dave_flanagan

Why specifically a camera <I>and</I> a "pound of coffee"?<P>

 

Dave

I was in a similar situation about half a year ago: I had a CL, and the light meter broke for the second time after the film transport mechanism was replaced. Here's <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003ssi">a thread</a> I wrote then about my initial impressions. I should write a follow-up, but basically I'm glad I switched. I use it every day, and don't see any wear on it (I take care of equipment, though). I sold my M-Rokkor 40 and 90, and put a current Summicron-M 50 on the front, and it's great. When I get a real job, I'll buy a Leica M series, but the truth is you can't get a M on the cheap with the CL.<p>

Cheers,<br>

Dave

I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:

 

1) Don't bring something you're going to be afraid to take out of the bag-- depending on where you're sitting, things can sometimes get a bit hectic.

 

2) If you're not going to be on the touchline, then taking action photos with your 180 mm zoom is not possible (and comments above about it being too short are true anyhow). But, because of point 1), the action on the pitch is not the only thing to photograph. Turn around. There are 60,000 screaming (Lazio or AS?) Roma fans behind you. Photograph *them*.

 

For examples of what I'm talking about, get a copy of Magnum Football (Soccer in the U.S. market). Great examples from their archives, things you can do with a short lens that the standard action photogs miss/ don't have time for.

 

Cheers,

Dave

The R2 focusses the latest Summicron-M down to 0.8 m (about 2.6 ').

 

Dave

If you're interested in learning more about emulsions and developers, The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop is highly recommended. Personally, I only use Rodinal for medium format PanF 50. Since it is a nonsolvent developer, it tends to enhance sharpness and grain structure. For faster films, they claim it works better with HP5+ than Tri-X in 35 mm, but only if you are careful not to overexpose and thereby keep the grain structure minimal. (In other words, expose for the shadows and make thin negatives.)

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

If you're just going to run Photoshop, then I guess it doesn't make a difference since the interface is the same on both machines. If you plan on using anything else, though, you should consider mac. See www.apple.com/switch if you have questions.

 

Cheers,

Dave

My New Year's resolution was to keep my negatives and slides better organized. I spent something like $50 on Printfile holders in January, and so far I'm keeping up with contact sheets etc. It only takes an extra five minutes, and it's worth it. Now, if I could do the same with my scans... but that's another thread.

 

Dave

I got into rangefinders with a Leica CL and a 40mm Summicron-C. The lens was fine, but the CL kept breaking down (like right before my honeymoon). Now I have a Bessa R2 with a current version Summicron 50. The R2 is solid and reliable, the lens is fine. Do I wish I had a M6 or M7? Sure, but I don't have the discretionary money yet. If you can afford both, buy both. If you can't, get the Leica glass and the good R2 body. If that's too high, then the good R2 body and a good Voigtländer lens.

Go to Amazon.com and buy books. Not technique books, but monographs by photographers you admire, or don't even know yet, and improve your photographic vision.<p>

 

<center>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1249834&size=md">

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1249834&size=sm"></a><br>

<i>Inspired by the industrial photography of <A HREF="http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/charlessheeler.html">Charles Sheeler</A> (but not Leica, oh well) </i></center>

<p>

Dave

HP5+ in Xtol 1:3, Sensia II/Provia, and PanF+ in Rodinal 1:50 (MF only).

Giovanni,

 

I know you asked about lenses, not bodies, but you did say that your only requirement is that the body is silent. This is the only point where I think the Bessa R2 is inferior to the CL (and the CLE, if it also uses a cloth shutter). The R2 is *definitely* louder. Of course, if I want real silent, I use a leaf-shutter anyhow. Otherwise, reliability, viewfinder, etc., seem to be better.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Get a macro lens and take glamour photos of all your beautiful lenses and camera bodies in all kinds of poses. Then post them and make a Leica fetish site.

 

Only half kidding,

 

Dave

I'm not sure if this was emphasized enough above, but after the initial investment, developing your own B&W is *dead cheap*. (Is that an appropriate comment on the Leica forum?) After you buy a changing bag, tank, reels, and chemicals, you can develop a $3 roll of Ilford for maybe $1 worth of chemicals. I've mostly shot B&W for the last year, and after shooting some print film I went into sticker shock. $5 for film! $10 for developing and prints!! Ack!

