marek_fogiel

Aaron,

The Zeiss Ikon with ZM lenses is probably the best RF combination around today,and it costs half or less than comparable

new Leica equipment, still it is relatively expensive. I'd suggest a Bessa for a start - the R4A if you like the wide lenses, or

the R3A in case you can be ok with lenses from 40 to 90mm. The CV lenses are first class and not expensive. An

alternative would be a functioning Leica M2 - you can find these for acceptable money these days. Look up the

rangefinderforum.com.

Set the lens ( I presume it is a zoom) at the longest setting, set the aperture at the widest setting (most open), place your

subject close to a north facing window, stand 1,5 meters ( or more) away, shoot. If it does not work, hire a professional

model ;-)

Does it really matter so much? I put both, actually I use the DR Summicron, as it has a rendering particularly suited to

B&W photography. Beyond the usual consideration about the brand name, and the "solidity and feel when you touch the

lens", what counts is the glass. It looks like the Planar is as sharp as the current Summicron, but has a more pleasing

bokeh, better 3d rendeing, less flare, nicer colours and costs half as much. But there will be those who swear by the

Summicron all the same. Frankly, I believe these are among the best lenses ever made, so it is a hair splitting exercise...

A leaf shutter rangefinder camera will work better (Mamiya, Fuji) but there is an option: focus, then frame holding the

camera against your body with both hands without shaking too much. Pre release the mirror, wait a second and fire the

shutter. This way you get the same hand holdability as with a rangefinder or a TLR. This will not work with moving subjects

or for fast shots, but I have done it and it really helps - a monopod will further enhance the stability and grant you another

notch down on the shutter ring.

I confirm that a dedicated film scanner is obligatory for quality work, and the CS9000 is the only in production scanner of

adequate level for a reasonable money. I'd also strongly advise you to develop your own B&W film, this will give you a

much better control and you will avoid the frustration of getting your negs back with air bubbles and/or scratches + dust to

cope with.

He started with bigger size cameras, but really took off with a Leica. He has used the M3 mainly since it came out -

actually one of his main lenses was the 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar adapted to the M mount. The basic trick he used was hard

work - he was a painter before becoming a photographer, so he knew the composition, he had an open mind and a warm

heart, BUT he also shot lots of film, repeatedly hunting for the "decisive moment". His photos are not resulting from luck,

but from a persistent anticipation and long moments of waiting for all the elements to align in the frame.

Jeff,

The C Sonnar is a specialty lens, particularly suited for people shots - in my opinion it is the best portrait lens for a half

body shot ever made, it can be used as a normal 50mm lens at f5.6 and beyond - if you buy it you will not want to sell it

back. Here's an example in B&W:http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2832801348/

and here in colour:http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1019892254/

The CV 35/1.2 Nokton is also a special lens - I think it is actually optically better than the Leica Summilux, but it is also

twice as big. The bokeh is fantastic and has nothing to do with the bokeh of the f1.4 CV lenses. Here's a shot at f1.4 in

B&W:

and here in colour wide open:

You can enlarge these shots by clicking on the "all sizes" icon.

For a "temporary" 50mm lens, there are many choices around, and I do not think f2.0 is limiting. Try the Planar or

Hexanon, the first is the sharpest 50mm around and the second is appreciated by many for overall balance.

Jeff,

You are making a lot of mess here.

1) If you wear glasses and yu want the best all round body to start with, forget the Leicas - get the Zeiss Ikon with a

35mm lens to begin with. It has a 0.74x magnification, and the VF just eats Leicas for breakfast..

2) The choice between the M6 and M7 anyway, is principally one between fast shooting and slow shooting - when I want

to do fast shoothing I use an M7 (or Zeiss Ikon or Bessa R4A or Minolta CLE). when I want to do slow shooting, I take a

tripod and a couple of Hasselblads...

3) As to the lens, if you do not have an idea which fl you prefer, start with the most universal one : 35mm. In my opinion

the best 35mm all round lens on the market at any price is the Zeiss Biogon 35/2, but there are certainly many choices,

from the excellent Skopar 35/2.5 to the even more excellent Nokton 35/1.2 and including the renowned, compact and

very expensive Leica ASPH models.

3) Forget the brand faith, try everything yourself, see what works for your type of photography and what suits your

pocket. Leica is very consistent in high quality products, but also very expensive, and not always the best in every field

- for example the Zeiss ZM coatings are much better, so is often the OOF rendering

4) Since you come from DSLR's, I presume you want to scan your negs - remember that your scanner will have a bigger

effect on the quality of your images than the camera lens - get the best you can - at least Nikon CS 5000. otherwise the

money spent on expensive lenses will be thrown out of the window...

5) Above all - do try a rangefinder, it is a great way to see the world photographically speaking - especially if you want to

do B&W...

There are a couple of considerations to make. The Mamiya7 will give you great sharpness and tonality in B&W - not

obtainable with digital, no matter how expensive - at least at this stage. If you develop your own film and scan and print,

or wet print yourself, the results at a size of 11x14 will be superb. BUT, you will miss certain types of shots, the fast

lenses and the ease of focusing with shorter FL typical of Leica or equivalent photography. Considering the cost of film

equipment nowadays, I'd keep a 35mm RF body anyway.

As to the question film against digital - in my opinion you can only be reasoning about it if you intend shooting colour,

and at this point the choice is more a question of what you want to shoot and what look you like than that of technical

competence, as long as the time factor and cost are not an issue. If you factor in the last two, in my opinion, digital is

taking the lead.

