frank_nesbitt

What snooty posturing! We should use whatever tools help us achieve our seperate

visions. If you don't need a meter to get the maximum performance from your camera,

God Bless!

But I often do and shoot chromes more often than not. Why bracket chromes when you

don't have to? Why wonder about exposures? I've used a simple incident meter for half a

century and have no reason not to, especially when one quick reading usually carries me

through many exposures.

To each his own.

You're wise to get some hands on with the Texas Leica. Personally, I love the 7 II but don't

use it often, to be truthful. Digital has moved me away from film further than I'd like.

I split my time between Santa Barbara CA and Chicago. Both cities have excellent rental

operations: Helix and Calumet in Chicago, Samy's and Calumet in Santa Barbara. Since

this is your first go with film, be aware the folks behind the rental counters are usually

generous with their time in schooling about unfirmiliar equipment. Take advantage of

them.

Don't know what city you'd be renting from, but I suspect that only the larger markets or

the towns crawling with photographers (like Santa Barbara) have much pro gear for rental.

At any rate, good luck with your investigation. Sure beats buying gear outright that you

may not feel comfortable with.

I have a Rollei Prego MICRON, a tiny, very thin model which preceeded the zoom lens

edition of the same camera. Weighed just a shade over 5 ounces before you put the

battery in. Most of my photographer friends never even heard of it. Got it about 1979.

Truely shirt pocketable, Rollei was very proud of how thin they had been able to engineer

the body. Electronic shutter functioned from 2 seconds to 1/400. Flash, self timer built

in, date imprinting, the works for that time.

Lens was not manual focus, I'm afraid. Rated at only f/3.5 for speed. But it was very, very

sharp and carried the Schneider brand name. Focused down to 1.2 feet, with tiny doors

which closed over the lens when it retracted into the body.

I had wonderful times with this camera because there was absolutely no reason not to

have it with me everywhere.

Have to give it to my 1955 Contaflex I. No meter, no instant return mirror, only 1/500 speed

and f/2.8 its max aperature. But no batteries, either and the sharpest, hardest, most

contrasty Zeiss Tessar lens I've had the pleasure of using. Or so it seems from the distance

of many years.

Real reason, though, is sentiment. It was my very first "good" camera, one I took my most

successful pictures with, one I became identified with by friends and subjects.

That's hard to beat.

I've bought a fair amount of equipment over the years from KEH. They are a pleasure to deal

with. Never, ever exagerate the condition of the gear and it always works. If you decide it

isn't for you when it arrives, they take it back with a smile. That's worth a lot to me.

KEH prices are usually just a bit over what others are asking but I'll pay it gladly because

when it comes to cameras, I hate surprises.

Frank

I had a 690GSW several years ago and used it primarily for landscape work. I had just

come off a spell of working with a 4 X 5 and welcomed the simplicity and speed of the

Fuji. I found the lens to be supurb and the negatives easy to print. The camera was solid,

very well made and could be used handheld, though I generally used a tripod. Usually

shot 220 roll film using several different types. You could choose back then.

I haven't used a Mamiya 7 much at all but have a friend who travels extensively and takes

nothing else along. His results are wonderful and he uses the built-in meter. He gave up

a Leica M6 to get the benefits of a very much bigger, easier to print negative.

The Fuji has no meter but I am used to using an incident Seconic, going back to the days

when they were marketed as The Norwood Director and made in the USA. Does that date

me, or what? And focus was never a problem for me with the Fuji.

If I were shooting landscapes again, I'd probably pick up another Fuji.

Good luck with whatever you select.

Looks like you have the idea and an eye for it.

I love IR photography. Have never had much luck useing a camera with a cloth shutter, such

as my Leica III. Hassey and Nikon much sharper in results, though any SLR is less than ideal

with a very dark filter.

Sorry I have no current digitized IRs. Maybe some a little later.

Have fun!

For many years I've relied on a Sekonic incident light meter. They make several models

now and you wouldn't need the expensive sort that responds to flash. Incident

measurement is very simple to use so long as you measure the light that is either falling

on your subject or is the same sort of illumination. I've used the Sunny 16 rule as well but

found the results from an incident meter to be bullet proof and very fast to use.

