steve_harris10

Thanks for the feedback.

I have tried shooting with Pan F, but I didn't like the look so much as the C41 process films, and getting it developed is more of a pain.

Funnily I never thought of just putting a filter on the lens! Good idea. I will also try just over exposing it yet further.

I'm getting the lab to do my scanning, which is quick and convenient, but means I have to be a bit careful, they seem to have the contrast wound up quite high. I may buy a negative scanner at some point.

I do generally carry a camera with me, usually my Panasonic LX2 P&S during the week, but recently I have carried my M6 sometimes. It's not that much bigger than the P&S. It is a lot heavier though.

<p>Thanks to helpful people on this forum I'm now getting to grips with my M6.

I've linked a selection of photos I've taken this weekend in the hope that

someone will give me some critiques.</p>

<p>All are on BW400CN, rated at ISO250ish, all of these are taken with a 50mm

Summicron.</p>

<h2>Hyde Park</h2>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1261/1115773899_b6529fb2f9.jpg?v=0"></p>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1431/1115772355_c4c7a26f17.jpg?v=0"></p>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/1115766767_81c5408136.jpg?v=0"></p>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1099/1116602632_c645903022.jpg?v=0"></p>

<p>More <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/steveharris/">here</a></p>

<p>I'm aware that all of them are probably clichés, but I'm still trying to work

out what looks good in black and white. I've not got the hang of it yet.</p>

<p>As far as self critiquing goes: I think I need to try and go for wider

apertures - I was a bit hesitant with the rangefinder accuracy, and it was

bright enough that 1/1000th wasn't often letting me go over f/5.6. This film

seems to have a lot of latitude though.</p>

It was the Nikons I was considering, but I'd seen people moaning online that it was unreliable on Intel, and didn't see many comments on VueScan - though maybe that's a good thing, people seem quick to moan and slow to praise.

According to Nikon's website the drivers certainly haven't been updated in some time.

Thanks for the info though, that's one less thing to worry about if I decide I want a scanner.

- Steve

OK, that's pretty much what I guessed.

I just picked up my scans from the underrated BW400CN, and it looks nicer than the ISO400 rated shots, plus I used "Snappy Snaps" this time and their scan quality is a bit better than Jessops' by the look of it.

I think I'll keep using the labs scanning for a bit, and maybe buy a scanner if I ever become any good :) I gather it takes something like 40 seconds per negative to scan, and the scanners can be quite a pain to work with (on Intel Macs at least).

Thanks,

Steve

Thanks, very useful.

I've also been using XP-2S a bit too, but I rated it at what it said on the box, and wasn't that impressed with the results, then I saw shots here where people had said they were underrating it, which looked more like what I was after, and makes it easier to use wide apertures to boot.

I also use Lightroom to process my scans.

I've been getting my local photo labs to scan the negatives as I don't own a negative scanner. I'm not sure what differences to expect, but the resolution from the lab seems to be lower than the film, and I'm not too impressed with the dynamic range of the scans either.

- Steve

Update: I bought an M6 0.72 TTL with a (very beaten up) 50mm Summicron and a 35mm CV Ultron. I've put 3 films through it in the last day and a half, 1 colour, 2 B&W. Enough to confirm that I still don't really like the look of 35mm colour film, the B&W shots look great though.

I really like the handling and size of the camera, it was exactly the change of style I was after. Time will tell whether the rangefinder handling outweighs the disadvantages of film :) I guess if I like it too much I'll get an M8 at some point.

The 35mm lens in particular seems like a really good fit the way of working, and I got back into the swing of things pretty quickly. The only thing that's stumped me so far is having to take my eye from the viewfinder to see what aperture I've got set.

Many thanks for all your advice. I'll be sure to hang around on this forum to pick up some tips.

Thanks for all your responses. Very helpful.

This is definitely a case of want not need! The thing I miss is the immediacy of cameras designed to be operated manually, which more "modern" rangefinders don't have.

The D200 is pretty obtrusive, and especially fast AF zoom lenses are big, but I don't find that to be too much of a problem. I've got a tiny Panasonic/Leica branded 16:9 compact thing (I don't remember the model number) that gets good quality images at ISO100, probably better than I'd get with generic 35mm film and highstreet processing, but I just don't enjoy using it that much. Too fiddly and the lack of viewfinder is awkward.

Money is not really the issue (hence why I'm not that interested in buying a optically similar cheaper option), but I would feel bad about taking a perfectly functioning camera off the market. If I don't buy the Leica I'll just spend the money on a SLR lens :) Also the cost of the chemistry and the amount I shoot means that I'd spend more in film and processing than on a cheaper camera anyway.

I want to handle the camera and lens before I buy as ergonomics is the main point, so I'll definitely buy somewhere I can try it out.

Going for a 3rd party lens is a good option though, shots I've seen on Flickr taken with Voigtlander lenses certainly seem fine, do they focus smoothly and have a good feel to the aperture rings? They don't seem that common in London though, from looking at websites. Does anyone know a dealer that stocks some? It seems like there are some that require M-mount adapters, and some that are natively M-mount, does it make a big difference?

[OT] My feeling is that modern optics are so good that ergonomics is more important, I've bought Nikkors over less expensive lenses that are optically as good (eg. 12-24 range), because the 3rd party lenses generally don't feel right. All the quality glass in the world won't help me take a good photo if the handling is all wrong.

I've been shooting with Nikon DSLRs for a few years now

( ) and I really enjoy it, but I find

that I'm nostalgic for the good(?) old days of rangefinder and film. Though by

contrast I don't miss film SLRs at all.

I last shot with a rangefinder 15 years ago or so. I'm contemplating buying a

Leica, as I've always wanted one, but could never afford it.

What worries me though is that I'll spend a thousand or two pounds on something

pretty, then it will sit on a shelf gathering dust. Is there anyone else here

that's done the same thing thing, and do you find that you use the film camera much?

I live in London, so there's a reasonable selection of shops that sell Leica

gear near me, but what would be the best single body+lens combination that won't

break the bank or be too hard to find. I'm thinking M6 + a 35mm lens of some

kind, but advice welcome. Do I have to be careful about buying a pup? I've no

idea how you check rangefinder mechanisms for focusing accuracy and so on.

Thanks in advance,

Steve