paul_chefurka

This choice depends so much on how you "see" pictures. I have never

been able to effectively use anything wider than a 28 - most of my

pics are shot between 28 and 90. I had the 24/2.8A for about a year,

and shot very little with it. I sold it in favour of the 28/2.0

which I much prefer. But this is simply because it fits my vision

better, and because I disliked the external finder more than I

expected.

<p>

I don't find the 28 to be too close to the 35. When shooting with my

3E I always find that switching between those two focal lengths

introduces a significant change in the way I see the subject.

<p>

The picture quality of the 24 and 28 is comparable - both are beyond

reproach.

A couple of clarifications - the existing 28, 35 and 50 single focal

length lenses focus to 70 cm - this is only a foot closer than the

3E. The difference is not significant for the type of photography

commonly done with Leicas. "Close" in Leica M photography typically

means within 4-6 feet of your primary subject, so a 1m minimum is

fine.

<p>

And the design (and therefore the restriction) is not an old one.

The 3E had a mechanical redesign last year or the year before, so

it's a current as it can be.

Speaking as a rich amateur with little talent, I have to say that

none of my friends could tell a Leica from a Rollei from a Nikon from

a Holga - unfortunately they just don't seem to care much about

cameras. I was so disappointed when I found out I couldn't impress

their socks off with my new aspheric baubles.

<p>

So instead of trying to impress them with my Leicas, I decided to

actually take pictures and impress them that way. Unfortunately, my

egregious lack of talent foiled that approach as well. Now I just

show 'em my last bank statement, and that seems to do the trick. It

would work even better if the balance hadn't been so badly depleted

by my purchase of those ridiculous Leicas in the first place.

<p>

We rich talentless hacks will stop at nothing :-/

There's no word on a new design. Leica has said before that the

current 3E is optimal for this camera - anything with a broader range

would be too large and would block too much of the VF.

<p>

I've never had a problem with a 1m close focus limit. I usually

carry a 90 as well, and if I want closer pics I just switch lenses.

The subjects I'm interested in are usually at least a meter away.

I've got Nikons and a 55 Micro if I want to take pictures up really

close (though they're usually at home in a closet :-)

"Narrative rather than graphic, more about time than form". That is

a brilliantly simple statement that I wholeheartedly endorse as the

core of this slippery concept. It's precisely what I got out of my

switch from Nikon to M. Thanks, Andy - that's going in my little box

of photographic aphorisms.

Giles, our difference may be one of degree rather than kind. Let's

take your examples one by one:

<p>

"If I buy a Rolls Royce, I would not expect to have to undertake a

personal pre-delivery 1000 mile test drive."

<p>

No, you would expect your chauffeur to do it :-)

<p>

Seriously, every new car purchaser should do a walk-arouund

inspection with the dealer, and should take the car for a 10-mile

test drive before accepting delivery, no matter the price. I

certainly did that when I bought my last vehicle, which is also

German and cost a lot more than a Leica. People are not infallible,

and no QC system will give 100% reliability in shipped goods - at

least not at a price a consumer would accept. And what about

shipping damage?

<p>

"If I buy a Rolex I shouldn't need to check it keeps time ok for a

month."

<p>

Oh no? Again, inspect before delivery and test afterwards.

Especially with a Rolex - a mechanical watch that keeps notoriously

bad time compared to a quartz watch, checking the accuracy is only

prudent. After all, even if it has its COSC certification from the

factory, what about shipping damage?

<p>

"If I dine out at the Ritz I shouldn't have to eat half the food

before I accept the meal."

<p>

No, but you will inspect the plate when it's placed before you to

ensure that it's the one you ordered (the waiter might have been

distracted by your dinner partner and given you the wrong one), you

will check that the side dishes are the ones you requested, you will

check that the meat is cooked to the degree you ordered, and if any

of these are wrong, you will send the meal back. This is because all

this stuff is being done by people, and the price if the meal may not

completely obviate human frailty.

<p>

There are a lot of reasons things are expensive, and the expectation

of perfection does not necessarily attach to the price. Especially

with low-volume items where the QC is done not by machines and

statistical analysis, but by inspection by human beings.

Defect/return rates are very closely held corporate secrets. That's

why all there is to go on is the volume of complaints on the net - no

camera company will divulge their real numbers.

