robert_ardinger

<p>On the M8 the camera does know about what aperture is set on the lens . I tried this over a year ago when I had access to an M8 and made exposures at different apertures and the EXIF data had different apertures written to it. I am not sure that all EXIF readers show this, I remember having to use one that looked a bit deeper in the data file. I was using a coded lens and it was bright daylight and the camera was able to figure out correctly what I set. I would think the same brightness sensor could adjust the led display, I never paid that much attention to it.</p>

<p>Putting the lens next to the window glass is what you want to do and the rubber lens shade will allow the camera angle to be something different that the plane of the window.<br>

The only trouble then is if the window is a double pane one. I have shot through the thick glass in zoo's with good results but when I tried a few shots at a friend house the room reflection would bounce of the back of the outer window to the camera. My camera was "sealed" to the inner window. I had to turn off room lights anyways. </p>

<p>You can use the lenses but will either need to learn what the lens covers than the viewfinder doesn't (for a 28mm lens, if you do not wear glasses while shooting, the entire view through the viewfinder is not a bad approximation of coverage) or use an external finder. </p>

<p>I have used a 28 with the internal finder for a 0.85 and a 24 in a similar way on a 0.72 as I personally am not fond of the external finders (especially the new multi one). </p>

<p>On a 0.85 finder the widest frame line is the 35mm coverage one. It will move with focusing (like all frame lines) to help correct for the shift in coverage when focusing close. Using the entire finder as a framing guide doesn't have any frame line to shift so close focus framing will be less precise (precise in a rangefinder sort of context). The external finders are mounted over the lens so side to side framing shift is not an issue (up and down framing shift is).</p>

<p>The viewfinder coverage/frame lines are the only issue. If you have the original M6 0.85 (a few thousand made, all black chrome) it is an M6 with the different finder and will use any lens usable on an M6. (The same should be true for any of the later M's, My personal experience is with M3s, M4s, M6s and the CL).</p>

<p>Robert</p>

<p>The system is much easier to use that I had thought. I had all the parts but never really used it as I had questions like yours and did not find the manuals all that "clear" on first read. </p>

<p>I watched the new Nikon Bob Kirst and Joe McNally video and that was very helpful (Hands on Guide to Creative Lighting). With the video came a very clear instruction sheet. That sheet is available as a download from Nikon (2.6 MB size) and is at this address:</p>

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/FastTrack_To_WirelessSpeedlights.pdf</p>

<p>I too was not aware that the sensor for the CLS flash was on the side (if I read the manual I should have known) so I had a few sync issues until being carful to try to get the sensor to see some of the flash output.</p>

<p>Perhaps is was the video that inspired me but with in an hour of playing with an SB800, SB600 and a D300 I was able to do all sorts of set up, vary light ratios, stick flashes in fireplaces, tried colored gels, etc.</p>

<p>I am still very new to using flash for more serious work (I am still learning) but the file I linked to, augmented by the instruction book should have you up and running. The video will be a nice addition.</p>

<p>Robert</p>

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >I use a couple of SB-600s and an SB-800 and various modifiers and am also trying to learn more about flash lighting and how best to add this to my usual available light work. The Strobist web site is great. One item I thought was very valuable was a book I just read through: Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua and thought it was the most accessible and thorough explanation of lighting and lighting theory I have read. Highly recommended.</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

<p>A 300mm lens has a similar angle of view with 8 x 10 film as an 80 mm on 6x6 and 50mm for 35mm format.<br>

Wikipedia has a nice chart (look up "normal lens").</p>

<p> </p>

The trade paperback just came out (release date 11/18/08). The hardcover (which I have had for about 2 years) is still

available and is only about $2 more.

Not without some merit. See:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27105&hl=leica+mf

 

MR's post (6th down).

" (for Photoshop it will be *of the same OS platform* as they have separate licenses for Mac OS and Windows) "

 

 

This is actually where I get stung a bit. I have a Desk top PC and a Mac Laptop. I have A full Mac cs2 copy and a full PC cs3. Each seperate copies (meaning buying CS# twice). If both computers were either PC or Mac I would only have to had buy one copy. A bit odd. I have not paid to upgrade the MAC cs2 yet (it is on a not intel machine and used lightly).

