jsbc

Thanks guys for your comments. I just talk to a dealer in HK and they would rather not order a custom-made silver 0.58x M7 for me. Maybe I have to contact Leica Solms directly.

On the other hand, maybe as Bishop says, I'm just looking for a convoluted solution. Is it possible just to switch the topplates, rather than the whole viewfinder mechanism. I know the old M6's top plate won't fit (out by 2mm), but I have a chrome .85x TTL that I would not use as often when I get the .58x. Are the two chrome top plates identical (aside from marking etc). I don't really care whether the rewind buttons etc match as long as I have a chrome top-plate. Or is the chrome M7 top plate available as a spare part?

Johnson

Thanks Lucien. Do I go through the dealers or should I talk to Leica directly? That reaon I thought of swapping viewfinders is that I know a gray market importer in HK who is selling the M7 for US$1800.

Johnson

Why not a 0.72x and a 1.25x problem to magnifier to solve your be both versatile and capable of critical focus?

The real question really is black or chrome? How do people decide?

I am thinking of purchasing a M7, but the version I want - chrome

0.58 VF is not available yet. I don't want a black 0.58 because (a)

it looks bad with my old chrome lenses (b) I am worried about the

black finish. I have a black Hexar RF and its black paint is almost

completely worn-off. Given the 0.58 would be my principal body, I

worry that scratch marks etc would turn this into a ugly one (I don't

mind brassing so much but zinc marks look really poor.)

Of course I can wait until the silver version is available, but that

could be years, if not months away. So I wonder whether it is

possible to get a chrome body 0.72 M7 and a black /chrome 0.58x M6TTL

and swap the finders. Then I can sell the M6TLL off.

However, I remember the M7 finders are somehow different - more flare

proof. What would happen if I change the finders? Which would be

flare-proned then, the M6TTL or the M7?

Johnson

The Fuji Mini-Zoom is quite good for a 28mm zoom. Likewise the Contax TVS. People also raged about the old Rollei. Finally, Leica is coming out iwth a PnS 28mm zoom.

Johnson

PS - if you are hauling a tripod, might as well use a cable release.

In fact, you can use a cable release even if you are not using a tripod - or a soft release.

But I should use scale focusing rater than hyperfocusing to perhaps cut the aperture to F8 and you can quadruple your shutter speed.

Johnson

I have both, and a T2 before that. Actually I prefer T2 out of the whole lot. T3 is nice and no doubt better all-round camera, but I just find that it is not as handholdable. Of course, don't expect to fit the minilux in the pocket. But I just prefer the Summarit lens on the Minilux - I don't know why, but I think it has better tonality (The T3 is more contrasty). Rendition of indoor scenes is just better without flash, and then its flash is more powerful. You have to put up with the quirky flash controls though.

If you just want one, do it all, in-pocket-at-all-times camera, it's the T3. but as an alternative, it may be advisable to get a Minilux for travel and Olympus epic for grocery shopping trips. The ideal pair of cameras to own would be a Ricoh GR1V with a Minilux. Personally, I think the perspective of a 40mm is not that different from a 35mm in actual usage if you have only ONE camera,but with a 28mm may be the difference is telling.<div></div>

Why?

The 24-85 is a better lens, for a small premium. What's 2mm difference (if you are into wides, a 20-35 zoom is also available). I once contemplated getting the 22-55 since edge sharpness and distortion matter less for APS or EOS digitals, but then you really can't use it for 24x36mm

Lomography is in one sense opposite of the simple version of Leica photography (shooting wideopen so you can get shallow depth of field, and fast enough shutter speed so the picture stays sharp). In fact with the Lomo, one would deliberately use a lower aperture to drag the shutter to 1/2 s or slower to get the blurry pictures.

That said, I think you can duplicate the Lomo with any AE camera, since setting the exposure takes time. (face it, unless you are really good, like Alfred Eisenstaedt who supposedly would walk down an shadow filled streets, with his hand unconsciously changing the aperture to adjust for exposures). An expensive reason to get a M7 or Hexar RF, but any Canonet will serve.

The only think I do not get is how they obtain such saturated pictures if they are not photoshopped. I can slightly under-expose Velvia (which is OK since the purpose is to drag the shutter anyway) but is there any convenient method to get similarly saturated prints? I just cannot believe the Lomo lens produces even more saturated photos than Leica or Zeiss can. Or are Lomo photographers using a special Russian film?

Johnson

I think which lens to get will depend primarily on how you intend to use your Leica. Given that it comes with a 50mm viewfinder, your default lens should be a 5cm one.

