jan_de_ridder1

efke 100

is this "wild" agitation which is meant here, or just inversions, is

this different than the 10 seconds every following minute agitation?

 

I use to gently agitate the first 30 seconds and gently invert every

xx seconds (whatever required).

Now I wildly agitate the first 30 seconds, something like mixing

margeruita's; shake up, shake down, shake sideways, throw in the air

etc. you know the rap...... followed by "middle wild" inversions, and

I must say the negatives come out looking much better (too me. What is

originally meant by agitation and inversion in the true photographic

sense of the word?

Elmar 50mm 2.8 latest version, great lens gives you the "film-noir" look, cannot tell you about LPM and other meaningless scientific technocratic stuff, but the lens just has a great "Footprint" but I can only speak of Black & White photography

Good on ya Gus :-)

I thought because of the "leica glow" you sometimes hear about that there might be a film which captures that in a better way than the other ....

FP4 is 125 film hey ?

 

Do you shoot at 125 ?

 

And the D-76 is good, I use this for Tri-x.

 

Hows rodinal with fp4 ?

 

Thanks for the replies up till now, I will surely try a couple of rolls

With my 6x6 I use Tri-x and APX 100, and only these 2 films, I have

been doing this for years and years.

Now having moved sideways to Leica M6 Inaturally bought these films as

well and use them with pleasure.

I am thinking thought maybe there's another film that I completely

miss out on, a film which might be perfect for use with Leica ... so

is there such a film ?

 

(only the old fashioned type of film, I don't like the Delta's and the

T-Maxes)

 

Thanks for sharing any views you have

 

Ps. I know this is a very subjective question, it comes down to ones

taste, I know that too, but still in all my subjective objectivity I

might of missed out on something great, also I haven't looked into the

specs and tapes of film for years so I don't even know whats on the

market ....

Elitist ?

 

go to the german Leica forum.... most of the members have their forum names as Dr. this and Dr. that, they get into highhearted stuff to, nothing much to do with photography but still might be the right spot for you....

 

Ah yes ... and they are really open to non (perfect) german-speakers (whahahahaha)

I can see Erin' point, and also M Elek' point, the point of the matter lies somewhere in the middle. I have several photocameras and lenses, none of which are japanese, actually they are european, all manual and none depend on electronics... and all make use of european "glass" I take my photo hobby further than just the end product, I like the machinery, indeed the feel of quality and knowing that any bum picture you make is simply your own fault and has nothing to do with setting or electronics or whatever. I am not a good photographer, just somebody who enjoys the complete thing, from aquisition of the hardware, down to the development and printing of the end product, I like to take shots with care, not blow 766 digital images within 35 minutes hoping something nice turns out, this is not my thing, and I definately do not take offense from people doing that, that is there thing and as long they are pleasured by it, why not.

 

And I have been called a tosser often, but never ever becasue I own a Leica camera !

Just pick up a leica, hold it, turn it in your hands, knock on it with a nuckle, wind, push the exposure button..... do this for 30 minutes or so and you'll have the answer.

As to downsides ... plenty, but all overcome by the supreme touch, feel and low light possibilities, not to speak of the optics. Expensive... sure, worth it ? depends to whome and for what, is a ferrari worth the money ? all a metter of personal taste and preference.

I love my M6, I love my Elmar 50mm 2.8...

There was quite an exchnge of notices on the Rollei newsletter on Dr. Meijer. Apparantly he "flew by night" leaving a number of "buyers" without promissed goods and money.... but again this is hearsay ....

Is there no faith anymore in just the standard lens ?

 

I am new to leica and have the 50mm 2.8 elmar (new version) as a luxury I have also purchased the 35mm 1.4 Asph.

For the past 25 years or so I have only shot standard format lenses on a variety of rolleiflexes, and I don't think I've missed out on anything.

 

Reason for buying the M6 is transportability, I know now I will use the Elmar more than the Lux.

... BTW I have the .58 finder ....

Good pictures, I am in the same boat as you actually. I got my first ever leica (M6TTL)in last friday and have spent the last couple of days making test films. I come from pure 6x6 (rolleiflex) and had to see how the M6 reacted under different circumstances, this in order to get it under control as I have my Rolleiflexes.