<p>

The only Leica I know of that was eventually acknowleged as a dog by

the company was the early R4 production. Even there they didn't

admit to any problems until Ted Grant offered to smash a couple of

them with a sledgehammer on the front steps of the Leica plant in

Midland, in full view of the CBC TV cameras. Leica put a quality

improvement program in place post haste.

Every lens should be carefully inspected before purchase for

mechanical flaws, and tested immediately upon purchase for optical

flaws.

<p>

In my case, the diaphragm on the first 3E failed after a month of

steady use including a trip to Belize, and the fact that I ended up

with a secod bad example was my own fault, for not doing a careful

inspection in the store. Were either of them signs of poor QC? I

have no idea, the sample size is way too small to allow me to draw

such an inference.

This is odd. Over the years I have purchased 6 M series cameras (M3,

2xM4, 2xM6, M6TTL). The TTL and the M6HM were purchased new, the

others were used. The only problem I've ever had was with the M3 RF

going out of adjustment. The others have been perfect.

<p>

Over those same years I have purchased 17 M lenses - 11 new, 6 used.

Of those I've had to have the aperture ring fixed on a used 50

Summicron, and two new examples of the Tri-Elmar had problems - one

with the aperture ring, one with the focus selector ring.

<p>

Overall, this seems like a reasonable frequency of faults, except

maybe for the 3E. I just wish the new cars I've bought (for far

higher sums of money) showed anything like this level of quality.

<p>

The problem with inferring QC problems from a few defects reported on

the net is that the reporting population is inherently biased.

Broken wheels always squeak the loudest.

<p>

And anyone who doesn't understand the effect of economies of scale on

product pricing should take a hard look at the prices of bespoke

suits and shoes, hand-crafted furniture etc. compared to the prices

of their high-volume, mass-market brethern. Of course the Motor-M is

expensive. It's a pretty low-volume item in the Leica catalogue, I'd

bet. We all knew Leica gear was relatively expensive when we bought

into the marque. This is no surprise.

<p>

I understand the feeling of paying a lot of money for an item that

arrives defective, but that's the reason we all do business with

local dealers, isn't it? I walked back into the store with my second

busted 3E and got a new one out of their stock with no quibble. I

walked out happy, and went on shooting. Now if I'd bought a grey-

market mailorder item from the US my feelings would have been

different, but I wouldn't have been mad at Leica - I'd have cursed

the fact that I had been penny-wise and pound-foolish.

<p>

Nobody needs to justify Leica's pricing - if you don't like the

price, the strongest statement you can make as a consumer is not to

buy the item. If enough people follow that path, the item is

eventually either dropped or repriced. Whining about it on the net

isn't terribly productive.

On the issue of demagnifiers, the reason the old 35mm lens needed bug-

eyes on the front was to change the angle of view that would be

displayed by the frame lines. Remember, the 50mm frame line had to

show a 35mm angle of view, and this required a lens on the front of

the VF to accomplish. That change also required a change to the

magnification of the secondary RF patch in order for the two patches

to line up, so a lens was needed in front of the RF window as well.

<p>

The current magnifier or the proposed demagnifier don't need to do

that - they simpley change the apparent size of the entire VF image,

without rearranging any of its angular relationships. So a

demagnifier ought to be a simple reverse-telescope kind of optic, and

should work just like the magnifier.

It sounds like a winner to me! I use a .58 with either 3E or 35/1.4,

and a .85 dedicated to the 90 and 135. I have great hopes for adding

the magnifier to the .85.

<p>

I love the idea of a demagnifier, too. There doesn't seem to be any

obvious technical impediment, so maybe they'll give it a shot.

Turning my currently little-used .72 into another .58 would have me

smiling from ear to ear.

I use a number of different bags for different purposes. For an all-

around bag I like the Domke F6. For a pure transportation bag, it's

a Domke J2. I have a LowePro Street&Field Reporter 100 for my small-

bag moods, but my favourite go-anywhere is just a little Tilley waist

pouch. I put the 3E on a body, put that over my shoulder, drop a 90

and 3 or 4 rolls of film in the waist pouch, and off I go.

One consideration is if you are using a scanner with an IR channel

for dust removal. In that case, the C41 films are the clear winners,

as the IR channel can't be used with silver films, but can be used

with the dye-based C41 films.

