michael_darnton1

My 85/1.8 was a super lens. I had a friend with a 90 Summicron from about the same time. We did some tests and he admitted that mine was the better lens. I've had a few of the later. Canon lenses, and they were all good. At one point I traded my Canon 35/1.5 for a 35RF Summilux, and it was a mistake. In spite of thing I've read, my 85/1.5 was a good lens, too, even wide open, though it was heavy AND impossible to focus. :-)

There's already an electronic trigger--it's called a flash synch outlet. I believe several of the large format add-on digital backs for film-based cameras use this strategy.

 

I don't think it would be a particularly difficult job to make one. The only downside I see is that if you look at the equivalent devices for medium format (snap-on digital backs for non-digital cameras), they're very large. On a Leica RF how are you going to get your eye anywhere near the finder with a big box hanging on the back of the camera?

According to the serial numbers on the link I provided above, it looks like about 100 black 1.9s were made, versus about 3000 black 1.8s.

I think the black 85/1,9 was made for a very short time. I've never seen one, and have only seen a couple for sale over the years.

 

http://canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=telephoto_lenses&id=22

Consider that the long-distance performance may be a focus problem. Canon RF lens focus cams are a bit "casual" and can use some adjustment. Focus on something a couple of miles away, and see if your lens is fully up against the infinity stop or not. . . . or even, in the other direction, if it can get to infinity, as far as the RF is telling you.

 

I had three 135mm Canons, and every one was out of adjustment, as was my 85/1.5. Only the 85/1.8 was properly set up from the factory. Once they were set right, all of them were great lenses.

You need these people:

http://www.diyphotography.net/

This site is all about the type of stuff you want to do.

Unless you're shooting auto, the meter's an interesting anachronism. Guess an exposure, take a shot, check it on the screen on the back (yes, I think this is necessary on a digital camera), correct the exposure, and move on.

 

But I don't think the meter or the screen, or any other electronic things, are going to be the hang-ups. I will bet you that currently one of the most expensive parts of the camera is the finder. That's the thing they'd have to figure out a way to do cheaply.

Chris, I didn't say full frame. I would have tolerated a smaller frame, as on the D300 that I did buy. And Nikon has digital bodies for under $500, so certainly Leica could make something for less than $4000, I'd think.

 

And I think my point was missed, and that is that the day when bodies and lenses travel in tandem and are thrown out together should be over, if that was ever the case. Almost all of the Nikon lenses from the beginning will work on my D300, and that's one reason I bought it, just the same as why I stuck with Leica for so long. The reality, though, is that a digital body is not the same as a film body in terms of expected life span, and I don't support Leica making throwaway bodies with keep-forever technology, at a keep-forever price. This is definitely an area where they are out of step with reality.

I almost started a thread on part of this topic the other day. If there had been ANY digital M camera available for under $1000 (at the time, I was specifically thinking of the Leica CL) I would still own and be using Leica gear. Basically, multiple thousands of dollars is simply too much to spend for a battleship-built product with a technological lifespan of about five years. When a Leica could be counted on to last multiple decades, it was a fine idea, but that concept is no longer appropriate.

 

I think Leica should concentrate on lenses, and build a polycarbonate copy of an M-camera--same design and handling characteristics, and keep it cheap so that when it becomes inevitably out-dated in a couple of years it can be replaced. I would have bought two of them in January, but instead, I sold all of my Leica stuff and completely switched to Nikon, because I couldn't see Leica ever doing such a thing.

 

That's what's necessary if Leica intends to stay in business.

Perhaps it is front-focusing at all distances, but because of depth of field you aren't noticing--you only notice when the infinity number doesn't line up? I'd check the exact focus at closer ranges to see if it's focusing correctly--you may have to do some fine tuning.

I don't know anything about Macs, but at work the Mac there won't save my prefs because I'm not signed in as whatever the Mac equivalent of the administrator is. It gives me a little notice that it's not going to do it as it closes.

Is this Mac or PC?

I do mostly critical work at slow shutter speeds. My habit for years has been to rest my hand on the camera, putting the whole tripod system under a bit of stress, and firing the shutter directly, by hand. I have done this with 4x5, 6x7 and 35mm over the last 25 years. I never lost a shot, and recently I switched to strobe because of elevators in my new building (vibrations I can't control), and guess what, things are NOT sharper now. I always felt that a shutter release invited vibration because the camera/tripod are springy and not damped. I can't say that this is going to work for you, but it has worked very well for me, and it's worth trying.

It's good to etch TM's hint in your mind, even if you're not having problems. A corrupted preferences file seems to be the #1 cause of Photoshop problems, and I've erased mine a couple of times over the years.

Lex says:

"Ethics and art don't go together. History shows that when artists are pressured to behave "ethically" the result is propaganda."

 

You're probably thinking Soviet Russia. I'm thinking the Renaissance, and that this may not be a bad thing, appropriately utilized.

That's all true, but absent other information, here's what we have: someone who's either mentally or chemically unqualified to assent to the photos, which appear to have been sniped from a distance in a situation that most sane people would not assent to. Perhaps the reality is different--maybe it's a professional model being paid thousands of dollars, or maybe it's Abraham Lincoln in drag, but we have ABSOLUTELY no cause to assume anything more than what we see, I call that exploitation. And that doesn't begin to discuss whether a series of snapshots such as this are "Art". I personally think they're neither art nor journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film

 

A friend of mine suggested this rule to me once: no action is neutral. It is naive to believe that you can do something that will have no effect whatsoever. The only question is what is the effect, positive or negative, and for whom. We should strive to do only things with positive effects.

 

I know that some people (prisons are full of them) don't subscribe to that, and I know that the effects are often difficult to see at first glance. Also, some people derive pleasure from causing negative effects, and will speak in favor of such things.

It's one of the things that delighted me about Leica M models when I discovered it, having had the same experience as you over the years. I don't know about the metering, having never had one with a meter.

Are you asking because you have not yet tried a Leica? I'm left-eyed, and with the viewfinder window being as far off to the left as it possibly could be, and a pretty good stand off on the lever (out so far that it's beyond being a problem), I never had a bit of a issue with it getting in the way

You have quite a few photos with white backgrounds on Shuttercock. What are you doing now to get that?

This is something I deal with daily. In order to do it without Photoshop, you really have to light the background separately with probably at least a couple of separate lights. In Photoshop it's easy to take care of the background, no matter what it is. One more reason to go digital. :-)

The first lens I bought for my D300 after the kit lens (18-135) that I got with the camera was the 10-20mm Sigma zoom, and I have never been unhappy that I did that. In your case, it would give you seamless coverage from 10-200, without much overlap.

RF is the likely suspect.

 

Once my M3 with the 35mmRF Summilux on slipped off my nylon jacket arm as I reached for the railing at the top of a tall stairway in a commercial building and did the slinky thing down about 25 hard-surfaced steps, one at a time, and the only thing that happened was that a prism in the finder delaminated. It cost a bunch of money to fix, but there wasn't even a dent anywhere externally. Them things is tough!

It didn't work in your case, but this is going to be a GREAT new tool for photogs trying to keep track of who steals your photos.

http://tineye.com/login

 

Incidentally, I believe you have violated terms of service here by posting a picture that isn't yours, instead of a link to it. Don't be surprised when your post disappears....

I inherited a 105/2.5 AIS, and though focusing it on my D300 is a pain, the results are spectacular, expecially wide-open. I'm considering getting a katzeye focusing screen just so I can use that one lens.