on the back of course). Nikon users are somewhat disturbed

but since it is a jpeg issue not a raw issue for most it is not a biggie.

The D70 has a better feel to it and looks better.

My .02 cents, keep the change ;-)

/ Henrik

Hi Jack.

Yes, you can achieve extremely good results on the Epson 4870 - with

extremely good I mean bang for the buck and scans that hold up very very

well up to A3. It will not rival scans from say an Imacon but at least one other

(more experienced) photog on this forum says it looks as good as/better than

his Polaroid sprintscan MF scanner. Based on that I got one though I have

access to an Imacon at work I find the Epson delivers and works well for my

needs and home output sizes (up to A3). I am looking into alternatives to

Epson scan, it is not crap but could be better. To sum it up I don't miss not

having an Imacon at home as the end result up to A3 seems to be fairly equal

with perhaps a tad more work in PS from the Epson scans. I do all my

sharpening in PS and the scans look a lil' soft from scratch but with some

good sharpening techniques (I use high pass sharpening mostly) it does

deliver. I have been working on a top end Imacon (two different models) for

over two, maybe three years and think they are "the best" but even so I am still

pleased with the Epson. Should I want bigger/better I just use the Imacon (but

as it is busy daytime I have to do it after work).

Your 10D can deliver, I have done some work on an old D60 and borrowed a

10D - stunning A4 and good A3's can be had. But even on A4 size I find better

rendering of fine detail (without noise) from my 6x6 negs scanned on the

Epson. This is very evident on a waterfront picture overlooking Stockholm; the

10D delivers in a pinch a good enlargement. I have old Reala negs and

straight prints on a Frontier of the same view taken with my Contax 35mm

gear that look better on the same A4 size and to sum it up the 6x6 negs are

smoother with more detail. A 35mm scan, even on an Imacon, does not

render the same detail as you get more noise as well on them big sizes. And

I'll take smooth and crisp over noisy and crisp anyday.

I have some portraits from both 35mm neg and and the 10D that look superb

on A4 but I look at portraits differently than I do a landscape shot. Usually my

portraits are shallow depth of field and smooth backgrounds.

Scanning 35mm on the Epson 4870 is not to recommend IMHO. You can do

better with relatively cheap dedicated film scanners, like the Minolta.

Erics advise on overexposing slide and underexposing negs contradict my

own findings and the general view on exposing. If it works for Eric - fine. But

for me I find that as accurate as can be and erring on the "right" side of things

i.e. spot on or slightly OVER for negs and spot on or slightly under for slides

works best. I shoot mainly neg film now and usually get them spot on. Are they

slightly overexposed I just apply a contrast mask in PS to put it right back in

place.

Don't just take my word for it as these are my own findings.

/ Keep it up!

Henke

Thanks Ingemar and Sandeha,

I just got reply (swift one too) from Ricoh support; one can open it with Apple

Quicktime and then copy and paste it into another editing software i.e.

Photoshop. Haven't tried yet so I'll take their word for it and shoot some pics

and see if it works.

;-)

Henrik

Hi Folks,

since I had some doubles in my lens line (Ricoh Gr1V and Contax G2 +28) I

sold the GR1V and bought the GX for some casual not-so-important shots.

My emotions are mixed (I do miss the GR1V) and I have encountered a

strange problem; I cannot open TIFF files in Photoshop (7 and/or CS/8 ). I

work on Mac OS X. All I get when I try to open it is: "Cannot complete your

request because it is not the right kind of document". In PS 7 under Mac OS 9 I

get; cannot open because it is a non supported color space...

What to do? In preview mode (not Photoshop) I can see the picture as a

thumbnail but it won't open...

This is a major gripe as I was hoping to be able to work in TIFF mode most of

the time to make the most out of the images.

Anyone? Please?

/ Henke

Normally I print 10"x10"s (25.4x25.4cm) and smaller sizes and crops at the

Fuji Frontier at work. It's just for some other stuff, like old negs and some

landscape work I got the Epson for.

I only shoot MF with a Hasselblad Superwide (fixed 38/4.5 lens) hence my not

buying into a dedicated MF filmscanner - this was the cheap and (seemingly)

workable solution to my needs.

Hi Jeremy, yep, with acccess to an Imacon one could wonder what the ... I am

doing with the Epson 4870...

Problem is I don't have it at home, and have precious little time with the

Imacon at work. I believe the Imacons ARE the best, but for home MF printing

and good scanning and postprocessing (not too aggressive sharpening and

some Local contrast enhancement) the Epson seems to deliver very pleasing

results up to A3. I have a bundle of Fine Art papers to print on and with some

minor work the input "matches" same size Imacon scans fairly well. Not as

good as but very good still.

Comparing a huge 35mm scan from a Nikon Coolscan to the same output

size as a 6x6 scan in my opinion the MF scan wins hands down - it is not a

sharpness-down-to-resolving-grain issue - the scans from MF are smoother

and with proper sharpening/local contrast enhancement they print better.

All my thinking of course, though I have had a few (Contax) G2 negs Imacon

scanned (Fuji Reala neg film) and output to A3 and they look awesome but

that's pushing it. I would not scan 35mm on the Epson 4870 at all - doesn't

seem to yield nowhere near the same quality as some mid end scanners.

Anyway, I have gotten it right now and the scans look very good - too bad I am

out of ink for the printer...

