jerry_kirkwood

So long as there isn't a breeze. If there's the slightest movement of grass/flowers/brush then Photoshop Scheimphflugging is somewhere between a nightmare and impossible.

 

If you're serious about landscape photography and don't want to shoot film in a view camera, you could pick up a Canon 5D and the 24 (and maybe also 45) tilt 'n' shift.

By putting a little piece of scotch tape over 2 of the teleconverter contacts the sub-1-series Canon's will AF with lenses no matter what their maximum f/stop. It might be slower than you like, but in good daylight it is usable.

I stopped giving my money to Kodak a few years ago. I'd rather support companies who at least are giving a good imitation of being committed to film, like Fuji and Ilford.

As long as someone mentioned the Olympus: Rebel XTi + adaptor will meter (stop down style) manual focus Nikkors, has "only" 1.6x crop vs 2x.

I had a Mamiya 6, loved the lenses which were soooooo sharp, but after the 3rd time the winding head broke I sold it. That was back some time, now I hear the parts aren't even available anymore.

I gave up useing a tank. I now use a Unicolor drum on a motor base (but it could be rolled accrost a tabletop too). The advantage is it uses about 8oz of chemicals for 4 4x5 or 2 8x10 negs, and except for pouring in and out it's hands off. I'll never go back to a tank.

<i>I thought they were milled out of solid titanium, hence the astronomical price.</i></p>There was a special one-off titanium M7 that was solid titanium but the titanium M6 and M6TTL were plated. My M6 is a titanium, it's got scratches through the plating.

Me too. Dedicated LF shooter here. Not everyone has the skills to make silver b&w look better than digital though, in fact a lot of people will probably find it the reverse, if they have a solid lead on the digital learning curve and very little experience in the wet darkroom. I don't care what reasons people shoot film, I'll just be happy if enough of them do to keep one or two companies in the game. I've tried a 39mp Hassy and aside from the cost which is uneconomical for a hobby shooter, it can't match LF. Not to mention the whole small-screen right-side-up eyelevel interface and needing to do the movements in CS3 just doesn't light my candel.

I read not long ago that Andreas Kaufman bought the remaining shares he didn't already own and plans, or maybe already has take it private. I really hope that not having to manage the company based on stockholder reaction will be good for Leica. It's a grand old company with a proud heritage and a loyal following willing to forgive anything and pay whatever the asking price. It should be a piece of cake for Kaufman to make it into his personal cash cow and I wish him much success.

DAG will reglue the rangefinder in an M3 or M2, he did it for a friend of mine about a year ago. I think it was $250 by itself, but he gave my pal a break because he had a complete service done at the same time.

Fabuloso lens. I had mine since about 1972, it was converted to 3-cam when I added an R7. Mine's got the 2 silver studs for a hood but I never had the hood or felt like it needed one. It's my standard lens, I never bothered buying a 50, this one's so good. The only thing I would like is if it would go to 1:1 without adding an extension tube, the way every other brand has gone. I had the original 1:1 tube for it but later on traded it on a different tube that does the same thing but has the 3rd cam. Not a dealbreaker in the least.

The glass in a Series 7 is the same OD as a 49mm, so if you have a Series 7 like a UV or some other you're not using (or could buy a scratched one like a Tiffen for cheap)you could put the glass from a 49mm IR into it. That's worst-case, if you can't lay your hands on one ready made.

My repair gal told me the lubrications they've been using for the last 10 years are synthetics and can get stored a long time without a problem. If your M3 hasn't been oiled in longer than that then you might have a problem with the old lubes. Considering how long it takes to get one serviced you might even think about sending it instead of storing it, that way it'll be better than new when you get back to it.

I've been reading where some M8's were getting hot before going toes up, so maybe the outdoor tempature was just a coincident.

I had all 2-cam lenses with my SL2 but when I added an R7 I had (well, preferred) to have them converted. It was a while ago (at that time the 3rd cams were still made of metal, someone told me now they are plastic)but if I'm not hollucinating, I remember the repair gal saying she had to drill and tap holes for the 3rd cams. It cost me all of $50 a lens and she cleaned and adjusted them for nothing. If you need to drill and tap, I'd think you'd get brass shavings down into the works if you didn't at least take the lens apart. Wish I could be more helpful.

