jsbc

I have quite a few screwmounts (OK quite a number) but I have 6 M-mount bodies.

1) a black Leica M4-P

2) a black Leica M6

Then I thought a CL would be nice because it is so compact

Then I thought a chrome M6 TTL would be nice because it has a .85x vf

Then I thought a Hexar RF would be nice given the AE and 0.6x VF

And then the M7 came out.

If I get to start again, I'll probably just get a .72x M7 (with a 1.25x magnifier) and a .6x Hexar RF.

Most confusing

Canon GIII not the G3 digital one

the leica m's exude craftsmanship than the VC's cannot compete. Does it matter? To me yeah. Will it affect your pictures? Nah!

You are sufficiently accomplished photographer to know what focal lengths you prefer. The .72 is way more flexible if you use 35mm often.

Can you tall the difference between VC & latest Leica glass? The difference is minor if you are shoot at f5.6 or above. But wide open, this is a different story. I have always shot Leica (a combination of old and new glasses, and found that they were superb due to rangefinder design but I also found the Contax G-lenses great) But the 35mm ASPH lux was an epiphany, It is so sharp and phenomenal wide-open that for me at least, it is the raison d'etre of owning the Leica system.

Voigtlander lenses are good, but the latest generation Leica lenses are better!

The primary reason to get into the Leica system is the lenses. Kee Hor, you are a good photographer who should know this.

The M6's and more recent cameras (metered) are very user-friendly and for a user (not collector) remarkably similar. The difference between a M6 and say, a CV R2 is much greater than that which exists between various generations of M's.

If they have only release a fast 45mm or 50mm F2.0 (even if one with a smaller image circle, just covering standard 24mmX36mm film area) to go with the camera in case F4.0 is just too slow.

This is one system whcih will definitely benefit from a C/V lenses.

They are good lenses, and the speeds ar equivalent. So i think it all depends on what other lenses you carry.

If you frequently use the 35mm F1.4? then I suspect the 25mm would indeed be a better match.

I usually rely on two sets of lenses (depending on usages): 15mm -25mm- 35mm

or 21mm-28mm-50mm . Do it really depends on the angle of view you prefer.

1) Focus is hard. You better make sure you have adequate dof

2) You much like the portriat orientation.

I would say it is an ingenious device. but can't imagine any nice 85mm F1.8 would be any worse.

Felix asks us why this person is living in a hood, and then reject the answers.

So I ask myself Why? Is Felix doing this to get attention? I don't know. It's not that Felix, as he himself admits, is really interested.

But putting all that concerned and rhetorical prose up when the motivation is to get us to look at the "wall, the graffiti colors and the replica architectural Roman entrance" shot with a telephoto is a cheap trick.

My wife had a Super Mini that she liked. Most of the shots were shot at the 28mm end. I bought her a GR-1v which she really liked.

Btw, at what setting does your wife mostly take her shots? Either the GR-1 of T3 are good contenders

I do shoot colour in street photography, but I tended to use print film.

1) its cheaper, and printing the few keepers is cheaper than processing an entire roll of slide

2) I used a non-metered camera so a print film is more forgiving in exposure

3) ISO400 print films vs ISO 100 slides enables me to greater dof or hyperfocal techniques.

http://www.geocities.com/jsbc1/China_StreetPhotography/China_StreetPhotography.html

Depends on what you use the cameras for.

Also depends whether the budget is for camera plus one lens or an antire system.

If it is the former, then you have some rich choice. If it is the latter, then it is hardly enough.

If I have $2000 and I'm starting anew, then it is either (1) HEXAR AF plus a 35 cron, or (2) D60 plus a couple of lens or (3) a Rolleiflex 2.8F, plus a Ricoh GR1 for snaps. The last one is the most appealing combo.

But's that's just me.

This is a totally useless answer for you probably, but it is no worse than walking into a camera shop and be swayed by the sales. At least you are doing the research.

Problem with my flatbed (an old Epson with transparency adapter) is that it is hopeless when dealing with curved film. The flimsy film holder is just not heavy enough to ensure the film stays flat. As a result, even I can tell that, for a concave film, there's at least a 2mm height difference between the centre and edges.

Surprisingly, so far it seems to work for proof scans but I always wonder whether (1) the centre is properly focused (2) this introduces a barrel distortion to the image.

Are the new flatbeds (such as Epson 3200) better in dealing with this?

don't know about that junk bit? or was that your sign-off.

One may not like the VC meter, but it is pretty neat.

As for the lenses, the newer 28 F3.5 lenses have pretty good built quality, in my opinion.

Then again, people must have laughed when Yashica started to build Contax cameras. The Japanese Contax are some of the best built cameras around. This is true even when it comes to the PnS, T3 vs err., Leica C3?

In my mind, for candid shots, nothing beats a 35mm F1.4 (be it Leica, Nikon etc). Aside from the optimal angle of view, with the large aperture, focal length, and depth of field, you can handhold it at much dimmer light.

that said, my experience is that a beginner may usually find it challenge to approach people close enough for candids and would prefer a longer lens.In this case, a 50F1.4 would be better (though the 50F1.8 would function as well). For a 85 F1.8, you be limited to head-shots for candids. Sans flash, you also need to handhold it at 1/125s, and shoot at F2.8 to get a decent dof. That's pretty bright conditions, meaning at least a 4-stop difference when compared to a 35mm at F1.4 and 1/30s, or a two-stop difference with a 50mm at F2 and 1/60s.

of course if you still want a zoom, and you are a canon use, then maybe a 28mm-135mm with its image stabilization. but this would be essentially an overlap with your 28mm-105.

