michael_beller

<p>Hi...<br>

I have been using a 23" ACD for years. Seems I need an upgrade at this point as my workflow has elevated to the point I need more resolution and accuracy. I have been using Eye One Match for years on my Apple, and still shifts a lot, and has a mind of it's own, not to mention outdated specs.<br>

Looking to recommendations under the following criteria:<br>

Largely personal use; some archival prints sold<br>

Print accuracy a must - presently an Epson 3800 - use custom profiles rather than Epson in-printer color.<br>

Under $1000<br>

True in-monitor calibration would be nice (a la Eizo) - but not neccessary<br>

Work environment is<br>

Software used mostly - LR3, PS/CS5</p>

<p>Any recommendations would be very helpful. A lot of the specs on the upper range look common, so gets a bit confusing. I have always lusted after Eizo's however, most of them are cost-prohibitive. Don't know if their lower end cost ($1000-1200) are that much better than competitors that may cost less for the same performance or better.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Akira. Does not appear in the images. Just in very low light across the whole screen. My guess is that's the deal. Outside today no problems, though I used the EVF most of the time. Like looking at a LCD TV. Weird and effective. Now trying to decide whether to keep the EP2 at all.</p>

<p>Yes, well my first (digital) mid compact of any note - bought into the EP2 system. Today.<br>

Question on the LCD player. Please keep in mind the only live LCD camera I have used is a Ricoh GRD II fixed lens/FL, and it holds up pretty well.<br>

With the Zuiko 14-45 (planning to get the Lumix 20/1.7 as the prime), shooting in medium to low light, the LCD has vertical lines running through it and fuzzing out the image. This is NOT is the dark. Inside low lighting. <br>

Is that normal for a slow lens at f3.5/14mm to blow out like that on this LCD? And I do know the res on this LCD is a paltry 230,000 pixels - why beats me on a camera costing this much. The EVF is pretty cool though.<br>

I am pretty sure this is normal for a slow zoom, but not sure how tight the LCD should be. Guess I can check in daylight in the AM as well. Just want to make sure it is not faulty.<br>

(The GRD LCD display is the same 230K, but seems to not break apart as bad.)</p>

 

<p>Very nice. I'm sold :)</p>

<p>Perhaps "relevant" was a poor choice of a word. This thread was merely to hear views on the use of this format among you, the cognoscenti out there. It is not a flame war. It is not a dis on MF. It is only a question of how it fits in.<br>

What prompted me to write this is the following (self) notion to be crystal clear. In my experience as an amateur, I have used Leica M's for discreet street shooting, and now learning MF on a Rollei (which I am loving.) Fine art photographers that specialize in still life, landscape, and formal portraiture seem to use LF for their own optimum results. I realize these are generalizations based on my experience only. Thus, my genuine curiosity on where MF format fills the gap today. <br /> <br /> Yes, indeed, this statement is irrelevant. The creative process and how you get there is all that is relevant. I do not know any artist or even casually creatively inclined person that would ever dispute that. There are people shooting cardboard pinhole cameras that have produced breathtaking work.<br /> <br /> I have learned quite a few things on this thread. Yes, people like to flame, vent, protest, rant, defend and the rest that triggers, however the other side of is remembering the most important point made on this thread by a couple of you...<br /> <br /> Who cares...do what is good for you and your own process.<br /> <br /> Thanks for that.<br /> <br /> Mike</p>

 

<p>I phrased my question incorrectly. Let's forget digital. The only reason I brought that up is that is seems high end digital satisfies most professional uses today, whereas 120 was the format of choice commercially a couple decades ago yes? Thus, acquiring MF analogue set up and workflow seems less relevant to that aspect of photog.<br>

That leaves enthusiast/amateurs and fine art masters. Seems the latter is squarely in the LF camp? That leaves the former.<br>

And I guess Bruce is right, whatever tool it takes to acheive a vision.<br>

I have noticed for myself small things like a WL finder is fantastic, and totally different immersion into the creative process than prism VF's/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not meant to be film vs. digital debate by any means. Only format wise. <br>

