philip_wilson

lex the G2 is not suitable for zone focusing as the lenses refocus to infinity. Manual focus is only manual control of the motorized system. The lenses are excellent - up to Leica standards but there are no 3rd party options. Both the 21mm and 28mm are superb but the 21 needs the accessory finder. While it sounds strange the G system makes a great street system as you can shot from the hip. Use the AF which is quite a wide area and look at the distance displayed on the camera top LCD. In terms of lenses - while the 35 is not the best lens in the system (that is probably the 90 or 45) it is a remarkably good lens. Don't let some of the internet posts on the G1 or the 35 mm lens put you off. As ever I suspect many of these people have never even used the camera or lens. The real thing with the G system is the handling and AF. It is very different from a Leica (I shoot both systems) and the viewfinder is smaller. It is a system you either like or hate - if you don't like the G1 you won't like the G2

Barry. I agree the G2 is a better camera but they sell for 4 to 5 times as much as a G1. I still like the G1 and think it a good way to try the system. If you like it add a G2 and you have a spare body. If not you have not spent that much. You will either like the system or hate it. It is different to Leica with AF and smaller viewfinders. That said just like Leica the bodies feel great in the hand

<p>I would get the G1. I have two G2s and a G1 and in general there is no real issue with the G1. The AF is not as good as on the G2s but this is only really noticeable in certain light situations and mainly with the 90 mm lens. The second AF capability on the G2 and moving the AF onto the button on the back do help but unless you shoot a lot in poor light or at very close distance it is not the big deal the internet makes out. The G1 cannot take the zoom and can only take the 21 and 35 if you have one with the green sticker in the film area. The advantage of the G1 is that it is smaller and handier - the MF button is better placed - should you ever use it. I think you will find the G1 fine and it is good to get in the habit of looking at the range the AF says it is using before you shoot when you get used to the camera. Both bodies have AF issues but most of this can be solved with practice - in either case do not expect DSLR AF capabilities but they are great cameras.</p>

<p>Tom I have had this lens for many years and still like it. It does suffer from some field curvature however. While I have never shot mine that close it may be part of the issue - although why it happens on one body and not the other is perplexing. While my copy does not seem as bad as the one Photozone tested they do a good job of documenting what they found. Could this be part of your issue? http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1</p> <p> </p>

Yes but compared to North America equipment is expensive. It gets closer if you get the VAT back but this can be quite a frustrating process in Italy!

One other tip. Get up very early (around dawn) when you can as the light is great and there are no people around - even in Rome

I have probably spent 5 months of the last 4 years in Italy and I rarely go above 50 mm. I have taken longer lenses but they have remained unused. I would suggest that a portrait lens e.g. 85 F1.8 or 1.2 and your 24-105 will be fine. Indeed if you don't shoot shallow DOF portraits then the 24-105 OS probably long enough. If you shoot buildings etc... Than you are probably much better looking at renting (or buying) a tilt shift lens - either the 17 F4 or 24 F3.5 II. Of the two I would suggest the 17 as you can add (with care) a 1.4x TC to it and get a pretty good 24mm effective FL.

As someone who shoots mainly digital these days (Canon and Leica) but still shoots MF film I can provide some thoughts. 1 if you are shooting at ISO 3200 with the Fuji then you need to find more light or change subjects - even the best digital SLRs (and Canon is very good) are still not great at ISO 3200. I find you get the best results shooting at their "native" ISO which is usually 200 or 100 depending on the manufacturer of the sensor. 2. Digital sensors - especially smaller ones such as the APS-C in the Fuji are very sensitive to exposure issues and even a slight error of ⅓ to ½ of a stop can introduce a lot of additional noise - bracketing usually helps here. I am not sure if you shoot RAW. But I would urge you to do so as the results are much better (indeed Leica JPEGs before the new M240 were terrible) 3. MF still gives better overall results in my opinion. While the resolution of my m240 (especially with Leica glass) is remarkable (better than Canon) it is still not quite as good as my MF Fuji GX680. It does meet and possibly exceed my Mamiya 645 film results however. What really helps MF film is the quality of the image - this is not an easy objective test - more of a subjective one as there is still a quality to film that digital lacks. I am clearly not alone in this view as many top Hollywood directors just got their studios to make commitments to keep Kodak making cinema film as they still like the film look. While this sounds like a film vs digital post I should state that at least 95% of my shooting is done in digital and that I like digital for most applications. But a wet print from large MF film done well still has a quality and texture (especially in the shadows) that I prefer to digital.

<p>China 1987 - Rongbuk monastery and Everest - I think I used a 135mm lens. The monastery was mainly a ruin in those days</p><div></div>

Thanks Frederick. I had an M8 with me so I could have shot in IR. I guess I could process this M240 image to give an IR look

<p>Siena Italy M240 50 Cron</p><div></div>

You can always crop an image in post processing so I am not sure what you gain by doing it in the camera. As a Leica shooter I always like the "preview"capability of the viewfinder - you could see the field of view of usually 2 different lenses in the viewfinder and by moving a lever could switch between three different sets of lenses. In this way you could see the image that lenses from 28mm to 135mm would produce (of course it varied depending on which model of camera body you were used as the system evolved over decades). Unfortunately this is the one feature that was lost with the new M240 where you only get the frame lines from two lenses depending on the lens mounted (e.f. 28mm and 90mm). This preview capability and the ability is something I am surprised has not been added to a DSLR. Of course it seems most lenses used these days are zooms where this feature is not needed. The other interesting capability (but almost impossible to add to a DSLR) is the ability to see outside the image area.

