allan_crook1

my M5 is the best available-light camera for me. SL metering with 50mm summiluxm, allows A.L sensitive portraits, with emotional impact.

great design. pluses for me, include:

larger shutter dial, rotates proud of camera body, operates with side of forefinger, while camera is at eye-level. - no distraction from framing subject.

compares to M2,M-4.2,M6 I've owned has quietest shutter, least flare-prone viewfinder (clear rangefinder spot).

fastest film loading. fast film rewinding.

great shape for holding steady.

best metering system on a Leica M ever. (SL concept similar to that on Leica SL fit SLR camera)

MINE IS 2-LUG. OWNED SINCE LATE 70'S. TOTALLY RELIABLE.

saw old newsreel, Vatican photographer used one to photograph Pope, in a.light. - its quiet!

read it was last camera to be constructed using fit and adjust assembly technique at Wetlar. fit and detail finish superb on mine.

I cannot fault it. takes my later1979 purchased 21mm f3.4 super angulon ok - see above for serial no. advice or better contact Leica A G.

tip, use silver-oxide cell, adjust ASA/DIN to calibrate in standard exposure conditions for film being used.

On the Sony AX33, if I select Standard for image stabilization, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned off. If I select Active, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned on. I understand that Clear Image Zoom uses a digital zoom algorithm to get more zoom range than provided by the lens. But what is the relation between it and the image stabilization mode such that Clear Image is automatically turned on with Active and off with Standard?

On the Sony AX33, if I select Standard for image stabilization, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned off. If I select Active, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned on. I understand that Clear Image Zoom uses a digital zoom algorithm to get more zoom range than provided by the lens. But what is the relation between it and the image stabilization mode such that Clear Image is automatically turned on with Active and off with Standard?

probably performance related. in testing - development, the combination of the two features, indicated this arrangement necessary.

the fact that Sony offers these useful features, aiding versatility, is one reason Sony is years ahead of every other maker.imo.

no, N system not around long enough, I guess. if yused on other camera bodies, maybe use an extender from the cmera's maker.

I switch from FF to app-c capture to achieve 1.5x mag, as todays big mp sensors, allow extensive cropping, which of course can also be done in post-processing.

<p>Question. Camera <strong>N1</strong> lens 50mm 1.4. Tele conv. Mutar, but its for the for <strong>645. (Or did CZ make any teleconverter for the N lenses)?? </strong> Can the 645 Mutar connect the N 50mm to the N1 via any adaptor??</p>

no. te N system's short- life availability, meant that Ziess never got around to it.

no.

To be fair now, it was probably just one salesperson who was disputing the flash's TTL capabilities, not the entire Photocare store...

the TLA200 worked perfectly on my G2, ttl mode selected. clean flash &camera contacts with isopropyl alcohohol, (from chemist - drug-store)dry, leave for a little while(to ensure it all evaporated). try with good batteries.if you get perfect exposures, everything is aok on ttl setting, compared to manual, maymum power flash, which might have overexposed the same scene, with hotspots.

hi all, war and politics - the entire contax camera factory was moved to kien, ukraine by the russians, at some point.

I have no knowledge of lenses being made in kiev. obviously viewfinder/rangefinder optics built there. later, the Kiev cameras were produced, contax designs.

after the ravages of WWII, soviet oppression, it is amazing that the workers at Jena, produced anything- material shortages, the need to prioritize the s.union market - due to russian priorities, when they needed to earn hard currency from sales to the more prosperous west. I remember looking at photo mags in the 60's seeing the ultra-wide 20mm flektagon avertised, I think for the Exakta, still being produced in DresdenI wonder if anyone has a7'd one of these?

due to Comecon (the S.U's common market), I guess much of the output from Kiev and Jena, went to markets in the soviet orbit. poor old Meoptam in CZ(THE COUNTRY), had the same situation. they all survived, because they had to, to live.

so quality-control is likely to have suffered. however at the time, they re obviously not in the same market sector as the contarex/contaflex cameras, from the west. 50-60 years later, we are all expect top QC.

we have the luxury and time to experiment with such equipment. prewar and post war, ziess were about 20 years ahead of anybody else, in lens design, including leica. who caught up somewhat, when CAD became available in the70's.remember most early leica lenses were based on ziess formulae, elmar - tessar, summicron - planar,sonnar, biogon, distagon - elmarits.- imaging progress owes a lot to ziess. their designs helped to rebuildjapan's ecomy, of course.