Good point on the larger negative/transparency vs. 35/ Still, I wonder.</p>

<p>Why Medium Format now?<br>

No really.<br>

I recently acquired a MF film set up cobbled together with the help of some p.net friends. I came to thinking about why MF analogue anymore? Where does it fit in?<br>

35mm and DSLR seems good enough for street shooting, and if you spend major bucks a la D3x or something like that, digital studio work seems to satisfy most clients or serious amateurs. The Leica M8 fills the digital RF bucket.<br>

For fine art landscape/still life and portrait, seems Large Format (4x5 and up) is the serious choice.<br>

So...why Medium Format film? That last word is key here. Not talking about digital. Anyone that has seen a MF digital back's work knows it blows and D3xxxxx out of the water hands down. However, you must pay through the nose for it.<br>

Tell me why anyone should care about MF analogue anymore. <br>

Mike</p>

<p> </p>

I find myself in the same quandary.

 

I asked myself if I went on a trip to India tomorrow with my D300 and wanted to

carry one or two lenses at very most what would I do? Both of these lenses draw

beautifully and I need the 2.8 speed regardless of VR on some slower DX zooms.

 

17-55

 

The near-term rational answer is the 17-55 DX. I could get the wide (24 and 28

effective at least) and medium portrait shots I want. However, what if I want to go

wider? The 17mm (24 true) setting on this lens has barrel distortion from what I can

tell from decent non-post corrected images. Still, this DX lens may be my rational

choice...a great choice...now. I have NOT used it yet so this is all speculation.

 

Then the other demon pops up on my other shoulder....

 

24-70mm

 

I am an obsessive compulsive, and will want a Nikon compact "Son of D3" FF as

soon as it comes out <$3k. Plain and simple. That is my nature and I admit it.

 

I don't want to debate here, but I think that will happen before year's end for the

simple fact that the Nikon will be exposed by an imminent Canon 5D Mark II. If the

difference in price between a DX D300 and this new FF Canon is <$700-1000, I

would believe many would go to Canon, especially new buyers into high-end DSLR's.

Images on these full frame sensors are tremendous, and frankly, I find crop factors

totally annoying. If a DX lens is not optimized for FF, then call it what it is - 17-55

DX lens a "DX 25 - 82.5mm".

 

So you can see where I am leaning - and yet, I still I agonize. I may go the route if

the 24-70 and a pick up a used dedicated wide that does not look like a fire hydrant.

 

We all know the truism (that I avoid so I can play gear games) is our eye and

creativity make a good picture. Glass helps, but I have seen stunning pictures from

lenses on the used market for $50 at every funky FL there is out there. I am having

most fun with a beat up 50 1.2 AI-S then anything else right now with the D300. Out

of limits comes true creativity. Thus, the funky FL's of the 24-70mm with the D300

are a challenge. ...so what (I am alluding to the advances amateur - not pro who

must earn a living and use some standard FL's for their clients.)

 

I also looked back through many of my favorite shots over the last couple years,

though a slight majority are in the true 35-100 range, it is basically a split decision.

The true 24 FL is important to me.

 

So 24-70mm for today. I have one to try out for a couple of days. If not, I'll try the

other, and if not, I'll stick to my old primes until something comes along that fits the

bill.

 

And lastly, I am truly humbled by the knowledge in these forums. Thanks....

 

MB

Correction - the 35 f/2 serial # is actually 36xxxxx, not 39xxxx - my bad. 39x wuld probably be ASPH or something.

Ok-so I guess my story was a little over the top. My lady would like for me to be a hopeless romantic with her in the same way, however we all know the answer to that one...um...sorry dear...we are talking about Leica here :)

 

Thanks for everyone's advice. I opted for a pre-ASPH late version Summicron 35 f/2 (serial # 39xxxxx or whatever the sequence.) It comes Tuesday from a private vendor who happens to be an advertiser in one of the photo magazines of national stature the company I work for owns. (I work on the car magazine side.)

