david_rosenthal1

<p>I LOVE using my 21 ASPH! Learning where the lens sees in extreme close-ups takes some getting used to, but it can be done! Adjusting for finder paralax is a learned concept. For better sharpness, I always close down one full stop more than what the lens barrel is marked for, and compensate with a slower shutter speed. Foregrounds stay tac-sharp that way!</p>

<p>Glad that you had a nice time! As far as the battery issue, traveling light with Leica I always use a Domke Reporter's Satchel. Plenty of room for an extra lens, small strobe, a couple cords, extra batteries for everything, and of course film. Discreet on the street too--just another laptop case looking thing!</p>

<p>One thing that no one has touched on yet is the metering for shows can be really tricky! The reflected light meter built into the most advanced cameras can still only read for a 18% gray card average reading. White subjects (lots of snow) will cause a false reading (stopping-down too much) and so will overly black scenes, especially with a spot-lit performer (opened-up too far). A hand-held spot meter gives better results regardless of the film used. I learned this the hard way!</p>

<p>Merry Christmas and good luck in the future!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Let's see, we have 28,35,50 and 90 optics. The BIG question is: What the H*ll kinda pictures are you trying to accomplish? If it's just pretty vacation photos with a bright sunny sky (or even in the shade) I'd keep all four lenses and go for another body so you could shoot both high and low speed films or color and B&W!</p>

<p>Seriously, without your telling us what your doing, we could not give great advice. If you're trying to take pix of a black cat in a coal bin, then scrap ALL of the lenses you have and get the fastest ones made that you can afford. The 35mm F1.4 ASPH IS the normal lens on my Leica. I have the Noct., the 28 F2.0, and the 90 F2.0 APO. I do available light, indoors, without flash whenever possible. The fast optics come in handy.</p>

<p>Get back to us with some details so we can better give you advice.</p>

<p>Here's what to do: Increase your exposure by about a full stop, then "pull" the film BEFORE the normal development time is reached. This will give you a highly detailed negative, with less grain. All that you need to do at this point is to print the neg on a higher contrast (Grade 3) paper for the "sparkle" you're looking for. Sort of like an Ansel Adams experience, only with a 35mm Leica instead of an 8x10 field & view camera.</p>

<p>The lower contrast highly detailed neg will have plenty of shadow detail and the highlights won't be blocked-up either. The ONLY reason to extend the "normal" development times in B&W developers is to gain an increased film speed rating. This is also known as "pushing" the film, which always yields an increase in both contrast and grain. Notice that I said "rating" and not film speed by itself!</p>

<p>Using a "polycontrast" type of paper will give you an infinate number of paper grades using the magenta portion of a dichroic color head or similar device. Or just use regular polycontrast filters that have 1/2 grade steps.</p>

<p>Hope that this helps.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>The base plates for the M-6 TTL, M-7 and MP should be interchangable since the Leicavit for the MP body will fit all three! I have (2) Leicavit winders, both mounted onto the M-6 TTL's and could use more! What type/model winder do you have? If you say that the body came with a winder you don't want, I could be interested in a swap of some kind. I have several baseplates just laying around!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Doug,</p>

<p>As I stated before, the new catalouge doesn't list ANY 35mm SLR stuff at all, as if the company never made any! Lots of "history, including pix of Oscar B. at the work bench. There is no hint of an R-10, with a scheduled release date, as is the case with the S-2.</p>

<p>It wouldn't make sense to completely omit 35mm SLR bodies OR LENSES, unless they (Leica) no longer wish to sell them! To think that the same German company that produced all of those ASPH. & APO SLR lenses which sold for $2,500 to $8,500 each wouldn't want to boast about them, at least on a single page of the catalouge, it just plain CRAZY! In past catalouges, much page space was given to such things as the 90 APO, the 15mm F2.8, the 180 APO, the 70-180 APO, and the focusing units with interchangable heads. Now they don't exist?</p>

<p>If they wanted to promote a 35mm film camera, or announce a 35mm size digital camera that will be using R lenses that they're still looking to sell, one would assume that they would have done so.</p>

<p>If someone else can prove otherwise, I'm listening</p>

<p>Yes, you need the viewfinder! To even ask is &^%*&$#!<br>

The Leica VF might cost more than the cheap lens...<br>

You get what you pay for!</p>

<p>Well, I think that I see the "writing on the wall"! I just got back from the North American Leica HQ. I was near there, so I dropped-in to pick-up some current literature. The 2008-2009 Product catalouge doesn't even mention anything what-so-ever about there ever having been a Leica 35mm SLR! Nothing from the original 'flex to the R-9. Not even the R-9 is mentioned, and the S-2 with just one lens is pictured twice with an announcement that it will be out in 2010. The televid's and binnoc's are way towards the back. The brand-new 21 & 24 lux's, the 18, and the Noct. .095 are all there in traditional fashion. All of the current point-N-shoots are extensively covered, and half of the book is about the M-8 and the sapphire upgrade. Oh well!</p>

