jamie_robertson2

<p>Thanks Christopher but a built in meter is an absolute necessity I'm afraid. I really can't be bothered with the hand held meter, too much messing around for me.</p>

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>I'm an experienced photographer but have never used a Leica M. After all these years I am thinking of buying myself a nice used Leica M film body and a 50mm lens, but which ones?</p> <p>My first instinct would be to go for the M6 plus a 50mm f/2 but am open to other suggestions.</p> <p>My only must-have requirements are:</p> <ul> <li>Built in meter</li> <li>Viewfinder should be near enough ideal for a 50mm lens</li> <li>Nice bright rangefinder patch</li> <li>Ultra-reliable</li> <li>Not cost the earth i.e. probably avoid the M7 and 50mm f/0.95</li> </ul> <p>Interested to hear your opinions.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The OP is looking for a <strong>small</strong> flash.</p> </blockquote> <p>Gee, you don't say. In his first post he was considering a 380EX, not exactly small. </p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>My advice? Drop it again... it's amazing what a good hard whack can do to a non-functioning lens. I once fixed a Canon 75-300mm by whacking the hell out of it on a bench.</p>

<p>Mark, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Version-YN-565EX-II-Speedlite-Number/dp/B00JQ4HZPO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1401133322&sr=8-2&keywords=yongnuo+565">this flash</a> is more or less a Canon 580EX but is $300 cheaper. It has eTTL I believe.</p>

<p>The E-PL1 came with the Mk1 lens as standard. The Mk2 lens was released later. <br> Both lenses are optically similar but the AF is a bit better on the Mk2 lens. <br> If you really want the Mk2 lens you would probably have to buy the camera and lens separate. In that case the better option would be to get a later camera and Mk2 lens together.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Plus, <em><strong>Jamie R.</strong></em>, Mr. "<em>I have no intention of buying either camera but</em>" along with your <strong>zero</strong> portfolio evidence of your photographic abilities, and <em><strong>David Smith's</strong></em> predominantly OOF <strong>bug</strong> images; I'll bet the farm that <em>Ken Rockwell</em> has more awards and money made from his photography then you two Negative Nancys combined...</p> </blockquote> <ol> <li>You can see my work <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackthehat/">here</a>. I don't pretend to be a professional but even I'm clever enough to know that my work is superior to that of Mr Rockwell.</li> <li>Your camera repair customer will no doubt have made a decent sum of money from the donations he pleads for on his website but, if he makes as much money as you imply, one should question why he continues to beg for donations to "support his growing family". </li> <li>Literally any photographer can win an award, but the real recognition depends on exactly what award. Get back to us when KR wins Wildlife Photographer of the Year, the Pulitzer Prize or the National Geographic Gold Award... then I'll eat my words.</li> </ol>

<p>I would go for one of the Yongnuo units. They are clones of the larger and more modern Canon flashes but cost a tiny fraction of the Canon ones. Most are under $100 and they are very popular.</p> <p>They are not small but are powerful and have lots of features. If you really want something small I would also suggest the 270EX but it will cost more than the Yongnuo flashes and will give nowhere near the same performance.</p>

<blockquote> <p>True. After re-reading my post the term <em>Internet Photographer</em> didnt come across as derogatory as I had hoped. :)</p> </blockquote> <p>LOL :-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>But....he IS talked about over and over on all corners of the web and is a hugely galvanizing character. I have to admit he is probably one of the most, if not THE most, successful Internet Photographer out there.</p> </blockquote> <p>He is basically just a successful webmaster. He started a long time ago and has built up a huge catalogue of articles he's written over many years. That, along with his basic website design, is why his site is ranked high on Google. Thousands of amateurs have no reason to doubt what he writes so they take it for granted and spread the word. That effect has snowballed and now many amateurs and beginners fall under his spell.</p> <p>I wouldn't mind if what he wrote was accurate, but much of it is crap and so are his photos.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Just bad manners to call someone names when they are not here to defend themselves.</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't worry, I've contacted him directly in the past and told him the same. </p> <p>He's done more harm than good to people starting out in photography, spouting nonsense and misleading technical info. You just have to look at his gallery page to realise that he's no expert photographer. It's just a pile of over saturated tourist-style photos.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is nothing short of a buffoon. I have nothing to add.</p>

