j.martin___

<p>Kelly, they all had names -- but not "brand names" like you mentioned. I will say that the generic from B&H -- CTA, I think -- worked well until it died a gentle and natural death. The annoying, but no harm, ones resulted from a reorder of a battery that had worked well. The reordered ones were duds, just not lasting very long. The one that led me back to the name brand, and I do take your point that there is nothing magical about the Epson name on the battery (although I could do with the cachet of the Leica name), caused the shutter to freeze while everything else seemed to be still powered on. I was able to reset things, maybe too much (the total number of exposure counter reset). As I said, I bought the one extra Epson-branded one from Matsuyiastore, and then got two more when I bought my second camera -- so I'm okay for a while. If I do need one in the future, I will consider your recommendations.</p>

<p>I bought one from the Matsuiya Store online last year. I haven't checked their website recently as to continued availability, since when I bought a second body (used), it came with two Epson batteries. I have had mixed experiences with generics, with the bad outweighing the good. From reading posts here, and on other websites, other people have had better experiences (and a few worse.)</p>

Here is a link to the rumour of a Nikon digital rangefinder.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=24836605

 

I don't know what to compare it to. I had a Contax T2 which allowed quasi-manual focusing with a digital rangefinder.

 

I would find the low-light capabilities of the Nikon sensor very attractive.

There is an article by Anthony Lane in the New Yorker currently (September 17)

available online called: Candid Camera: The Cult of Leica

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane

I recently rescued some images from a defective SD card with photorescue. I highly recommend it:

http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue

Those interested in Alex Webb's work might be interested in knowing he is teaching a workshop at the Woodstock Photographic Workshops in late August.

 

http://www.cpw.org/WPW/wpw2007.html

Thanks for the link to the radio interview (PBS). I agree that the interview was good. More surprising to me was that the call-in portion was also intelligent and informative.

Thanks for the link. I thought it was worthwhile.

But, maybe it was because the camera is on him, but I didn't think the bob and weave syle made him look invisible. But then again maybe that's how people walk down the street in New York.

I have one and rarely use it. To be frank, when I wanted a 35mm angle of view, I was more likely to reach for my Stylus Epic (since stolen). I found the 35 F2 to be relatively large, and I never liked how it felt.

I do have the R-D1, but have not been able to afford any Leica lenses. I have been using CV and Canon lenses. I do, however, use Macs, and can answer that part of your question. There is no problem with compatibility. Both the Epson PhotoRaw standalone software and the Photoshop plug-in work fine on the Mac. I also use an early version of Raw Developer.

 

Sean Reid's review of the R-D1 on Luminous Landscape, remains the best place to start in terms of a comprehensive review:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml

 

His paysite is also recommended, because it has detailed comparisons of various lenses on the R-D1:

http://reidreviews.com/reidreviews/

 

And Rangefinderforum.com has extensive discussions, and user experiences, not all of them happy.

 

Personally, I have wonky framelines on mine, and an inaccurate battery guage (not as serious as it seems, because it still lets me know before the battery is dead). But I have had mine since March 2005 and have no regrets about buying it. However, if I were you, I would wait until after Photokina, to see if Zeiss comes out with a digital RF, and what the price is, if it does come out.

I would love to see the Winogrand interview as well. In the meantime though, I just re-read Winogrand's interview with Barbara Diamonstein, which is online at:

http://elmo.academyart.edu/study/ph101/Required%20reading/Winogrand%20Interview.htm

 

A Leica is not a shovel:

 

"D: Have you ever had any particularly difficult assignments or photographic moments?

 

W: ... I don't think of it as difficult. It would be difficult if I were carrying something heavy, but I carry Leicas. You can't talk about it that way. I'm not operating a shovel and getting tired."

 

Diamonstein's "Visions and Images: American Photographers on Photography" is one of my favourite books on photography. Worth looking for.

I can understand buying a scanner and then selling the OM equipment, especially since the choice is buying another film camera. After all, I used my scanner purchase to rationalize my purchase of a digital camera -- in my case, the Epson R-D1 -- on the basis that I could focus on scanning my older slides and negatives, while not adding to the pile.

 

However, I did not sell my OM-4Ti and 40mm, or any other of my OM equipment, although no one has tempted me with 800 pounds. Rather my rationale is that the SLR can do things with macro and telephoto that my rangefinder won't do.

 

I am not familiar with SP or the lens. If you do a search, you will find a few discussions of the 40mm for the OM. It is not particularly good wide open (for band shots in bars, I much prefer my either my Nokton 50mm at 1.5 or Voigtlander Color Skopar at 2.5). So I'm not sure how much worse the SP lens would be wide open than the 40mm. On the other hand, stopped down, the 40mm has its charms, and scans of the 40mm with a film like 400UC can be very nice indeed.

 

Does the scanner you bought do medium format? If not, that might be another reason to pass on the MF option, and keep the OM since you seem to have the lighting for it for your studio needs.

You shouldn't have problems bringing the cameras and laptop in. I wouldn't give your profession as a photographer or journalist though. Crime is increasing, but Cuba is still relatively safe.

 

If you haven't already found it, you might want to have a look at the Cuba forum in Lonely Planet's Thorntree site. There are some very knowledgeable people contributing there. You can read the existing posts or post this question there. They will also be able to give you a more accurate view on the crime situation. Recent posts suggest that thefts from hotel rooms are common.

 

http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/categories.cfm?catid=14

 

I don't know about getting into schools and workplaces. The guide suggestion makes sense. On that Lonely Planet site a guide named Pototo who can be reached via a poster named Cuba Junky has received good reviews. I don't have any personal experience with him though.

 

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/cuba

Me, I had to use my OM2.