In camera meters are now quite reliable. But my screw mount leica pre-dates them and

for me that's just as well. I shoot transparencies a lot of the time. They can't tolerate over

exposure and the incident meter always protects me from that.

Good shooting!

I worked in advertising for many years and used both still and motion picture

photography. What has been said seems very sound to me.

We gave our daughter and son-in law a digital camcorder when our granddaughter came

along. Its use is, for me, a compendium of what not to do. However, in a rare display of

good judgement, I offered little or no advice on its use. A few abuses, or so they seemed

to me:

Switching the camera on, leaving it on, and recording little or no activity of future interest

and almost nothing that illustrated her special personality.

Hand holding the camera and panning with all action, and no action. The idea of a

"motivated pan" was non-existant.

Making no single shots that could stand on their own.

Never editing, even to the point of saving all footage.

I came to believet:

Any shot longer than 15 seconds belongs in LAWERANCE OF ARABIA, not my home

movies.

Interesting sequences are built from descrete shots, not amassed through panning.

Half of all foootage, at a minimum, should never be shown to others.

Still photography captures the moment and freezes time. Moving images do this too, but

future viewers will find the backgrounds much more interesting than the subjects. In

movies, old cars, old front porches, old clothes become more powerful than old young

people.

Enough of my good natured side. Now it's time to kick the dog some more.

I used a Fuji GW 690II for several years and foolishly sold it to concentrate on using a Hassy.

Soon regreted not having the big 6 X 9 negatives that were as sharp and easy to print as

anything I've ever worked with. You have one of the most under-rated cameras around. I

predict you'll be knocked out by the results it will give you. The Fuji lenses are marvelous -

sharp and contrasty - and the camera very easy to use.

I'm a great advocate of using a good incident light meter and can strongly recommend

Seconics as accurate and reasonably priced. Especially valuable if you shoot chromes - -

transparencies.

I have briefly used a Digilux 2 and share the admiration expressed around this form for its marvelous lens,

intuitive controls and image quality at low ISOs. I also share the frustration expressed over the clunky

viewfinder and smallish sensor, as well as few other minor annoyances.

Do the members here see a Digilux 3 in Leica's future? Or is the fixed lens, premium priced, near-DSLR

camera a thing of the past?

Personally, I'd love to see an upgrade, but perhaps this will never happen. Opinions? Gossip? Inside

information?

I'm no binoc expert, by a long sight, but I have explored optics for high powered rifles. A

retailer who handles all brands in his shop told me he considers Swarvoski to be the real

innovator in the field and values their scopes above all others. He has used all brands and

mounted them for customers. Believes that they set a standard for the other makers to reach

for.

Just for what ever it's worth. I can't vouch for his expertise. Personally, I see little difference

among the major premium brands and in the past have been well satisfied with both Nikon

and Zeiss long range optics.

Erwin Puts has posted an essay on his site about the ruckus over the M8. I feel that though he often

seems to be an apologist for Leica, he is a highly informed, skilled and careful tester with much to say that

increases my understanding of the cameras and their lenses.

His look at the M8 strikes me as a good perspective on Leica's troubles (and achievements) in the digital

world. Am I alone in holding this view?

Al, I should have guessed you would be firmiliar with the Kodak 828 format that surfaced

briefly and then died, unmourned.

My father-in-law started a small company in Chicago before WWII. He produced a simple

camera for that format called the Ranger. My wife found a Ranger body, incomplete,

among his things after he died.

I examined it and at first didn't realize it wasn't a 35mm. Then I saw that there was no

provision for sprockets, just smooth rollers. The format (and the Ranger) didn't stand a

chance up against 35mm film cameras which in the '30s were becomming the standard for

"miniature" photography.

I've always been amused that over the years Kodak made so many tries at new consumer

miniature and sub-miniature formats. The Instamatic, Disc Camera, APS come to mind.

But none lasted very long, despite, aggresive pricing, extensive marketing support and no

competition from digital. Too bad my father-in-law bet on a horse that hardly got out of

the starting gate.

Sorry I can't add to these two replies. My days with glass slides were long ago. But then I

would sometimes have similar problems. I still shoot chromes and project them as well. I

haven't come across any digital system which quite matches the sparkle, clarity and impact

of Kodachrome projected through a good lens. (Not to mention archival quality.)