50-60 years ago they sold a gajillion gallons of fountain pen ink a year, for the last 30 years very few people use them but you can still buy ink. 25-30 years ago they sold a gajillion typewriter ribbons a year, now "nobody" uses typewriters but you can still get ribbons. If the film manufacturing business can be shrunk like those others, it will survive because a few mavericks will always want to use it just to stick out from the herd and assert their artistic individuality. The biggest change may be that film will need to be manufactured sporadickly and frozen, rather than constant production like in the past.

By now everyone knows the M8 is stuck with the IR filters and the skimpy framelines and all the other unique features Leica's genius designers built into it. So people either bought it or are saving up for it, or they've taken their money to Canon or elsewhere. Anybody in the last group has to know its stupid to get into an argument with guys in the first group. They've spent their $5000 and they aren't likely to take kindly to any criticism of their decision. Personally I don't give a hoot what camera somebody else uses, and thank them not to be concerned with mine.

Based on the record of internet chatter the chances of the usual worshippers hyping the M9 as a quantum leap over the M8 are great. Based on Leica's track record the chances of it actually <i>being</i> that much improved are slim. So what it boils down to is are you the kind of guy who's going to feel inadequate if he doesn't follow the herd in upgrading to an M9, or the kind of guy who doesn't give a hoot what the mob of Feisty Guys is chanting.

<i>Call it the fondle factor,or, whatever. I really don't care a monkeys what anyone else thinks or believes..</i></p>That kind of subversive thinking is strickly against the rules of the Feisty Guys Club.

<i>Not sure I would "trust" something cobbled together for the same purpose. If I wanted to show some craft skills maybe a belt or a wallet is a better idea than hanging an M4 on a dog leash.</i></p>Considering that an M4 weighs half as much as a teacup Yorkie and doesn't have legs I think probably you don't need to worry. Unless you've got ten thumbs and can't hammer a rivet.

<i>Factor in what my time is worth and this would be an expensive strap.</i></p>Factor in how much time it took you to click your way to this thread, read it, type and submit, and this would be an expensive reply. And you wouldn't even have a strap to show for it, just an empty brag.

I don't see any parallel between Apple and Leica. Now, if Apple was selling a rehashed version of the IIe running DOS for $5000 hoping to sell a few thousand of them to guys who band together on internet forums to shout down anyone who sees a $1000 Dual-core PC can out-compute it, well, <i>then</i> there'd be a parallel.

Guys, the only way to "dampen" a mirror is to get it wet. It's <i>damped</i>. /ESOL-101

<i>if that's how you want to see it... I'm not the one making a big fuss over the word. Ignore it, accept it, deny it, I don't care.</i></p>I really miss Don Imus too <wink>.

I wasn't the one who made that particular statement but since I did agree with it: I do have experience with the EF-IS 100-400 and a 400 6.8 Telyt on a 5D. The long end of that zoom is just ok. The Leica has better contrast, and is sharper in the center, but for distant views it isn't sharp across the frame. The crop of the 30D would exclude the outermost reaches of both lenses, so the Leica would have an advantage due to its contrast and center sharpness. That's assuming the Leica is dead steady, otherwise the IS might be the trump card for the Canon. That's comparing apples to apples: both lenses on the same camera.

 

Now then, the Viso version of the Leica 400 could be used on an M8 too, which has a bit more megapixels on the chip than the 30D. So the image detail should be greater, though by how much is a question I can't answer. If you were to crop the M8 image to the same proportion as the 30D (vs shooting from closer in) you'd probably have the same # of pixels. I think Bob Atkins has a great write-up of this kind of comparison between the 30D and 5D. And to confuse matters worse, Leica chose a weak AA filter and RAW files look sharper, though properly processed Canon files look fantastic as most who know digital workflow agree. It's fine to shoot the bull this camera vs that camera but in the end this guy's right on the dot <i>It's how a camera is used that makes one better than another - for that particular use.</i>