frank_revi

<div></div>

<p>Responding to the chaps touting British pronunciation, I keep hearing Brits pronouncing the great Cervantes story "Don Quicksoat". When they talk about a single team with a singular name, they use a plural verb - Manchester United ARE going to play.... Someone really ought to teach those silly Brits some proper English, I say.</p>

<p>Generally, when you approach your subject with the intention of stealing or sneaking the shot, or getting away with something, that vibe gets picked up real easy and the subject reacts negatively. Photographing in public is not a crime, and if you're not imposing too much it's often no big deal to the subject; like someone else said, interacting with the subject is not cheating. Successful street photographers always find a way to become part of the situation rather than come in from outside. Sometimes it's by becoming invisible, sometimes it's by becoming the guy sticking his camera into things. Be normal. A lot depends on the exact scenario at hand, of course - obviously sometimes people react negatively (or worse) to being photographed - it's not supposed to be easy all the time and you will need a thick skin to get some shots. Be impeccably civilized (not necessarily polite); you can be annoying up to a point, but any hint of the wrong kind of wierdness and you're toast. It's all about being right with yourself at the critical moments. This is a skill that can be learned, as well as somewhat of an art. The key is to pay attention inwardly. If you can do that, the tactics will come more easily. Sometimes you just don't belong, and you can't get a shot you'd like; sometimes the right thing to do is look away. Be OK with that.</p>

<p>Dmitri, as hard as it is to do, I think you should focus the attention on your own actions and assumptions rather than on your negligent web hosting company, which deserves to go out of business for any one of the number of things they did wrong in even your single case. A few hard lessons:<br>

- The responsibility for your customer not getting his photos in time for his press release is wholly yours. I heard no regrets from you about failing your client, only about having to refund his money. Your priorities are misplaced.<br>

- You should be glad that consequential damages are a tricky area; your client's consequential damages from not getting your photos on time are likely far more than your fees. Hope your client does not have the same attitude toward you that you have toward your ISP; my hunch is your client's got a better case against you.<br>

- Web and computer-related businesses at all but the most enterprise levels have low standards of perfomance, responsibility to customers, and often business ethics. Repugnant but true.<br>

- Choose your web/IT providers carefully; there's a reason why some cost more than others (even though you don't always get what you pay for)<br>

- If you're going to do business, do what it takes to make sure your customers are taken care of. That's why some photographers cost more - their clients get what they pay for (see above)<br>

The actual out-of-pocket costs for these lessons are only the expenses you incurred on the press release shoot, plus the aggravation factor on your vacation. Count yourself lucky.</p>

<p>Pay more attention to your child, and the mother, and less to your camera gear.</p>

<p>If you are doing high altitude stuff, where the air is so clear and thin and the sun is so bright and everything is white with clean snow, the faster shutter speeds could really come in handy. But those guys did real fine with original FMs; they surely show slow film, which should allow a good range of shutterspeed/fstop combinations even in those conditions.<br /> <br /> I predict that either camera model will not be the cause of a single compromised opportunity, and if your camera fails, it won't be becasue you picked one flabor of FM over another. Recommend to prioritize camera condition, then maybe price. If the situation is mission critical, you'd be real well off to buy a backup body rather than split hairs on distinguishing between the FM flavors.<br>

<br /> Quoting Mork: "Fly! be free!"</p>

<p>In answer to your question about my post, I think at the time of the K2 expedition in question only the original FM was around. Only the original FM had the GaAsPh meter, so put that in the FM advantage column. Certainly FM2/FM2n are fine too; who knows, maybe they've fixed the SPD issue in the meantime. But I'd look into the lube thing; I seem to recall something specifically about the shutter needing to be de-lubed, but it's a long time ago.</p>

<p>There's a special journalist version of the F3, more specialized even than the F3HP. I saw one on ebay for cheap the other month, might even have been new. I forget what the differences are, but I think they're right in line with your objectives.  Look for one of those....</p>