Lately I've been using a German 35mm slide mount available frrom www.porters.com in

Iowa. They are of one piece rigid plastic construction and thin enough to feed effortlessly

from a Kodak Carousel 140 slide tray, the kind with very narrow openings for each slide. I

take my paper slides apart carefully with a pen knife and slide the cut 35mm film piece

into the mount's opening where it seats with no room to spare and is held firm in the rigid

plastic. The brand is hama DSR and the mounts come in a box of 100 for US$16.49.

This isn't a cure for a slide popping out of focus as it heats up. I think only glass can do

that. But it does avoid the warping of paper mounts which bend and curl as they age and

often don't feed reliably from a Carousel tray. I solve the popping problem by riding

focus, or having an assistant do so. It's also an incentive to keep moving quickly on to

the next image before popping happens.

For those of us mired in a 20th Century technology, these mounts can be a good solution.

And with Kodachrome processing down to just one lab in the States, I may be looking for

an E-6 replacement sooner than I'd like.

I, too, have shot slide film for years and so found digital's aversion to high contrast no big

limitation. My solution for slide film was learned from Tillman Crane, a teacher at the

Maine Photographic Workshops, many years ago. He was a dedicated large format B & W

landscape photographer and carried a spot meter in a holster hanging on his belt! The

Zone System was where he lived. (And he was super at teaching it to the likes of me.)

But when shooting chromes he turned to an incident meter to "protect the highlights." I

adopted this approach, using a Sekonic hand held digital meter with a "lumisphere" on

board. Found that my blown highlights were greatly reduced in number. I'm not quite

certain why.

Tillman said that an incident meter puts your exposure dead in the center of the various

light levels falling on the subject. It ignores contrast variations. He believed that much of

the problem was not knowing just what to meter in the scene or how to deviate from the

reading a spot or center weighted reflected meter gave. An incident meter becomes a

quick and relatively brainless way to avoid many over exposure problems.

I don't use it for digital, but rely on the instant histogram to tell me if I have a highlight

problem. Also, of course, I check the LCD screen image after the exposure. As has been

said, it's easy to dial in compensation if serious highlight problems arise.

After years of Kodachrome 64, the problems with digital highlight overexposure seem very

firmiliar and not very daunting.

Bet he says that about guys he sees walking around with a Leica. I think you have the heart

of a good street shooter but may not know it.

Every good photograph can benefit from a caption. For the first of these, may I suggest,

"Meth Lab by Candlelight?"

Helix, Calumet and Central Camera all merit phone calls. Also try George Ury who

advertises in Shutterbug and has an office in Winnetka on the North Shore. George

handles only very clean cameras, including Blads and Leicas. His prices are no great

bargain but he has plenty of fine epuipment, is honest and certainly worth a contact.

Same for Bill Morritz, though he'll likely show you a bargain now and then. Usually has

lots of Leica and Blad inventory.

Sorry I don't have numbers for them. They are often present at the monthly camera show

and sale at the Holiday Inn in a western suburb. See Shutterbug Magazine for dates and

locations. Since I spend most of the year away from Chicago, I'm afraid I'm a bit out of

touch.

Darkroom Aids, where I put together my own darkroom 15 years ago, is no longer in

business. I'm sure you're not surprised. They had wonderful low prices on a wide range

of equipment, much of it used and at very attractive prices. My Omega 4 X 5 enlarger had

been cleaned up to look like new after serving a heavy smoker. He left tar deposits

everywhere, but otherwise did no harm to that wonderful machine. It served me well. The

Darkroom Aids back room usually had giant equipment from recently defunct printing and

engraving outfits. For us small fry, they practically gave away gear like used trays, reagent

bottles and graduates.

Guess I'm not the only one who misses them.

What a sad thread for an old Chicagoian.

Downtown was, indeed, the location of several fine camera stores as well as retailers like

Abercrombie & Fitch, Marshall Fields and the like. Now all gone or just shells. In 1963 I

bought am handsome Browning 20 ga over and under shotgun from A & F. Abundant

selection there. Their second floor had cases filled with fine sporting firearms and hard to

locate premium fishing gear. Same for Fields' Men's Store across the street. Going to

Scotland for some fly fishing? They had sales people who knew exactly what you should

take along and could supply it on the spot from behind their glass. Rods, reels, lures,

lines, vests, the works. Same for the clerks in good camera stores like Altman's and

Central. Never imagined it would all pass, though Central is hanging on.