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Here it is again.

I should have stayed on topic and suggested a Hexar RF. Their brochure claims 59 dB, while Modern Photography measured 65 dB for the Leica M4-2. Does anybody know what the M7 is supposed to be?

 

Dave

Somebody above mentioned that the Bessa R2 is louder than a Leica CL or a M body. I think both are on the same order of magnitude compared to leaf shutters, like on my Rollei 35 or TLR.

 

Dave

0, 0, 3

<I> Current camera design is with an expected life expectancy (shutter cycles). The Leicas are designed with 400K cycles in mind. A consumer camera like the CV is designed with about 25K to 50k cysle life.</I>

<p>

Hi Chip,<br>

If you have it, I'd love to see where you got this data, both for the Leica and the CV shutters.<p>

Thanks!<br>

Dave

Another student on a budget here. I'm very happy with my Bessa R2. I bought a Leica CL before because I wanted the Leica mystique for what I could afford. However, after a couple of repair jobs I realized that I couldn't get what I wanted for what I was able to pay. People say that buying a Leica is smart because it will last forever-- well, my Bessa will last forever as a backup body after I get a job and some income. Right now, it leaves cash for film.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Al:<br>

The "known reliability issues" I was referring to concerned the subject of my comparison, the Leica CL, and not all M bodies, as I do not have experience with them (as I mentioned in the same paragraph). For examples of the reliability issues I refer to, see threads like <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002bvp"> these.</A>, or just search on "Leica CL and meter".<P>

 

As far as the long-term reliability of the R2 versus the CL, that question cannot be definitively answered right now, although it would be easier if we had an understanding of the engineering, assembly, etc., of both camera bodies. So, until we have reliability data for the R2 in five or ten years, statements like "[the Leica CL] will still be functioning long after the much newer Bessa is dead" can only be based on intuition, experience, and personal bias. My intuition, based purely on price data, tells me that a $2500 M6 will last longer than a $500 R2. On the other hand, to me it is not obvious that a 30 year old $500 CL will last longer than a $500 R2.<p>

 

Cheers,<br>

Dave

So, I think you're trying to say, keep the M-Rokkor? ;) Josef asked for my impressions of the Bessa R2 versus the CL; I wrote it up in a different thread.

 

Cheers,

Dave

In a previous thread, I was asked what I thought of these two cameras,

and so I hope this will help people like me who want an M-mount

camera, but have a limited (i.e., grad student's) budget.

 

Shutter noise: about the same noise level on both, but the metal

shutter has a higher pitch than the cloth shutter. Both sound like

gunshots compared to the leaf shutter on the Rolleiflex. I didn't

detect any shutter lag due to the second, front curtain having to move

on the R2.

 

Film transport: The winder on the Leica CL is definitely smoother than

the Bessa R2. The winder on the Bessa may smooth out over time, but it

feels "ratchet"-y. One of my big annoyances with the CL was the the

way the winder would get stuck if you didn't advance it all the way.

The throw distance on the CL is more than 180 degrees; it is around 45

degrees on the R2. It doesn't get stuck like the CL, but may explain

why it doesn't feel as smooth. There is also an option for a

trigger-winder on the R2.

 

Film loading: The base plate of the CL removes completely for film

loading, while the R2 has an SLR-style folding back with a film

cartridge data window. The rewinder is on the base of the CL, and on

the top left of the R2.

 

Viewfinder: The viewfinder on the R2 is larger than the CL, which I

especially appreciate since I wear eyeglasses. It has a cooler blue

tone, compared to the more neutral tone in the CL finder. The

rangefinder patch is more elongated in the R2, and definitely brighter

than the CL. (Note that I did have the CL CLA'd a couple of months

ago.) The rangefinder patch is vertically aligned correctly in both

cameras. The shutter speed is indicated in the CL viewfinder, but not

in the R2. In the CL, the 40 mm frame lines are always visible, and

the 50 or 40 lines appear depending on the lens. The lines are

selected on the R2 (see Controls).