Andrew,

Start reading rangefinderforum.com and get an M3 (there are classifieds there) with the rigid or DR Summicron 50 plus a

small Seconic lightmeter. If you will have some money left afterwards, buy a Nikon CS 5000 and a developing tank. Start

with Tri-X and D-76. After 6 months you will understand what Leica photography is about, then you will progress from there.

Melissa,

I hope you have posed yourself a question what kind of output you are expecting to get from your camera before you

bought it... However, to be quite frank, the natural path for using a MF camera with B&W film is to use the conventional

darkroom yourself. As an alternative, you can develop the film yourself and scan it and print digitally, but this requires a

dedicated film scanner for results that will not cripple the potential of your negatives. Developing film is easy, and does

not require a darkroom, google around for info. I would advise you to keep away from labs, because you will end up

having no control over your negatives, getting them back unevenly developed and scratched, and spending more money

than necessary - I have been through all that already, so I talk through experience... Just get a tank, dark bag, basic

chemicals, some D76 and Tri X and start from there, you will never regret it.

You don't need to drool over Leicas, because they are no longer the best RF cameras, the Zeiss Ikon is much better and

for less money, although the Leicas still have some advantages - the same holds true for the lenses, where I feel the Zeiss

(and CV) have many lenses producing a better overall balance of optical performance at 1/3rd of the price, however, all this

is secondary to the fact if you will find yourself comfortable with this kind of cameras. I would suggest you start reading

this forum: www.rangefinderforum.com where you will find all the relevant information.

A Rolleiflex F 2.8 is a bit easier to focus (Maxwell screen is mandatory) but the 3.5 version is great too, and slightly more

portable. When I can afford some serious street shooting without much hurry, my favourite combo is the Hasselblad SWC

plus the Rolleiflex 2.8 F (with the Planar) loaded with Tri-X exposed between ISO 1000-1600 and developed in Acufine or

Diafine. This gives you a chance to work at smaller apertures without the risk of blur. The Planar is fantastic for B&W,

probably even better than the Hassy Planar, but you must avoid flare - keep the hood on at all times.

The main reason is in the tonality of the traditional B&W film - both in terms of sharpness and resolution, unless you go to

6x7 and beyond, a good 35mm digital trumps film, but in tonality it is pure crap. So the real point to shoot the traditional

B&W film, is to get the tonal transitions and broad dynamic range, which digital still cannot give you today. Converting from

colour - film or digital - kills the rich tonality, so It defeats the purpose.

R4A/M is a camera for the 21-28mm lenses really... The 35mm looks small and 50 mm looks tiny, and there are no 40mm

frames. I'd say, look for a good Minolta CLE with the 40mm kit lens, and start from there.

Unless you want to develop to exhaustion ( e.g. through a lengthy stand development) it is advisable non to go below the

amount of stock developer recommended by the manufacturer as sufficient to fully develop a given surface of film, so if

you dilute beyond the recommended level, you should be better off with using a bigger tank. For developers like D76 or

Xtol, Kodak recommends at least 100ml of stock solution per film, check the minimum for the Tmax developer.

MF is a lot of expense more, for a different - not ncessarily better type of result - take a look at HCB, or Gibson photos,

and then take a look at Kenna or Parry photos - you will understand the difference easily even on a small print. If you do

your darkroom work, you can give it a shot with a cheaper good quality TLR like Rolleicord, if you scan, I'd say better

invest some money into the best possible film scanner and best possible lens for your 35mm camera.

You should look for the CF version at least - it has a more reliable, and easier to repair shutter. As far as the 40mm is

concerned, I have the old, heavy C T* version,and it is surprizingly good if you consider it is the oldest design, but I would

definitely advise you to save up the money for the SWC, it is just a joy to use, and optically it is one of the best MF lenses

ever made - also in this case, the CF version with the newer VF or the 903-905 versions would be better.

I also use the M7 with a 50mm lens, but I usually try to avoid shooting against the sun, because of the cloth shutter. Also,

the Summicron is not a champion of flare resistance, if you want to shoot colour this way, sell the Summicron and get the Planar -

you will see the difference...

I have this lens, but use it sparingly because of the bulk. The above observations are mostly correct, but this lens

definitely has some advantages, like the close up range (at the short end of the zoom), and mostly, because it is very

handy in situations where you don't have the ideal access to your subject, and the subject can be varying the distance. I

find it is a great portrait lens, and has a very pleasant rendering both in B&W and in colour. For my taste, it is not such a

great B&W lanscape tool, because of the filter diameter, and the need to shade the front element correctly. All in all, if you

buy a 150 or a 180 Sonnar and a mutar, you will end up with a more universal set up for the same money.

On a 0.85x the 35mm frames are a bit tight, so you better see it for yourself if it would be ok for you , a 0.72x is much

better suited. If you wear glasses, forget the 0.85x for the 35mm altogether.

If you want the absolutely best viewfinder with exclusive 35mm frames for your Nokton with top focus accuracy, get the

Zeiss Ikon instead - a much better overall camera than a Leica, and unbeatable for ease of use and framing.

I have a better suggestion - get the black bag, a tank and a few extras and develop in your bathroom or kitchen. It is very

unlikely your results will be worse than from a lab.

Bruce,

If there's something to Leica M, it is 2 things above all : solidity and silent shutter. I use the M7 (the most silent one of them all) precisely

for this, with a fast 50mm lens for shooting in interiors. A Luigi half case further dampens the sound. Only central shutter cameras are

quieter. I have 14 cameras in all, and only the Rolleiflex can beat this one for noise, but it is much more obtrusive.

If you like the speed, get the F1.2, if you like sharpness, get the 50/2 Zeiss Makro

Planar - at f 2.0 it is sharper than Nikon lenses at f5.6, if you want a great compact

lens for daylight, get the Nikkor 45P.