david_haynes

One advantage not yet mentioned is that the bellows would have is the ability to tilt

and swing the lens to alter the plane of focus and thus have better control over depth

of field.

I personally have not used the Novoflex unit, but I do have the Canon 65mm and MT

-24 and can tell you it is an amazing macro lens. I also have the Canon 180L and 100

macro lenses and as good as they are, at 1:1 (the only magnification they all three

share) the 65 beats both the others hands down.

It can easily be used handheld down to about 2x or maybe 3x with the MT-24 or a

corded or slaved external flash on a bracket, or for static subjects be used down to 5x

without any need for accessories using a tripod.

For my uses, in the field, I think the 65 is a better choice than bellows. It was hard

enough making focus and depth-of-field adjustments on a 4x5 or larger ground glass

with a magnifying loupe and dark cloth using a view camera. It would be even more

difficult to see what

you'd be doing peering through an SLR film or DSLR camera viewfinder. These old

tired eyes couldn't do it.

John,

Funny you mentioned the "Blad; it's the only film camera I still regularly use. The

Leica's LCD has a setting that overlays a grid of tic-tack-toe-like/rule of thirds

pattern which I find very helpful in composing. In working this way, the AD can stand

behind the camera with me and give imput on the framing/cropping, then see the

result instantly. With the Hasselblad it's a minimum of 90 seconds for a color Polaroid.

But with the Leica, if one of the tests is really good, it could end up being used rather

than just another Polaroid in the wastebasket.

We shot the fourth of the five shots for the campaign today, in a corner market of the

owner standing in front of the butcher counter. The last one is tomorrow at an

optometrist office.

Yesterday I gave the art director a CD-R with all the JPGs so far from the shoot. We

shot three last week. Of course I'm shooting RAW + JPG, but the AD won't need the

converted RAW images til he makes selects for final production.

Anyway, today he said not to even get the Canons out, he prefers the Leica images.

They do have a "different" look, which I attribute to the lens mostly.

The store owner had recently replaced all the lighting with daylight-balanced

florescent tubes and we didn't need any additional lighting for what we were doing. I

just did a custom white balance and they looked just beautiful. If necessary, of course,

the white balance can be tweaked more when the RAW conversions are made for final

production.

I think the AD likes the Leica shots because they are different than what he's been

getting from other photographers shooting Canons and Nikons. Gives his work a

slightly different "look."

The only downside with using the Leica is its slow RAW write times - 6 seconds

between shots with the fastest cards. But for this particular project that really hasn't

been an issue and I'm averaging shooting about 60 images with variations of cropping

and angles for each shoot - about a GB for each one. After all, he really only needs

one image and for the size they'll ultimately be used the JPG would probably suffice,

but it's good to have the RAW for peace of mind.

I own both cameras.

Both are great in their own ways.

I'm at this moment in the middle of a five day advertising shoot in which we're

shooting environmental portraits of local businessmen in their places of business for

a bank's small business division.

I'm shooting the job with both my Digilux 2 and Canon DSLRs. The ads will be 8.5x11

or less and so megapixels are not an issue.

Because these are real people and not professional models, the D2 is great because

it's completely silent and tends to put people more at ease than to be peering at a

photographer zipping off exposures with a DSLR and big lens, lens shade, etc.

I'm using it with the 2.5-inch LCD as a viewfinder, shooting from a tripod. We're

shooting first with the Leica, then with the Canons to make sure all is covered. But

after the first shoot last week, the art director really liked the look of the Leica images

(I did too) over the Canon ones. Not that with PS massaging the Canon ones couldn't

look about as good.

But there's just something about that Summicron lens. It's a little Leica magic.

Would the G6 also be feasible to use? Sure, as far as straight resolution goes. But I

don't think I want to show up at a shoot and have the art director ask me why I'm

using grandma's camera.

Fact is, I've used the D2 on two or three other professional jobs and would gladly do

so again after this. If you haven't used this camera you just don't know what you're

missing. For me it's a useful professional tool and a lot of fun to use. It's zoom range

effectively covers 28mm summicron, 35mm summicron, 50mm Elmarit, 90mm

Elmarit. If you think in terms of Leica's pricing for those lenses, it's a bargain!

