jerry_kirkwood

<i>The bottomline is that Leica produces the highest standard in pro cameras.</i></p>There are only a few places where the liberal the use superlatives without facts to back them up are generally accepted. Advertising is one, internet Leica forums are another.

My favorite lens is the one I need to get the particular shot I want at that moment.

<i> just what is so good about a Leica?</i></p>Lots...if it happens to be a Leica in the hands of a talented photographer. Many others think it's Alladin's Lamp but no matter how much they rub it they can't get the Genie to appear.

Who is this Putz and why is his blog discussed so often here? Does he have some kind of background or credentials as a camera engineer or a photographer? From most of what he writes it doesn't sound like it.

1. Deardorff 8x10

 

2. Wista 4x5

 

3. Canon 1DS Mark II

 

4. Canon 5D

 

5. Mamiya RB

 

6. Rolleiflex 3.5F

 

7. Nikon F (original)

 

8. Canon F1

 

9. Canon 1V

 

10. Leica M2

Beautiful images and solid recommendation of the DMR. Why did Leica discontinue it?

You mean you'd rather take your wife to Paris than buy a $5000 camera to post pictures of her on the internet sprawled barefoot on the livingroom couch? Where in heaven's name are your priorities man? <grin>.

 

My point yesterday was only that someone buys a $5000 camera and dislikes it is probably going to return it and most likely not frequent the Leica forum. Whoever keeps it probably likes it. What is interesting is how frequently those people need to praise it publicly. I don't see that with any other expensive camera to the same extent.

 

Maybe Phil needs to change the mission statement of this forum to "Feisty bunch of guys reaffirming that a $5000 camera automatically takes a great photo" <wink>

<i>What would you say a late (1965), MINT M3 with Exc.++++ 50mm 1:1.4 Summilux, 2nd version, is worth?</i></p> About the same in three weeks when you sell it Paul {wink}

Based on your rambling monologue Allen, I've got a strong suspicion why you thought Gordo's comments were witty and why you brought up the subject of drinking. Probably best for those of us intending to have a sensible discussion not to post on weekends <grin>.

Now I understand why people say owning an M8 has put the excitement back into their photography <grin>.

Forgot to take your meds this AM, eh Gordo?

<i>I'm still waiting for all the people who don't own one to tell how bad it is ;-)</i></p>H I don't own one so I'm not commenting yay or nay on the camera. Just observing that all those who did buy one and were unhappy with the camera for whatever reason, probably returned them for their money back and don't see any benefit to making themselves a flame target on one of these M8 love-fest threads.

Thanks guys. Actually what I called a "fishtank heater" is actually a Dev-Tec TC750 made for darkroom use. It goes up to 104F and says +/- 0.5 degrees but taking that with a grain of salt is why I asked about +/- 1-2 degrees. I'll give it a shot, with some unimportant film.

Hi, I have a bunch of T400CN to use up and am thinking about processing it myself.

 

I am NOT going to buy a Jobo processor because of the cost.

 

My question is, given there are no color shifts to worry about, how critical is

the development temperature? I have a fishtank heater and a thermometer and can

regulate a homemade tempering bath pretty well. I plan on doing a few rolls now

and then, probably with the smallest Tetenal kit, then scanning the negs. If

I'm + or - a degree or two, will I still get good results?

 

Tanks very much.

OK, I also don't own an M8 (yet) so my social status is in the whizzer with Vic <grin>. If I had an M8, between the framing/framelines discrepancy, the unpredictable WB, IR and other artefacts, I would be tempted to chimp to make sure I got something usable. My 5D delivers so consistently that I no longer chimp regularly.

<i>Well, some of you might recall my questions regarding what seemed to be aperture oil on the inside of my front element on a 35mm 'cron a couple weeks back.<p>

 

The lens came back from Sherry Krauter today:<p>

 

"Lens is decemented.</i><p> Weird. According to the lens diagrams in the Leica Lens Compendium none of the 35mm 'crons have their front elements cemented to anything.

