rick_keir
-
Posts
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by rick_keir
-
-
<p>A non-obvious advantage of the focusing tab on the Leica wide angle lenses is it aids in zone focusing. If you know where focus is when the tab is at 4 o'clock, 6 o'clock, etc., you can zone focus without even looking at your camera, an important trick in many journalistic and street photography situations. Medium format lenses aren't common for this kind of street shooting, but a focusing ring gives you the leverage for smoother control of a heavy lense. These days, good autofocus eliminates many uses of zone focusing, and the stock viewfinder screen in DSLRs isn't all that well designed for manual focus anyway (that's why people buy Katzeye screens) so tabs don't make much sense.</p>
-
<p>An external viewfinder can be very useful if you use an EVIL camera like the Olympus E-P1. LCD screens aren't very usable in bright sunlight. I used mine with the 17mm (34mm equiv) viewfinder on a trip to the desert, and even when I was using the 14-42 zoom it helped a lot - I learned quickly how to estimate what 14 and 42 were in relation to the view I got from the viewfinder. It would have been great to have this with the 80mm view.</p>
-
<p>Worth noting: the Minolta 90 f4 and the Elmar/C were both made by Leitz, a rare case of Leica being rebadged as something else. An advantage of the Minolta is a more standard filter thread (40.5) as opposed to the Elmar/C's use of Series 5.5 filters. I have the Elmar/C and finding filters was a pain. The Minolta also may sell for slightly less, because it doesn't have the magic "Leica" name on it.</p>
-
<p>The 3/4/5/6 T filters, last I looked, went for too much money on eBay, demonstrating the economic argument that winning an auction means losing, since you just paid more than anyone else thought the item was worth. If you have some patience, you can find these at KEH at a price better than eBay will offer. You'll need to check every day (bookmark the page) because they don't last. But the price is better.</p>
-
<p>The 3/4/5/6 T filters, last I looked, went for too much money on eBay, demonstrating the economic argument that winning an auction means losing, since you just paid more than anyone else thought the item was worth. If you have some patience, you can find these at KEH at a price better than eBay will offer. You'll need to check every day (bookmark the page) because they don't last. But the price is better.</p>
-
<p>The 3/4/5/6 T filters, last I looked, went for too much money on eBay, demonstrating the economic argument that winning an auction means losing, since you just paid more than anyone else thought the item was worth. If you have some patience, you can find these at KEH at a price better than eBay will offer. You'll need to check every day (bookmark the page) because they don't last. But the price is better.</p>
-
<p>Not necessarily recommending the Nikon 18-70 for your needs, given that you have an 18-55 kit lense, but if you buy one, be aware that Adorama has them used for less than $200, KEH has them used for $250. B&H doesn't have them today but it's worth checking there too if you buy one. All three of these stores routinely get recommended by Photo.net members (see the "Community" tab) and I have been happy with used purchases from all of them.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't buy a lense, I'd rent it. Birding needs BIG lenses according to every enthusiast I've ever talked to, and if you're like me you won't use a big lense or carry it on every week (I live in a city). I need big glass maybe 1, 2 weeks a year when I'm someplace like Point Reyes, the rest of the time it would just sit around.<br>
A site like lensrentals or rentglass will have an assortment of lenses you can use. For example, one of them has the Nikon 300mm f4.0 for $81 for a week, insured. There are other choices.<br>
If you're working out of a car weight won't be much of an issue but if you are hiking a big lense on top the weight of camera, tripod etc. can be annoying, so look at that factor too when you choose lenses to try.</p>
-
<p>It's a result of the constant improvement production philosophy. If you get a copy of Dechert's book, you'll see variations that might have only been made for, say, 3 months and 600 total copies before something got upgraded. A second factor is that since things were made by hand, some variations are probably the result of the desire to use up the supply of a certain part (viewfinder assembly, film advance lever, etc.) and so some transitional models are really just the new model with some old parts being used up. Cameras in the 1950s were built by hand, and it was a lot easier to produce variations than it was in later years. Leicas still have that "bespoke" quality, with lots of variations like the original Leica MP, or the 10 M bodies in the special hammertone paint job that the factory turned out for an unnamed customer that didn't take them, creating an instant collectible (the LHSA later had a run made in this paint style also).</p>
-
<p>As far as what pro photographers need to do, it's fairly clear that most pros who do weddings or journalism are expected to do video more and more. If you're at the top of your field, no, otherwise yes.</p>
