carson wilson

FWIW, here is my experience today, approximately.

Equipment:

LS40

HP/Compaq 8000 Elite SFF running Windows 7 64 bit pro.

1. Plug USB cable from scanner into FRONT USB port of HP/Compaq

2. Windows finds LS40 but says "Driver install failed."

3. Try to operate LS40 with existing VueScan install: not found.

4. Upgrade VueScan to 9.6.07 (pro). Installer asks permission to install VueScan driver. Answer yes.

5. New VueScan locks up, doesn't recognize LS40. Kill VueScan from Windows Process Explorer.

6. Use Windows device manager to uninstall LS40 device.

7. Turn LS40 off and back on. Windows now says device installed successfully.

8. After several power cycles and reloads false starts, VueScan recognizes and uses LS40!

9. Device Manager now reports driver for LS40 is:

- Driver Provider: Hamrick Software

- Driver Date: 08/21/06

- Driver Version: 1.0.0.52

- Digital Signer: Hamrick Software

I think when I upgraded VueScan, it discovered the LS40 and attempted to install the device driver but failed. I think when I removed the LS40 via Device Manager, this signaled Windows to attempt to "install" it. Apparently the VueScan driver was staged and then installed at that point.

I hope this helps someone (maybe ME a year from now!).

For the record, this page may be of use. Though it refers to the Leitz Summicron-C, I

think it is of

identical design to the CLE's 40mm lens:

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.jumboprawn.net/jesse/cams/gear-profiles/leica-summicron-

40mm.html">Lietz

Summicron-C M 40mm f2

The No-Contest Bargain Leader in Leica Lenses</a>.

<br><br>

I agree with previous respondents that extreme caution is dictated when working on a lens,

however

rangefinders are a little easier:<br><br><i><b>Not recommended for beginners: I also

have a

spanner

wrench

(which you can buy from MicroTools) to take off the back and front elements to get access

to the

aperture blades and inner elements for simple cleaning. I only do this with rangefinder

lenses as

they do not have automatic diaphragms and are considerably simpler in design and

construction

than SLR lenses.</b></i>

<br><br>

- <a href="http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-

frameset.html?repair.html~mainFrame">Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras by

Karen

Nakamura</a>

<br><br>

For a spanner wrench, see: <a href="http://www.micro-tools.com/store/

SearchByCategory.aspx?CategoryCode=SPN">Microtools</a>.

Thanks to all for your responses. Please permit me to follow up.<br />

<br />

First, though there are more technical meanings, common usage according to Webster for <b>depreciation</b> is <b><i>"n. 1. a) a decrease in value of property through wear, deterioration, or obsolescence...."</b></i> So I think I'm using the word fairly.<br />

<br />

My point is not that digicams are a bad investment or that their rate of depreciation is bad or good, but that <b>it's huge compared to film camera depreciation, and exceptional even for electronics depreciation.</b> I find this surprising and think others may.

<br />

<br />

Also, I'm not singling out the Olympus C-60. <b>To the contrary,</b> I use it here as an example to illustrate the general situation: rapid model turnover with only incremental performance gains. Ed and Andrew have a point: if you're shopping for a digicam, don't pay a premium for the latest model. Go with last year's, similar but half as expensive!<br />

<br />

Finally, I notice my link expired. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=171451&is=REG">The Olympus Stylus Epic still costs $90 here.</a>

<i>(with apologies to any C-60 Zoom owners reading this)</i><br />

<a href="http://carsonwilson.com/digicost/index.php?/archives/17-Case-

Study-in-DigiCam-obsolescence-Olympus-C-60-Zoom.html"><img width="200"

height="154" border="0" hspace="5" align="right" src="http://

carsonwilson.com/apples/uploads/3245.jpg" alt="" /></a>The C-60 Zoom,

Olympus' first 6 megapixel camera, is a case study in digicam

obsolescence. The C-60 Zoom or C-60Z (known as the X-3 in Japan) was

introduced March 18, 2004. Though it contains 6 megapixels, one

reviewer characterized the images it produces as "noisy:

"<blockquote>Overall image quality was good, but not great. My main

beef with the C-60's photos is noise. There's too much of it, and

frankly I'm not surprised -- <b>the more pixels you stuff into a tiny

sensor, the worse the noise is going to be</b>. Noise doesn't just add

"grain" to your images, it eats away at details too. The C-60Z's

photos have what call a "video capture look", a kind of fuzziness.