BTW, I am aware that the LC1 is the Leica's twin, but when I bought my D2 15 months

ago, they weren't available and the Leica was, so I got it. The first job I used it on it

paid for itself two times over. In my book, that's a good tool.

I got the G6 for its IR capability (neither my Canons DSLRs nor the D2 do well with IR)

and for its compactness and image quality.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either camera, but the Leica really does magical

things with people. And JPGs straight from the camera are by far the best I've ever

seen from any of the 14 digital cameras I've owned.<div></div>

Gareth,

Since you're moving from film to digital, you have more options, inlcuding:

1) Full-frame Kodak (available in Canon or Nikon mounts) 14mp DSLR with Canon tilt/

shift lenses (24-90mm) or Nikon shift lenses (28 or 35mm I think). Either of these

would be less money then the D2X, though not nearly as versatile when off the tripod.

2) Shoot with a fisheye and correct barrel distortion later in software. Same is true for

correcting perspective, which is easily done with tools in Photoshop.

3) Shoot with rectilinerally-corrected lenses on a 1.6x or 1.5x crop camera (Canon's

10-22 EFS is getting rave reviews) and correct converging verticals in PS.

4) Shoot with more normal focal length lenses and use software to stitch together a

wider image from two or more originals.

If you go with someting like the Zork converter you mention I'd think the

additonal space it would use would preclude infintiy focus, like an extension tube.

And as you went wider and wider with your lenses the extension tube effect would be

more pronounced.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't have an IR remote, but the Pentax WR43 could be useful for some remote

wildlife shots.

It is 4mp, waterproof down to about 3 feet, so could be left on a tree-pod, and has a

reasonably good lens (f/2.8 wide) and good metering.

It also has an interval timed shot mode that allows photos to be automatically taken at

specific intervals. There is also a "fast forward" movie mode that can be used to take

time lapse shots. For instance, you can compress a 30 minute sunset into a few

seconds or so by adjusting the frame rate (video mode) from 2x to 100x.

As far a a remote release is concerned, I once rigged a Yashica-Mat 124 with a trip

wire across a game trail using monofiliment fishing line tied to a regular mouse trap.

When something touched the fishing line, it sprung the trap, which pushed a cable

release firing the camera with flashbulb (25B) which was focused and exposure set for

the trail where the trip wire was located. Primative, and only one shot per setup, but it

worked.

Without a threaded cable release socket, I'm not sure if the above would work for you,

but something could probably be rigged.

I've used my Digilux 2 in all kinds of lighting conditions - both LCD and EVF - and I

feel like the complaints about viewfinding are way overblown.

My opinion is that the LCD is one of the best, if not the best, ones on any digital

camera, even in bright light. I set the manual focus for full-screen view and I can

focus quickly and accurately with it, then touch the shutter release button to return to

the full image.

And I've used many a Leica, with and without optical VFs (also a Hassy SWC for 15

years) and I much prefer working with the D2 to those. I like seeing exactly what I'm

getting.<div></div>

Steve,

You are probably aware of this, but I'll mention it anyway.

Most everyone I know shooting dslr's professionally set the camera to capture RAW +

JPG. In other words, the camera saves the RAW data and also creates a JPG using the

image parameters (white balance, color saturation, sharpness, etc.) that were set on

the camera at the time.

If all was done properly in metering the scene and exposing, for many applications

the JPG file will be fine. Just like shooting transparency film - no fudge factor

included.

But if you inadvertently expose using the wrong white balance or over- or under-

expose, having the RAW file as a digital negative backup can be invaluable.

For projects that will be printed or otherwise published I always shoot that way and

give the client the JPG files for review and layout purposes. Then, if necessary, I create

a 16-bit TIFF image of the selected images for final pre-press processing. Often if the

image is to be used small in the piece they just use the JPG, however.

And if you're doing any post-processing at all it's very valuable to convert from RAW

to a 16-bit image file because any manipulations will have more color depth to work

with.

