jeff_bubis

<p>I currently have an M9, which I love. I'm interested in upgrading to the M primarily so that I can use the EVF with wide angle lenses. I'm trying to decide if the M-P is with the additional money. There is about $1500 difference between the two best prices I could get (a certified, pre-owned M and a new M-P). I would love the sapphire glass, but I can get a glass screen protector. I love the look of the M-P, but cosmetics alone aren't enough to make me spend the extra money. I'm trying to decide if there is a real-world difference that I might experience in the buffer that would justify the difference in cost or if there are other considerations I haven't thought of. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone's input. Certainly a lot to think about. I appreciate it!</p>

<p>We are planning a trip to the UK and Paris. I'm trying to travel as lightly as possible while still being able to have some flexibility photographically. I have an EM-1 and the 7-14, 12-40, and 35-100, however I was considering the LX100 as one camera is obviously lighter. I'm doubting that I would use the long tele much in cities, but was wondering what people's thoughts were on the need for a UWA vs using the LX100? I recognize the megapixel differences and the fact that the LX100 doesn't use the entire sensor. I'm open to other suggestions, as well. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Yes. I have the Hadley Pro and love it. It will definitely fit, but I would consider a different bag for a DSLR. I sue my Hadley Pro for my mirrorless system and Leica but prefer the 5 and 7 series for my DSLR. You are getting away from the messenger-bag type appearance, but the shape is a little easier (IMHO) for accommodating larger cameras. If you ever use a grip, this will definitely not work with the Hadley Pro. Good luck!</p>

<p>I had thought about outfitting another Mac for this, but ultimately I found a CoolScan V at a good price and this is a USB scanner. FWIW, though, I found a lot of posts on various sites vouching for the Firewire to Thunderbolt converter. No one seemed to have a problem using that method. Just an FYI. Thanks to both of you for your help!</p>

<p>Thanks, JDM. I've searched for issues and called Apple. It's not a popular topic, but I also can't find anyone with any problems. The comments that have been posted on other sites are all favorable. I will report back with my experience.</p>

<p>Has anyone tried using this FireWire scanner with the Firewire-Thunderbolt adapter? If so, has it been successful? I'm aware of the software issues re: Nikon support and the need for a VueScan or Silverfast. Thanks in advance!</p>

I think the answer is to change formats. I literally just got back from Alaska (you'll love it, btw) on Saturday. After years of toting around a

7D and 5DM2 with a stable of L lenses, I made the switch to m4/3 and took an Olympus OMD E-M1 and and E-M5. Amongst the lenses I

bought for this trip was an Olympus 12-40/2.8, which has similar specs to the Canon you are using now. I got great results. Any lousy

shots I got were my fault, not that of the gear. You can probably lose half the weight this way. Enjoy your trip!

<div></div>

Not American made, but I've been very

happy with my Benro carbon fiber

tripod. It was a good value and has

proven quite durable.

<p>I've checked with R.T.S., but they don't carry any of the Billingham special edition bags. The other usual stores (B&H, Adorama, etc.) also don't seem to have them. Does anyone have any advice on where these might be available stateside? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I tried one out (got it from Amazon) on my X100 and I'm really pleased with the results. I think I'm going to buy some for my L lenses, too. Honestly, I'm not sure that I can see the difference between the results from them and more expensive multi-coated filters.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any experience with AGFA filters? They seem well made and are multi-coated. I'm looking for a new polarizer and was wondering if (as is usually the case in this setting) they really are too good to be true given their low cost? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both 35's and I think they have different strong suits. Because of its weight, I find that I use the 35/2 fare more often than the 35L. I have used them on both my 7D and 5DM2 with fantastic results. If you shop around or don't mind getting a refurb, you can get the 35/2 for well under $350, which I think is a great deal. I think you really need to decide why you want the faster lens - is it for bokeh or low light? How often are you going to use the L at 1.4? In either of those cases making the switch to a a 5D would probably provide more short term improvement in your image, but lenses can last a lifetime... Not so with cameras.</p>