(from <a href="http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/c60z-review/

index.shtml">DCRP Review: Olympus C-60 Zoom</a>; see the review for

image samples)</blockquote><br />

This is a perfect illustration of Bob Atkins' point that <a

href="http://carsonwilson.com/apples/index.php?/archives/8-Effects-of-

the-physical-size-of-digicam-sensors-on-performance.html">sensor size

limits pixel count</a>.<br />

<br />

Further, the camera's value has dropped over 50 percent in just 19

months. At its introduction, the C-60 Zoom cost $449. Now it is

being sold for <a href="http://www.refurbdepot.com/productdetails2.

cfm?Product_ID=3245">as little as $215</a>.

<img width="200" height="128" border="0" hspace="5" align="left"

src="http://carsonwilson.com/apples/uploads/olympus_stylus_epic-small.

jpg" alt="" />Why? Probably because, since the introduction of the

C-60 19 months ago, Olympus has introduced no fewer than <b><i>19

similar models</i></b> (to see this first hand, visit <a href="http://

www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/">Olympus Digital Cameras</a>

at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">dpreview.com</a>). This is not

even counting the four noncompact digital cameras Olympus introduced

during the same period. This underscores <b>the alarming rate at

which digicams depreciate</b>, as described by <a href="http://

carsonwilson.com/apples/index.php?/archives/11-Digital-Maybe-later..

html">Dante Stella</a>, <a href="http://carsonwilson.com/apples/index.

php?/archives/7-Neither-film-nor-digital-is-better-on-an-absolute-

basis.html">Ken Rockwell</a>, and <a href="http://carsonwilson.com/

apples/index.php?/archives/5-Film-vs-Digital-Which-is-right-for-me.

html">KB Camera</a>. In contrast, the latest Olympus Stylus Epic

compact film camera is still basically the same model Olympus

introduced in 1996. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/

controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&

sku=351231">Currently selling for $100</a>, the Stylus Epic captures

about <b>10 megapixels</b> of information per 35mm film frame.

<center>

Because nearly all of the information I've found on the Web about the

Leica CM has been of an incidental nature, I'm launching a <B>new Web

page<B> dedicated research information on this interesting camera at:

<br />

<br />

<A HREF=http://lcm.carsonwilson.com>lcm.carsonwilson.com</a>

<br />

<br />

From the introduction:

<br />

<br />

<B><I>"The Leica CM is a compact 35mm film camera, produced by Leica

Camera AG since February 2004. It features autofocus, dual mode auto

exposure, center-weighted metering, a fixed focal length retractable

lens, built-in flash, and motorized film advance. Lacking

interchangeable lenses, manual rangefinder, split screen focus, or

manual film advance, to some it's not a "real Leica." However, with

high grade optics and manual control over focus and aperture, it's not

a typical point and shoot either. So, the CM is either the poor man's

Leica, or the rich man's point and shoot. I've not found much

information on the web about this camera beside scattered user

comments and Leica's promotional materials. Therefore, this page aims

to describe and explain this little camera that defies easy

categorization. I hope to provide you with clear information about

this unusual camera so that you can better assess its value.</b></i>

<br />

<br />

Enjoy!

</center>

Using a video camera capturing approximately 30 frames per second (29.97 fps), and confirmed by the digital timer on my Palm T3 in the same video frames, I've observed the following:

Measurement 1. For a Leica CM set to autofocus and prefocused (shutter button depressed half way), the interval between the time the shutter button starts to travel from half way to fully depressed and the time the shutter is fully open at F4 is 12 frames. 12/30 frames = .4 seconds.

Measurement 2. For a Leica CM set to autofocus and prefocused (shutter button depressed half way), the interval between the time the shutter button has become fully depressed and the time the shutter is fully open at F4 is 5 frames. 5/30 frames = .16 seconds.

