henry_a

<p>The only part i can agree with is MR's statement "photographers have gotten by with hyperfocal focusing".</p>

<p>"Gotten by" as in "better than not really focused" because they never really learned to F-O-C-U-S their cameras quickly and well. Practice focusing and you will get better. Focusing is almost always better than not.</p>

<p>But Leica may be not in a function/product quandry except in the minds of internet pundits. If they are missing something in function or interface in their product line and can positively identify it they simply need to make a new camera to address that need. I'm not sure that this is a question being asked. ("this" being a live view version or whatever hybrid between a real camera and a point and shoot. If anyone wants a P&S I think they'll buy one and they're not an M9 purchaser anyway.</p>

<p>If there is a problem to be addressed it is to bring to market a less expensive FF digital M camera. That might happen by adding an M10 "pro camera" with full weatherproofing and dropping the price on the "consumer model" that would be the current M9 camera. Same basic guts in each camera, maybe a new latest version processor in the M10. Two cameras at distinct price points - $7,000 and $4,000 would do the trick.</p>

<p>That is one of the most ridiculous pieces I've ever read. Leica Ms are like knives or hammers. There is no way to alter their function that does not alter the very utility that makes them what they are. MR needs to buy a different camera. I will give him credit for starting a lot of talk about his site - which undoubtedly is the real purpose of his article anyway. Next we might read about how there's no 600mm tele for Leica Ms and that is the only thing that can make the M system into an acceptable camera for sports guys.</p>

<p>Wow!<br>

Work for free to make them money.<br>

Where's the part about how one day they'll have a paying job for you?</p>

<p>50 is not that much over for Acros, I normally shoot Acros at 80. I use Xtol 1:3 for about 12 minutes depending on temperature. Just cut your time back a bit if you expose it at 50. And don't forget that you can use a neutral density filter to slow your exposure times down.</p>

<p>I've written this before, but here goes again:</p>

<p>If there was a forum about wooden canoes, what would be the point of stating there that your motor boat is faster and better than a wooden canoe? Or visiting a bicycle forum and and slamming everyone there for riding bicycles because you know your motorcycle is so much more modern and so much faster? Or arguing on a Lexus forum that your Mercedes is just sooo superior?</p>

<p>What is the point of doing that?</p>

<p>We've seen plenty of that behaviour here over the years and I find it no surprise that it turns people away from using this forum. If you are sure that everyone here is a "silly Leica fan boy" just keep moving until you find a forum that suits you. Go there and talk about your favorite camera. Your on-line existence will be lots more fun for everyone.</p>

<p>There is no gain for anyone from tearing down other's fun by trying to enforce your version of the truth or reality upon the poor suckers who are having fun while being so, so wrong in your mind.</p>

<p>Here is an excellent lab:</p>

<p>Chromatics in Nashville, TN</p>

<p>http://www.chromatics.com</p>

<p>Elmarit f2.8 (the 1990-2000+ version)</p>

<p>Its a nice lens and I assume its used so may well be the best buy of all the Leica lenses you list.</p>

<p>Rating this film at 200 is probably about right anyway. You shouldn't have any problem at all. Adjust development time to suit.</p>

<p><em>" I've owned and used all three tele lenses you mentioned on my M6 and M7 .72 cameras. The 75 'Cron won my affections over the others for two reasons: superb optical quality and perfect physical balance when used on any M."</em></p>

<p>I will second that comment.<br>

Having owned and used all three lenses under discussion, the 75 Summicron is just ideal in its handling and performance. My 75 Summilux found a new home a few weeks after getting the 75 Summicron and I have not missed it. I still have the 90 for its reach but may not keep it since the 75 Summicron is my first choice for a longer lens.</p>

<p>Nope not asking for magic here, but perhaps I should make it absolutely, absolutely clear.<br>

I am referring to the Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 Asph. I know there isn't a Summicron Asph. and I'm not asking about something that's not made.</p>

<p>I have the regular current production Summicron 50mm f2 with the sliding hood. Yes, I always use the hood. But even full bright sky behind a subject (not even in the frame) will sometimes create veiling flare.</p>

<p>As I remembered when I posted there is only ONE 50mm Asph lens, but I forgot that the new Noctilux f.95 is an Asph. lens. So there are two 50mm Asph. lenses. The $11,000.00 (can that possibly be right?) Noctilux is totally out of the question.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the answers so far.</p>

<p>I have extensively used the entire current Summicron line and they're really excellent lenses. The 75 Summicron is especially outstanding in every way. But, I do find the veiling flare of the 50mm Summicron to be the weak point in an otherwise excellent lens. And I'm not putting down that lens in any other regard. I certainly don't expect total absence of flare from any lens.</p>

<p>Stuart's photo is good indication that the 50 Asph is quite good in backlit situations. I would have expected the 50 Summicron to have a good bit of "haze" or veiling flare showing up in that picture while I wouldn't worry about it with the 75.</p>

<p>So, anyone else care to compare the 50 Summilux Asph and 75 Summicron Asph? Maybe that's the best and most direct comparison. How similar or dissimilar are those two? Especially shooting against the light?</p>

<p>I've had a 50mm Summicron (the latest version with sliding hood) for years and its a great lens, well deserving of its reputation. However, I don't like that it is prone to flare in back-lit situations, showing a good bit of veiling flare over a large area of the image. Its not up to the standard of the modern Asph Leica lenses which are not very bothered by this scenario.</p>