I only shoot APX100 and Tri-x which I develop in either Rodinal or D-76, and needless to say I am pleased with the results of my M6. The overall picture quality is not as good as the 'flexes, but this is due to the size of the negative. With the Flexes I use to crop a lot, one of the reason for aquiring the M6 (apart from weight/size/transportability) is to "construct" 1:1 prints, thus maintaining maximum quality/size ratio .... This is a challenge, but a nice one and I think this will work out fine,

I have 2 lenses with my M6, a "new" Elmar 2.8 50mm (I love tessar design lenses with B&W) and the Summicron 35mm Asph. which I must say is a really nice lens (which it should be taking the price into acount) I make prints of 40x50 cm without any problems, the grain adds to the quality of the picture and doesn't disturb.

I think I will have a thing with my Leica, it hangs around my neck nicely, feels great and is an always take with you camera, up until this point I really like it....

I will get a scanner shortly and post some pictures and especially comparisons with my various rolleiflexes which I am going to conduct in the coming period of time.

Int the meantime, have fun with your Leica, after all they are meant for making pictures .... (mine is like new, hope it wears and tears soon, I dislike museum pices hanging round my neck)

 

 

regards, the kindest ofcourse

 

Jan

Matter of taste.... I personally prefer Tessar design to Planars, like mentioned it's a bit harder/crispier, but this might be because I only use it Tri-x/D-76 ... seems that the combination of Tessar and the film/dev. are made for each other, but as said, this is my personal preference certainly not based on anything scientific. I never have noticed any difference between 2.8 Xenotars and Planars, bases upon different reviews and opinions the 3,5 planar is the sharpest of the lot and in 6x6 the half stop difference makes no difference what so ever.

Hi,

 

Any experiences in using an M6 in bad weather like rain and snow ?

... seem to be (a lot) cheaper, especially the lenses I'v read up

about them and they seem a pretty good deal. Anybody here got any

markers, up's and down's, does or dont's ?

 

I can pick up a 2000 FC/W body and 50mm F lens, including all extra's

like caps and stuff for under 1000?. The body is clearly used but said

to be in good condition, the glass in the lens is perfect... seems

like an awfully good deal here .... any but's ???

 

thanks in advance, cheers

For photography of iron/metal/steel (cars) theres nothing goes beyond Efke 25, but this is B&W.... maybe not for the glossy brochurem but if interested in cars and photography must try Efke 25's

Hi,

 

I set out to buy a rolleiflex 2.8f a while ago, based upon the

following basics:

 

- I like shooting standard lenghts (best buy for money)

- I shoot B&W mainly (Tri-x + D76)

- I shoot mainly Architecture and industrial scenes (detail/Crop)

- I don't like Wide angle all that much

- I use tripod 99%

- I use a lightmeter/spotmeter

- 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9; I have no preference, I crop anyway

 

I went for the rollei because I like the design

 

Having read up on MF possibilities I now find I am able purchase any

MF camera with at least the standard lens, this caused to read up

further on the different cameras, this really started complicating

matters, there is something in all of them I like and instead of

bringing my choices down to say 2, they have gone up to 7;

 

Mamiya RZ/RB

Rolleiflex 2.8F

Rolleiflex 6008

Pentax 67

Bronica SQ A or B

Hasselblad 501C/M

Mamiya 7

 

Now interchangeable lenses are not issue, but the fact I may ever want

to is a good argument.

 

Weight and size is not an issue, I'm 2 meters high and 1 meter wide

(broadest point :-) ) and have arms like dorian pillars and hands the

size of a steinway keyboard.

 

Negative format is not an issue, as long as minimum 6x6

 

Film changability, not a big thing I shoot Tri-x most of the time, and

use ND filters sporadically

 

Lense quality is important, not sharpness or Lines per what have you,

the "footprint" (learned this expression in another thread) is, I do't

want the sharp digital look, like mamiya 7's tend to approach.