So, if you prefocus it takes 40% longer to move the shutter release from half way to fully depressed than it takes for the shutter to open afterwards.

For comparison, here are similar measurements for an Olympus Stylus Zoom 70:

Measurement 1. 16 frames or .53 seconds;

Measurement 2. 7 frames or .23 seconds;

Similar measurements for a Leica CL:

Measurement 1. 3 frames or .1 seconds;

Measurement 2. less than one frame or under .03 seconds.

Trevor,

Up to this point you have been a convincing advocate of Leica's CM, in the face of its detractors.

Now, your post of June 29, 2005 above suddenly indicates that "I no longer use the CM."

Why?

Thanks to all who have responded so far!

Reading over my original post I realize I need to clarify a few things:

1. Because the frame lines are our only point of reference, it's CRUCIAL to focus the rangefinder on your light source before testing. I'm sorry I didn't mention this earlier.

2. The image I posted is from my tests with a 40mm Summicron-C lens. If you use a shorter focal length, you should keep this in mind, as whatever metering pattern your camera has will shrink proportionally with a longer lens.

3. If you tested your R2A and R3A and found it WAS centered, please post that result here - it's a VERY significant finding. So far out of three respondents, 2 have defective cameras; including mine that makes 3 out of 4. If this does NOT represent the actual failure rate it's very important that owners of nondefective cameras let the rest of us know!

Thanks again,

Carson

I recently acquired a Voigtlander R3A, with which I'm quite happy

other than what may be a glaring defect: the built-in "centerweighted"

light meter seems to be very off center!

Background: the meter is a silicon cell mounted behind the lens mount

flange and aimed backward at a grey shutter curtain inside the camera.

The cell is at about the 1 O'Clock position of the lens opening when

viewed from the back of the camera. As such, it aims down toward the

grey shutter curtain, and reads light from the parts of the curtain

it's aimed at.

Frans de Gruijter has tested his Bessa R metering pattern; you can

view it at http://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm under "Voigtlander

Metering Pattern." As you can see from Frans' findings, the meter

picks up more light toward the center of the image area, as one would

expect of a centerweighted meter.

Granted, the R's cell is situated at the base rather than the top of

the lens flange, so we should not expect identical results. However,

every test I've run on my R3A shows that its pattern is far from

centered. I've attached an image of my findings to this message.

I'm pretty certain my meter is not calibrated properly, and this is

resulting in misexposed photos when I assume that I can aim the

viewfinder at my primary subject and have the camera adjust exposure

based mainly on what the viewfinder is centered on.

However, with a sample of one, I'm not certain whether this is a

manufacturing defect, a design flaw, or just something I don't

understand yet. As such, I would be grateful if any R2A and R3A

owners reading this would check their meter pattern and post the

results here.

The methodology is fairly simple:

1. Set ISO to 3200 and aperture as wide as possible;

2. Set speed control on top of camera to A for automatic exposure;

3. In a darkened room, aim a powered on flashlight toward yourself

from about 10 feet away. An LED penlight is a good choice as it has a

small, bright, narrow beam;

4. Stand or sit facing the penlight so that you can look straight at

it through your viewfinder;

5. Press the shutter button lightly to activate the camera's meter;

6. Move the camera so the light from the flashlight tracks around the

camera's meter until the highest speed reading appears at the bottom

of your viewfinder and note the location. Is the flashlight centered

in your viewfinder? If not, what area gives the highest speed

reading?

If you don't want to go to all of the trouble above, you can certainly

just set it to A, focus on at any small, bright light source and see

if the shutter speeds maximize when the light is centered.

If you want to go a step further and generate a metering pattern like

those mentioned above, start with a sketch of the viewfinder on a

piece of paper. Move the flashlight around the viewfinder to

determine the borders of various speed readings, from highest to

lowest, and map them out using the framelines as your landmarks.

Thanks in advance,

Carson Wilson<div></div>

The link mentioned by Mitch Alland above has been relocated to:

<A HREF="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml">The Glow</A>