rory_rege

February 2, 2010

The other thing that concerns me, if this is true, is that it would seem to compromise the usability of Leica lenses at wider apertures in circumstances where one wants limited apparent depth of field.

February 2, 2010

Michael Reichmann's recent essay on Leica cameras contains the following statement:

For decades many rangefinder camera photographers have gotten by with hyperfocal focusing. In other words, pre-set the camera to a distance and aperture that provides depth of field sufficient for the type of shooting that one is doing. That's what the DOF lines on the lens are for – right? Then, the camera can be used almost as a point and shoot, with no need to be concerned about focusing.

But with the advent of digital this has become problematic. High resolution sensors require a considerably smaller circle of confusion than does film, especially when larger prints are made. In my experience one needs to stop down at least two stops beyond what is indicated on the engraved lines of a Leica M lens for optimum sharpness if hyperfocal focusing is used with an M9.

</blockquote>

Re the last sentence, have owners of M9s, or presumably M8s, found the same thing? If so, I would expect that the same is true if one is focusing on a plane rather than for a zone. My one reservation about buying this camera is the apparent performance at higher ISOs, and if Reichmann's statement is correct, it complicates that question.

Reichmann's full essay is here: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-open-letter.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-open-letter.shtml</a>

December 1, 2009

Terry,

There is a full moon tomorrow and a last quarter moon on the 9th.

I don't know if you have spent much time in places that aren't light polluted, but this means that if the skies are clear, you are going to have a lot of light from the moon. You might also want to find out where the moon is going to be in the sky when you take your photographs.

November 25, 2009

Mamiya 7II

November 25, 2009

"Since I use a DSLR, sometimes I go manual and gets me a lot of time to get that sweet spot on focus, specially with low DOF, so I have been wondering how could somebody catch the "decisive moment" doing it manually."

</blockquote>

Juan, I find it difficult to manually focus a lens designed for a DSLR because the focus ring, compared to a lens designed for a manual camera, is (a) fairly stiff and (b) too sensitive - compared to the focus ring on a lens designed for manual use, turning the ring changes focus more quickly, which means less control. This is a difference between lenses designed for manual use and lenses designed for autofocus, and has nothing to do with the differences between SLRs and Rangefinders. On your question about capturing a moment, I believe that the difference between autofocus and manual focus is one of approach and technique rather than result, except that autofocus is a distinct advantage if the subject is moving quickly.

Mr. Raney, I'm not sure what's worse, the condescension which you effectively acknowledge or your boorish remark about grammar.

November 6, 2009

From the introductory post to this discussion:

<blockquote>I'm not interested in art, I never go out on the premise to produce art. I'm a photographer. That's what I do.</blockquote>

That leaves me speechless. Could you elaborate a little on how that statement relates to the subject of this discussion?

November 6, 2009

I think that college is a time to have fun and experiment rather than to place onesef in single-minded career mode. If the guy wants to use a Leica, why shouldn't he?

He took the time to frame his question properly and to be quite clear about what he was asking. Why is it that a good number of people think that this is an invitation to spout off about anything and everything, most of it based on the premise that he doesn't know what he is talking about :)

And why is it that evey time somebody asks about buying a Leica, there is a chorus of people, on this of all fora, telling him or her not to do it :)

Elliot, there's a current thread entitled Rangefinder Daydreams that you may find useful in working through your decision.

Also, in light of some of what has been said above, I'd like to suggest that you have a look at the posts of a photo.net member named Noah Addis. He is an accomplished photojournalist - and more - who has from time to time had refreshing things to say in the face of the wisdom about photojournalism imparted on this site by people who don't practise it. In particular, you will find a thread, during which a student was told to forget about film, etc, etc, to which Mr. Addis made some insightful contributions, including on the use by people who are learning of Leica cameras. He also has a web site well worth a visit at www.noahaddis.com

Good luck.

November 4, 2009

Here's a photograph to think about in the context of this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl_(photo)

November 4, 2009

Somebody must have forgotten to tell all those people who shoot for National Geographic that they have been using the wrong film for the last several decades.