<p>This past summer, I was walking around Folsom Lake. Long story short, I got a dollop of very fine silty lakebottom sand splashed onto my Leica right where the lens (50mm Summilux) meets the body.  Got right into the lens barrel, at a slight touch I could feel it grinding, so I didn't touch it further and sent the whole thing back to Leica USA in New Jersey to have it cleaned.</p>

<p>Approximately 7 weeks after approving the repair, after hearing nothing from Leica, I emailed to ask about the status of the work. The reply came back 3 days later that the body was in the mail (it was), but the lens was "...not yet complete. They are working on it. As soon as it is complete it will be shipped back..."  Pardon me, but the response to "please tell me when it will be returned", "When it's ready", is at best rude.  But hey, it's not like I'm Jim Marshall or Sebastio Salgado, maybe I'm expecting too much from such a famous company.  Leica's kind of old school, maybe a 7 week wait for some of the gear to be returned and a don't-call-us attitude about the rest is...normal...?</p>

<p>Four weeks later - for a total of almost three months since it was sent in - the lens arrives (with no contact from Leica in the meantime).  Overjoyed, I remove the lens from its heat-sealed transport bag and check it out - focus is very smooth; but wait, what's this new feeling, this resistance in the aperture ring, it won't even go  to f11.  Looking down the lens barrel, it's clear to see that the diaphragm blades are somewhat scrambled, bending out of the aperture plane, the hole itself is a strange oblong shape, grotesque....</p>

<p>Yes, after three months, they'd sent my lens back with a freshly broken diaphragm.  Think about this. Who worked on this lens? How could anyone not notice such an obvious problem? How, after THREE MONTHS, could they send it back to a customer like this? Do they have any quality control at all? What does this say about Leica, the most prestigious camera company in the world?</p>

<p>Not wanting to deal any further with Leica USA, I sent an email to Leica Germany explaining the situation and asking for them to replace the lens.  The result of that was a voicemail from Dave Elwell, head of Customer Service at Leica USA, "...sorry if [i was] not satisfied with the repair work"... and giving his phone number. Incidentally, doing some web surfing about Lieca repair at this point is how I found photo.net....</p>

<p>I spoke with Dave, who had no explanation for how this could have happened. I asked nicely if they had any quality control over there, and Dave explained that sometimes they do spot checks on outgoing repairs, but mostly they rely on the quality and experience of their repair technicians, because checking everything would be too expensive. It sounded like he said this with a straight face. (I did not ask Dave if it would be reasonable to expect, for a $2500 50mm lens, for it to be checked over a little, much less repaired properly in the first place.)  Dave offered, if I would send the lens back to New Jersey to his attention, that it would be repaired properly and checked by a supervisor before being returned in a timely manner. Against my better judgement I accepted this offer and sent the lens back via 2-day air, with a note asking for the lens to be put on an optical bench and verified to be within spec and to provide me with a report of this.</p>

<p>Dave politely sent me an email letting me know that they'd received the lens and that it was expected to be done within a week and go out before Thanksgiving. He sent another email letting me know that it had been overnighted and would in fact arrive the day before Thanksgiving, which it did.  No optical report was included, however.  The lens looks and feels great at this point, and after being asked via email, Dave said that the lens had been checked and verified to be within spec.</p>

<p>I think I'll be sending my Leica elsewhere if it ever needs further work.</p>

 

<p>I read somewhere, National Geographic's article about climbing K2 I think (probably 25 years ago), that they had the lubrication *removed* from their FMs (which they used because of their light weight and all mechanical construction) lest it freeze and stop up the works.  I think the FM's gallium arsenide phosphide meter is supposed to be much better in the cold than the silicon photodiode (SPD) material that's used now and always has been in most cameras since CdS went out of style in the mid-late 70s; SPDs slow down appreciably in the cold.  My impression is that the GaAsPh was just a better material, but too expensive to justify.</p>