If this is for fun/factor, ultimately coolness, satisfying lifetime aspirations, then why dilute the pleasure to be derived by using offbrand lens? Nothing matches a Leica 5cm Elmar for true pocketability, slow deliberation since you have to pre-set the aperture, and authentic b&w. And most Elmars, though slow, produces acceptable pictures, and b&w have sufficient latitude for most usages. yes, the collapsible Summicron takes much better pictures (but still not as good as modern lens), but it makes the camera front-heavy .

If you intend to use this camera as a primary photo-taking device, because you relish the immediacy of using a rangefinder etc, then get a skopar 50F2.5. Quality may not be the best , but it will definitely beat all the Leica lens of the 1950's era or earlier, and you will have good pictures that justify your investments. Then you can pick up a Russian Industar collapsible for as little as $20 to find out what it may be like with an Elmar.

For wider angles such as 35mm, you will have some choices (including the Russian ones) but for 25mm or wider nothing touches the quality Cosina Voigtlaender on an absolute or price-adjusted basis.

Johnson

The premise is, Kelly, whether you have a functional body to begin with. :o)

Anyhow, it seems that the Bessa R has had some QC problems. So far however, I haven't heard many complaints regarding the Bessa T. So I wonder what the real situation is with the Bessa R2. (I'm thinking more about this because I have set my sights on the Bessa-R2S as a backup for my SP).

Otoh, so times I think it may just be bad luck. I have had a Hexar RF for 2 years. After a year of usage, the VF ocular lens just drop off while I was in Paris. So no camera for a week. I got it replaced in HK (a month after warranty expired), and lost the damn piece the very next day. Finally got my third ocular piece, and it has stayed on the camera for the past 12 months. Is this just bad luck? Dunno.

Johnson

Incidentally, Ray, HOW did you take this picture? Did you crop it?

The reason I ask is that this image has a relatively shallow depth of field that one would not normally associate with small PnS digitals given their small image sensor and accompanying small CoC.

Johnson

My experience is Chrome is more resistant to scratches (I don't mind bright marks so much).

Also by your logic, Chris, you should opt for the chrome body since both black/silver lens look good on chrome bodies.

Personally I agree with Bill that SOME silver lens look gorgeous on blackbodies, but this is very model specific. You must be careful about the pairing. Chrome collapsible on a black IIIf is also very handsome.

That said, I prefer BLACK modern lenses since they are lighter (and some like the Trielmar only comes in black). Which means I should opt, for max utility and good looks in the morning after, for a chrome M-body.

Johnson

I like my M-cameras as they are. They are not even M7's.

I agree with previous posts that, now that they have come up with a full frame sensor, they would have surmounted most of the difficulties Leica cited against a M-version (OK, maybe they are still valid for extreme wide-angles, but I will settle for a 1.5x magnification factor). In fact, a small 6MP sensor would help Leica push the wide-angle lens.

If they do come up with this digital camera, I hope they have a separate version where instead of a rangefinder, the camera has a electronic viewfinder with a magnification on demand so that I can use it like a SLR for the long lenses.

Imagine - one set of lens for rangefinder and SLR-type work.

And I will have justification to buy the C/V 12mm.

Johnson

This is a tougher quesiton than I thought. There are many interesting, one camera-one lens combo for me. Jeff manages to avoid using lens...

In my case, for purity utility, I would choose my D-30 (a 1D would be nicer) and either the 17-35mm F2.8 (28-52mm equiv) or 24-85mm. No film - and I can choose between ISO100-1600 on the fly.

The truth is, when I travel with just one camera, for portability I would pick the Minilux with its fabulous Summarit lens. Probably for the same reasons why many people choose the Hexar AF. but I don't have a Hexar AF so I can't comment. Film would be Superia 400, which produces the right amt of saturation and contrast with the Minilux (but not with any other camera).

Johnson

But if it's about fun factor, nothing beats a M6 TTL with a 35mm Lux. Film would be Reala 100 or Agfa Optima 400. Esp for street photography, which is my pref.

There, I own up. I am hopelessly addicted to equipment.

Johnson<div></div>

The slopes are very tricky if you are visiting in winter.

There's a story that 30 years ago, when Huangshan is still relatively virgin territory, someone discovered an abandoned Nikon perched on a tripod on one of the cliffs. But no photographer to be seen. Anyhow, the officials developed the film and discovered that most of the photos were self-portraits / touristy shots taken with, presumably the self-timer. They even advertised the photos on the Oriental Daily in Hong Kong, but no one came forward to claim the photos...

Last time I was in Huangshan was 20 years ago. I was much fitter then but still found it quite a hike. I did not take many photos.

My advice is travel with all your equipment that you'll need, including a new sturdy tripod. Then get a porter to carry it all (for US$40 a day).