<p>So, I wonder, how resistant to flare is the 50mm Asph? In particular, I wonder about photographing a person against a bright window or some such situation - not shooting with the sun in the frame. Can users of both 50mm Asph and Summicron compare? Can users of the 50 Asph comment on its performance in back-lit shooting? How about comparisons with the 75 Summicron?</p>

<p>The 17 TS in particular will get snapped up by every architecture shooter who uses Canon cameras. Its expensive but there's nothing else like it for full frame DSLR cameras. And its not so expensive when it gets used on every job. I can't wait to get my hands on one. It'll save me a lot of stitching frames together in Photoshop.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I have no use what-so-ever for a 200-400 zoom or a cropped sensor DSLR camera. But I do recognize that many folks might want that gear and find it extremely useful for their needs. Canon makes lots of cheap gear for the masses so why get upset over them making something thats very useful for a different group of customers?</p>

<p>"btw,my last batch of Xtol,5L,deionized water, full sealed glass bottles, was 22 months old when I finished it with no problem."</p>

<p>I had a similar experience once when I found a small bottle of Xtol I'd missed using. It was dated almost two years prior. I tried it and it worked fine.</p>

<p>The very best practice I've found is to keep Xtol in "dose" sized containers. What that means is that if you typically use 500ml of working solution at 1:3 that you'd keep your Xtol in 125ml bottles. No measuring when you are ready to develop some film and best of all no part full bottle of Xtol waiting around. Gonna do two rolls? Use two dose size bottles mixed with the appropriate amount of water.Yes, I have a bunch of small bottles and some larger ones that I use to refill the dose size bottles until I use up the batch of developer. Then I start over.</p>

<p>The minimum amount of stock Xtol is 100ml per 80 square inches of film. Using more is a smart idea I think as there is never a question about developer exhaustion and there's plenty of solution to cover the film in the canister.</p>

<p>Hi Stuart,</p>

<p>I'm with the camp that says "use distilled water and glass bottles". These two issues have been brought to light time and time again when we've read of Xtol failures. They are, or should be, now classified as "known issues".</p>

<p>The plastic accordion bottles definitely are permeable to oxygen and are not suitable for developer storage no matter what the manufacturer says. Use glass bottles filled nearly to the top to keep air away from your Xtol.</p>

<p>You don't know what is in your water supply unless you have it tested. Even then, what was in the water last week may be different from next week. Distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water from a reliable source is something you can depend on for mixing photo chemicals.</p>

The WL internals are on multiple boards and may be more repairable for less cost. The AB is

built on one board and if one small component dies its all dead. The warranty period is

shorter on the AB I think - you could check that. Which ever of these two lights you buy, Buff

has the best customer service you could ever want.

I'd use a different developer if you have it. Xtol or D76 diluted a bit to get longer times. I like at least 8 minutes and prefer longer.

 

If no other developers are available then dilute your HC110 even further. Or drop down to 5 minutes with one test sheet, that might get you there. But you'll have a hard time doing minus development when the normal time is that short. Be sure to keep enough stock solution per sheet in your tubes.

 

I'd test a sheet for possible fogging. Develop one sheet straight out of the box if you suspect you've fogged the whole box this is how to know for sure.

 

The unexposed film under the film holder guides should be as clear as from your roll film cameras edges. The sheet film base is a bit thicker but it is still clear.

I suggest you buy as many White Lightning X1600s as you can afford and more later as money becomes available. Three 1600s will get you a good start. They are excellent lights, have plenty of power and power range and excellent service should you need it. They take Balcar accessories if you run through the somewhat limited pieces WL offers. The light modifiers WL sells are not the best but very good for the money. Again you can buy more later as you make money.

And I will add that I'm not trying to talk you out of a Hasselblad. But you seem to be doing fine with your current tools.

I looked at your website and I don't think you will benefit from switching to Hasselblad. You will see more difference between the 6x7 negative of the Mamiya 7 compared to either Mamiya or Hasselblad cropped to 6X45. The larger negative will win everytime. If you start shooting square full frame pictures with a Hasselblad, then the difference is less, since you are not cropping the 6X6 film. You may crop the Mamiya 7 a bit because of the less precise framing of a rangefinder camera.

 

I don't have any experience with Mamiya 645 cameras but use the Mamiya 7 and Hasselblads often. The Hasselblad is helped a lot by using a tripod. I can't hold nearly as still with a Hassy compared to the Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 is by far the best choice for hand holding at low shutter speeds.

 

Hassy and Mamiya 7 lenses are probably the very best available in medium format. The Mamiya 7 lenses may resolve more detail and are very contrasty. The Hasselblad lenses show a bit less contrast and might be a bit more "poetic" in the way they render. Either system is plenty good enough for anyone.

Keep the MP and buy the M6.

 

The only thing better than one Leica is two Leicas.

The 50 f2.8 Distagon will take 86mm screw-in filters screwed directly into the lens or Series 93 drop-in (also known as Bay 93) in the hood/filter holder that comes with the lens.

Its a long drive from Big Sky to Glacier. If you stop to see anything or eat or visit some attraction its all day plus. Thats two days in a car for the round trip. If you have 4 days total you can do it but its lots of driving and not so much having fun. Granted its a nice drive but its still mostly looking through a windshield. I'd rather be somewhere outside walking around. Your mileage may vary.

The Leica 24mm is absolutely, completely stunning. I've used mine a lot and find no flaw at all.

 

I've read nice things about the ZM 25mm but have a very hard time imagining that its better than the Leica.