"Just for the record..these M42 screw Carl Zeiss 'jena' lenses were made in Eastern Germany (DDR) run by the Russians after the end of world war two and up until the fall of the Berlin wall."

 

Of course this is (almost) nonsense. The Zeiss plant in Jena was run by the Russians for a short time after WWII only, then it was state-owned by the GDR.

 

And the lenses manufactured there were so bad that some of them were listed in the "proper" (west-german) Zeiss catalogues as lenses for the west-german made Contax models. They were so bad that Rollei decided to equip some batches of their Rolleiflex with the east-german made Tessar in the early 50s. And ask some owners of those cameras what they think of the west-german made Tessars of the same eras (there are some lemon lenses among them). The coating process developed by Carl Zeiss Jena was so bad that one leading company for coating optical surfaces (Balzer) based their success on licenses from Carl Zeiss Jena. Actually, I never had any problems with cleaning east-german lenses even when they had severe fungus - contrary to some western lenses I never managed to damage the coating which came out pristine even after cleaning with concentrated vinegar.

 

Actually, Zeiss-Jena improved most of the old optical designs and introduced some new ones (Zeiss-Jena was the first or second manufacturer making wide-angle lenses with a retrofocus design...at a time when noone in West-Germany was even thinking of desinging such a lens). I have several cameras equipped with east-german Tessars (which were redesigned in 1948 - in West-Germany they followed the pre-WWII formula some years longer) and these are definitively prime lenses. I know a photo technician who once put a ground glass on his east-german Tessara equipped Ercona (= 6x9 Ikonta) camera. He told me he had virtually to rub his eyes, since he had never seen such a sharp image on a 6x9 ground glass. This guy had visited a technicians college for photography for some years and does large-format himself, I think you might trust him.

 

And some other trivia about the east-german Zeiss lenses "made by the russians for the low-end market": these were the first ones with a ball-bearing aperture mechanism, and (as far as I know) the only ones with automatic aperture correction for close-up distances on tele lenses (as you might know, the actual f-stop also depends on the displacement of the lens barrel which should not be neglected when focussing close-up with tele lenses).

 

"The proper Carl Zeiss company in Western Germany was furious that the Russians were making lenses with the Zeiss name on them and pursued a legal case for years, but this was very difficult across the west/east divide and the russians got around the issue by putting Carl Zeiss 'JENA' on their lenses."

 

This is a VERY abrigded version of the legal issues between Carl Zeiss (West Germany) and Carl Zeiss Jena. Besides that it is NOT true that the "russians" made Zeiss lenses (see above), actually Carl Zeiss Jena lost this lawsuit in some countries and won it in some others. So they had to re-label their lenses for export to certain countries, including West-Germany.

 

I hardly can believe that this posting is based on personal experiences, and on personal research since there are so many faults in it which comply with anti-eastern block propaganda. You NEVER can damn all products coming from a certain country or nation and "threw them into the self pot" as we say in Germany. Doing so shows more about the prejudices of the author than about reality.

 

The russian lenses based on pre-war Zeiss designs are a completely different story. In many cases they also used the old mechanical (barrel) design, and their optical quality seems to be doubtful in more cases than with east-german made lenses. I always wonder how come that so many "Sonnar" lenses with LTM mount (these do exist but are pretty rare) are sold by ebay-sellers from eastern Europe...

Well, we know that. That's enough for me. If the others are dumb or ignorant enough to buy it for real Zeiss lenses then let it be. 99% will never notice it anyway.

<p>I don't agree with the often repeated oppinion that Carl Zeiss Jena lenses were generally pre war projects. Flektogon lenses were all retrofocus wide angle optics which obviously didn't have anything common with pre war lenses. Indeed, the flektogons were much more innovative projects than the west-distagon lenses in 50s and 60s, like the 20/4 and 25/4 flektogons which were introduced when the only distagon existed was the 35/4 lens for Contarex! Also, the first Gauss type lens for rolleiflex was the east german CZJ Biometar 80/2,8, first designed in 1951, before the appearance of Planars. Indeed, the Schneider Xenotar 80/2,8 lens, later used by rolleiflex, seems to be a copy of this biometar lens! Even the Tessar formula was redesigned by CZJ thereupon the end of WWII, many years before the company in Oberkochen decided to redesign its tessar lenses! The last black CZJ lenses for Praktica and Pentacon six cameras, were modern designs and very good performers equal to the Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax/Yashica mount (especially in terms of the rendition of shape outlines and surface-depth details, I have never compared their sharpness in big enlargements and their scanning copies in pc monitor).<br>

