john_graham3

"Yup, John, I'm all ego." </p>

 

Yup, Al, you are. I'm not the first and only one to notice. </p>

 

"Where are your photos? What's your client list look like?" </p>

 

Like I said before Al, you shouldn't try to play the "show me your photos" card because we've all seen your poorly-exposed grab shots made forty years ago, and the tons of goshawful 15mm shots of yourself with your arm extended just outside the shot. You, who claims to be a professional photographer and lectures everyone on the subject, including your insanely ignorant rants against digital. Show us <i> your </i> client list Al. Which major publications has your work been published in in the last year? Which major corporations' brochures have you shot in the last year? </p>

 

I don't claim to be a professional photographer. I'm in the liquidation business. Bankruptcies, divorces, estates. Big ones. <i>Really</i> big ones, with lots of figures to the left of the decimal. I photograph much of it, not because I need to, but because I get a kick out of it. As a personal artistic photographer I probably suck, but I don't really care. I'm just an amateur schmuck who can afford fancy cameras but I know a pile of bull when I hear it and that's what comes out of you frequently. We all know you talk out your behind about digital, and you're talking out your behind about this filter thing. Steve just paid good money for a black M4 and a Summilux lens and he probably has $40 left over for a decent filter. He asked "Does Leica make these? Or should I go with a "high end" after market filter?", not whether he should rummage through the junkbox down at Ye Olde Camera Shoppe for a cast-off generic piece of crap. Your "suggestion" is just your same old mantra rehashed once again where it wasn't requested, like your frequent regurgitations of what things cost when Johnson was in the White House. My grandpa, rest his soul, used to prattle on exactly like that when he was in the nursing home. I apologize to everyone for getting hot under the collar here, but I'm a middle-aged man, educated, intelligent and not a wide-eyed little boy sitting at ole grampa Al's feet gullibly sopping up all his tall tales.

Right, like 99% of what Al posts isn't ego-driven :*) But if you can convince intelligent people into thinking it's right to let misinformation pass for fact, there's a job waiting for you at the White House :*)

"Part of Foothill Blvd. bubbled into a tar pool and a few SUVs sunk like Stegosauruses."

 

LOL! Braniac me drives a black H2 with black leather and my butt feels like a bubbling tarpool every time I get in.

Agreed Dan, except I'm sure you'd agree that simply being an old dog doesn't necessarily make it wise. And being in my early forties I'm not exactly a suckling puppy. Al has made it abundantly clear innumerable times that he's contemptuous of anyone who cares about protecting their equipment, so from the get-go one has to wonder why he responded to this question altogether, if not to further express that contempt by suggesting Steve use a junkbox filter in front of his newly-acquired Summilux. True enough, not every old filter is a coke bottle bottom, but also true that the latest multi-coated filters such as B+W, Heliopan and Hoya, have coatings that are far superior to the old filters (even those by the same makers)in terms of preventing loss of contrast and flare. Furthermore the cost of one of those new filters in 43mm is about $40, so even if the corner camera store were to give those junk filters away for free, we're only talking $40. I really have a hard time reconciling anyone who goes out today and buys a Leica camera and lens vs a cheaper brand, with being hesitant to spend another $40 for a new filter with modern coating.

Shoot, I wish I had time. I wouldn't mind getting out of L.A. for a few days, it's been hotter than hell. It must be 20 degs cooler up in S.F.

No Al, you did <i>not</i> qualify your original statement with anything about "journalistic or public relations" photos. Even if anyone's short-term memory is shot one can just scroll up the page and it's right there for the seeing. And what if Vivitar bought in a few good lenses, back in [your] day? Says nothing whatsoever about their filters which may well have been bought from another supplier. Lastly, my Epson V750 came in last week (after a mixup I ended up getting it from another source other than B&H and saving about $90 in the process!)and I do intend to scan up some photos when I have time to get it up and running and calibrated but I don't claim to be great shakes as an artistic photographer (my main experience is with photographingall sorts of things for big-ticket estate, personal and industrial bankruptcy liquidations, hardly the thing to waste p-net bandwidth displaying)nor do I see what it has to do with credibility as to whether or not a piece of crap filter from a junk box is the same quality as a new multicoated Heliopan or B+W. And I've seen your work posted Al and no offense but you really oughtn't be issuing the "show me your photos" challenge.

"i have forgotton more about camera repair than most people will EVER KNOW. and that is a fact!"

 

It doesn't matter whether you've forgotton or never knew in the first place since the end result is the same :*) All Leica lenses can be adjusted for collimation and the cam can be replaced or ground if necessary. Of course that would take someone who does know and remember :*) I'll trust Don Goldberg, Sherry Krauter and Jon Van Stelten, not to mention Leica USA, all of whom say all Leica lenses can be adjusted to rangefinder coupling specs.

"John, nothing stupid about what I said. Not every "off brand" filter is "window glass". Nobody wanted to believe that Hoya was top grade when they first were marketed"

 

Ok, not stupid. Perhaps ignorant. Definitely outdated, unless like you we're all still living in 1965. You mentioned Spiratone and Vivitar along with Hoya. Those two were never manufacturers, just slapped their names on cheaply-bought generic products. And current Hoya filters, especially the HMC, are much better in every respect than the old ones found in camera store junk boxes which were mainly uncoated.

 

"I'm surprised no one pointed this out, but some filters will not allow the Leica hood for teh Summilux to fit over them."

 

I did Rob, a few posts up :*)

" According to you, what is the best Leica of all times with built-in meter?"

 

M6 is the only one I've ever used or owned.

