oliver_s.

I forgot to mention that the platinum Noctilux will not be available outside the MPJ set. Also, Leica has found out today that the danger of terrorist attacks renders the entire US territory so dangerous that the cameras better be stored somewhere else:<p>Due to the traditionally excellent contacts of the <i>Bundesnachrichtendienst</i>, the German intelligence agency, to the Middle East, Leica has managed to secure a a cavern somewhere between Iran and India, where the MPJs will be guarded either by Taliban or by U.S. Navy Seals. As even the Leica management does not know the exact location of the cavern, this will ensure the ultimate security of your valuable collector's item.

I have not posted much in the past weeks in Photo.net as I had to

get familiar with my new work environment, which is in Solms at...

well. I am working in the digital department of the company, but I

have been authorised to post definitive information on the '50 years

of M' special model, the MPJ ("M Professional, Jubilee"):<p>It will

be an MP with Noctilus f:1.0/50mm; the latter has a platinum

barrel.<p>That's it. On the technical side. <b><i>But</i></b> the

camera comes with a special, ultra-secure storage unit. Or rather,

you do not get a camera but a vault deep in a cavern somewhere in

the American West:<p>As you know, the Department of Energy has found

the area so geologically stable that you can store nuclear waste

deep below the surface with zero risk for the environment. Now,

Leica has agreed with the DoE that it can use one corner of one

cavern for storage of the MPJ cameras.<p>Of course, these caverns

are not accessible to the public. This means you cannot view your

MPJ. But it also ensures that your camera cannot be stolen! But how

do <i>you</i> get your MPJ? You do not get the camera but a

certificate with the serial number. As a genuine collector will not

use a camera, this does not hamper the MPJ's value at all but will

increase it. To ensure maximum security for your camera and maintain

the exclusiveness of the MPJ, Leica has agreed on top secret

procedures for production and transport of this very special model.

All tools used in its manufacture will be destroyed immediately

after production, and all employees involved in the MPJ's production

are sworn to secrecy. There will be no Leica factory tours during

the production of the MPJ. There will no trace of the cameras at all

once they are sealed inside the cavern, whose exact location is

confidential, too. The only entity pointing to your MPJ will be the

piece of paper in your hands.<p>Only 50,000 MPJs will be made, so

hurry to order one. Price is $ 50,000 (platinum Noctilux incl.).

Yup, Alpa as a brand is alive and kicking: <a href="http://www.alpa.ch/">http://www.alpa.ch/</a>. It's owned not by Pignons SA any longer but by Capaul and Weber. And if you really want a rangefinder on an SLR... well, <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/ekvfstrg.htm">that</a> is a step in the right direction.

Thank you very much for establishing this forum! It was about time.

I browsed through your portfolio, Natasha,--great pictures!--and read some of the technical data. Your two favorite lenses seem to be a Sigma 17-35mm and a Canon 75-300mm. I guess the Sigma is the f:2.8-4.0 version, which is a decent lens. But your tele zoom calls for replacement. Consider the Canon EF 70-200mm/f:4.0L, which has all the advantages of L glass but weighs just above 700gr, if I remember correctly; it doesn't offer 300mm, but it's sufficiently sharp to allow ruthless cropping.<p>Or choose one or two primes. Which focal length(s) do you use most with your current tele? If it's the short end, the EF 85mm/f:1.8 is your alternative, which is excellent despite the lack of the 'L' designation. If you find yourself at the 300mm end of the 75-300mm quite often, get the EF 200mm/f:2.8L and crop at the printing stage. If you like a focal length in the middle, there's the EF 135mm/f:2.0L, which is outstanding optically. Generally speaking, Canon doesn't make bad primes, L in the name or not, so you can't go wrong with any of them.<p>Wrt to camera/lens holding, <b><i>always</i></b> place one hand under the lens. (If it's very short, cradle two fingers under the body.) It is the only way to hold a 35mm imaging system steady. If you don't do this already, changing this physical aspect of shooting can be challenging, but it's definitely worth it!<p>With a very long lens, I use to cradle it between the thumb and the digit finger of my left hand, i.e. it lies in the palm as the foreend of a .22 match rifle does. The left elbow then touches not the side of the torso but the rib cage somewhere between the sternum and the side (depending on your arm's length). For me, it works wonders...<p>The frequently mentioned lens mount stability problem simply doesn't exist if support a camera/lens combination with one hand under the lens. Also, the balance phenomenon becomes a phantom as you naturally place your left hand under the centre of gravity of the imaging system.<p>And which camera body? EOS 33; it should drop in price soon as the 33V is about to be marketed. Keep the EOS 300 so you neednt't change lenses frequently. [Yes, carrying two camera bodies can feel odd. No, your back won't complain if you use a good camera bag :-) ]<p>And once more: your pictures are great!

I had that problem once with an EF 50mm/f:1.8, and solved it the same way as you did, Jim; afaict it was a bad contact, as Jean-Baptiste suggested in your case. At the time, I considered it just a normal glitch. Have you ever seen an electronic device that works precisely the way it should?