<p>

From what I've seen, the look of the C41 films is different than

silver films, both in terms of grain structure and tonality - which

is "better" is a matter of taste. The C41 films to have pretty

remarkable latitiude, though - this is probably easier to exploit

with a scanner, and certainly gives you more information (highlight

and shadow detail) to work with.

<p>

The downside of using chromogenic films, though is their relative

lack of stability compared to silver films. They'll last only as

long as a regular colour neg, so if archival issues are important to

you, stick with silver.

For a scanner I use a Nikon LS-4000, and have used the Polaroid

SS4000 in the past. Either of these will do what you need. Given

that you're scanning Kodachrome, the IR channel of the LS-4000 (used

for automatic dust removal) won't do anything for you, and the SS4000

is significantly less expensive right now.

<p>

For scanning software you can use the manufacturers' software

(NikonScan or Polaroid's Insight), or you can use Silverfast (complex

and high-end, but some people swear by it), or Vuescan - a $40

package by a guy named Ed Hamrick (www.hamrick.com). I use Vuescan

and have no desire to change - it runs all my scanners, the images

are great, and the support has to be experienced to be believed.

<p>

For image editing go whole hog and get Photoshop 6. It's the gold

standard, and is very capable and stable.

<p>

For a printer, the new Epson 1280 looks to me like the best bet right

now. I use the Epson 870 - a letter-size printer with the same inks,

but I'm planning an upgrade just to make larger prints that are

better for wall display.

<p>

For paper, start with the Epson stuff. They make a variety of

surfaces, and their papers are pretty good. Later you can branch out

and experiment with the hundreds of papers on the market. Personally

I love Tetenal High-Gloss 264, a super-glossy paper with exceptional

charpness and colour saturation, but it's expensive and a lot of

people prefer something other than a super-gloss paper.

<p>

For a computer, get as much RAM as you can. I use a year-old 800 MHz

PIII with 768 MB, and I'm confident I won't need to upgrade for the

next couple of years. Don't forget a big disk and a CD-ROM burner.

<p>

A good monitor is essential - I like a 19" screen - and you can use

two monitors if your video card will take it (I use a Matrox). Two

monitors means you can put all your Photoshop toolbars on the cheap

one, and have just the image on the good one. Get a hardware

calibrator for the monitor (the stuff from www.colorcal.com is good)

so you'll be able to trust the colour in at least one part of your

workflow :-)

My number-one book is James Natchwey's "Inferno". Whenever I start

to think that the world all runs by the rules I'm familiar with, a

dozen images is all it takes to realign my thinking.

<p>

I have a slew of other books in my collection, but for me nothing

comes even close to the power of that one.

The footage of the Palestinian celebration appears to be genuine.

The rumour that it was a hoax is a hoax itself...

<p>

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa091101aa.htm

I've used both the 28/2.0 and the 28/2.8. IMO the performance of

these lenses is very similar. That means they are typical of modern

Leica lenses - high contrast levels, low flare, high resolution, and

very even center to corner performance. The 28 Summicron preserves

these characteristics even at full aperture (which is 2.0, not 1.2 -

that last number is a Leica misprint of 1:2).

<p>

Some people think this may be the sharpest lens in the current M

lineup, while Erwin Puts says it's second behind the 90 AA. I can't

split the hairs that fine, but I do know that it's an outstanding

lens in all respects.

<p>

The choice between it and the 35 Summilux ASPH comes down to focal

length and maximum aperture. Do you want the wider lens or do you

want f/1.4? If you choose the 35, rest assured you won't

be "settling" for anything inferior. There's a good reason that lens

has become a legend in its own time.

I know it's a Leica Moral Imperative to always have a camera with

you, but I found that I rarely got pictures that were good enough to

offset thew hassle when I did that, so I stopped.

<p>

I get my best results when I go somewhere with the specific intention

of taking pictures. If I have a theme or project in mind, so much

the better, but for me the point of the exercise must be the

photography. Having a camera along "just in case" results in

nothing, because I need to be more focussed than that.

<p>

Having a project or a theme or a passion or at least the desire to

explore a subject is essential, otherwise it becomes little more than

an exercise in craft (i.e. sharp, well-exposed, nicely composed

boring snaps). It's kind of like talking - you always say more

interesting things when you're talking about something you're

interested in.