As I write this, I'm looking at a book by Max Kazlof of photographs of New York life, and what do I find? Colour photographs by Bruce Davidson, Saul Leiter, Helen Levitt, Nan Goldin, Jeff Mermelstein, Jeff Jacobson, Alex Webb and Sylvia Plachy.

And on the table in front of me is one of David Goldblatt's books, much of it consisting of ... colour photographs.

November 4, 2009

You could create a photograph that captures exactly what you want if you can find a photographer willing to donate his/her time, and it could be done in New Zealand, where you are currently headed for summer.

Beyond that, your best bet is to try the stock agencies, or maybe Magnum, which at least has quality standards so that you don't spend a lot of time wading through junk to find what you want. You could also try National Geographic's archive, which is also on the internet.

November 1, 2009

On second thought...

I was just playing around with the left side of your photograph in Photoshop, and the principal effect was to emphsize the blown out bit in the cabinet. Not good, if it is also blown out on the negative. Maybe leave well enough alone, unless you are pepared to do some digital surgery.

November 1, 2009

Benjamin, if you can tone down the highlights on the left side of that photograph, and pull out just a little more detail, you've got a great photograph on your hands.

November 1, 2009

October 31, 2009

Mamiya 7 II 80mm

October 31, 2009

This recent piece by Josh Root strikes me as a fairly thorough overview of the Leica, Voigtlander Bessa and Zeiss Ikon options: http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/m7-bessa-ikon.published.adp

October 31, 2009

The funny thing about the suggestion that London's Natural History Museum and the BBC want original files in order to steal them is that one of the things that they are protecting the competition from, by requiring original files, is the submission by competitors of stolen images.

Think that's fanciful? Have a look at this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/10/shepard-fairey-admits-to-wrongdoing-in-associated-press-lawsuit.html

October 30, 2009

By the way, the show for the 2009 competition opened a few days ago and will run until April. If you are in London, it is well worth seeing, and if you're there sometime in November through mid-January, you can go ice skating afterwards, or tale in the ice skating, across the street.

I'll be in the UK over Christmas, and like two years ago, this exhibit is a definite yes on my list of things to see.

As John MacPherson pointed out, there's been quite a lot of rot written in this thread. Slow down, go to the show, and enjoy it.

October 30, 2009

Ahh, there seems to be some misconception regarding what this is about.

The competition is run by London's Natural History Museum and the BBC. Until recently, the sponsor was Shell Oil, now replaced by a waste management company called Veolia.

The winning entries are exhibited in a big hall in the Natural History Museum and the show is heavily promoted. Having attended two years ago, I can tell you that it is a very big deal. There are serious lineups to get in. As one might imagine, given that the exhibit is shown in one the the UK's most important museums, the caliber of the work and of the presentation is impeccable.

The world's finest professional nature photographers enter this competition, and while they are well represented in the winning entries, it is obvious, if the show that I attended is any indication, that amateurs have an equal shot. I am not in the least bit surprised that the people who run the competition want to see the original capture. Under the rules, they want to see the original file regardless of whether it is digital, a transparency or a negative, and regardless of whether it is colour or black and white. They want the original because, as they say in the rules, in boldface: "The faithful representation of what was captured at the time of the shot being taken must be maintained ." Indeed, they elaborate on that statement, and on what can and can't be done in Photohop, in detail. You can agree or disagree with their stance on manipulation (I happen to agree with it), but it is what it is. To understand why this is such a big issue, perhaps look at what happened at the New York Times a few weeks ago.

October 30, 2009

Steven,

As someone who is working on specifications for a new computer, that is very useful. Thanks. I agree that a solid state drive is worth the money, although I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure whether I'm persuaded by practicality or the cool factor. When you say "you've got a drive that'll continue to perform for years to come", I do think, given the current state of development of these drives, that you may be overstating things a tad :) Also, do you really think that under 120 GB doesn't cut it? Right now, I see these mainly as drives to read applications, in which case 80 GB, perhaps less, should be plenty. No?