All electronic devices have some working range. Usually they'll come back to life once you're outside. And if it comforts you, my German-made (ack!) cell phone survived 40ºC (104ºF) despite it wasn't supposed to. If unreliable modern German technology manages that, how do you think will Japanese products cope? (Hint: which brands are most popular in Southeast Asia?)

The only ones who know are under a non-disclosure agreement because they work for Canon.<p>More importantly, does the 10D what it needs to <b>now</b>? Then it will also do it in five years. In other words, why should you wait to buy one? Because you hope to grab one for less £ once the replacement comes out?

Yup, the image is "in" the focussing screen as it is in the film plane after the mirror swings out of the way. (Exception: clear focussing "screens" for certain special applications. They don't matter wrt this thread.)<p>Viewfinders are usually set to display the image as if it were at a distance of 1-1.5m (3.5-5 ft.) from the eye. Why? It's the distance that puts the least stress on the eye's focussing system, i.e. both the ciliary body and the zonule fibres at somewhat relaxed. (Cf. information <a href="http://webvision.med.utah.edu/anatomy.html">here</a>, which is provided by the University of Utah's Eye Center). I.e. the viewfinder system is set to -2/3 or -1 dpt. In other words, a slightly nearsighted person may be able to see the viewfinder image in focus without glasses or contact lenses--but once you're beyond -1 dpt. in your prescription, your viewing system needs help.<p>Btw some camera manufacturers include the viewfinders system's dpt. figures in correction lenses nomenclature, others don't. So don't buy such a lens just by the number--you need to try it out.

And anyway, CCW in NYC?<p>Wrt to Crumpler bags, I'm a former <a href="http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/budgie_smuggler.html">Budgie Smuggler</a> user. One problem I had was finding a colour combination that didn't shout "doesn't fit". Much worse, the large velcro surfaces cause the mother of all ripping noises whenever you open the bag (and when you close it, too, sometimes). Otherwise, it was a fine bag. (I returned to photo backpacks--namely a <a href="http://www.lowepro.com/">Lowepro</a> <a href="http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/trekking/oriontrk.htm">Orion Trekker</a>--due to back problems.)<p>Wrt to belt packs, nothing shouts "clueless tourist" so loudly. In other places (e.g. Europe--I'm living there), fanny packs, Kinesis/Lowepro S&F system, and the like scream, "clueless American--rob me!"<p>A little story to share: two Americans identified my Budgie Smuggler as a camera bag at once. Nothing like that has happened yet with my Orion Trekker.

I'm one of those select few [ :-) and no, I'm not on Sony's payroll] who could actually handle a DSC-F828. It's a fine, fast tool, and I'm with Michael Reichmann wrt noise and chromatic aberration (a direct link to his review is <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml">here</a>). Compared to other "serious" digicams, it shines in these areas. Plus, it feels <i>very</i> solid.<p>And yes, it takes ages to write a full 8 MP picture onto the card. If you dial it down to 5 MP, you have the second-fastest 5 MP camera on the market (#1 is the Olympus E-1).<p>And yes, the lack of constant shooting priority is annoying on occasion. Otoh I've come to review pictures only during breaks of the 'action' anyway, even with the constantly ready Canons. You can live with that.<p>The tripod interface seems to come from one of Sony's ENG cameras. Well, the 828 needs a fully grown tripod, too.<p>And this metal body, the manual zoom, and the best focus-by-wire ring I've ever met...the latter one feels as if it were manual. <i>Drooling onto keyboard.</i>

Quite often it is like that, but there are at least a few P&S digitals with a mechanical shutter--which, in this context, just means that some parts actually move. I.e., the shutter is open for the live preview and closes immediately before the actual imaging.<p>Btw it's usually a leaf shutter. How can you know? On many digicams, the shortest shutter speeds aren't available with the fastest f-stops. E.g., the Canon Powershot G3 and G5 only go to 1/1250 sec. unless you stop down to 1:5.6 at least.

It's one of the oddest statements I've heard. The S50's CCD uses 1944x2592 pixels for recording, period.

There's always a difference in "feel" between an all-metal lens from the 1970s and an AF lens of the 21st century; the latter will appear loose and "plasticky" compared to the rock-solid tactile experience the former one gives. Be assured that the L lenses hold up at least as well as the best Takumars.<p>I'm among those who can attest to the very good mechanical quality of the L lenses. Optically, the wide angle zooms among them aren't that convincing; the 17-35mm/f:2.8 got its "L" for mechanical ruggedness only, the 16-35mm/f:2.8 is so-so, and the 17-40mm/f:4.0 is acceptable. The EF 100-400mm/f:4.5-5.6 isn't <i>that</i> great either. All other L lenses, however, are optically outstanding; many of them are the best in their respective focal length (or focal length range) of all lenses on the market. If you want to give yourself a real treat, rent an EOS body and an EF 400mm/f:2.8 IS, and shoot a few rolls of Provia 100F through it. You'll redefine 'optical excellence' afterwards!