 

Meter: The meter on the CL (when it was working) approximately

measured a spot the size of the rangefinder patch, which I read was

about 10 degrees using the 40 mm lens. The reading was indicated by a

needle on the right side of the viewfinder. The meter in the R2

appears to be center weighted, with three bright red LEDs in the

bottom of the viewfinder (-, O, +). Both meters matched my Pentax spot

meter by +/- 1/2 to 1/3 stop. Oh, and the R2 takes modern batteries,

which are accessed from the outside of the camera. No more changing

expensive zinc-air cells every two months, or $30 MR-9 adapters.

 

Controls: The biggest difference between the controls on these cameras

is the shutter speed dial mounting. While the dial is conventionally

mounted on top of the camera like the Leica M's on the R2, it is

front-mounted on the CL. I preferred setting the aperture, and then

adjusting the speed without moving my eye from the viewfinder. The CL

accepted Tom Abramssons's larger soft release, which doesn't fit on

the R2. The Mini-soft release has the same curvature and size of the

shutter button on the R2, and is wiggly when mounted-- I don't use it.

On the CL, the meter is activated when the wind lever is is extended,

but on the R2 it is activated for about 12 seconds when the shutter is

pressed half-way. The release on both is smooth. Finally, as mentioned

under Viewfinder, the framelines are chosen by a selector on top of

the camera. This seems to have a little more play than I would like.

 

Mechanics and finish: My M-mount lenses mount securely on both

cameras. Both cameras have about the same heft. The area around the

lens mount is scratchable plastic on the CL, but the same metal finish

on the R2. The text is engraved and then painted white on the CL, but

just painted on the R2. There is grippy rubber on the R2, with a

protruding grip for your palm on the trigger side. The R2 is also

about 3/4" longer. The CL has the strap mounts on the left side, and

works well with a wrist strap. The R2 has strap mounts on the right

and left, and is really only suitable for a neck strap. As far as

reliability of the R2 goes, well, I have no idea. I'm not a pro, and

I'm not running rolls and rolls of film through my camera. I suppose

if you are, then you'll spend the extra money for a M6 and the

confidence that it won't fail during a paid shoot, and you wouldn't be

looking at either of these bodies using my criteria anyhow.

 

So, in summary, do I regret deciding to sell the Leica CL? Well, not

really. I regret selling what it could have been-- a smoothly

operating, precisely made tool, which had "Leica" stamped on the front

and didn't cost very much. I don't know how the Bessa R2 compares to a

Leica M series camera, since I've never shot with one, but I assume

it's not as good. But, if you have a limited budget like me, then I'd

recommend buying a current, well-made camera body that doesn't say

"Leica", rather than a 30 year old body with known reliability issues.

If I want the best M mount camera body available, I'll wait until I

get a job and can afford a M7 (or, by then, an M8 or M9!).

 

I hope this wasn't too long or tedious. Cheers, Dave

Hello all,

 

I recently bought a Bessa R2 to replace my Leica CL, and I'm trying to

decide whether to keep the 40/2 M-Rokkor (later CLE version) that I

have with it, or to sell it with the camera. I've read that the 35/1.7

CV Ultron is not as good as current Leica lenses, like the ASPH

Summicron, but that it compares favorably to older lenses. Where do

you think the Ultron falls in the continuum between the M-Rokkor and

the newer lenses? Is replacing the M-Rokkor with the Ultron an

upgrade, a "side"-grade, or a step backwards?

 

Thanks,

Dave

I use two Tamrac straps. For day-to-day stuff, I use a short (maybe 10"?) strap that just wraps around my hand/wrist. When I know I'm going to be fiddling a lot (an actual project or shoot), I snap out the quick-connects and put on the longer neck strap with the leather pad. Both are pretty cheap and cheerful ($10-15).

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

I would second the call for Vuescan-- or anything else besides the Photoshop plugin for whatever scanner you're using. I use a Nikon Coolscan, and I had problems with the plugin. (It's frustrating doing a high-resolution scan in four passes of a 6x6 slide only for the program to crash when it tries to save.) The standalone software works fine, though.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Dave