 

 

I mention to him that if there is something wrong with the lens (such as a blemish on the rear cap at high noon), I will ban him from advertising in the magazine again. Just kidding if he is reading this...though I could do such a blasphemous thing ;)

 

Mark - totally get you on the clarity/depth of field on the ASPH, so maybe some day. For now, I am going to have fun with this baby.

 

Also, as a guilty pleasure I picked up a 50mm f/2 Summitar in nice conditon for a fair price from a photographer on this site. I like the B&W contrast and "vintage" look of images I have seen taken with this lens. Now I need to find a screw mount...darn.

 

Thanks again all. You guys rock. Look for another story of escalating proportions brewing in the midst...

 

Mike

Thanks all. I am in the hunt for a 35mm Summilux or Summicron later series. Think I will

start there...as that was my intitial instinct. As far as an overhaul, maybe in the future -

seems pretty good and well taken care of for now. Thanks for the advice and contacts on

that end.

 

Mark - As it seems you know, romanticism is the fodder of cynicism. Funny though, having

no romance is about as mundane state one can place oneself. Guess that's why we do this -

pain and all. Thanks for the insight into your thoughts.

Well, it was only a question of time. Instinct tells me that perhaps some of you already knew where this

tale was going from my 1st post about aquiring a Minilux to jumpstart a long lost passion. Thanks

again for everyone's eloquent replies in that thread, especially a luminous member who built an

exquisite hand crafted leather case for my Minilux at a nominal charge even though this case was out

of his production line.

 

As advised, I carried it everywhere - the car, my work bag, suitcase for traveling on business, shooting

images of the sides of buildings from POV angles that would make any Bush trained Partriot Act agent

of service nervous...

 

"Hey, hands off, I just liked the lines and composition of that grates on that wall! It will look great in

black and white, don't you understand? Contrast my man, contrast!", I may have posed to that agent if

this was actually a true event.

 

"Yea buddy, come with me and let's make sure you are not transmitting wireless images to the world at

large with that weird looking apparatus in your hand with an alien name."

 

Yes, perhaps a bit of drama building is neccessary here, for how else may one express such an event of

positive consequence? To spare one from excitedly nervous babble, I aquired an early black body M6

yesterday. My first Leica M or rangefinder for that matter. It was from a member on photo.net via his

innocent post on the local craigslist site. I had researched fervently online, consulted various Leica

pillars in the community, and the body I chose not more than a night earlier surfaced on a random

check of the venerable classified message board where most listings shouted the availability of "rare

and collectible" point and shoot Olympus palmed digital cameras that came out yesterday for "$5 under

retail." I am not knocking Olympus :)

 

The seller and I had amiable phone exchanges and decided to meet at a Starbucks (a serene location ;)

at my behest. It was a bit of a travel for him, nevertheless, he punctually arrived. We sat outside and

the unveiling began. Out of his white camera bag came the M6. Original box, case, manual, warranty/

registration card (early serial number as I had wanted), and of course the body in nearly pristine

condition. Oh yes, and a brand new Leica strap in an original vintage case (the original strap had

broken long ago.)

 

As he mentioned on his humble post, there were "one or two" small cosmetic flaws, I could not see any,

even if I held it up at high noon in the desert with a large magnifying glass, and even then would have

probably been hallucinating (from heat mind you :) He humbly blushed and said, "well, to some

collectors this is very important.

 

Of course I know this to be true having once been a sleep deprived collector of rare jazz LP's, vintage

industrial lamps and found objects. You know the drill. However, in this case, the miniscule (if they

were even there) cosmetic wear was not visible to me save for one maybe tiny blemish of complete and

utter compulsive disorder protest - and I checked believe me.

 

There was that anticipation as the case opened that well, hard to be eloquent about. You all know it

better than I...

 

At this juncture, this kind man my elder could have said, "Well, do you want it?"... or let me fiddle with

the shutter and other elements with me playing a false "in-the-know" role when not even knowing how

to check it thoroughly, looking upon me wth a sorry eye waiting to get the cash and blow out of there.