In 1985 I closed my wet darkroom and sold the whole thing to Central for what I felt was a

very fair sum. They sent a clerk out in their delivery truck (!) to pick it all up. I was

moving to Santa Barbara where the f/Nine club had a beautiful darkroom available for

members. Well used, well maintained with chemistry always fresh and counters spotless,

very well equipped with four fine enlargers. No need for my own new set-up. Little did I

(or they) dream that digital would come on in the wink of an eye. The darkroom is now

seldom used, then only by one or two members. Our shows are nearly all of digital prints.

You fill in the rest of the tale.

Santa Barbara is blessed with three excellent camera stores - Samy's, Calumet, and Russes'

(which caters to our many tourists) - but all are to some degree on hard times. Sales

clerks in one have a contest going. First one to get a customer asking for a film camera

wins big.

Fond memories.

I've been a big fan of incident metering for years. Studied the Zone System using a

beautiful Zone VI spot meter with digital readings. Found that for my meterless cameras,

other than large format, I prefered going back to my Sekonic and using it in incident

mode.

Somehow, it seems easier, simpler - totally uncomplicated. If I can't put it into the same

light that's falling on the subject I switch over to the reflected mode and take an average

reading of the scene. I get chromes that are nearly always 100% on, the real test for any

exposure measurment method.

I recently got a Canon Powershot S 80 and am most pleased with its performance. Optical

viewfinder (a must for me), 8 MP (more than I need), 28mm equivalant wide angle on the

zoom lens, compact but unlike some super miniature models I've tried it handles well,

Canon's current generation of excellent picture engineering, large LCD and a price for

under $500 US. Most important, great results and lots of flexability with manual settings.

Gave my son my Digital Rebel SLR with several very nice lenses. He gets great

photographs in travels across Europe. He is willing to take along that much camera hung

over his shoulder. I am not.

Don't expect to have much control over DOF with whatever digital you decide on. You've

been spoiled by the M6.

Just down the coast from Santa Barbara is a small airport at Camarillo. There, volunteer

WWII vets and other enthusiasts are restoring - and flying - military planes from both

sides. I saw not one but two Japanese Zeros in flying condition, a Lockeed P-38 Lightning

and multiple naval fighting aircraft in various stages of restoration. The planes and the

devoted men restoring them are fine subjects for photography.

By the way, I was told that the Zeros cannot be taken back to Japan, even for a

demonstration flight. Japanese law forbids them entry into the country. When one of the

fellows buzzed the Camarillo field in a Zero I felt I had entered a time machine.

Your Memphis Belle images are terrific.

Wow!

What a grand example of what a Leica can do in the hands of a gifted photographer.

It depends.

For a time I was shocked at how many sloppy photographs people seemed to be taking

with their new digitals held at arms length, blazing away again and again till they were

satisfied with the results. I felt superior for a time, comming to digital from several

decades of serious film work in various formats with my own darkroom for processing and

printing. The view down my nose was very comforting.

But maybe those same people used point-and-shoot film cameras in the same way. Don't

know.

Then it dawned on me that I, too, was now shooting digital in the same manner with

perhaps a little lower reject count. Perhaps. When I look at the number of rejected

(sloppy) images on the card after a shoot I see that my style had changed greatly.

This was driven home to me last weekend durning a visit by my 5 year old granddaughter.

She was working intensly at a table with paints, absorbed in a project with her

grandmother. I quickly shot a worthless digital of the back of their touching heads, moved

around a bit to compose more carefully, then realized that the photograph was in their

eyes, not their hair. The third digital image from low and in front was just what I wanted.

Later I thought that if I had been shooting film I would likely have held off pressing the

release until I saw the picture I thought was right. Does that say something about

digital or about me? You decide.

Oh, and you tell me if better photographers are being produced by folks framing their

shots on arms length LCD screens with viewfinder-less pocket digitals/camera phones, or

by learning to use old fashioned viewfinders. But then in my younger days I never worried

about hand steadiness. Now it's one more thing to think about.

I honestly don't know how people put up with LCD framing unless they're using a tripod.

But, then, that's just me.