<p>One doesn't have to read between the lines to assume that the entire 35mm SLR line has been "abandoned"! After all of the $$$$$ I've invested, I feel like I've been treated like ^#^*%!</p>

<p>Rob,</p>

<p>Sorry that I missed that meeting, as I had to work. What you say makes sense, as I too have met & spoken with Stefan in Williamsburg at that LHSA gathering. </p>

<p>Up until you could buy one (the 75 F2.0), the frame lines were in the cameras for just one special-purpose lens--so we're both right! Not everybody can stand the weight or size of the 'lux 75, so it made sense to accomodate the masses with a tack-sharp short tele. In looking at photos of it, I noticed the word "APO" inscribed on the lenshood. So it's just as dreadfully sharp for portraits as my 90 APO, right? Not that I don't love my 90 APO, cause I do and I use it for portraits.</p>

<p>The upgrade of the 50mm F1.4 lens design just makes sense, especially considering that the new 75 is a tack-sharp APO and the 35 F1.4 ASPH is a great example of Leica making the sharpest lenses possible. They probably didn't want to leave an older (not tack-sharp) lens design as the only "fast" 50mm lens that doesn't weigh a ton and goes for under $6-10K, depending upon the model. I only own a Noct. (for 50mm) as I gave my brother my 50 'lux. I'm thinking about buying the new 50 'lux ASPH for myself, that's how much I'm impressed with the upgrade--any word on whether it's available in black paint?</p>

<p>Kindest regards,<br>

Dave</p>

<p>My almost 36 year-old Gossen Luna-Pro always goes with me when I do snow pix. <br>

The two-stop trick works by taking a reflected reading off of the palm of your caucasion hand, and then opening-up two stops or combination thereof. Just make sure that the hand has the same light level stiking it as the scene you're photographing.</p>

<p>The correct way to do a reading is to use the incident light reading, again making sure to place the sensor in the same light level. All meters are adjusted to 18% gray, so you could bring a gray card to use with the camera's internal meter as well.</p>

<p>If you process your own film--You could always rate the 400 B&W at 200 which is over-exposing to get shadow detail, and then "pull" the film out of the developer early so that the highlights won't block-up. This technique yields a highly detailed flatter contrast negative that requires less dodging & burning dring printing, and somewhat reduced grain and increased sharpness. Snow scenes shot in B&W often need burning-in to obtain any sort of detail, otherwise you got a big white blob!</p>

<p>As far as not using a lenshood? Leave the camera at home if you're in bright sunlight, as you probably won't like the inferior results. </p>

<p>Some of the best snow scenes are shot with short tele lenses utilizing a real lens hood! Turn the camera vertical and use telephoto compression to avoid the usual amateur pix of too much white blob in the foreground.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, and have fun and stay warm!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Many years ago, as a freelance photojournalist, I used my 400 F4.5 FD-SSC on football games. I used it on my older F-1 body with the motor drive MF and the high-eyepoint finder that twisted for use on a tripod. Really nice images! Sharper than my 200mm F2.8. I sold my entire FD system 20 years ago, to buy Hassys for weddings.</p>

<p>Thanks for the memories!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers! I too owned an entire "Blad system", from 30 fisheye to 250 tele, including the 120 macro. I used the macro on full-length groups at weddings as well as some full-length couple shots and of course, close-ups of inanimate objects. The 150 Sonnar was used for the head & shoulders type portraits, as it gave you more reach and the ability to put several people in front of a 7' wide background or knock the background out of focus.</p>

<p>Clunky is dealing with 4 hassy bodies, 8 backs (120 & 220), 3 prisms, and 8 lenses: 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 120, 150, and 250 along with all of the shades, caps & filters, mat box, Metz strobes, etc. Now that's clunky!</p>

<p>Most labs have switched-over to scanning the film and using only the digital printer. Once it's "in the system", you can always pay for or play yourself to clean-up zits or soften wrinkles in photoshop--but the eyes can stay tack sharp. </p>