Of course the build quality of the west Carl Zeiss lenses were much better. Especially the line of the lenses for the Contarex mount were made with the minimal mechanical tolerances that could get achieved. This fact combined with the the optical excellence of these lenses led to the best (and of course the most expensive) line of lenses ever produced. (I have never experienced the performance of leica lenses).</p>

weflickr has V.1.05 ! search for it, as I could not sucessfully copy link.

has explanation -instructions in english V 1.0 and V.1.05, so you can go back to 1.0 if 1.05 not to your liking.

<p>dont think i seek to contradict you , for the sake of it, alan,however i should say my 2 examples, are exceptionally good for indoor flash, yielding nice even coverage, in portraits an accurate and pleasing skin tone. they show off what the sonnar is capable of.<br>

the focusing in low light, needs careful assesment - finding an adequate contrast area, if available,butaiI've found it no worse than other cameras using yhis type of af detection. its a shame the excellent IR system fitted to yashicas t4 was not added to its spec. that camera and their 230af slr(both film) had good integrated flash systems too. so kyoceras track record is good in this area. one user revie won dp review had one of his tvs lose flash power under warranty.but i guess that can happen to any model camera.<br>

others have asked on this site and elsewhere, to no avail ,about the firmware upgrade - 1.05, i think, on kyoceras japanese website. has anyone used it AND seen any benefits, so they can tell us interested souls ?about?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>dont think i seek to contradict you , for the sake of it, alan,however i should say my 2 examples, are exceptionally good for indoor flash, yielding nice even coverage, in portraits an accurate and pleasing skin tone. they show off what the sonnar is capable of.<br>

the focusing in low light, needs careful assesment - finding an adequate contrast area, if available,butaiI've found it no worse than other cameras using yhis type of af detection. its a shame the excellent IR system fitted to yashicas t4 was not added to its spec. that camera and their 230af slr(both film) had good integrated flash systems too. so kyoceras track record is good in this area. one user revie won dp review had one of his tvs lose flash power under warranty.but i guess that can happen to any model camera.<br>

others have asked on this site and elsewhere, to no avail ,about the firmware upgrade - 1.05, i think, on kyoceras japanese website. has anyone used it AND seen any benefits, so they can tell us interested souls ?about?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>dont think i seek to contradict you , for the sake of it, alan,however i should say my 2 examples, are exceptionally good for indoor flash, yielding nice even coverage, in portraits an accurate and pleasing skin tone. they show off what the sonnar is capable of.<br>

the focusing in low light, needs careful assesment - finding an adequate contrast area, if available,butaiI've found it no worse than other cameras using yhis type of af detection. its a shame the excellent IR system fitted to yashicas t4 was not added to its spec. that camera and their 230af slr(both film) had good integrated flash systems too. so kyoceras track record is good in this area. one user revie won dp review had one of his tvs lose flash power under warranty.but i guess that can happen to any model camera.<br>

others have asked on this site and elsewhere, to no avail ,about the firmware upgrade - 1.05, i think, on kyoceras japanese website. has anyone used it AND seen any benefits, so they can tell us interested souls ?about?</p>

<p> </p>

hi contax tvs-d fans, found this on flickr:

search flickr for 'contax tvs digital firmware'

I'm sticking to 1.0 personally. my two work just fine.

<p>dont think i seek to contradict you , for the sake of it, alan,however i should say my 2 examples, are exceptionally good for indoor flash, yielding nice even coverage, in portraits an accurate and pleasing skin tone. they show off what the sonnar is capable of.<br>

the focusing in low light, needs careful assesment - finding an adequate contrast area, if available,butaiI've found it no worse than other cameras using yhis type of af detection. its a shame the excellent IR system fitted to yashicas t4 was not added to its spec. that camera and their 230af slr(both film) had good integrated flash systems too. so kyoceras track record is good in this area. one user revie won dp review had one of his tvs lose flash power under warranty.but i guess that can happen to any model camera.<br>

others have asked on this site and elsewhere, to no avail ,about the firmware upgrade - 1.05, i think, on kyoceras japanese website. has anyone used it AND seen any benefits, so they can tell us interested souls ?about?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>v1.05 mystery solved, see my other posting via search.</p>

well, he thinks he is well-informed(KR).