 

No, of course this would not be the case with a genuinely nice man, a Leica passion driven shooter.

Yes, he did use his cameras, which to my understandng is their purpose rather than cold storage for

ressurection in the Bladerunner age (shameless plug for a great film.) The mechanics were perfect, and

he took me through a top down inspection on what to look for and how to use various elements and

tests to ensure a long life for this little beauty.

 

Well, we could have been done there. I was sold. Nope-not over yet. He brought out a portable slide

viewer to show me some shots he had taken with this very body while on a recent trip to Europe to offer

an idea of what the images look like. This was not about a sale anymore, but more a genuine exchange

between an elder in the craft to a fledgling and determined new kid on the block.

 

The shots caught me off-guard - they were stunning. Truly. Almost ethereal. The landscapes were

perfectly composed with slopes of mountain sides falling into valley of vast beds of wildflowers and a

depth of field that caught me off-guard. Every tenet of composition and patience of good photography

as an art form were there...this was not a quick click digital image to post on flickr that could have been

my backyard for all I knew.

 

Slide after side was mesmerizing. I promise you this is true. I can at least humbly grant myself a

degree of aesthetic recognition, and this was the real deal. I sincerely hope if he is reading this post he

understands the talent that is readily and gently apparent. I could not stop dropping one slide after

next in the viewer. My Lord, are those blooms floating? - that must be photoshop - nope - just an

artist using a good hunk of metal to get at that essence of what he saw through his own eye. I'm

gushing; however, it was a humbling moment.

 

I slipped him the cash in a padded bank bag from an armored truck parked outside the coffee house.

Actually it was a wrinkled blank envelope from Wells Fargo dug out of my pocket. If was a very fair

price, and we were both happy to have made the transaction.

 

One last thing that perhaps gives the best insight into this gentle man... my mobile rings about a half

hour later. He says with grave concern - "Mike, Mike! I think we may have left the camera battery on,

and make sure we put it back on B as we discussed so the battery won't drain!" Who does that? Who

makes that extra effort with a call like that after the sale? Yes, he had mentioned this feature of

consequence previously in our meeting and how to prevent it, and of course, I forgot to check. He

added a couple more insights and we bid good tidings.

 

I could on with more serendipitous moments that day such as the father of one of the kids at my son's

birthday party later that afternoon turning out to be a passionate Leica M user of many years, and well,

long and excited conversations ensued even through the mayhem of Dave and Buster's sugar-fueled

kids running amok during the birthday extravaganza.

 

Now I have this metal, but no glass! The seller had brought a lens so we could view the finder and all,

but know I am lens-less! What to do? What is a great lens for this camera? Well the answer seems to

be many. Why would it not be? Leica lenses are the stuff of legend, and anyone reading this knows

that a heck of a lot more about it than myself.

 

I have narrowed it down to the following in order of choice for my first round. I not even know if I got

all the delicate coding correctly.

 

All M:

 

35mm Summilux f/1.4 ASPH - First choice and probably cost prohibitive at this point unless I can find a

friendly nice deal on a used piece.

35mm Summicron f/2 ASPH

35mm f2 Summicron later production

 

50mm Summilux f/1.4 ASPH

50mm Summicron f/2 ASPH

50mm f2 Summicron - gets confusing for me where in the production range is best. Perhaps I am

being too anal already!

 

I want to start off with one lens for both budget purposes and to learn the camera. I do not really know

if ASPH is that necessary for the price (?) I like to shoot street, architecture, and some medium

portrait.

 

If anyone here has good reputable sources to recommend for aquiring one of these, or even a lens from

their own vast collection (fat chance on that one, huh?), please let me know. One thing for sure, I will

not buy it from a source that has not been recommended and/or available to discuss or converse

through email about it. Also, I avoid buying something like this on eBay if I can.

 

Any advice or help would be appreciated. If you got this far, appreciate it and I value your opinion

greatly.

 

Best,

Mike