<p>I had a LX3 and recently purchased an LX5 when Amazon had it for about $260. It can fit in your pocket if you've got cargo pants (or in a coat pocket), but the S95 is a truly pocketable camera and has an integrated lens cap. To me, the quality of the images is excellent for a camera of its type and the flexibility it provides is worth the fact that it's not truly pocketable. I love the LX5; it's a great companion to my X100 when I want to travel light. I think the improvements to the LX3 were modest. The S95 Amazon deal (since expired) was also compelling. I agree with the others - you can't go wrong with either, but I think you should try them out before buying.</p>

<p>I can't say enough about the 35/2. Even though I have the 35L, I kept the 35/2 because I don't always feel like carrying around something that heavy and I don't always need the aperture, build of the 35L. It's my favorite non-L lens after the 17-55.</p>

Comparing the Leica to the x100 is reasonable, but the 5D2 is a separate animal, entirely. Both the Leica and the x100

have APS-C sensors and both have 35mm equivalent FOV. I have the Fuji and preferred it for cost, the fantastic OVF,

and the lens is slightly faster than the Leica's (2 vs. 2.8). I have not regretted my decision for a second. The image quality

is fantastic and I have found that I am using it more than my SLR these days. If you put a "cheap" 50 mm on your SLR,

you will get a completely different FOV. The 5d weighs more, but has better battery life and will do better (presumably) in

low light as even a nifty fifty has a faster aperture and on FF that will let in a lot of light. You will also have almost twice

the resolution. I think any of your choices are reasonable, but you should try out the Leica and the Fuji and compare it to

what you have to make your decision.

<p>I second David Manzi's suggestion of Rockefeller Center. It's great at dawn and dusk (they have special packages for both) and I've gotten great shots even at midnight. IMHO, the views are better than from the Empire State and are less obstructed.</p>

<p>I have a ThinkTank Airport TakeOff, which I love. Made well. Well cushioned. Can function (like the LowePro) as a backpack, as well as a roller, but without needing to be removed from a case. My only complaint is the lack of an integrated lock, which the Airport Security has.</p>

<p>I looked at both the Canon and the Tokina 11-16 and wound up going with the Tokina. IMHO, it's better in every way - IQ, construction, and price. It also comes with a flocked hood, which the Canon doesn't and I find useful for both flare (more of an issue with the WA's) and protection. The only thing the Canon has going for it is the Canon brand and the focal length, but I'd trade that for a fixed aperture as I use the lens for more than landscapes. All are great lenses, though, and I'm sure you'll enjoy whichever you purchase.</p>

<p>Even if you don't buy at B&H or Adorama, the trip to the stores are actually great experiences in themselves! Photographer's paradises!</p>

<p>I recently had a similar dilemma and wound up getting the Canon 1.4 refurbished directly from Canon. I love it. Couldn't beat the price. Its construction is not on par with the Zeiss or the Sigma, but it weighs less (which is another reason I favored it) and I think IQ is just as good. You won't go wrong with any of them, but I paid under $350 for the Canon, and you're unlikely to come close to that with the Sigma or the Zeiss.</p>

<p>I have the 17-55/2.8 and the 11-16/2.8. These are, IMHO, the best zoom combination for Canon crop sensor bodies. They are so good that they are part of the reason I opted for the 7D instead of a 5DM2 when I upgraded from my 40D as the FF equivalent to the 17-55 (24-70/2.8L) doesn't have IS. The build quality of the Tokina is fantastic. The IQ of both is the best you can get short of a prime. You would not be disappointed with either.</p>

I have Tokina 11-16/2.8, which I love. Better build, faster, and less expensive than the Canon. OTOH, the Canon has

about a 10% wider FOV. Both are great lenses. You should they them both to decide which you prefer.

<p>I love mine.. It's worth the wait, but it's always been hard to get. I agree with the others - email alerts and check the store sites daily. You should not have to pay over the MSRP, though.</p>