 

What is important is that I want the camera to last, and must be

reliable (will this rule out any battery operated camera ?(

 

I have a thing against Hasselblad, although I could afford one, I have

a thing against their pricing policy

 

 

Anybody got some pointers here ?

Sharpness is not an issue with any lens. If you want sharp digitally sharpen scanned or digital images, you find plenty of examples on any forum gallery on the web (look for the bright unnaturally coloured pictures) Now total image quality is what any photographer wants, warmth, depth and transparancy and a tonal range where every tone complements the other, wether in B&W or Colour. You will find this with Leica lenses, it is however a matter of taste, if your'e out for the eye-hurting full colour (and with full, I mean full) close up image of any sort of flower, unnaturally coloured lanscapes where the grass has a tone of "soylent green" the skies look like those never seen by human eye before stick to canon and invest in digital.

 

In other words your choices of lenses, both the 50 as the 28 are good, they are fantastic lenses which will change your style of photography and if treated right probably will outlast you in combination with the R8.

Dont forget that any leica discussion group on the web and outside the web is composed of 40% of contributors who do not own a leica and therefore bash it in every possible manner, and 40 % of leica owners who have the leica because of nothing else than the red dot image, they will advise only the latest greatest based upon technical specs and nothing else.... the other 20% go out and use leica's for what they are good at ... taking high quality photographs and doing their utmost to improve with every roll of film

15-30 on an F100 ..... no problem what so ever, vignetting ? Show me a reasonably priced wideangle that doesn't vignet a bit, the 15-30 only vignets at 15mm and then very slightly.

As for the size, it is big.

 

I sold it because I got the 12-24

Dennis, it's the difference between Salgado and Ansel Adams. Adams work is technically perfect, but has no appeal on me what so ever, theres nothing else there than the image itself. Salgado's work contains mysticysm. But this is subjective and all a matter of taste.

 

What I primarily meant with this thread is something like: "Ahhh yes, so you want to shoot midformat, primarily Tri-x and APX100, develop in Rodinal and D76, then I would recommend the following lens-types/brands ..... " (not the lens speed or focal lenght)

J.E. G. .... Bokeh ... No, not as such, if bokeh is the "beauty" of the unsharp (very personal) It does have something to do with it, I am trying to decribe the beauty of the sharp and the unsharp, the atmosphere a picture brings across, this having to do nothing with perfection or imperfection of the image/developing/printing/lighting etc. but just a representation of the total image being seen at that time.

 

My wife shoots a full format Canon digital thing, these digital images transformed to black and white are near to technically perfect, but all lack the "thing" I am trying to decribe ... if you grasp what I mean :-)))

Thanks for all the replies, and no I'm not trying to start a pro-con discussion about camera's and/or lenses, and it's not necesarily a tessar that I am looking for I just used it as an example, to go into this a bit further (again an example) For color slides I would go for the 45mm CZ on my Contax G2, these reults are brilliant, B&W however with this combination turns out almost like digital. With the tessar I would never shoot color slides, but with Tri-x 400 it works out a dream.

 

The transparancy I spoke about earlier is not lack of flare, it's more an addition of atmosphere or personality, very difficult to describe.

 

I used a mamiya 7-II for a weekend with the standard lens, it was hairsharp but not really nice in B&W.... although I do see that this might all be a matter of personal taste ...

 

... again, I used a Rolleiflex Xenotar 3.5, marvelous in B&W, just a pity Rolleiflexes are fixed lens setups ....

 

Anyway sorry for causing such unclarity, the more I write about it, the more unclear it gets even to me .... :-)

 

Jan

... I don't mean focal lenght but brand/type.

 

For instance I'me in the market for a mid-range camera setup and

instead of going for the "body-brand" I want to focus on the lens and

find a suiting body with it.

 

I can imagine that full color advertising requires different lens

characteristics than B&W landscapes, or is this not the case ?

 

What I am looking for is 90% B&W, 6x6 or 6x7, Industrial landscape and

details.

 

Shooting 35mm I am very pleased with the 3 lens Tessar design lens as

opposed to 7 or 8 lens, lenses, allthough being sharper I do believe

they don't provide enough depth/transparancy, but this purely in B&W.

 

I hope you understand what I mean.......