I'll have to check out that case. It might cure me of my lust for the new, and rather more pricey, Corsair.

Great idea for a thread. I'll be following.

October 30, 2009

Interesting, one of the principal virtues of an M3, my own having been made in 1955, is the generous, bright viewfinder. Works just as well as the viewfinder on the medium format Mamiiya 7 II that I use.

October 30, 2009

I gather that no-one has mentioned his death here yet, so here is the obituary, from the New York Times, plus a slideshow of some of his work: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/roy-decarava-pioneering-photographer-dies-at-89/

Also, an interiew that National Public Radio in the US did several years ago, which it has rebroadcast: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287231

October 30, 2009

Hi James,

I'd suggest that you take your F1 to a camera store that sells Leica Ms or, better yet, identify someone who owns a Leica and will let you try it. Put a lens of similar focal length, preferably a focal length or lengths that you are likely to use, on each camera, and spend twenty minutes to half an hour playing around with the two cameras while thinking about three questions:

1. which camera do you feel most comfortable with in your hands; 2. which camera do you feel most comfortable with while focusing; and 3. are you comfortable with using prime lenses and foregoing zooms?

IF you decide that you prefer the Leica, there are two other questions:

4. how many Leica or other M mount lenses can you afford to buy right now, and will it or they be enough until you have more experience with the camera and can afford more; 5. do you want in-camera metering or would you be just as happy, maybe even happier, using a handheld meter that measures both incident and reflected light?

The answer to question 5 will detemine whether you can consider a fully mechanical M such as an M3. This will have a bearing on what you have to pay for an M camera, but realize that a new, handheld, quality light meter is not inexpensive, although you can buy a second-hand one fairly cheaply.

One of the oddities of this world is that a lot of people who own Leicas seem to spend a good deal of time dissuading other people from buying them. Perhaps there is just a tiny bit of elitist psychology at work here :) My own view is that if you try a Leica, and like it, go ahead and buy one. From what you said in one of your posts, you are prepared to spend enough that you can get one if you want one.

Having expressed an opinion, perhaps I should tell you what I do myself. I have a double stroke M3 and an M6 that some people consider to be a collector's item. I use the M3, with a handheld meter, because it works for me, while the M6 sits in a drawer. As for lenses, I have several, but mostly use two. I won't say which ones, because that really is a question of personal choice; only that I believe that a couple of lenses are plenty, and that one is just fine to start. I noticed your comment about shooting at night in bars. I've done a fair bit of that myself. Just push to 3200. It has a look all its own. You could also consider a Nikon digital camera, although I think that the ones that are blazing trails at high ISOs probably cost more than you want to spend. Cheers.

October 29, 2009

The message that I get from your article, and especially from the photograph that you have chosen to illustrate it, is that a gazzilion millimeters of focal length won't help if the exposure is wrong.

Greg, that's quite a photograph.

October 29, 2009

Just a comment on a statement earlier in this thread that the effective maximum RAM on a six slot X58 board is 12 GB. Kingston is making 4 GB memory sticks for this board, which means that the maximum RAM is 24 GB. However, it ain't cheap, although the price will presumably come down over time.

October 27, 2009

I really wonder whether this issue is quite as cut and dried as some suggest. Here is a review of the recent Francis Bacon exhibit at the Met. The review, like the exhibit, included this heavily damaged portrait, by John Deakin, of George Dyer: http://www.askyfilledwithshootingstars.com/wordpress/?p=971 Here are Peter Hay Halpert's comments on Deakin, together with one of Deakin's photographs of Oliver Bernard, also damaged (moreso than is evident on Halpert's web site): http://peterhayhalpert.blogspot.com/2009/06/john-deakin.html . This piece, updated somewhat for the Bacon exhibit, apparently originally appeared in Aperture. Also, a brief review from The New Yorker on the book John Deakin: Photographs: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/07/14/1997_07_14_068_TNY_CARDS_000378477

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by rory_rege