<p><br /> As far as camera design goes, it seems clear that the video functions aren't proving a major barrier to the evolution of the DSLR. Look at any extensive product line (i.e., not Leica, which is an extreme case) and the video capable DSLRs are priced right about where "this year's model" should be, with about as much improvement as can be expected for that price point in other areas, like low ISO performance.</p>
<p><br /> As far as whether or not you need it, it's a personal preference. You don't have to be a good video photographer to get some benefit from the feature. Recently, I was photographing some gadgets, and shot a little video along with the stills to illustrate how the parts moved. Not great art, but useful. Also recently, I was at a friend's, after the party had officially ended and I was taking a few portrait shots of my friends and their kids, when suddenly the oldest daughter grabbed her mom and pulled her out into the living room floor to waltz around the room with the music. I had my Nikon D90 so I quickly flipped over to video and captured those few minutes where mother and daughter danced. A home movie subject, again not "art", but meaningful to that family, and better for having the music and motion in it than just a random still image.</p>
-
<p>As others have mentioned, there's no easy way to put a "best" designation on a lens without knowing what your purpose is. Galen Rowell often shot with one of Nikon's cheap consumer zooms, because "best" for him sometimes included "very light weight so can run full speed thru the Himalayas to catch the sunset".</p>
<p>A good starting point is Thom Hogan's ten page essay on the Nikon current lense lineup, which is at http://bythom.com/rationallenses.htm, attempting to answer the question of "best" for various assumptions (FX vs DX, economy vs pro), plus what's "best" at every focal length, for some values of best. Surf his site a bit, as his individual reviews also grapple with the question of what it means to call a specific lense good or bad.</p>
<p>Bjørn Rørslett has a great many reviews at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html which I'd read after looking at Thom Hogan's overviews. </p>
<p>Both Bjørn<strong> </strong>and Thom are widely respected on this forum, aka they're not just some guy who likes to write. That doesn't mean they're always the final answer, but it does mean they're good starting points.</p>
-
<p>Much of David Douglas Duncan's work. Virtually all of his work in Korea, much of his work at the Republican & Democratic National conventions in 1968, some of his Vietnam work (if I recall correctly, in Vietnam he said he was using a Nikon F with the 200mm f4, and a pair of custom built Leicas for almost everything else).<br>
See http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/ddd/gallery/conventions/ for examples.</p>
-
<p>You can also use a black tile - see http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-assignment-shoot-your-shiny-new.html</p>
-
<p>A really great chart/guide to the voigtlander lenses from Steven Gandy, who sells them: http://cameraquest.com/voigtlenchart.htm<br>
This confirms what Adam Clayton posted: 43mm filters for the Pancake version, 39mm for the other 2 versions.<br>
Steven is great to deal with on the phone and active in supporting the rangefinder community, and I highly recommend his site. Tony Rose of PopFlash also gets good feedback but I've not spoken to him. That's one nice thing about using RF cameras: the dealers are likely to be in it because they care, not because that's where the money is.</p>
-
<p>I use a rangefinder partly because it forces me to do a different kind of photography. Your Bessa T will work great with various wide angles on it.<br>
You could also shoot a 90mm on it and get used to a separate range and viewfinder. My very first film camera (an Argus C3, cost about $15 in 1973) worked that way and it's not that hard to work with, unless you are shooting something fast moving (kids, sports, dogs). </p>
-
<p><em>It starts to look more and more like Gene Smiths Pittsburgh that got so overblown that it was never finished and never published. </em><br>
Salgado has a history of massive projects that he actually finished. I hope he is able to go on doing these for the rest of his career, leaving behind a final, unfinished project that he was able to work on right up to the end. <br>
Gene Smith, on the other hand, was an alcoholic and an amphetamine addict who had a history of being unable to complete even a short project. <br>
On the subject of Smith: I'm always a bit unhappy at the way his biographers tend to mutter about his "artistic temperament", as though a habit of using amphetamine and alcohol to work for 72 hours is a normal thing for an artist, instead of a warning sign that someone is in need of psychiatric help. It doesn't matter too much in his case, because in the 1950s the help he'd have gotten wouldn't have been very good, but these days it's very likely a future W. Eugene Smith could get help that would let him/her remain creative without destroying his life and his health in the process.</p>
-
<p><i>I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.</i><br>