Todd has answered about all your questions, Paul. Just wrt which flash units are probably safe, Kevin Bjorke maintains a long list of sync voltages <a href="http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html">here</a>.<p>I'm one of the dinosaurs who learned to set exposure via the guide number when using a flash unit, and I can attest that it works at least as well as TTL metering once you've determined the <i>real</i> GNs of your flash indoors and outdoors.

I, too, second Bob's and Andrew's statements, just having looked at some pictures I took yesterday: the ones taken handheld in a museum at ISO 400 and 1/60 sec., show considerably more noise than the ones taken with a tripod in a church at ISO 100 and 1 sec.

John has got it right with his last paragraph. And, Pantelis, there's no need to fire away with a digital camera; you can use it as deliberately as a film SLR, plus <b><i>save the cost and hassles of film development</i></b>. That's quite an argument in favour of digital!

Afaik the latest SCA 3102 (3102 M2? 3102 M3?) and the Metz 54 MZ-3 offer full E-TTL compatibility, even with the 300D; you can check via a <a href="http://www.metz.de/1_metz_2000/m_pages_english/4_mecablitz/einzelseiten/adapter.html" TARGET="new">link on the Metz website</a>. (I've tried to to link it so that it opens in another window, which may work with your browser or not. Metz make excellent flash units, but their internet appearance's Java at its worst.)<p>Wrt to inexpensive flash units, the "sort of performance" you may expect from them is to fry your camera; cf. Kevin Bjorke's <a href="http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html">sync voltage list</a>, though the Vivitar you mentioned seems safe. I wouldn't take any risks, however.

If it's really the Pentax screw mount, get an M42 to EOS adapter as Bob suggested. "3 tiny screws" sounds very much like T mount, however, as Ron mentioned. In that case, you can simply get T-mount adapter for EOS. Before you loosen the screws, measure the pitch or have it measured: "Pentax mount" is M42x1, T2 is M42x0.75. (Film plane to lens flange distance differs, too; cf. Willem-Jan Markerink's very helpful "<a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm">Camera mounts & registers</a>".)

When the 400mm/f:4.0 DO was announced, Canon was talking about a 200-400mm/f:4.0 DO and a 500mm/f:2.8 DO. From what I've heard since then, I couldn't deduce whether any of them ever got beyond a concept, let alone beyond prototype stage.<p>Personally, I'd like to see an EF 24-70mm/f:4.0L USM with perfected dust and weather seals. Or make it an EF-S 24-70mm/f:2.8L USM with such sealing <u>and 10D compatibility</u>.

Andrew, you won't encounter infinity focussing problems: if you look into Willem-Jan Marerink's <a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm">list of film plane to lens flange distances</a>, you'll find that distances are 45.46mm and 44.00mm for M42 and EOS, respectively; while 1.5mm's distance is too short with normal mounts, the small diameter of the M42 mount makes it possible in this case.<p>Aside from that, "NK Guy" has a <a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/">review of the Zenitar</a> with some notes on EOS compatibility. While he generally suggests caution when mounting 3rd party lenses on EOSes, he also writes:<br><i>I know that my version of the Zenitar fisheye lens, which has an actual EF lens mount attached to it and does not have an M42 thread, works fine with all the EOS cameras I�ve tried it with</i> [...] <i>So I suspect that this clearance problem is likely an issue with the M42 to EOS lens adapter.</i>

I'm a little surprised that no one mentioned the most obvious problem: Dino, is your computer monitor calibrated? Colour, contrast, and brightness differences between LCD and monitor are usually due to the latter being out of whack. If you adjust your images via an uncalibrated monitor, expect some odd prints. And keep the original image files until you'll have the monitor calibrated.

Ideas for pictures!

Wrt print size, 8"x10" pushes both 4 MP and 5 MP sensor data to the limit, so don't base your decision on megapixels.<p>In the Canon EOS forum here in Photo.net, modes like "portrait", "landscape", "action", etc., are referred to as idiot modes. You have more control even with the standard program AE setting, which allows you to choose metering mode , white balance, and whether to use flash or not. If you really want full control, choose aperture priority AE (given the small range of f-stops, shutter speed priority AE doesn't appeal to me on digicams) or manual exposure setting.<p>A word of warning from a former S50 user (me): its lens isn't outstandingly good. Otoh, does the S400 offer histogram view in play mode? That <i>really</i> matters when you want to check exposure. (Live histogram preview would be even better.)

Oops. Chip, I apologise! I didn't mean to imply that you don't distinguish between sharpness and detail, which you certainly do. I think too much in terms of customer satisfaction: unless your customers are graphics experts or photographers, they think detail and sharpness are the same, so rendering an image extremely sharp--just below sharpening artefacts--will satisfy them (even if the unprocessed RAW file would show more detail than, say, the unsharply masked JPEG).