<p>Any of the new Rebel line up will be a huge upgrade to your current camera. The SL1 is extremely compact and offers great image quality and all the usual DSLR capability. All the latest line up of Canon's enthusiast DSLRs (i.e. crop sensor) have more or less the same image quality and high ISO performance.</p> <p>If you want to lighten the load and maintain great image quality, consider the Canon EOS-M. Same image quality as the DSLR range but tiny in comparison. Buy the optional adapter from Canon and you can continue using your current lenses too.</p> <p>For a complete switch I would suggest a micro 4/3rds system. The image quality is nothing short of incredible compared to the size of the cameras and lenses. They will far outperform your current camera at all ISO settings. Something like the Olympus E-PL5 with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a pocket marvel.</p>

<blockquote> <p> "Canon are" or "Canon is"</p> </blockquote> <p>Another example of how English language changed when it crossed the Atlantic :-)</p>

<p>Agreed, why not just offer people a sensible price for each camera body? People aren't going to spend £4.5K on a 1Dx and also give away a £2-3K camera for £400. It would make more sense to offer Nikon shooters inflated prices for their Nikon cameras in an effort to get them to switch, not offer them a £400 insult on a D4.</p>

<p><a href="http://thexifer.net/">eXif.er</a> is a handy website for that sort of thing too.</p>

<p>Got an email from Canon today. SPECIAL OFFER: Canon will generously allow you to trade in your Canon 1D MkIV, 5D MkIII or Nikon D4 and get a huge £400 ($600) off the price of a new Canon 1Dx. </p> <p>Gee, their generosity is limitless! I'm on my way to the store...</p> <p>Full details <a href="http://www.canon.co.uk/1dxtradein/?utm_source=newsletter_may_4_uk_14&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter">here.</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>I'd rather not shoot without a card, as a matter of practice. The last thing I need to do is go out and shoot without a card in the camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah, I know what you mean. I've done the same thing myself. As a stop gap until you get your Macbook back you could remove the card and tape it to the side of the camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't print above 8 x 10 much, and only occasionally crop very seriously in. I don't really shoot sports or birds or stuff. I am an amateur, definitely.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then I would urge you to switch if you can afford it.</p> <p>Only two things prevent me from switching from a full frame Canon to m43:</p> <ul> <li>Bokeh</li> <li>AF on moving subjects</li> </ul> <p>The bokeh issue can be worked around to a degree by changing focal length or getting closer to the subject. m43 lenses can also often focus closer than many DSLR lenses which increases background blur. The AF will improve as the technology advances. The Olympus cameras already match (or even exceed) DSLR AF speed on static subjects. Contrast detect AF on mirrorless cameras is also more accurate than the phase detect AF used on most DSLRs and is particularly good for wide aperture portraits when focusing on the subject's eye... i.e. you know it's going to be in focus. </p> <p>For their size, m43 cameras give incredible image quality and performance. </p>

<p>If you don't want to write to the CF card at the same time, why not just take out the CF card?</p>

<p>+1 for playing around with filters. It's the easiest, cheapest and most controlled method.</p> <p>...or stretch a piece of cling-film over the lens :-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you're not concerned about the differences between the E-PL1 and later bodies, it is only fitting to extend this lack of concern to the Mk1 kit lens as well.</p> </blockquote> <p>Most stupid comment ever.</p> <p>Andrew, I believe the main difference you would notice between the Mk1 and Mk2 versions of the lens is the AF speed. The Mk2 focuses faster. For a cheap lens I like it. It feels tightly constructed and operates smoothly. The image quality is also better than the more expensive 12-50mm. </p>

<blockquote> <p>A wide angle lens for under $100 is a tall order.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are thousands of 28-80mm EOS lenses on eBay for next to nothing. </p>

<p>Sigma incompatibility. It was a big deal back then. Sigma used to re-chip the lenses for owners when a new EOS body was released. Now you have no chance, you'll just have to use the lens on a Canon body that will accept it.</p>