The downside to shooting this way, of course, is that you'll have to have more

memory cards to accomodate the larger files. But with memory as cheap as it is, I see

it as a good investment.

Good Luck.

Here is one of the first images I took with my 43WR... truly a "grab shot." It should

give an idea of what the camera is able to do. I was driving along the interstate in

early December on the opposite side of the highway from the barn and green hills

when I saw this gorgeous golden light. I pulled over and having just bought the 43WR

had it on the seat beside me. I stood on the car bumper, held the camera up as high

as I could and still see the LCD, and fired off four quick shots at ISO 50, "P" mode.

Then opened back hatch to get out my 20D. But before I could get it from the bag the

light changed and the scene was ordinary again. When I got home, this frame was the

only one of the four without a blurred car or semi truck in it (the other lane of traffic

is just below the bottom of the frame.

Later I made a 12x18 of this image as a test and was blown away with the quality of

the lens and 4mp processor. Of course, with that light any camera would have made a

nice photo. I still wish I'd had the Leica within reach. It would've been a notch better.<div></div>

Pete,

I have the Leica Digilux 2 (twin of the Panasonic LC1) and it would be a wonderful

camera for what you're doing. Pricey though.

But I also agree with the above comments that in general digicams are pretty tough.

I've had the Pentax 43WR as well and it offers a lot for the money, but no RAW or

manual controls. Still, I've pulled beautiful 12x18 color prints from its 4mp files.

I've had my Digilux 2 for about 13 months now and I still reach for it whenever it will

do the job (i.e. - something in the 28-90mm equiv. range). It has a fast f/2-2.4 lens

and spits out perfect jpgs that require little or no post processing. And the images

have a "Leica" contrast and color palette that I've seen in none of the other 13 digital

camera (5 dslrs and 8 p&s) that I've owned.

I guarantee you would not regret buying either D2 or LC1. It's the only digital camera

I've owned that I would never part with.

The biggest downside to the Pan-a-Leica route is price and noise at high IS0. If you

need ISO 400 you'll have to shoot RAW for best results.

Good luck!

John,

RAW and ISO 50 are the key, IMO. With JPG you get into the camera trying to deal with

the noise; and there is considerably more noise with long exposures at ISO 100 than

50.

Also, make sure you convert in 16-bit. This allow you to squeeze out as much as the

file has to offer in post-processing, even though it's black and white.

As for prints I'm using either my old Epson 5500 (set to highest resolution black ink

only for b&w prints) or my Epson R800 for smaller prints (up to 8x10). I've been very

happy with the results. Haven't used processing services much (only pro labs a couple

of times for really large prints if 16x20 and above). I used Millers Professional Imaging

in Kansas, the same lab I used when shooting film when I had a portrait studio, and

they will do an excellent job. I think you have to have a tax ID number to be a client of

Millers though. Also good is CPQ in Cleveland, Tennessee.

Good luck.

John,

I bought the G6 mainly because my other P&S (Leica Digilux 2) and DSLRs (1D and

20D) would not do IR acceptably.

I've used a Hoya R72 filter with the G2, G5 and now G6 to do IR photography and the

G6 performs best by far.

I have not seen noise as a major problem with the G6. Certainly the noise in a print

from the G6 is less noticeable than the film grain in 35mm Kodak High Speed

Infrared.

FYI, this is what I do in shooting IR:

1. Hoya R72 in Lensmate lens adapter

2. Always ISO 50

3. Always shoot in RAW

4. Always Manual Exposure Mode (set aperture and shutter speed to where you think

it should be, then half-press the shutter release, in the top/left corner of the LCD it

will show if exposure is plus, minus or correct. This will get you in the ballpark, then

check the histogram after the shot to make sure exposure is okay. Correct exposure

is important because underexposure will result in signal noise in shadow areas when

corrected in post-processing. If anything, overexpose a little.)

