richard jepsen

For small size and portability reasons I'm considering exchanging my 1C for a

Valoy II enlarger. Are newton rings more an issue on the Valoy II vs the 1C?

Aren't newton rings more likely in dry humidity???

 

Do you need a lens extention to make enlargements smaller than 5x7?? If you do

need a lens extender for the Valoy II what is the part number?

 

Does anyone have any comments on their experience using the Valoy II vs other

enlargers such as the 1C.

"If you are going for 11 x 14, 16 x 20 inch prints, or larger, the 2000, 3000 and 4000 dollar Leica lenses are not going to help you much, so why not have instead lenses of that value on an MF RF that would allow you the necessary quality."

 

Most 25 year old MF optics coupled with roll film produce better B&W images enlarged to 11x14. Film size trumps as they say. However, there is still a place for Leica's products in the camera bag.

I respectfully suggest staying with the M3 and chemically printing your images for that nostalgic look. A simple guerrilla, dry darkroom can produce rich prints. Printing on silver rich paper is very rewarding. Buy Tri-X or better yet HP-5 and develop in HC-110/FG-7 vs your stated film choice and thoughts of store processing.

 

You may be disappointed trying to scan grainny film. I don't think there is a photoshop grain plug-in for XP-2 or Plus-X.

A few last thoughts. The RF645 rangefinder baseline is within a millimeter or two of the MF competition. What makes the RF645 Leica-like is the build quality and portability. What sets it apart from Leica is ergonomics and it's elemental automated features.

I agree with Doug Nelson. I carefully considered the Mamiya 6&7 before buying the Bronica RF645. The Mamiya's bodies are compact but the lenses are not. The (3) RF645 optics are superb with smooth OOF effects. The finder is easier to use and more contrasty than my MP. The lenses are slow but so are all MF rangefinders. I find 645 format negs to be more flexible, easier to print, with richer tonality than small format.

 

It is unlikely anyone would manufacture a new MF rangefinder. Get a RF645 if you want to enjoy a small, silent, vibration free MF rangefinder.

The Leica Historical Society published an article claiming the Summaron to be as sharp as the later Crons but with softer edges. Is the Summaron f/2.8 correct hood a IROOA? Is its Bokeh similar to the DR?

Ahh, I was refering to my Rokkor 40mm for the CLE. Most of my Rokkor images are taken with a subject more than 6 ft away. I believe there is not much difference in the mid apertures and 10 ft focus distance between the Rokkor and Summaron. At close-up range and/or wide open is where one may see image character differences which I have interest in. The f/2.8 Summaron is said to have the dame classic look as the DR.

Joel, my Rokkor 40mm is a superb lens. It's image characteriestics are all positive, sharp to the corners without harsh OOF effects. Plus it is one of the most ergonomic, smooth operating lenses in the 35 - 50mm range; the equal of a Leica mount. About 6 months ago I did a informal test with the two optics. I have impressions which may or may not be accurate. So, I ask if anyone with more experience using the two lenses could discuss image characteristics.

Good info. I suspect the M Rokkor may be a little softer wide open, at min focus range vs the 40 cron or Summaron f/2.8. The Summaron is said to have the same image qualities as the fixed mount (11818) 50 Cron. Hopefully there are more reports to come.

What are users thoughts on the non goggle Summaron vs the Rokkor/Cron 40mm? I

have been using a Rokkor 40mm for several years. It's a fine lens with very

nice bokeh. Is the f/2.8 Summaron sharper, up close, with smoother out-of-focus

rendering?

Leaving film in Ilford Rapid Fix for 5 min should do no harm but it is best to fix only as long as one needs. The Film Developing Cookbook recommends fixing new tech films such as T-Max 100/400 or Delta 100 for 3 times the clear time. Traditional films such as Tri-X or FP-4 plus are fixed for 2x the clear time.

The remarks have me juiced to shoot K64 again. I shot K64 as I did not have a darkroom for B&W work in the 70s. The slides have impact on a light table. However, how do you get the same look if your not projecting onto a screen? Do K64 derived prints look nicer than those expertly done with digital?

Thanks for your response. I had no commercial plans for the pictures. Just doing a personal project.