I found his non-photographic stuff more interestng, cars,homes,cd,dvd, light-saving light bulbs.

leicaman piece is funny.

he regards himself as a phtographer, an artist, self-proclaimed, of course.

as he says , do not take kr too seriously.

he is a chancer, con-artist. he will love this, as all publicity is good.

oh, if you lve outside the USA, ordering equipment via his site, is a bad idea, because you will pay dealer pricewhich includes USA duties. that plus shipping costs willincur your country's import duty and taxes. - so very expensive route.

you may have guessed, I have not donated, he threatens a growing family, I would not encourage him and his morticia, to produce another pugsley.

oh, he is wrong about the nikon FA - crap

leica M5 - brilliant camera.

his suggestion to shoot film, is not what he does, of course

buying any leica will mean paying $$$ + for a CLE- mantenanc, every 5-6 years, even then the speeds will be inaccurate, mostly.

overall a walter mitty camera bug. he likes disneyland colors. test charts would be more artistic. - all IMO.

<p>talking to a onsultant to ziess, in another optical field, he told me agreed wih me that ziess is a grat company, but sometimes suffer from NIH (not invented here) syndrome, to play catch-up, is not there histotical modus operandi. - the are innovators. maybe germany's senior optical brand/company,most of leica lenses, were leitz takes on ziess optical formula, elmar = tessar, planar = summicron. sonnar = elmarits.sfter the 1972 contarex electronic, there failed negotiations with asahi, sucess with yashica - the latter, were one of the few producers of optical glass and increasingly expert in electronics technology for integration into cameras,<br>

as of november, 2016, nothing for ziess enthusiasts, other than buying ziess lenses with popular mounts.<br>

contax ended in 2005. boils down to whether ziess will do what leica did with panasonic, ask sony to make a body - A7 with upgraded features? - sony always keeps to using its own name, tho, on products, to take advantage of its brand power .with plenty of used leicas arund, demand for a top-grade 35mm film body is not really there, never was. sony has sensor technology.I doubt if ziess would view the return on auge launch cost as worthwile even with a digital body. too late methinks.I hope not, timed with the next global economic upturn., when that can be predicted.</p>

<p>the main cause of vignetting is due to the shutter being of the behind-the-lens leaf type.<br>

the shutter blades position and varying open/close speed through out their travel, are the culprit.<br>

I expect similar effect on the kodak retina-retina reflex cameras, but have no direct experience.</p>

<p>I have done the dirty deed, left 35mm behind.<br>

I always thought kodachrome would be a hard aact to follow, in 35mm. but idigital capture can pretty much match it now, I hink. even some of the smaller sensor formats can impress when used for large prints.</p>

<p>the advantage to professionals, of immediately being able to review their images, must be immense.<br>

most 35mm cameras with pedigree will end up in glass cases,imo. sad. Isay use your F100, as someone will cntinue tomake movie film. how good it will be,is anther matter.<br>

more important than digital v.analogue film is the quality of images - compositioetc. looking at 1950/60s' leica photografie magazines, standards have not been maintained.</p>

<p>I also like agfacolor ct18 film</p>

<p>I windered bout the ld eastg erman ORWO brand of film. I looked at that mine of misinformtion,wikipedia. in its latest incarnation, its still producing film, whether putting it into 35mm cannisters, 70m onto 120 rolls, not menioned.ORWO -OriginalWolfen, had access to agfacolor clour film technology, the transition to digital might be slower<br>

for secialist use, like aerial photography the transition to digital might be slower</p>

<p>I also like Agfacolor ct18 reversl film.</p>

<p>the issue ofarchival qualities of film v. digital. the former will require the hardware of the future to be cmpatible. I think it is wrong to rely solely on one process<br>

as for</p>

<p> </p>

<p>my FA, for which(along with 2 nikkor lenses),I pxed a perfectly good spare leica m4-2 body. big mistake</p>

<p>KR may wax lyrical over it, but I had a dud. parts fell off it - rear control and front control.<br /> made in taiwan, nikon qc apparently left behind in japan<br>