5. Always use tripod (I use a miniature one that folds down to 3 inches, along with a

mini ballhead - fits in the little camera bag I carry the G6 in)

6. Use the IR remote to release the shutter.

7, Double check focus on the LCD (surprisingly, usually AF works on the G6 thru the

IR filter - it didn't on the G2 or G5 I had)

8. Try these setting in PS/CS Camera RAW when converting: start by pulling saturation

slider all the way to the left (zero) to make image B&W. Then work with exposure,

shadow and brightness sliders to get a good histogram and image looking like you

want. Especially note that bumping the shadows to the right can enhance contrast in

an IR shot. I also bump the luminance noise reduction up to about 25% but do not add

any sharpening in conversion. And convert as a 16-bit file.

9. Once the image is open, use a local contrast adjustment (USM - 20/50/0) to make

the image snap and adjust as necessary in curves or levels to get highlights/shadows

where needed.

I have made 13 x 19 prints from my IR images that I've very happy with. Sure, they

have a gritty look, but it's sharp and not objectionable - far less than the grain in that

size from 35mm film IR.

Hope this is helpful for you.<div></div>

I just noticed the ISO 800 crop showed as a link instead of a photo on this page. I

made smaller and am trying again...

Nick,

I have the same camera/lens, as well as the Canon 1.4x and 2x converters.

It's a well-documented fact that the 1.4x converter is a much better performer than

the 2x. In fact, I'm hard pressed with the 20D to see any drop off of quality with the

1.4xTC.

That is not the case with the 2xTC. It does degrade the image with this lens, but it can

be managed somewhat. I'm more pleased with the 2xTC on my 400 f/5.6L and 180 f/

3.5L macro than this zoom, however.

If it comes down to a choice of using the 2x or shooting without and cropping, I still

think there's an advantage in using the TC.

In my experience, using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS plus 2xTC, the best image quality comes

when you stop the lens down two stops from wide open - from f/2.8 to f/5.6. But

once you add the TC factor of 2x the f/5.6 becomes f/11, so unless you're shooting in

direct sun it's best to use support. Remember, this lens on the 20D with converter is

now equal to a 640mm tele in 35mm format.

I'm never tested turning the IS on or off with the TC, but I can see how that could also

be a factor. I also do not understand why the 2x works so well on the 180 macro -

still very crisp!

For me, I carry the 2xTC with me most of the time for "emergency" shots that might

arise when I don't have a longer lens along. I don't hesitate a bit about using the 1.4x,

but the 2x is only used when nothing else is available.<div></div>

I have used the G2, G5 and G6 with ST-E2 wireless flash controller and one, two or

three 550EXs for several years.

Most times I use in AV mode. When an external flash is detected or the internal flash

turned on the camera sets the shutter speed to 1/60. This is usually fine for what I'm

doing.

If I need to use a higher shutter speed I simply switch to manual mode and adjust

each flash unit accordingly. But as I said, typically this has not been a problem for me

and I usually just go with the AV setting and 1/60 second.

Since getting the G6 I have noticed better flash exposures. The literature doesn't

mention the ETTL and ETTL-II, but I suspect some improvement to flash function has

been made between G5 and G6.

Actually, I use my G6 with quite good results at 15 seconds often when doing digital

infrared shots through a R72 IR filter.

The G6 has an effective long exposure noise control method (dark frame subtraction I

think it's called) in which a 15 second exposure is followed by a second exposure

with the shutter closed for the same interval. Then the camera's processor removes

the black specks that can arise from long exposures on these small sensor digicams.

The 15 seconds maximum exposure - for me - hasn't been too limiting for the kinds

of shots I've been doing, especially since you have f/2 available at the wide end of the

zoom range. If I need more than that, I just use a DSLR with normal "B" setting.

But all-in-all the G6 is one of the more capable P&S digicams for this kind of

photography, IMO.<div></div>

Canon G6... A wonderful little camera!

Manual or auto exposure modes, f/2-f/3 fast 4x zoom (35-105 equiv.); RAW; super

macro gets you closer than 1:1 on a film slr; small but not too small; 7mp yields really

nice 13x19s or stunningly sharp and crisp 8x10s; good images straight from camera;

lots of smart features like built-in

ND filter, two programable sets of camera settings, tilt-and-swivel LCD/viewfinder,

you can shoot jpg and save selected images as RAW as the need arises (saves card

space). And it will do IR with appropriate filter (R72).