If you plan on only using the PC and plan not to rebuy a mac then doing what the Adobe folks said will be fine. In fact if the CS on the PC is a full working version, your software should think you are upgrading from CS to CS3. I am sure numbers will have to be typed in somwhere and hopefully authenication will be fine (if not Adobe has been fine to work with in sorting out these issues).

 

I did do a cross platform upgrade and it worked fine, I only paid the upgrade cost. (also had to move from a Mac to a PC version and Adobe told me just what they told you).

 

As I remember you are actually given permission to have the software on 2 computers (please correct me if in error) and I think the specifics are a desktop and a laptop (i.e. pay for one copy of CS3 use it at home and on the road, the idea is you are not using the same software on those two computers at the same time). More or less as long as you are using one copy of the software on one computer and you own the copy properly, I suspect it will be fine.

Did this on a PC, Just downloaded the update and used the original serial number. I've had no problems using it for the little I have done with it. I have the new ACR in Lightroom and CS3 and use that for my M8 files. The new "Real World" book on ACR it a very good resource in how to get the best from that program. After reading it and learning the controls in Lightroom and in ACR/CS3 I do not feel the need to learn/use another raw convertor except that I did want an option for the rare odd file that might work "better" in another program (although I think most of the time the "better" had to do with my lack of using ACR as well as I could have.

Yours for just under $30:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/142940-REG/Leica_14043_Lens_Hood_Cap_for.html

 

 

 

BTW this is also the cap for the hood on the 28mm/2.8 new elmarit.

 

Robert

My USA M8 (bought in Sept) has a 2 year warranty. It is not a "passport" type. The camera is an official USA import.

 

The 28/2.8 lens (again an official import)I bought with it (in Sept.) has a "passport" warranty and Leica USA returned all the expected paperwork verifying that warranty.

 

The M8 was registered "on line" which was required to have Leica send the 2 IR filters (which they did very quickly).

The M6 .85 "classic" is a slightly different version of the M6. I think there were only about 3,000 made. As far as I am aware, they are all black and they are all "late models", having been made at the end of the "classic" M6 run. Their prices seem a bit higher than the standard M6 (.72) of the same vintage/condition. I had been very interested in finding one.

 

The M6TTL had the .85 finder availible, I think from the start or near the start of the production run, availible in both silver and black.

 

My M6 is a .72 finder but the M3 I had years ago of course was not and I really liked that finder (about a .9) with the 50/1.4 "lux" I had with it. I liked the look of the "lux" and felt it to be quite sharp and would get one again.

 

I did not like the rewind crank on the M3 (and doubt I would like it on the MP).

 

If it was me, I would go for the M6 (if it really was a "classic" M6 .85 and not a TTL) and the "lux". I very much like the internal meter in my M6 and find it very accurate. I do not have much problems with the "ghosting" (it is there but is just one of the "features" that I at times have to work around, another "feature" is focusing on clear walls or repetitive patterns).

 

My M3 left in the late 70's after a "repair" misadventure, the old "lux" went too. My current set actually includes the 50 "cron" as, given a choice, I thought it would be nice to have all my lenses (35,50,90) use 39mm filters/caps and be as small as possible. I actually tried to get a "lux" at that time but the "cron" I obtained was a very good "deal".

 

I recently added a 28/2.8 so am going to stick with the .72 finder on the M6 (the 28 uses 39mm filters). A second M6 and other items I had were converted into an M8 in the fall. The "standard" filter sizes help a bit with the number of IR filters I need to deal with.

 

No doubt that the MP and "cron" are likely more modern and not likely to need service soon (the .85 M6 might need a CLA soon). Resale might be easier with the standard .72 finder.

 

The .85 M6 and a pre-asph 50 "lux" would be the closest "Modern" duplication of the M3/50 set I had and still miss at times.

It's my main D100/D200 lens. I use the 2.8 (at 24mm) opening all the time so was not too

interested in the cheaper 3.5-4.5 version (which as mentioned does appear to be a very good

lens). My main N90s lens was the 35-70mm/2.8 and that was what I was trying to duplicate

when I got a D100 5 years ago.