Film has an advantage for certain situations where a large "sensor" is needed. While I shoot a lot of digital images with tilted or shifted lenses it is much easier on my Fuji Gx680 due to the size and clarity of the image in the viewfinder. Of course with large format there is even more of a gap. For most uses the resolution gap is not that important as in both cases the resolution is adequate for the likely image sizes that are produced. While I mainly shoot digital I do find that I prefer the results of a completely film based process when shooting black and white. With colour film I generally scan the negative or positive - with black and white I still prefer the results of paper and an enlarger. Digital is clearly more convenient and has "won" the battle. I have found that when I taught my kids to shoot they learned a lot more with a manual focus film camera than with a DSLR (although with a digital Leica their learning was also very good). I don't think this is due to a inherent film benefit - merely to the fact that with an old MF camera and almost no automation the photographer has to understand what is happening and take care with the process. Interestingly I find it surprising how people don't see basic image flaws. My personal favourite is how people will not notice a TV show in the wrong format - usually 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9 which is common in hotels these days. I used to keep a screen saver image taken with a terrible compact camera - the image looked sharp and bright (it was the mountains by my home) and most people thought it was a good image. In fact the lens was at its widest setting and had seriously distorted the image edges. Almost no one noticed until this was pointed out - in general those that did notice immediately were older.

The 100 F2 is a better lens than the 135 F2.8 but you should consider the 135 F2. This is a really great lens (with a built in hood). I am not sure what they cost used these days

<p>At F4 I find the 35 - 105 to be better especially at the edges, Hard to tell on film in normal use but on full frame digital (I use Leica) you can see the 35-105 is better. That said neither look that great on digital.<br> Phil</p>

<p>Yes B&H or Adorama both usually have a wide range in stock. Meters are so good these days that I rarely use it.</p>

<p>Yes - the crop factor also means that MF digital cameras needed new lenses for wide angle use. In the film days the wides angle MF lenses tended to be 35mm. Nowadays most MF digital systems have a 24mm or 25mm lens to compensate for this crop factor. Interestingly most have retained an 80mm standard lens which is that same as for 645 film bodies (Leica is 70mm).. The legendary Hasselblad SWC was a 38mm lens on 6x6</p>

<p>Pick up a 400 F2.8 and you will see why it is less popular than the 300 - it is 5.5kg vs 2.5 kg for the 300mm lens. I believe the new version might be closer to 4kg but it is still a lot bigger than the 300. Of course it is over $11K vs just over $7K for the 300. In addition the 300 is much more versatile as you can shoot it handheld - handheld shooting is not very practical with the 400 given it's size weight and extra focal length.</p>

<p>Tushar - I have almost all of the lenses you are discussing except the 70-300L. I would suggest that you do not get the 70-200 F2.8 as it is a big heavy lens that is not very versatile. I have one and love it and for shooting indoor sports at close range it is hard to beat. I almost never use this lens for other things than sports. I also have the 70-200 F4 IS which is a great lens and gets a lot more general use than the F2.8 lens. It will still work for most sports applications (ice hockey in some arenas is difficult with the F4 lens) but is half the size and weight. Unless you need to shoot 300mm I would buy this lens as it is a great performer. In terms of portraits both the 85 F1.8 and 100 F2.8 IS Macro are very good. Of the two I would go with the 85 unless you plan to shoot macro. The 85 is a bargain as it has great IQ and reasonably fast focus while being small and light. You will need to budget for the lens hood. As Sarah says the 100 F2 is another option for portrait use</p>

<p>Just the winder I suspect - it may be batteries or just age. Remember they are about 30 years old these days. My A1 winder still works but I had one pack up on the New F1 (where they are more useful as they give you an extra mode) That one did not smoke - just died. You don't get 30 years from most modern battery powered items!</p>

<p>I have the original and rarely use it as I find it rather soft wide open at the edges on full frame. Although slower the very cheap 40 F2.8 is better!. I suspect that the new lens is improved and I assume the AF is better and the old F2 lens is quite slow.</p>

<p>Charlie - I still use my G series lenses on Contax (I could not bear to have them cut up) and they are all great lenses. The two I like best are the 90 F2 and 21mm F2.8 - the 90 being amazingly sharp with great low contrast resolution.</p> <p>Here is the Trevi fountains shot with the M240 and old 35 F1.4 Lux. This was ISO 1600 and shows how good the M240 is a high ISO - it gets close to my Canon DSLRs</p><div></div>

<p>For what it is worth even some of the CV adapters can cause an issue. My CV 21 F4 is the older model and uses the CV adapter to go from screw to M. Usually it is fine but sometimes the M240 will say that no lens is mounted. This problem never occurs on the M8 and is not consistent on the M240. When it happens you can still shoot.</p>