If I recall correctly, what he actually said was that he had to exchange two defective ones before getting one that works. I admire that kind of devotion to a brand name, I would've taken my money back and run like hell after the first one went belly-up. Something tells me Leica is far from being out of the woods sales-wise with the M8. But since I don't have insider information at Leica, I'm not in the position to state facts as the rest of you are <wink>.

For Douglas Herr: I use DxO with Canon, and the problem with the M8 isn't so much the lack of aperture information in EXIF (the cyan drift at least isn't aperture dependent), it's the lack of <i>lens identification</i> in EXIF unless the lens is coded. If DxO doesn't know what lens was used it can't choose the appropriate profile. The only way around it would be for the user to batch the files together by lens, which with several hundred or more files made with 4-5 different lenses would be quite a memory exercise! Actually the main reason the coding is now mandatory (with wide angles), the cyan drift, is correctible using the freeware Panotools plug-in for Photoshop (at least for PC users, I believe there isn't a MAC version but I could be wrong). But there again, to avoid a major PITA sorting files, you'd still want the lens to be id'd in EXIF and that means either coding or a menu item.

<i>1. Any problem not having an optical viewfinder in bright light?</p>

 

2. What do you think of low light performance of these compact digicams?</p>

 

3. What is your overall impression as a travel camera (trip with family)</p>

 

That's all. </i></p>

 

1. Yes, but the viewfinders on small digitals are great shakes, as most of them are very tiny and show much less than the camera will actually capture. You can cup your hands around the LCD to shade it and use your ring finger or pinkie to trip the shutter. These cameras have Image Stabilization so that helps.</p>

 

2. Low light performance isn't the problem, noise at high ISO is. If you shoot RAW and use a good NR software like Ninja you can get passable results above ISO 200. None of these mini-chip digitals has great noise performance at high ISO's, but some of them have better in-camera NR than others and Panasonic's isn't one of the better ones.</p>

 

3. If you are willing to take enough memory/storage to shoot RAW (the RAW files are pretty big) and then do your own post-processing, and use good technique so as to shoot at ISO 200 or below most of the time, the DLux-3 is an ok choice, although it isn't really a pocket camera. If you want a more effortless camera that the whole family can use and you don't need a ton of memory or want to fiddle with RAW processing, then IMO the Panasonics aren't the best out there. </p>

 

I used the DLux-2, DLux-3 and CLux that my dealer lent me, and ended up buying a Canon for the above reason.

As I understand it the problem isn't physically adding the 6 coding dots to the lens, it's that there are no specific corrective algorithms in the firmware for lenses that aren't on the list of ones Leica has the rings for. The one exception for that might be the 50 Summilux because they have the 46mm-filter model on the list but not the 43mm model though they are IIRC the same optically. So you might find a code that works with a particular older lens, or you might not. If the code you choose under or over-corrects the cyan business, you're going to have to resort to some postprocessing software anyway, so why bother with the coding at all?

 

Yes I've read it really only is important for wider lenses, but they're saying 35mm and wider, and that takes in a lot of popular lenses especially with the M8's crop factor where most people will probably bias their lens assortment toward the wider ones from what they used with the full-framers.

<i>The older Letiz lenses are also holding steady.</i></p>Those that Leica can retrofit with the coded back rings are rising, those that people have to kludge with magic markers or model airplane paint and don't have specific firmware algorithms designed for them, are priced more like the film bodies. It all hinges on digital, i.e., the M8.

<i>Please advise when was the MP VF added to the M7</i></p>As soon as all the loyal early-adopters had bought their M7's...in all probability the same as an M8 will appear that doesn't need external IR filters :headbang:

Maybe there aren't guys like that on Corvette forums because none of them are described by the hosting site as " a feisty bunch of guys wondering why a $50,000 car doesn't automatically drive itself" <wink>

It really doesn't take a genius to figure out the price of used lenses is up both because the new ones have taken a huge jump and because there's still demand due to the M8. Used bodies have risen some but much less than the lenses, because the new ones have also taken a huge jump however there's much less demand for film bodies.

Thanks Kerry, we needed someone to post something surefire to get this thread deleted <grin>.