smc_.

<p>For God's sake, please don't encourage more lame attempts at "humor." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>(Sorry for posting what one might call a blue joke.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't worry. It wasn't funny, so there's no need to apologize. </p>

<p>An M9 is not "low profile." Leicaphiles may fancy themselves more knowledgeable and refined than the unwashed masses, but there will be plenty of people who recognize the camera and understand how expensive it is. This is especially true if you are in a big city. </p>

<p>Lex:<br>

This may be the piece you were thinking about: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/mahalia-jackson-and-kings-rhetorical-improvisation.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/mahalia-jackson-and-kings-rhetorical-improvisation.html</a></p>

<p>Derek:</p>

<p>No. With the exception of some movie films, bulk film does *not* have to be removed from the core it comes on with the Arista loader. </p>

<p>Well, I didn't mean to set you off, Jenny. Please calm down and read what I actually wrote. I never said <em>anything</em> derogatory about Kaiser enlargers. They are quality machines. I merely made the trivial observation that market penetration of their products in the US was limited, which in turn makes it harder to find necessary parts in the US. Fact (as you so snidely put it). That has nothing to do with "patriotism," Detroit, or Buy American cheerleading. The "facility of the Internet" notwithstanding, it will be easier and cheaper for the OP to get parts for his enlarger if that model of enlarger was widely sold where he lives. It's not particularly helpful to know that a crucial part exists somewhere out there in the world if the costs of searching for it and shipping it are prohibitive.<br>

I'll repeat my advice to Tony. You'll be well served by the Kaiser, but keep in mind additional considerations. If you are in the UK or Europe, it will be relatively easy to find additional or replacement parts. But that will be more difficult if you are in North America.</p>

<p>Where are you located, Tony? I ask because you should keep in mind how hard it may be to find additional parts in the future for your enlarger, and that will depend on how popular the enlarger was in your part of the world..<br>

If you are in the US, it will be much easier to find additional or replacement parts, such as negative carriers, for a Beseler or Omega enlarger. (So, contrary to Kevin Parratt, this isn't all about American chauvinism and ignorance.) If you are in the UK or Europe, parts for a Durst, Meopta, or Kaiser shouldn't be hard to find.<br>

Having said that, enlargers can be had for a bargain nowadays. If the Kaiser proves inadequate, you can probably pick up a replacement enlarger for a minimal investment.</p>

<p>Ah, I see. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The shutter is noisy though...negating one of the reasons to stay in film...street photography. I find my FE2 is no louder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Voigtlanders are a touch more noisy than the cloth shuttered Leicas, but they're not <em>that</em> loud. </p>

<p>I've used an R2 or R3A for the last 6 years, mostly for street shooting. In all that time, there is only one occasion when someone I was photographing noticed me solely because of the sound of the camera's shutter. And that was when I was taking a picture of two people looking at a painting in a quiet museum gallery. They were about 4 feet away from me. </p>

<p>Of course, they noticed me only after I got the shot.</p>

<p>It seems that Obama declined to have his portrait taken by the NYT Magazine. Good call on his part. </p>

<p>I saw the pictures in the magazine and thought most of them were revolting, to be frank -- cartoonish, plasticky, oversharpened, unreal. I didn't want to study or linger over the pictures at all. I wanted to run away.</p>

<p>These pictures don't bring the subjects "down to earth" or make them seem like ordinary people. To the contrary -- the subjects look like aliens recently descended to planet earth from a digital galaxy far away.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, though, the pictures look a <em><em>little</em> </em> better viewed online. Maybe the reproduction in the magazine is just bad. Or maybe the photographer optimized the pictures for display on the screen.</p>

<blockquote>I'm pretty positive that Kodak have been using a lot of extra chemistry in their Tri-X production line too since the latest taming of The Oldie (2003?).</blockquote>

<p>Wha?? Care to translate?</p>

<p>Seconding what CB Martinez said, Samigon produces reels with wide flanges that look identical to the Arista premium reel. They fit in a Paterson tank, and B&H sells them.</p>

<blockquote>Oh, I don't know about that. I use stainless and the higher thermal conducivity is really nice. The key is to use the tanks in conjunction with a large volume tempering bath. This is great for locking the solution to the target development temperature over extended times.</blockquote>

<p>Well, I use a tempering bath with Paterson tanks as well. But it's less critical, because the Paterson tanks maintain temperature better. I suppose if I <em>wanted</em> to change my processing temperature drastically in the middle of developing film I should use tanks with higher thermal conductivity, but why would I want that?</p>

<p>My point was simply that, as a matter of basic thermodynamics, if you want to preserve the temperature of a system, use a better insulator. </p>

<p>Ash: </p>

<p>I think most of the differences between stainless steel and plastic tanks have been covered. I wanted to add a couple observations. </p>

<p>First, you'll find some users, like Wendell, who report that 120 film is easier to load in Paterson tanks. But I've read comments by lots of other users who prefer stainless steel for 120. Like so many other aspects of photography, it comes down to preference.</p>

<p>Second, the poor heat transfer ability of plastic tanks is a feature, not a bug -- they maintain processing temperatures better than metal tanks. (For b&w, however, I doubt the differences between the two types of tanks matters at all.)</p>