<p>I never was part of "the team" making decisions at Leica Solms. If I were, I'd have come-out with a 28-70 zoom with a constant 2.8 aperature along with the DMR. Then I'd have bought two DMR's for my R-9's, so I could still be using my 15mm F2.8, 21-35, 35-70 F2.8 (yes, that's the big clunky one that goes for $5K+), 90 Apo, and 70-180 Apo zoom. Lets not leave out the 280 F2.8 Apo with 1.4 Apo extender! Leica's failure to adapt to high-speed wide-angle constant 2.8 zooms KILLED the DMR! And, yes it's just my opinion. Here's hoping that all of this ultra-sharp R glass that I own won't just be fancy paperweights! I'm not buying the S-2--if you think that a 90mm Apo isn't kind enough in portraits, WATCH-OUT! Now we see the pores in your face!</p>

<p>Sorry for the rant--but now you know where I'm coming from! Have a great weekend!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>The 90 Apo is too big? Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it? The OP wanted a portrait lens focal length while using a fim camera. The old wise rule of twice "normal" still applies, so when you get up close, peoples noses don't grow. That's the way it's been for decades. In 35mm terms, the famous Nikkor 105 and 85 from 2-4 decades ago ruled the studios making a living. Examples abound at galleries around the world, and on numerous magazine covers. Did we all "get it wrong" back then?</p>

<p>IMHO the 75mm focal length was "invented" by Leica so that a F1.4 short tele could be made that wouldn't completely obstruct the viewfinder. The only real reasons that the 75mm F2.0 came into being is that all of the current production model (as well as recently discontinued, as is the case with my beloved Black Paint TTL's) viewfinders have the 75mm frame lines built-in for only one special-purpose optic. And then there's the magnification factor of the digital M's. If a Leica M owner didn't want to shoot pix at F1.4 with a very short tele, he didn't need those frame lines distracting him/her. With the addition of the 75 F2.0 Leica has a reason to leave the viewfinders unchanged and also satisfies those photogs who want a lighter, more user-friendly snapshot lens for the doctor & lawyer crowd. Sort of like most real available light Leicafiles have the 35mm F1.4 Asph, and the snapshooters have the less pricey F2.0. No feather-ruffling intended!</p>

<p>If a 90mm F1.4 was possible, they would have made that instead. And then the front lens element would be even wider than 55mm, say around 60mm like my Noctilux or 72mm like my Nikkor 85mm F1.4. And it would weigh a ton, and people would B**CH about that!</p>

<p>One more thought: When you put the 75mm focal length onto a M-8, the 1.33 magnification factor yields (you guessed it!) 99.75mm. "Close enough for Government work"! And portraits! A "happy accident" if ever there was one! A 100mm F1.4 is interesting to ponder also, but, there I go again!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photographing a wedding is asking for trouble! I've been doing them my entire carreer! The first thing that you need is business training and a business line of credit!</p>

<p>When I broke into the field, you needed as least $20K for all of the Hassy equipment alone. How anybody thinks that they can just "get by" with just one flash is beyond me! I usually have 3 or 4, with over a dozen sets of AA's and a high speed battery pack to run the main rig and the flash at the same time. You need redundantcy, just like in thermonuclear war! Buying "make-do" amateur non F2.8 constant aperature zoom lenses is just a waste of time. </p>

<p>Everyone has to pay their "dues" and buy real equipment and real glass, or they shouldn't be doing this for a living! Today's brides deserve the same level of professionalism as their mothers received.</p>

<p>I wear eyeglasses and I use (4) M-6 TTL's, with the full range of finder magnifications, sometimes with the 1.25x magnifier. As far as the 75 mm lens goes, the F2.0 is what most folks would use, unless you need that extra stop. I've tried to use a borrowed one (the 'Lux) a few times and never quite got used to the strange frame lines in my viewfinder! In a "perfect world", I'd have them removed, so when I use my 50mm lens I wouldn't even see them! That's how much I just don't like them! The big 75 also blocks more of the viewfinder image than the longer 90 F2.0 Apo! I use the 90 Apo, which is tack-sharp at all F-stops--Great for portraits, easy to focus, and frame lines that make sense. It is a given that the 75 isn't as sharp as the 90, and it's not designed to be! I also use my 135 Apo, which I love with the .85 finder and the 1.25 magnifier, so using a longer optic on the rangefinder isn't foreign to me!</p>