Johnson

Personally I would stay away from such wide-ranging zooms due to problems over images, esp at such small apertures, focusing is difficult and image will blur due to camera shakes. I have sold a Tamron 28-200 which I had originally bought for the conveniences. I think it is worth saving to get a real telephoto. So if you buy a mega-zoom, I would say spend as little as possible.

With a S1 with its 1.5x mag factor, a 200mm would be used like a 300m equiv. And a 300m would be well, 450mm. Do you need all that reach?

Secondly, assuming that image quality is similar, Look through the viewfinder and change the focal length. For my part, I find the change from 200m to 300m to be minimal. Does that justify a 150% premium? Only you can decide.

Johnson

PS

My Summar is surprisingly a clean copy with no haze and hardly any cleaning marks.

No flash is used in any of the pictures. I will try the lens out with Velvia.

Hi all:

Just uploaded some sample photos taken with the 50mm Summar. They are taken using Kodak Gold 100. (I have to apologise for the quality of these pictures ¡V I did them using my home monitor whose calibration is off. Thus the actual prints that I have are darker and more contrasty than the jpegs).

Nevertheless, from the first shot, you should be able to see the rendition of the lens. Image is low-saturation, but the central characters just pop out of the foliage, basking in a sort of Leica glow. This is not just due to shallow DoF, and the effect is subtler than in some of the modern lens. But very nice.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=249279

However, do not use it against the sun. In the second picture, you can see the effect of a non-coated lens. But the Summar seems to suffer more than other lens of the same generation. I have increased the saturation and contrast so you can see what¡¦s in the picture, the actual print is much worse.

I have compared this with a shot taken with a 35mm Summilux ASPH using the same aperture and shutter speed. Well what can one say? The 35 lux is an amazing hunk of glass.

So, the Summar has its place, but it will not be the only lens I carry. I endeavour to do more testing in B&W.

Johnson

I agree with Jeff's remark that the lighting can be improved. Either with flash (it may be a Leica faux-pas, but it is useful) or get closer and open a stop...

Where do you find good lighting in the freaking subway?

Incidentally, I recall that Jeff Spirer has a similar photo of a woman stepping out of a subway car that works. Don't know where that is now though.

Johnson

Third one on a NEC LCD screen.

Mind you, traditionally the images on this screen is brighter than on the Trinitron I have at home. Currently I am in an office illuminated with bright florescent lights. There is a large window right beside me and the light is relatively cold (it's bright overcast outside).

Johnson

Much like the rangefinder-vs-SLR type debates, maybe it is a case of the choosing the best tool for getting the image - whether this decision is based on 1) colour 2) sharpness 3) ergonomics 4) shutter lag etc.

As Scott Eatons says (not a direct quote) - The main commonality between digital/analog afficonados is the desire for quality. Different horse for different course.

Another powerful motivation is simply efficiency.

Johnson

Yes it is mostly about the glass, not the body... only if the body does it part... ie working shutter speed, good VF etc

In fact, with the Bessa R2, you may have more accurate shutter speeds than probably 50% of the outstanding M3's. And yes, you can even frame your 35mm Summilux without a separate viewfinder.

So far, no complains about the film-to-flange distance.

Some may say the M's have better ergonomics. No dispute there except for the cluttered framelines. But it is the images that matter. Although I have neither cameras, I would prefer to use current Leica glass on Bessa R2 bodies and get the photos right than to use older LTM glass on M7's with its silent shutter and get low-contrast, flare-proned shots determined by AE. But this is just my personal preference.

Johnson

But how would you use this device? It is likely to be dim (esp if the gg is plastic) and in fact for long-lenses it would not even be good for framing because the OOF areas will be completely blurred.

And if you are using it handheld, every time you hold up the lens, the position of the device relative to your eyes would be different. You would then need a loupe for critical focusing. Then what? Can you detach the lens very carefully without upsetting the focus ring, reattach it to your camera, and then hold the camera so that the film plane is exactly 3.54 inch from your face because that was where the ground glass was previously positioned? All the time making sure that your arms would not shake, and that the camera is positioned that it doesn't tilt (ie it faces exactly the same direction as the lens), even though this means you cannot use the viewfinder on the camera since it is so far away.... This will be partly mitigated if your are using a tripod, but I think your focusing and framing would be off even more than using the M's viewfinder in the first place. Incidentally many people complained that with the old IIIf and IIIg's, it was difficult to work do narrow dof work because shifting the mere act of moving the eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder would introduce huge errors in focusing.

I don't think I would be interested in such a device. It may make more sense to carry one of the Tamron / Toking 24-200 zoom lens on, say, a Canon Rebel body, carefully calibrate it against your existing lens, and use it as a framing guide. You'll even have a backup camera then.