<p>Actually, Alan, I meant Rome, New York. :-></p>

<p><em>This all makes me think of how people here in the US look at me when I pronounce IKEA. They have no idea what I'm saying so I translate for them Aikea - - then they know what I'm talking about.<br /> I go through the same with Nikon all the time. :-)</em><br>

I have to confess, I don't understand this attitude <em>at all</em> . What purpose does it serve to make oneself intentionally and repeatedly incomprehensible to the people with whom one communicates? I enjoy demonstrating my superior erudition and savoir-faire as much as the next one, but surely that pleasure has its limits. <br>

If Nikon (and Ikea, based on their advertisements in the US, which use the standard American pronunciation) can happily learn to live with the pronunciation of their brand names preferred by some 300+ million consumers, is it really any skin off your back to do the same? <br>

When in Rome . . . .</p>

<p>I'm impressed that it took so long for this thread to degenerate into an anti-American screed, which I expected would happen much more quickly. Must be the goodwill from Obama's election!</p>

Brian Shaw:

 

Terry M's response, which at first glance appears to be an OT rant, is really the following coded message: "Carry a compact 28 and a 90."

I agree with Bill Mitchell about the T-Max film. I would put that at the head of the list of possible explanations.

Washington Square Park is undergoing a massive renovation right now, with much of the park fenced off. I wouldn't spend too much time there right now, unfortunately. Try Tompkins Square Park in the East Village as an alternative. Lots of good shooting there.

I've used the Watson loader and the Arista/AP loader. The Watson has its virtues--in particular, the lack of any felt trap and a simple design. But I much prefer the Arista and don't use my Watson loader any more.

 

Why? A few reasons. First, (as Jim MacKenzie noted) because of the way the Watson is designed, several inches at the end of each roll where the film is attached to the spool will be fogged during the loading process. I don't care so much that this wastes film. But I got annoyed at losing the last two or three shots on a roll. You can start the loading process for each film cassette with the Watson in a changing bag to avoid this, but that's even more annoying.

 

Second, the Arista has a much more reliable frame counter. The Watson frame counter isn't as reliable, so you end up having to count off turns of the hand crank. As Jim Appleyard mentioned, without a counter you inevitably end up losing track of how many turns you've given the crank.

 

Third, the Arista has a separate counter that keeps track of the remaining length of the bulk roll, a feature that the Watson does not have. If you always finish off an entire 100 foot bulk roll in one session, this isn't a helpful feature. But I usually load up a few rolls at a time, so it's incredibly helpful to know what length of film I have remaining in the loader.

 

By the way, with respect to light leaks, scratches, and so forth, I've had no problems with the Arista. I *believe* that it uses a felt light trap, but the design of the loader minimizes the chance of scratches. The hand crank of the Arista is separate from the loader. Once you attach the film to the spool and place the cassette in the loader, you insert the hand crank into a slot, which in turn locks the loader and opens the mouth of the light trap. So, during the loading process the film doesn't squeeze through the trap.

 

The one downside of the Arista is the hand crank--I'm always nervous that I'll lose the darned thing.

I think you should look for a decent "user" M2, preferably one that has recently been CLA'd. An M2, with 35-50-90 framelines, is a more flexible choice than an M3, which has 50-90-135 framelines. Almost all rangefinder owners will find 35 and 50 to be more frequently used lenses than 135.

 

As for lenses, I recommend that you consider those made by Cosina Voigtlander. They provide excellent value for the money if you are on a tight budget. The CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar is an excellent tele. You could probably pick up a CV 90 and 25 Snapshot Skopar, used, and an M2 for $1000.

 

Having said that, however, you should think seriously about buying a more traditional focal length, such as a 35 or 50. I came to rangefinders from SLRs and used to prefer taking pictures at the very wide or mid-tele range. After getting used to picture taking with rangefinders, though, I've tended to concentrate on lenses in the 28-50 range.

If you shoot black and white and do your own processing, film isn't very expensive at all. My costs come in at about $3-4 a roll for the film and processing for black and white when I do it myself, excluding printing. Color is more expensive, but you can certainly save money with mailers. Unless you shoot *a lot* of pictures, the difference in costs between digital and film isn't staggering.

 

My point is that the cost calculus is not one sided, especially once the depreciation/obsolescence cost of digital cameras is included.

 

Obviously, if he prefers the digital workflow and likes to see his images as they are made, it makes perfect sense to get an M8. But I don't think that getting the M8 is really a cost-saving approach, as others here are suggesting.

Al: I've put an Ikon through almost a year of moderate use (2 to 3 rolls a week) and it's held up very well--basically, minor signs of use. So, that's my point of anecdotal evidence to consider against the single point of anecdotal evidence to the contrary from the RFF thread.

 

The camera has a great viewfinder. It's bright and clear--in the same league as the finder of my M3, but with 28 and 35 mm framelines. I like the excellent meter, the light weight of the camera, and the high shutter-release point.

 

Having said all of that in favor of the Ikon, I would recommend that you skip the Ikon and get a Leica.

 

Please don't take this as a negative personal judgment, but there are some camera users who are prone to suffer mental anguish from (i) blemishes to a camera's fit and finish that don't affect its performance, and (ii) the nagging feeling that they don't have "the best" (that is, the most expensive or otherwise exclusive) piece of kit available. For those users, it makes no sense to get a camera which, no matter how fine it is for ordinary use in objective terms, will never satisfy their subjective desires.