 

I am uncomfortable being forward in this situation and people are uncomfortable with a stranger taking their picture. This seems to be a dilemma. The previous week when the diner was busy I photographed with no problems. With the large festive crowd and being on the move I was less obvious. This time the crowd was light, older and I set up in one spot. Makes you think of what Henri Cartier-Bresson said about taking pictures.

 

"Think about the photo before and after, never during. The secret is to take your time. The subject must forget about you."

 

"Anonymity is essential in overcoming the formal and unnatural behavior of those who were aware of being photographed."

 

I agree It helps to hang around the staff; let them know you and offer pictures. I did that one other time and had no problems. Of course I don't think you can influence a manager if a customer indicates they are uncomfortable.

While taking people pictures in a unique gas station/diner located on route 66

in Oklahoma the manager asked me to stop shooting unless I had a model

release. When this happens I act pleasant and stop photographing. Asking

permission is awkward and would seem to destroy spontaneity. If one was in a

large city you just move on to other opportunities. In this case I expected to

take 40 or 50 shots to get 3 images for display in one frame. Bummer as it

ruins a shooting day that was focused on a single project. What do others do

in this situation?? What are the rules concerning photo releases??

Jedidiah

 

You write; "I go through these phases every once in a while...(plus I think I just like to try new cameras, experience new things)...just getting tired of a clunky pro SLR with three lenses that weigh a ton to pack around...digital and film, sometimes 2 bodies at the same time. Ah, what has photography come to? :-)"

 

I think you are suffering from equipment boredom. Avoid slipping into equipment creep. If you wish to simplify and travel light use a MF 35mm. Landscapes normally have a large depth of field. You will gain nothing buying a G2 vs 1980 Minolta Glass if your shooting landscape at f/5.6 or f/8. I shot with a G2 with 35mm and only saw the difference at f/4.0 and below. A hood and tripod will make a big difference if your not using them. Simplify by shooting your XD-11 with 24mm. Minolta's 24 was terrific. It's the eye behind the camera and not so much the equipment.

Lukasz

 

I think your on the right path. I never owned an OM but I am very tempted due to the finder. Don't worry about the reliability of most SLRs from the 70s. I own a 1968 SR-T 101 bought new. It has had one CLA. My other SLR is an Minolta XE-1 which operates perfectly. I think most cameras can still be repaired for the minor stuff that happens. If they can't be repaired economically, they are cheap to replace in order to retain the low cost but high performance glass available in the 70s.

 

If you need to experience a rangefinder try the Konica S2.

Yes, those huge negatives next to miniature format trump any high dollar glass on 35mm. I have been shooting with the MP for most of the last 12 months but printed some recent negatives from the RF. Wow, FP-4 in Rodinal 1:75. It will be hard to go back using the MP if one can get the image on 120 film. The RF-645 imaging and ergonomics are outstanding.

What size is your enlargement? You should not see a difference in grain from 400 to 320. Check everything as others are posting. Ensure the developer remains at a constant temp by using a water bath (if required), use the same agitation pattern, enlarge on the same type paper, etc. Are you evaluating grain based on a comparison of similar tonal areas such as empty skies? Are the two prints of similar contrast as high print contrast reveals more grain.

I suggest the Film Developing Cookbook. A good print is dependent on good negatives. Both of Vestal's books are getting dated but worth reading just for his pearls of photographic wisdom. What shouts out in both The Craft of Photography and The Art of Black and White Enlarging is to lower the EI of Tri-X from 400 to 200/100. Your prints will be much improved vs shooting Tri-X at 400 or 320.

I think the issue may be finder flarefor the .85 model. Here is some info authored by E. Puts.

 

The current situation: M7 and MP

 

A solution to the flare problem is generally not that simple, without returning to the classical M3 finder design. The magnification factor is another: The 0.85 is more flare prone than the 0.72 and the best here is the 0.58.

 

Improvements have been made incrementally.

 

The M7 has already a number of improvements: coated windows and coated prisms and lenses inside the finder mechanism. This reduces the flare substantially. Some persons assert that the M7 improvements have been in stages (first the windows, later the prisms). This is not true: all improvements were done at once and in all models from the beginning of the production of the M7.

 

The MP has additional improvements: the curved mirror has a somewhat different shape and the mask now has a kind of light collector in front of the mask. (as stated in the MP brochure). This mirror-mask system can be retrofitted in M7 models and I assume in M6/M6TTL too. In principle even an M4P could benefit from this solution.