 

"I own a Hasselblad and I think that the sharpness is as good as it gets"

 

Maybe not quite but unless you're in complete denial there's no argueing the fact that medium format has quality advantages over any kind of 35mm including Leica.

" The other rule is stand over the grass when you change lenses or find a place to sit or work over your camera bag."

 

Mind-boggling to ponder how many of the world's most famous photographs wouldn't exist if the photographer'd subscribed to that rule :*)

You'd really think that someone going to all that trouble to fake a Leica would at least use an authentic-looking release collar, not the standard Russian one that's a dead-giveaway to even the uninformed.

"chek to see if the lens cell has the same serial number as the mount, they made a zillion variations. one can pull cells from one mount and put it in another. if that is the case it is not worth the expense. many lens mounts made by leitz in the 1980s are not very good because of all the corporate stuff they were going through. during this period craftmanship was very poor."

 

What a total pile of poo. A trained Leica repair guy/gal can adjust the focus cam and do a complete clean and lube for around $100, well worth the coin for any Summicron except one with heavy scratches or fungus etching on the glass.

"I know I'm going to get people pissed but I doubt if you'll notice a difference between a high end filter or an old Spiratone or Hoya or Vivitar or ??? out of your camera store's Junque Box as long as it isn't all scratched up."

 

Why would people get pissed if you say something stupid? They might laugh at you but that's about all. Optically-flat glass made from optical-quality glass blanks cause less image degradation than ones cut or pressed from plain ole windowpane glass. Multicoated filters like multicoated lenses increase light transmission and decrease flare.

 

Enough really great photographers have stated in print they always keep a UV on their lens that it's hard to fully subscribe to the idea it's an amatuerish thing to do. If people laugh at you because they see you're using a filter, show them your photographs. If they're still laughing, it's not because of the filter :*) Bottom-line, it's your money, so your call. FIY standard 43mm filters will prevent the shade on your lens from seating properly. Leica made some that fit properly, they show up used all the time.

BTW looks like predictions are coming true in terms of small cottage-industry companies stepping in to film manufacturing to pick up the demand once it falls below what the major manufacturers consider worthwhile. See <a href="http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=31">here</a>

"Film better not die anytime soon...

 

...because I just bought two more Leica lenses! Actually, traded my 75 Summilux for a minty 50 Summicron and a 28 Elmarit."

 

Seems you didn't think it through too thoroughly before setting up your digital vs film troll. The usefulness and value of Leica M lenses is not in jeopardy even if film "dies" given the M8 will be out soon. The crop factor will shift the preferences toward the wider end, so your trade was even in the right direction.

"wonder if you guys know anything about it?"

 

Maybe try asking on the Fed Forum, those guys seem to know an awful lot about military Leicas :*)

" do you think there are more people beginning to use Leicas or more people beginning to dump Leicas"

 

I think there's been and is a sort of equilibrium, as evidenced by the relative stability of used prices, compared to film cameras of other brands. When the M8 starts to ship I bet there'll be a spurt of dumping and a short-term price drop, which will be seen as a window of opportunity for everyone who heretofore hasn't been able to afford one, hence, equilibrium will shift but equilibrium nonetheless. Once those who can afford an M8 have theirs, the dumping will stop and used prices will stabilize again, at least until used M8's are in supply or film/processing becomes significantly more scarce/expensive.

Just for some sensible perspective, according to the US Census the per-capita income in 1966 was $2932.

"it dangles now.

 

Does anyone know what the fix is for this?"

 

Nope but if you're spam filter is as ineffective as mine your e-mail is full of offers for pills that claim to help :*)

"Anyone can do a more meaningful test by borrowing/loaning the 'desired' lenses for a couple of hours!"

 

Lenses are a lot like wine. Anyone with good eyes or tastebuds can come to their own conclusions, and whoever has bad eyes or tastebuds the differences are unperceptible anyway. It boils down to a few guys who are at least as good at self-promotion as they are at testing/tasting getting set up as authorities and everyone who knows from nothing but wants to look smart puppets them.

Now if Kodak would've donated a 28x108 foot digital sensor they could've done the ultimate film vs digital shootout :*)

"Need to determine which tripod adapter works best w/ my Leica M and xPan cameras for landscape work."

 

Since you used adaptor in the singular plus said "Leica M AND X-Pan" it would appear you're looking for one plate to fit both cameras. At one time Kirk made a plate for the Nikon F3 which was about 4-5" long and had two slots you could choose which to put the screw through. One was near the middle and one at the end (so you could use the plate on a plain F3 or on the MD4). If they still make them, or if not and you can find one on the bay, it might be just the ticket.

"The reason is, is that a full-frame sensor is dramatically more expensive - and is procured from an outside vendor. That's all there is to it. Too costly."

 

That's clearly applicable to Nikon but in the case of the Leica DMR there is no way a full 24x36mm sensor would fit without modifying the film plane opening which would then make it unusable for film (I truly wonder how many people switch back and fro). But wouldn't doubt Leica's statement that the proximity of the M lens's exit pupil to the focal plane creates a difficult and perhaps un-solvable (at present) problem with FF sensors, given that the FF Canon's still do have issues with wide lenses.

I read Vincent's review of the V700/V750 wherein he found out that setting the

film holder heighth to the higher setting resulted in much sharper scans. My

question is (having just received mine and haven't opened the box yet!)from

anyone who's used one, does this hold true of all of these or should I expect to

need to do test scans of my own to determine the optimum heighth setting for my

specific scanner? TIA.

KEH has gotten real high on Leica prices lately.