 

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/image/51079502

I was in Bolivia in November 2001. I did get a roll or two of 800 ISO film developed in La Paz. At that time there was a chain of photo shops in the city simply called "AGFA". I assume they were owned by the local Agfa distributer. I used the large outlet in the centre of the city across from the main square. It was busy and it looked clean. The results were fine; no scratches or other problems. I don't know what the situation is with Agfa C-41 machinery and chemicals after the Agfa's collapse or withdrawal or whatever.

 

That said, I did take most of my film home with me to develop. My recollection is that I was able to get hand inspection at the airports in La Paz and Sao Paolo, but not in Miami (this was November 2001, remember). I had no problems with any of that film.

 

I have travelled since then, and have simply had film pass through the carry-on xray machines without problems.

 

I would opt for taking the film home to your trusted processor for developing.

 

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/bolivia

I think Rob F.'s wish to be able to compose on the screen isn't so far-fetched. A welding of Olympus/Panasonic's new technology in this regard with a digital RF would be a good idea. Especially if the LCD could be twistable to allow for top down viewing (like in a TLR).

 

Also, I agree that the R-D1's 800 is very usable. The 1600 isn't bad either when shooting black&white.

As has been mentioned, simply walking up and down and around the city will give you great opportunities to get the type of shots you mentioned you are interested in. If you go to the mummy museum, I suggest you at least have a look at the panteon just beside it. I found it very interesting -- sort of a filing cabinet style cemetery -- but then I had never seen anything like that before.

 

I think you are making a good choice in basing yourself in Guanajuato and seeing Dolores Hidalgo and San Miguel from there. When I visited Dolores there were very few other tourists.

 

You might also want to visit coming back to life ghost-town Pozos.

 

For food in Guanajuato, I really liked Truco 7.

 

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40.mexico

The 50 1.8 is a good lens, but as previously mentioned, some variants of it are really good. My choice for a second lens would be the 100 2.8 which KEH often has at a good price. I think it represents the best combination of quality/price in the 85-100 range. It is also very compact.

 

There is a discussion about the 40mm on the Olympus forum. I have one, don't regret buying it when I did, but if I didn't have one, I wouldn't buy it now. I like the angle of view, but the last 50mm I bought new for $39 is at least as good, if not better, than the 40mm for which I paid more than 10 times that.

I like the Harper one with the monitors.

For Tories at an earlier time:<div></div>

I believe its price is related to its rarity. I had never heard of it until I read a Camera and Darkroom magazine article about it, after it had become rare. It wasn't an expensive lens to start. Apparently a lot of them were scooped up by Hollywood for conversion to motion picture lenses, which was a prime factor in it becoming hard to get.

 

I bought one when near its peak price and the Canadian Dollar's nadir from KEH. Can't remember exactly. Think around $400 U.S. I don't think it's great wide open. I do like the angle of view though (as I did on the 38mm Contax T2.) I also much prefer its feel to the Zuiko 35mm F2. But I have to agree that in terms of quality, the Zuiko 50 1.8, the last ones which I bought for $39 Cdn, are just as good.<div></div>

If it's just been overhauled, I think the odds are against something bad happening. I would strongly recommend the 100 2.8 and like the 50 and tht lens as a travel kit. I would also take the XA.

 

I also have the 200mm, which I don't use much. Why don't you try it out in the next couple of weeks, decide how much you think you would use that length, and how much you like that lens.

 

I have had good experiences with the two zuikos I bought from KEH.

I was in Bolivia for four weeks about four years ago. In addition to the places you mentioned, I also went to Sucre, Tupiza, Copacabana and Isla del Sol. I travel fairly light, don't do wildlife, and just took a Mamiya 7 with 3 lenses and a Contax T3. I did take a tripod, which I should have used more. I took Reala both in 35mm and 220mm formats, and used 400 ISO Agfa films, primarily because at the time the Canadian dollar was the pits and Agfa was cheap in Canada. I ran out of 35mm in Bolivia and bought Kodak Gold 100 there. I am not familiar with HQ 200. I would choose Kodak 400 UC as a faster film. I don't think that 200 will give you the speed boost you need when you need it, and 400 UC is a very good film. Fuji NPH is also very good.

 

You can see some of my pix at:

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/bolivia

 

For travel advice, you should check the South America branch of Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree. I don't know the conditions on the Salar in March. Is there water cover; could make for some amazing reflections and some tough travel if there is.

 

When I was there, there was a good place to get film developed in La Paz. It was called Agfa, so I suppose it was probably owned by the local distributor. It was a chain, and the one I used was a large store across from a church (San Francisco) I don't know what changes there may have been given Agfa's collapse.

 

For the Salar, metering will be tricky. Use a grey card or spot metering if possible.

 

Bolivia is amazing and you should come back with some good pictures.<div></div>

I would schlep it with you. I did -- (kit was OM4 and 2 lenses and Mamiya 7 and 2 lenses). The fun part is squatting on the shakey train with water rolling back and forth on the floor.

 

That said, the trains are a great way of getting around. And better for your heart and blood pressure than buses (some drivers think Danger Explosives means if you can read this you're still not close enough.)

I agree completely with Richard S.

I have both the 85mm and the 100 2.8 and prefer the latter. I have had better results using the 100mm at 2.8 than the 85mm stopped down to 2.8. It may be as Richard S. mentioned, that the 100mm is easier to focus.

Anyway, while I was originally hesitant to buy the 100mm as it seemed too close to the 85mm which I already had, I have had no regrets. It is a gem.

I have been to Mexico 12 or 13 times, and I have never had trouble bringing film in, often with more than 12 rolls. I generally take them out of the boxes, which is more space-efficient anyway.