Gitzo CF G1228 mountaineer. I use it with a ball head (Arcatech). Tripod is 9 years old (was the original carbon fiber mountaineer). Use with the Pro/Pro TL with up to 150mm lenses, very stable. Robert

TTL flash for Pro TTL and the little adapter used to attach a mechanical cable release is different. (not sure if they are interchangable, I have both bodies and both adaptors but never tried switching them). Outside of that I can see no differences, all backs, finders, lenses, etc work the same. I do not have any power winders so I am not sure if there are differences there. The Pro TTL is the newer of the 2 cameras.

He was given Leica CL's to use when they were introduced and made a number of images that were used in the original advertising flyers for that camera. I think at least one image said it was made with the 40mm lens. There were at least two flyers we received at the camera store I worked at then, one was simple a single sheet, about half the size of a standard sheet of paper. The flyers were the product literature to be given out to prospective customers.

My main D100/D200 lens. Not that much can be gleaned from jpegs on web pages but Ireland and many Utah images on wwwDOTardingerphotoDOTcom were taken with that lens (on a D100).

Sorry if this has been posted before but I could not find anything like it.

 

This is more of an FYI than a question.

 

I was at a local computer store and checked out the Epson paper supplies. I

wanted to see what sizes of Epson Enhanced Matte they carried. I found a newly

stocked shelve of Epson papers, most at this store were 8.5 x 11 but the names

of the papers were different.

 

I found a paper called "Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte" with the

subtitle "formerly Enhanced Matte". The specs seemed the same. I noticed that

most of the papers had "Ultra Premium" or "Premium" in there titles but appear

to be the same as older papers. (Luster, etc.).

 

A look on the Epson web site is not too helpful but a couple of other online

stores are using these names (not B&H as of yesterday).

 

As best as I could tell there are no new papers to play with.

 

Epson once before changed the name of the Enhanced Matte paper (was Archival

Matte).

 

This is not a big deal but if one asks for Enhanced Matte they might be told it

is not in stock while the actual paper they want is sitting there under a

different name.

I may have missed it but what operating system are you using. I have the 2200 and in Windows XP (home edition) if I check "centered" the image is centered. Is I use my laptop, an iBook with Mac OS 10.4 I can print just fine but I cannot get the image to center (essentially sounding similar to your issue). I just determined what I needed to set the margins for manually to get the image centered and used that (works for me as I almost always either have the image size at 9.6 x 6.4 inches or 13.5 x 9 inches so the manual settings do not change from image to image).

 

RObert

A DSLR also has a shutter. The sensor is only "exposed" in a DSLR when the shutter is open. The moving mirror and the air rush of a zoom lens might contribute to more dust being in the mirror box of a DSLR but the shutter will be over the sensor in those cameras just as much as it will be for a M8/RD-1.

Interesting post on "The Online Photographer"

 

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/

 

Non-rangefinder ZI for super wide lenses.

 

Full info in the Ziess site:

 

http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf

 

Robert

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H2qB

 

 

I use the 24-85 /2.8-4 on a D100 and D200, it is my main lens for these cameras. The above link is a thread discussing the 2.8-4 version on a DSLR.

 

Robert

I have a Nikon 9000 and an older Canon 4000 (35mm). I use the Nikon/Canon software and Vuescan. I did a lot of experimenting in the past with different techniques , software settings for the Canon 4000 and B&W. I end up using Viewscan with the Canon 4000 and with this combo I usually scan B&W as a positive.

 

 

I have not had much time to work all the angles of the 9000 but using Nikon Scan and scanning as a monochrome negative I can get clipping and just adjust the curve to place all values in range (based on the preview scan) then scan, 16 bits, using 2 to 4 passes (not sure if it make a difference). I try for a fairly flat scan that when opened in PSCS2 will not reach either end of the scale (will be close if I can manage it ). I can then adjust in PSCS2. I was not happy at all with Nikon Scan and B&W when scanning the B&W negative as a positive.

 

 

A recent 9000 scan of an Xpan negative:

 

 

http://www.ardingerphoto.com/rometables.jpg