<p>

I rarely do my best work when I'm with other people, because doing

good work requires me to immerse myself in the situation. Other

people would usually rather be doing something else, and my awareness

of this conflict keeps me from entering the "flow". The typical

result is a few hurried snapshots.

My first serious photos in 1968 were done with a rangefinder

Canonet. The first pictures I remember being really impressed by

were done with a Canon LTM. From then on it was all downhill with

Pentax SLRs - first an SV, then Spotmatics and MX's. Finally an M4

in the mid-70's. Back to SLRs in the 80's and 90's with Nikons

(Nikkormats, FTn's, F3 and FE2. I regained my senses about 4 years

ago, and now shoot M6's. My F3/MD4 stays in service for long tele

stuff (with a new Leica shoulder stock).

Of the lenses I have, there is a tie for least use between the 75/1.4

and the 135/3.4

<p>

My reason for not using the 75 is the weight and the frame lines. The

135 falls victim to the fact that I don't shoot much telephoto

stuff. Neither of them is up for sale, though - they're just too

good whenever I do use them :-)

<p>

I had the good sense to think about what, how and why I shoot when

considering avalaible-light lenses, so I managed to avoid the

Noctilux trap. The 35/1.4 ASPH spends a lot of time on my camera,

while I'm pretty sure the Noct would have spent almost none. I know

I don't miss having one.

<p>

One lens that I had and sold for lack of use was the 24. It was too

wide for me, and using an external VF was more of a pain than I

expected - so it just sat forlornly in the bag. So I'll not likely

ever own a 21, either.

I'd suggest not getting two new lenses together. Get one at a time,

use it for a while, and try to figure out what you're missing. With

that in mind, I'd say the 35 is a no-brainer for your next purchase.

<p>

OTOH,used 50's are pretty inexpensive by Leica standards, and you're

fairly sure to need (want) one in your bag at some point, so maybe

consider a used 35/2.0 ASPH and a used 50/2.0. That gives you the

three classic Leica focal lengths, and after six months of using

them, you'll be pretty sure about what else you might want.

<p>

I'm no help with the 21 vs 24 debate - I don't see that wide, so my

attitude is "a pox on both their houses". The 28 Summicron is a

phenomenal lens, though.

Boy, this is such a personal thing. You really need to try them for

yourself, as everyone has different reactions. Here are mine:

<p>

GMP - haven't tried it.

<p>

TA Rapidgrip - Too big, too heavy, didn't like the feel, with or

without an RW attached.

<p>

Motor-M - Great when you want a motor. The round post isn't super-

ergonomic, but it does a pretty good job. The motor adds noticeable

bulk to the camera, though.

<p>

Leica M-Grip - perfection. For me it's ideal. I have them on all my

bodies. I take them off long enough to say "Ick", then put them

right back on. My M's feel naked and just plain wrong without them.

The 75 Elmarit or 75 'cron is a popular dream lens, but what about

this:

<p>

Take the 3E concept, but cut it to two focal lengths, a short one and

a long one, with the one in the middle skipped. I think a 35/75

BiElmar would be a very cool and useful lens. How about a 28/50 2E

that's lighter and smaller than the current 3E? or a 50/90? Maybe

they could be small enough to deal with the VF obstruction issue.

I've never used a hood with mine, and have had exactly one instance

of flare. I was shooting toward the sun, in verical format, with the

sun just out of the top of the frame. I got a bit of flare on the

bottom of the image, that was croppable. I've never seen the lens

flare other than that. The front element is set back far enough for

protection, and I use the lens cap when I'm not shooting. The

accessory hood blocks a lot of the viewfinder, so I haven't bothered

ordering it.

Protective filters are the result of a cooperative venture between

camera store accountants and Satan. I've heard rumours that stores

make as much profit off the filter as the lens it is supposed

to "protect".

<p>

Modern Leica lenses need no such panty-waisted mollycoddling. The

effect of a bit of sea spray or dust on the front element pales in

comparison to what those contaminants are doing to the rest of your

camera.

<p>

If you're prone to scratching the unprotected front elements of your

lenses, use a non-collapsible hood, butI've never noticed this to be

a problem, frankly.

<p>

Camera store salesmen prey on our paranoia in order to fatten their

bottom line. We must stand united against their self-serving

schemes. Just Say No to Filters.