Available now for around $500.<div></div>

Another often used technique when doing cityscapes of the city's lights is to try to

work at dusk or dawn, when there is an afterglow in the sky that avoids making it

totally black and gives the buildings something the be set against. This can also give

the photo a very appealing color palette.

I usually try to do a series beginning just after sundown and continuing for an hour or

so until all the light is gone. There's usually one image where the lighting all comes

into a "balance" that pleases me.

Good Luck!

WHat I do with my Canon 20D is to shoot in RAW + best JPG.

When I download, I separate RAW and JPG files for each assignment and work with the

jpg files unless there is a problem with them. For many things - such as web, up to

A4 inkjet prints, etc, - I never even convert the RAW file (which is much smaller file

size than a 16-bit tiff).

The exception is when - for whatever reason - I missed on the camera settings (white

balance being the most often problem) at the time of capture. Then I'll convert THAT

RAW file to print or deliver or whatever.

I always back up everything both on removeable media (CD-R or DVD) as well as to an

external hard drive. By working this way a typical shoot will easily fit on a DVD (4.7GB)

with both RAW and the best JPG, along with any copyright-embedded PDF

presentations or other slide show/proofing folders.

Another thing I have found very helpful in archiving images on removeable media is to

print a typical or memorable photo from the shoot directly onto the CD-R or DVD with

my Epson R800 printer. When searching for a particular image later this makes finding

the right disk much easier because I can easily remember the image compared to a

disk marked with date and assignment with a Sharpie.

Good Luck!

What camera are yu using? Does it capture RAW plus JPG?

If so, just work with the JPG files until you are ready to do something with them (i.e. -

give to an editor or art director for print, or make a print yourself). Then use the RAW

file to convert to an image for that particular use.

This is how I and most everyone I know works - using the smaller JPG as the "proof"

and the RAW files as a "digital negative" to fine tune for the final presentation.

Actually, the Canon lens is eqivalent to a 24.5mm (.7x). I had one for my G5 (which

shares the same lens as G3 and G6) and overall it is a good lens, though it is big.

Combined with the adapter needed to mount it this lens (and probably any others you

might find) will be as larger or a little larger than the camera itself, and weigh as

much or more.

The Canon lens has excellent sharpness, but does lose some contrast, but focusing

with such an effectively short lens was extraordinary. You can basically shoot

everything at f/2 and just forget about it.

Like all lenses of this type there is considerable barrel distortion, which can be easily

corrected in freeware (like Panotools) or low-cost PS plug-ins (like "Debarrelizer" that

I use from theimagingfactory.com).

Bottom line is If you can live with the bulk/weight of the lens and adapter for

backpacking you'll like the results.

FYI - with my G5 I also discovered that by putting a 58mm IR (hoya R72) between lens

and adapter that I could take advantage of the lens' huge depth of field and still get

sharp IR images.

Good Luck!

Panasonic DMC-FX7 - 5mp, Leica Vario-Elmarit image stabilized lens, f/2.8-5, 35

-105mm equiv lens, humongous 2.5" LCD, and the entire camera can hide beneath a

credit card.

Got one for my wife for Christmas and for the first time she's making great images.

Hand-holdable down to about 1/4 second with IS on. Gorgeous 8x10 prints, very

good 11x14.

No manual controls except exposure compensation, but metering/white balance is

outstanding and color/contrast of the lens/image processing have a Leica flavor.<div></div>

Is the above post (apparently from some company called "wired circle") an ad

endorsed by photo.net or some sleasy firm with a new variation of spam targeted at

message boards?

Isn't someone supposed to be moderating these boards?

The post gives no useful information, only tries to steer the original poster toward

their business.

I'm making myself a note - "Do not EVER purchase an item from Wired Circle"

There, I feel a little better. But after reading the Wired Circle post I think I need to take

a shower.