 

The MP finder is more contrasty than my old classic M6.

There is little difference between like generation SLR and RF Leica optics. Decide on the camera type which best supports the images you wish to make. For quality B&W enlargements above 9x12 at lowest price consider medium format; a Koni 6x7 rangefinder or Rolleiflex. I know MF was not mentioned but I have to throw reality in the mix. Since cost is an issue I suggest the Vlander system. The limiting factor is typically the photographer and not optics.

 

If you have the cash and must scratch the Leica itch try a M3 with a 3rd generation or newer Summicron or better yet KM-Konica or ZM-Zeiss 50mm. If you don't like the outfit sell it. Leica used M equipment has a market unlike most older SLRs and will retain value vs the Vlander. The previous advice to use a tripod and slow B&W film is critical to good image quality. Don't forget you need a good enlarging system.

The Minolta 7SII was made in 1977, after the CL design. I doubt the two lenses are the same. There was a discussion about this here http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FxXC

 

Joel Matherson Apr 8, 2006 wrote. "...The 40mm Rokkor for the Leitz Minolta CL was released at the exact same time as the Summicron in 1973. There is no proof where the design exactly originates. Now its true that the 7SII was made after the CL lenses were introduced but the 7S that preceeded it did come before them. Minolta had been making the fast 40mm lenses for Hi Matics for sometime prior. We also know Leica had every intention of equipping the CL with an Elmarit 40mm f2.8 whose optical perfomance wasnt up to scratch and was abandoned. Minolta always intended to put a faster 40mm lens on their version of the CL. Since Minolta already made faster 40's and Leica hadnt even attempted that focal length before (apart from the Elmarit that wasnt much chop) its more likely that it was more a Minolta design rather than a Leitz one and that when the Elmarit wasnt up to expectations they went with a similar lens to that Minolta had in mind. Since both CL 40's released at the same time and being identical in optical perfomance barrel design with the only difference being the filter thread size, its clear Minolta did not copy it but at very least Leitz and Minolta designed this lens together and made it together and even shared parts.

 

The lens in the 7SII was the last evolution of the 40mm f1.7 that Minolta had been making since the 60's. I consider it to be one of the best 40mm lenses placed in the fixed lens rangefinders of that period as its picture quality will attest too. Allan is right though that tolerance quality between the CL Rokkors and the 7SII are different but if both are within spec I doubt you could tell on an 8X10 without a very keen eye one picture from the other."

 

My speculation is Leitz went to Minolta for a quick fix after the Elmarit-C 40mm design error in which the aperture ring lever obstructed the viewfinder. Leitz and Minolta had been colaborating on close-up lenses years before and had a relationship. The bottom line is any of the Rokkor or Leica 40mm are terrific.

Rob, your correct, the 40mm Cron and 40mm Rokkor are somewhat different if the glass index is different. However, if you compare the optical design diagrams, they look the same. I am not aware of any tests which indicate one is practically better than the other.

 

The Cron is not multi-coated, perhaps it was not needed due to it's high refraction optical glass. Minolta probably used multiple coating on their 40mm for the CL and therefore could use glass with a different index and lower costs. Minolta was on the leading edge with their Achromatic (2 layer) Coating in the early 60s, years before Nikon started to multi-coat optics.

 

By the time the 40mm Rokkor CLE was produced Minolta was using multiple-layer coating to color match the light between different lenses for maybe 8 years. The coating reduces flare and ghosts, makes pictures sharper, with better contrast between adjacent light and dark areas. A test of 32 normal lenses, Popular Photography, May 1976, show similar light transmission values between a the 50mm summicron and normal MC Rokkor X.

 

The bottom line is users have not indicated an optical preference between the 40mm Rokkors or 40mm Summicron

One reason to carry the Leica is size. The optics should be small with a f/2.5 lens speed, 1m focus range, and classic 6/4 lens design.

Budget range is a relative term.

We need more information about what she means by not aligning well with the M camera. The M-Rokkor CLE has a M mount and standard M focusing cam. It slips on and focuses butter smooth with my MP. How can it not align well? What I read from old test results are the M-Rokkor CLE trades a tad center sharpness for better field performance on the edge. The older 40 Summicron and 40 Rokkor lens design was the same with the glass type being different. Minolta created and produced front rank optics in the 60s and 70s. They were one of a handful of camera firms who manufactured their own lenses.