IT WAS AN EXPENSIVE -(particularly as it is plastic)</p>

<p>FE much superior. </p>

<p>m</p>

<p>exposure control nothing special in AE, using the computer-generated- designed metering pattern.</p>

<p><br /> in fairness, I found the 2 lenses poor too.<br /> this coloured my thinking, probably.</p>

<p>a well-respected 85mmm AIS nikkor, was soft, even stopped down.</p>

<p>the 35mm nikkor E, admittedly a budget lens, was poor too. KR likes the E range too.<br /> <br /> my wish was to have a compact 2 lens outfit for casual use.<br /> nikon does occasionally drop the ball. a 50mm el-nikkor enlarging lens was far worse than the s. s.componar, it was to replace. I still rate nikon above canon, in manufacturing - usually.<br /> <br /> I have only recently forgiven nikon, buying a nikon. made at their new wuxi factory, in china, it seems good, so far. the camera is disliked by kr, another plus factor :).(kr= ken rockwell.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>my F1n, had an annoying tendency. the rewind clutch button on baseplate would fail to stay locked in. adjusted by canon, but it still was unreliable, failing to lock (always when I was in a hurry, it seemed.</p>

<p>the AE winder would stick, failing to wind-on. stopped using it.</p>

<p>I was pleased to find full AE mode works with plain-standard prism fitted.<br /> learnt this from watching a tv documentary, about national geographic staffer.</p>

<p>I still think the film transport system is suspect in the F1n. the manual wind-on, is not the best, in throw angle,effort,smoothness.</p>

<p>the original f-1 had a marketing boast - it had more parts than any other camera.(maybe 10,000!)?<br /> was the F1n more of a cost-reduction (in production terms) exercise?</p>

<p>as I use Leica M, I am spoilt, over many decades, from faultless operation.<br>

<br /> my favourite lens is the 80-200 fluorite L zoom. great colour reproduction, balanced performance characteristics,I understand the non-L 80-200 is excellent too.(think that has built in hood.?- nice)</p>

<p>asa late-comer to the nikon 1 system. i'd like to comment.</p>

<p>my 30yr interest has been mainly served by leica m.<br>

due to disablement, unable to load film, focus safely, so on seeing a v1 in a shop window, curious.</p>

<p>toinserte my sd card, tested, and was impressed enough to buy, it came with 10mm -fx equiv 27mm - about my favourite m-lens focal length - 28mm.<br>

the wrong way around, researched on internet, and discovered quite a lot of v1 lovers.</p>

<p>the jpeg files it producesare excellent, the automated systems seem well implimented.<br>

with a good degree of manual control. mine came withe dedicated bounce flash and nikon grip, both useful and effective add-ons.</p>

<p>in an interview the designerresposible, highlighted the reason for performance. compared to their top dslr - the d3, at the time of the v1 launch, the v1 leap-fogged technically. having the a d conversion doneon the imaging chip. then transferred to the spu on 24 channels. - faster and less noisy. the d3 used 12 channels of low-level analogue sgnal.</p>

<p>the v1 uses 2 pipelines, faster again, so writing to card and ievf-lcd magesimultaneously fast.</p>

<p>it feels like a III series leica in solidity, size and shape. as dslrs large size is a legacy from film era slrs, nikon made the right move, its a classic,I use adr on, all nr off, mostly on apeture priority, f4.5, where the lens performs optimally.gives highish shutter speed. base iso of 100 available, which I like. going higher gives a still good result, at 3200 sort of tr-x film-like, when shooting BW , but with less grain. nice big battery. movie mode excellent.intervalometer works well.<br>

the camera is inconspicuous, quiet. switching from the mechanical shutter to the electronic shutter, it is silent, of course. an act of faith , after having a dud film FA and 2 indifferent lenses, I am glad I own the V1. sports, landscape,people all genres seem to benefit from its colour rendition, overall performance. printing to A4. mostly. by now current, good dslrs have its same technical inovations, so performance gap must exist, but in travelling, the V1 is tops. photography is about enjoying it, not being a ^'packhorse'</p>

<p>differentiating DOF needs forethought, and is limited. Oscar B, if he were alive, would be mightily impressed.</p>

<p>I am only interested in end results, </p>

<p> </p>