<p>I also use my R9's with the 90mm F2.0 Apo-R lens, an equally superior optic. As a professional portrait photog, I've found the 90mm lends itself to more relaxed clients, due to the fact that you don't have to close-in on them to fill-up the frame, as you would with a shorter optic. It also compensates somewhat for not having that extra stop by being just a little bit longer in focal length, which results in a shorter depth of field, when needed. The 90 Apo-M also focuses just as close as the 75, so you get more of a close-up using the 90. That's something else to consider, say if you're looking for a close-up of just the face or the hands. I think the 90 is a true performer and should be in everyone's arsenal. My three favorites to use together are my 21 Asph, the 35 Lux. Asph, and the 90 Apo. Makes a nice "sandwhich"!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your answers! I probably will do the modification at some point, but I'll only do one body at a time. Does anybody have an idea as to the cost?</p>

<p>Arthur, I too don't buy things to leave them up on a shelf or in a sealed plastic wrapper.</p>

<p>Dana, I only wished to have known of you prior to this...I could be in the market for the .58 in black paint, to complete the trilogy! You wouldn't be sitting on another one, eh?</p>

<p>Having only ever used the TTL's, and not interested in the AE M-7 which is totally (almost) battery dependant, I actually like the lay-out of the big shutter speed wheel and since I use the meter, I feel that everything else is backwards, and the M-6 TTL got it right! Say what you want about the MP, but I don't like the rewind or the high price tag. I do like to use the black paint Leicavit on the black paint TTL's though!</p>

<p>Keep the comments coming & thanks again!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I'd use my 90mm F2.0 Apo Asph. cause it gets in close enough for me and you can use it wide-open to eliminate the background. If I want longer then 90, I just attach my heavyweight 70-180 F2.8 Apo. It's also a tack-sharp lens out to the corners! Yes, it takes some practice to hand-hold, but it can be done! A monopod gets you into the realm of longer exposures.</p>

<p>You wanted tack-sharp, right?</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I currently have the 1.25x magnifier, and I love it! It is real handy when focusing a Noct. while using the .72 or even the .85 viewfinder! The 90mm Apo also benefits. When using the 135 Apo, I've used the 1.25 magnifier and wished for just "a little bit more"! I should think that the 90 & 135's would receive the most benefit from the higher magnification of the 1.4x. I've never been afraid to "push the outside of the envelope", using my Noct., Apo and Asph glass wide-open on occaison. The higher the viewfinder magnification, the more critical work can be done with the focusing, which brings me to the following digression:</p>

<p>While attending a LHSA annual meeting some years ago, I laid my eyes on a very pretty 180mm M test lens that unfortunately never went into production. The Leica folks there told me that the reason it never went into production was that the focusing was too critical for a .72 rangefinder to handle. I wonder now, years later, if the 1.4x magnifier would help solve that problem. A .85 body with the 1.4x magnifier would work the 135 really good, and just might make the Leica Engineers happy enough to re-introduce the 180mm F3.4 Apo in the original M mount! Just think, a M-8 with an effective focal length of 240mm! Now I can leave the 280 Apo and the R-9 at home without giving-up the ability to really reach-out! It's nice to dream!</p>

<p>As far as the 50 and 35 frame lines with glasses, you're not going to like the results. The 75 will be a real joy to focus, even if you have to guess where the image on the bottom right side ends! Now if you use a 35mm Voightlander finder (like I do) on your .72 body, you can focus with the magnifier, then transfer your eye to the external viewfinder to grab the shot. It would be about the same as using the .85 viewfinder with my 1.25 magnifier. I've done this with both my 28 and 21mm lenses, especially when I want to focus critically. I just look through the little black plastic (discontinued) finders atop the accessory shoe. With the .72 viewfinder I can't see the 28mm frame lines good anyway, as I wear glasses too!</p>

<p>Bottom line is this: If you're thinking about doing alot more work with the 90 or possible finding a discontinued 135 Apo, then go for the 1.4x magnifier, otherwise the 1.25 will work fine for you.</p>

<p>Hope that this helps.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Greetings to All!</p>

<p>I have both a .72 and a .85 LHSA M-6 TTL. I'm considering doing the viewfinder upgrade to the M-7 or MP configuration. Two questions: 1. Would doing so interfere with the collector status of the bodies? 2. Which company would you recommend to do the work, i.e. Leica, DAG, Sherry K., etc. and what about the turn-around times and cost?</p>

<p>Also would be interested in current value. Both bodies are users, in E+ condition or better.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>The ultimate conundrum! Carbon fiber for the back-packer, but can there be one with a set of levels in a pan-tilt head like my 3047 head on my old Bogen (now Manfrotto)? Your Hassy Expan would benefit from the built-in levels. So would any other camera used to create panoramics, even those that are digitally stitched together! Sometimes a heavier tripod is less weight than a light carbon-fiber with a sand bag for those windy shots!</p>