Cheers all for your input,

Henke

Thanks for the math Fred.

Having stayed up all night, more or less, I been trying various techniques with

the scanner and it works out well. I scan the negs at 2400dpi which gives me

some room for minor cropping and if I opt out the ICE the scan time is

surprisingly fast. Profiling the system took some time, what with assigning and

converting and all but it is starting to look like something. All I need now is

some ink to the printer...

Thanks all for your input - much appreciated!

/ Henke

Jack; I am short of ink at the moment and the reason for asking here was that I

wouldn't have to go to the lengths of printing A3 sized prints - if someone had

done the job for me already ;-). Otherwise yes, a good idea.

Tom, thanks for clarifying what I somehow knew deep down regarding the

true resolution on Epson 4870. Yes the Auto mode works fairly well on the

Epson but having worked on Imacon scanners (where I had the choice of true

optical res or interpolated) I find that I can tweak more in PS CS.

All in all I am very pleased with the product so far. Just got word from Doug

Hansen that Silverfast SE can be upgraded to accommodate RAW scans in

16/48 bit and now works with ICE in RAW. Sounds good.

Thanks again, Henrik

Csab' and Doug; thanks.

Will try and clean somehow someday. Yes, the swift approach is probably the

best bet...

Silverfast SE upgrade sounds good; will check it out.

/ Henke

Forget about Dust removal in Epson scan;

it literally kills off detail in High setting and doesn't work at all at Low setting.

ICE works better. Takes longer time though. About them artefacts this is being

looked into and I'd like to hear other peoples experiences with ICE.

So far the ol' clone stamp looks like the champ. Time lost dustbusting is

gained in shorter scan time (but I can't sip a cappuccino in the meantime).

On an Imacon the Flextouch dustremoval feature works better. I can't afford

having one at home though.

Thanks for your input Severi and Martin.

After some initial test scans on a fairly sharp and well exposed 6x6 negative

my findings are (Epson Scan):

Scanning as "original" at 2400dpi with no ICE and Histograms set to a wide

margin to avoid highlight clipping and then setting levels in PS CS gives very

good results. Setting size and cropping is a breeze in CS anyway.

Scanning with Epson scan set to "output size 12.5x12.5 inches at 300dpi"

doesn't look that good compared to the above - software interpolation at fault?

Digital ICE seems to create some artefacts and takes forever on larger scans.

It looked very good to start with but getting/plowing into shadow details on

water surface shows some artefacts. Without ICE no problem. Anyone?

No USM applied in scanning, all set in PS.

Dust removal in Epson Scan (instead of ICE): The "Low" setting didn't do

squat. The "High" setting works fairly well, if this is at the expense of image

resolution I have yet to compare.

EPSON Bonus package:

LARGE dust spots (three of them) on the flatbed glass came included in the

kit. Unfortunately on the wrong side. On the scans they show up like seagulls

perched on the waves. I'd hate to mess with that but has anyone cared to

remove and clean flat bed glass? I have the tools and cleaners but ... I might

end up with more specks in the long run, right?

Keep 'em coming (not the dust specks)

Henrik

Thanks for your input Severi and Martin.

After some initial test scans on a fairly sharp and well exposed 6x6 negative

my findings are (Epson Scan):

Scanning as "original" at 2400dpi with no ICE and Histograms set to a wide

margin to avoid highlight clipping and then setting levels in PS CS gives very

good results. Setting size and cropping is a breeze in CS anyway.

Scanning with Epson scan set to "output size 12.5x12.5 inches at 300dpi"

doesn't look that good compared to the above - software interpolation at fault?

Digital ICE seems to create some artefacts and takes forever on larger scans.

It looked very good to start with but getting plowing into shadow details on

water surface shows some artefacts. Without ICE no problem. Anyone?

No USM applied in scanning, all set in PS.

Dust removal in Epson Scan (instead of ICE): The "Low" setting didn't do

squat. The "High" setting works fairly well, if this is at the expense of image

resolution I have yet to compare.

EPSON Bonus package:

LARGE dust spots (three of them) on the flatbed glass came included in the

kit. Unfortunately on the wrong side. On the scans they show up like seagulls

perched on the waves. I'd hate to mess with that but has anyone cared to

remove and clean flat bed glass? I have the tools and cleaners but ... I might

end up with more specks in the long run, right?

Keep 'em coming (not the dust specks)

Henrik

Hi Nicola,

thanks for your input. I have done some testscans now and the digital ICE is

ever so sloooow... I am trying out the various dust removals as well.

Also I suspect that ICE creates some minor artefacts along the way. In small

shadowdetails (small waves on a picture with a ferry) the output is better

when ICE is disabled. Anyone?

Another photo.net poster said the optical resolution is around 1700dpi on the

4870. (According to a magazine - and as he himself stated; don't believe

everything you read) Whether it's true or not I'd like some kind of confirmation

on this.

Best results so far is scan as "original" 2400dpi and not "intented output size"

(in my case 12.5x12.5" at 300dpi) with histograms set at a wide margin in

Epson scan and levels set in PS CS and no ICE.

Looks very promising.

Epson bonus/included in the package for no extra charge;

I have three big spots under the flat bed glass that are likely to stick around...

(Not minor dust specks - more like a seagulls perched on the waves on the

scan) I'd hate to start messing with that.

All input welcome.