How do you feel about people who buy investments that aren't art, instead of putting their investments into an enjoyable form? Hanging a stock certificate on the wall is so 20th century ironic, you know.</p>
-
<p>Bad news: they're all good, which doesn't help you decide.<br>
Cosina can build things good enough for Zeiss, Nikon and Canon to put their name on. Their quality is fine. That M3 may have been a precision instrument when it was built, but that was back when David Douglas Duncan was still photographing the Korean war for Life magazine. Factor in the cost of a CLA, and you're looking at a lot of money for a light tight box. If you want to take pictures, a Bessa will be fine and will leave you money to spend on Leica glass if you want.<br>
As for me: I have an M4-P, and I like the weight and feel of it, but the pictures it take look just like those from my Bessa L, and I'm more likely to stick the Bessa L into a backback for casual use when I walk around town, since at $99 it not a lot more money that the accessories (Leica branded lens cap, body cap, lens shade) on a typical Leica M. <br>
Years ago, I heard two guys talking on a gardening show: one bought top of the line shovels, because he wanted to buy them once and leave them to his kids. The other bought inexpensive shovels, so that he didn't have to worry about leaving one outside, or losing it. Both of them agreed that the dirt didn't care, and that the plants looked the same either way. As long as your shovel works, don't worry about it.</p>
-
I (somewhat) disagree with Dave Lee & John Schroeder. For those who are shooting outside of the studio, smaller cards
increase the risks of either dropping the card when changing it, or missing a great shot because your camera is open at the
time. My preference is a card big enough that I don't have to change it till I am back in "not shooting" mode, i.e., back in my car,
sitting down to eat lunch while hiking, etc. For the way I shoot, missed opportunities are more likely than card failure.
I once saw a hawk swooping down & carrying away a ouse, just after I'd shot a lot of pictures of the surf coming in and making
pretty spray patterns as they hit the rocks. I got a few shots, then I was out of space. By the time I'd replaced the card, the hawk
had moved on.
Of course, at the end of the day I back up the pictures and reformat the card after they're in two places (laptop plus external
drive).
-
This is a beautiful camera, the essence of the "light tight box": just a rangefinder, a viewfinder, and a lense.
I learned how to take photos with one of them, and have always been glad. The lense is quite sharp, even though this is a
consumer camera, because it's based on the classic Tessar design which, if you don't try to push it to a big aperture, gives results
which are difficult to beat.
-
Watch KEH in Atlanta - just bring up the page once a day and search on "5t" and "6t". While they don't show up there as
often as they do on eBay, the ones on eBay often go for a higher price. Plus, if you see on at KEH, you buy it and you're
done, unlike an auction.
The Canon ones are suitable alternatives, and will fit onto lenses with larger thread sizes. Thom Hogan, who is well
respected in these parts, mentioned that the Canon 500d plus a Nikon 18-200VR makes one good choice for a good
walkaround kit (http://bythom.com/18200lens.htm). (There are also much more nuanced answers on lens kits on his site;
I'm pointing to this just as an example of why you might want to get the Canon instead of or in addition to the Nnikon
5t/6t combination.
-
They appear to be magazines originally made for the Adox camera, an interesting attempt to make a 35mm camera with
an interchangeable magazine similar to what medium format cameras often have. E. Leitz then bought the tooling and used them as part of
a microscope camera.
See http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Adox_300 for more informaiton.
The relevant quote is "McKeown gives another story, that Leitz bought the tooling after Adox stopped the production and
that they were used on the Leitz Orthomat microscope camera. This version makes more sense. The Leitz magazines
were made in black and other colors. McKeown says olive and white, and a grey magazine has been seen at ebay. You
can see a Leitz Orthomat with a white magazine here."
"McKeown" is a reference to "McKeown's Price Guide To Antique & Classic Cameras", a great book that probably won't
ever be updated as these days there are too many other sources of more up to date price information to make it
commercially viable. Too bad, because even if the nominal market (a price guide) is fading, it's a great reference book
and seeing a company's products laid out this way is quite revealing.
-
For macro use, only: you could use it on a T-Mount bellows (Vivitar made one). Put the
Nikon AI T-mount on the back, and the Olymput T-mount on the front of the bellows.
-
Try either Star Photo, (608) 257-3535, or The Camera Company
(http://www.cameracompany.com/, (608) 833-1411.
Beware of Google's "local.google.com" photographic listings for Madison, as they list several
businesses that have moved or gone out of business years ago. If you find the item at one of
these stores, ask which one it's at, as both have multiple locations.
Masters of the 35mm lens
in Leica and Rangefinders
Posted