<p>In general, it's usually best to go to a brick & mortar store along with the heaviest piece of equipment that you're likely to use to try out a new tripod. That way there's no surprises when you take it out of the box! A good rule of thumb is to always use a tripod meant for the next-largest camera system (i.e. medium format) to guarantee absolute steadiness.</p>

<p>My Bogen medium format tripod did a really great job with the NY skyline at night when the WTC Memorial Lights first appeared. I used my Leica cause I had to park a mile away, and wanted to pack extra lenses instead of just one medium format camera & lens. The windy cold night several years ago was entirely tamed by the Bogen. Made real nice 20" prints with it!</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>I'm not quite ready to jump into the M-8 at this point. The lab I use in Brooklyn uses a nice high-res scanner. I just got back some 8x10's from a pic I did with the 35 lux and Fuji 400NC, and man it's sweet! I also know a full-time Fireman who has a high-end $10K+ scanner that he uses for his 80 mm R portraits with his R-8. I saw a 30x40 print he did, and it looks just as good or better than the same size print from a 'blad.</p>

<p>I like to shoot in jpg when I do digital, and from what I've read, the M-8 doesn't do that OR take my CF cards. I might be wrong--If I am let me know and I'll take another look. Thanks!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I have two .85 bodies and a .72 and a .58 as well. I merely switch the Leica plastic (just 28mm) finder that's now discontinued onto what ever body has the 28 F 2.0 on it. Focusing wise, in a situation that you have the time, it's always best to use the longest rangefinder viewfinder you own, especially if you're near wide-open, as the focusing is more accurate! When you're done focusing, switch to the optical finder on top to view the entire scene as you control your breathing. This is how to use the M inside, doing something like a static interior for instance. </p>

<p>As far as being unobtrusive in a "street setting", the best way is to use zone focusing, wide angle lenses and optical viewfinders, or just shoot without looking through the camera at all! With some practice and the ultra quiet shutter, you can get away with murder--just don't give yourself away by winding the advance right in front of the person you just snapped! As far as zone focus goes Ernst Wildi taught me how to do this with 'Blads, and it even works with a Speed Graphic too! Use your depth of field scale, and close down one more stop on the lens after adjusting the shutter speed. Example: set the iris to F 8.0 and then read the scale at F 5.6!</p>

<p>As a pro wedding photog, I often bring the unassuming Leica with 35 lux or 28 cron into the dressing area as the bride gets into the gown. She hardly knows that a camera is in the room since it's soooo quiet and I'm shooting available light! I'm left eye dominant, so I put the black paint MP rapid winders on both of my black paint LHSA bodies, so I don't have to remove my eye from the viewfinder to crank the film/shutter.</p>

<p>When I first heard that the 28mm black plastic finder was discontinued, I ran out and bought another mint-used one! For the 35 lux I use a still-made Voitlander finder on top! For the 21 Asph. I use the other black plastic viewfinder.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>Your using just the "sweet-spot" of the optics you mentioned with the 1.33 mag. factor anyway. In the "real world" of Leica, Inc., the company probably came-out with a 24mm F 1.4 so you would get a 32mm F 1.4 on an M-8 body! It might even have a secondary electronic set of codes built into it to let the M-8 know what it is so that a set of 32mm? frame lines appears, and at the same time a regular manual indexing indicator for all the rest of the M's. I'd even venture a guess that since the new 21 can be used on a film body, that when compared to a 35 lux, the 21 may be tack sharp out to the corners!</p>

<p>Just rambling!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Anybody that can swing $5K for the M-8 body would buy the new super-fast glass, maybe even both!</p>

<p>The 24 mm outline is if you use all of the viewfinder, out to the very edges, past the 28 mm frame lines. I own a .58, and it's married to a M-6 motor and a 28mm F 2.0 with the black plastice 28mm (only) finder! What a nice rig!</p>

<p>As long as we're doing a "what-if" list, how about a 28-70 R lens with a constant F2.8, and a dedicated R-10 digital that can shoot in jpeg and use my R-9 motor and all of my CF cards? What really killed the digital back for the R-9 was a complete lack of pro support or zoom glass with constant 2.8 aperature. </p>

<p>I own the 35-70 F 2.8 R, and was waiting for a 24-70 to go along with my 21-35 almost 2.8, and my 70-180 2.8 APO. I would have bought two digital backs, but they (Leica) went amatuer with the 28-90 zoom that looses a stop and a half as you zoom it! My 15 mm F 2.8 still works good too (another five grand!).</p>

<p>I guess I'm still waiting!</p>

<p>Dave</p>