Jon:

I ahve the M7 and I use it just as I would use my Leicas. A rangefinder is definitely easier to focus in low light. And a interchangeable lens system is marvellous - if you are a Leica user, you probably like ultra-wides too, esp when travelling - and the 43mm and 50mm lenses are incredible.

The 2.8FX has a fast lens, but with a TLR, unless one uses the magnifier, it is hard to focus accurately. (I don't have a FX, only several F's but they have the Maxwell screens installed so when focusing they are no different). People always say you can also handhold the Rolleiflex's to a very slow speed, but in my experience, the Mamiya works out much better. It is vibration free, but it is not very easy to hold the camera still at low speed.

When composing, the Rolleiflex is just like the blad, and just as slow. I like it sometimes because I am a tall person 6'1" and doing street photography or shooting my friends with a rangefinder or slr I have to crouch to get them properly centred. A TLR is better in this respect.

Also, with only a 80mm, the Rolleiflex may be constraining if used on the road.

First, I definitely would recommend getting the Maxwell screens.

I bought a 2.8F and a 3.5F a month ago, and after talking to Bill, I ended up getting both screens. Bill recommends (in a very implicit way) that the Brilliance Matte. My experience is slightly different. My feeling is that the magnifier is necessary if you intend to shoot the rolleiflex at less than F5.6.

Nothing wrong with the Brilliance Matte, but the Micro/Split is definitely easier to use with the magnifier, or with a prism. If you intend to use it at waist level, the prism is less useful since the collar is so small that you would not be able to discern clearly whether the top and bottom halves of the images coincide.

The Planar's depth of field is so narrow that I have mis-focused at F2.8. But with a magnifier and the Micro/Split, I can use the Rolleiflex for precise focusing, just like a SLR. If you shoot at F8 or higher, then the DoF would cover focusing errors, of course and you need not worry about focusing. Even the original Rolleiclear screen would do well in these circumstances.

The Brilliance Matte would probably be better if you stick to waist level focusing, but the Micro/Split RF screen is identical minus the tiny, 1/8th inch centre.

Johnson

To be perfectly honest, the Rolleiclear screens were pretty good. I just bought a 2.8D and a MX and I can tell you, those screens are hardly usable after shooting with a Maxwell. I am thinking of getting a Micro/Split RF for the 2.8D. That should tell you my preference. The split-prism may be unslightly if you are using the camera at waist-level, but function-wise it is useful.

My Rolleiflex images are at:

http://www.geocities.com/jsbc1/PhotoDirectory/rolleifleximages/index.htm

A rolleiflex 2.8F, just black and chrome. Even more beautiful when you include parts like the Rolleifix (isn't that an art deco work of art) and Rolleikin (which is an elegant solution to a useless problem).

Some of the other accessories, such as the design of the waist level finder, are also ingenious.

Actually I wouldn't mind a M-compatible, even one with a 1.5x CCD. But if that's the case, please give us a electronic rangefinder 9which has bulilt-in magnifier for precise focusing).

What with the 12mm, 15mm, 21mm, 24mm out there, this digicam will be usable in its own right, save for the very wide-ange shots.

The really interesting thing would be putting a 135mm F3.5 and the use the electronic viewfinder to focus and frame. then you will have a circa 200mm F3.5 for long-shots. ideal companion for a M7. right now I have to carry a whole different slr setup when I travel to get the long distance shots.

Au contrare, I think photography (maybe even digital-imaging) is less demanding than painting because Tom Dick and Harry can execute it without the talent and years of practice it takes to pick up great painting techniques. In that sense, painting is more abstract and reliant on the skills of execution of the artist. The artist is also liberated from the constraints fo lighting, actual material etc so painting is a more pure form of art.

On the other hand, since anybody can press the shutter, one can say photography, since it require less skills at execution, it is more about the timing and vision of the artist at the time of pressing the shutter. Some great photographs are consequently very hard to do.

Loading and lack of meter is the greatest challenge to using a IIIf, but not insuperable.

Too bad the new Leica screw-mount lenses have disappeared. The old ones, such as the 90mm Elmar and 50 collapsible summicrons (the 50 elmar is fun but F3.5 is just too slow for slides). The Summicron is actually a bit heavy, but there are plenty of Cana, Russian and Cosina wideangles available for the lens selection is not bad for a 'fun' camera rather than a professional one.

On Loading; I use to pre-cut the leaders, but this is a bit of a pain if you are travelling with another 35mm setup such as a SLR. On one or two instances, the leader actually broke, and one specific case, caused a split in the film all the way to the 36th frame.

I now take my time and load the film using a business card, and just fire one or two frames with the bottom removed to check whether the teeth of the loader catch the sprokets. Don't have any problems with film-loading anymore.

Johnson