sait_akkirman

Wonderful shot Douglas, and thank you for not detracting us

from the shot by giving us any boring technical details. I shall

now down load it so that I can show it to my wife as well. All and

all quite an enjoyable thread really, without any references to

"domke bags" or the "bokeh of Noctilus" or " I have this very

expensive outfit, what is the most expensive other gadgets I add

to it" stuff.

I think you are doing yourself injustice. If you can focus a Noctilux

quickly and correctly, you should be able to do the same with a

fast short tele as well.

Dear Mitch, I am just being practical. For the price and weight of

50/1, I personally would buy & carry (and I have) a 50/2 and a

90/2.8. The 90/2.8 shot at f4 would probably produce at least

some of the flower in focus and give a very nice out of focus

background. Just a personal observation, I don't think we have

to agree.

I don't see the point of it. Both scenes can be shot just as

effectively or better with a half decent 50/2 and good 400asa neg

film.

If the camera doesn't change a lot mechanically during 40 years,

of course you will get technical support from the factory. I

understand from reading postings on this site that some spare

rangefinder bits for the M3, different from M2>M6 are not easy to

find.

Dear Andrew & John,

To test this lens hood, I shot an evenly lit white wall (measured

all 4 corners and centre with spotmeter) at f2, and at 1.2m (3.6')

and got serious vignetting. I also a did the visual test (similar to

checking 4x5 camera lens coverage with case of excessive

movements), and this also indicated a vignetting problem. It is

interesting that you guys don't seem to have any problems. Did

you try the lens at close quarters ( where the light fall of would be

more pronounced).

Regards Sait

Yes it should be spot on at close up as well. If you haven't tried it

yet, try doing your close-up testing while the camera is on a

tripod. It is surprising how much ones head moves around

without one realising.

From an earlier thread:

<p>

"hi all, hcb used a 50/1.5 zeiss sonnar in ltm for most of the 40s,

50s and 60s.

regards,

kenny

-- ken younts (ojingoh@sitespecific.net), August 21, 2001. "

<p>

I thought this was a Leica forum.

Dear Bert, could tell us the size of the actual ccd tablets used in

astronomy. I think the importance of reproduction ratio to

resolution is being missed here.

Another reason lens manufacturers are re-designing their

lenses for digital use is to reduce colour fringing. Because the

larger digital "grain" (in relation to film grain) exaggerates this

effect. I understand that's one of the reasons why the latest

Nikon wideangles contain ED glass as well as aspherics.

<p>

For the record comparable 120 lenses have inferior MTFs to

35mm lenses, and 4x5 lenses have inferior MTFs to 120 lenses.

However, to get a 240mm wide output 4x5 needs to be enlarged

about x2, 120 about x4, and 35mm about 6.6 times. This fact of

course hides fact that 35mm film is actually sharper that 4x5 film

and 35mm lenses have the best MTFs

Technically there is no focusing problem. Users of M2, M4, M4-2

and M4-P and M6 classic 0.72 users have used 135/4 lenses

successfuly for years.

Sorry, cancel my earlier message. It does not work. When you

want to re-cock the shutter, this action pushes the rewind lever

back up.

You could try pushing the rewind lever down, and advancing the

film while holding the rewind knob. This technique works

(though not guaranteed acurately) with some manual SLR's that

do not have intentional double exposure arrangements. I

haven't tried it myself on an M camera, and I would advise you

not to force anything. Good luck.

People interested in Digilux 1, try the Leica site customer forum,

if you haven't yet. Interesting claims on taking badge

engineering to new heights.

I will reply first to Richard. I have test scanned Velvia v Reale

and liked what I got from the neg film (both sharpness and

colours). I now shoot all my personal work on 35mm neg film,

mostly Reale or NPH, depending on the project. ( I have tried

other Kodak and Fuji neg and tranny films). I think there has

been a great improvement on neg films with scanability, colour

palet, grain, sharpness, tonal range, etc. But these are all very

subjective things, and you should do your on tests to see what

you like. It is of course very important to get your film processed

at a professional lab, this will all but guarantee that your film will

be correctly processed and will be free of scartches and dust.

<p>

Now, if we look at Jays experience with Canon D30 v. Canoscan.

First I will give you the technical data on these equipment:

Canon D30 - chip size 15.1x22.7mm / pixels 2160x1440 = 3.1

megapixels x3 (RGB) total 9.3megapixels

Canosan FS4000 - scanned area 24x36mm / pixels 3780x5669

= 21.4 megapixels x3 (RGB) total 63 megapixels

<p>

The chip size on the D30 is about 60% of FS4000 which makes

the 9.3 megapixels of D30 equivalent to approx 6mega pixels in

relation to FS4000 for a given reproduction size. Now if

someone can explain to me how 6 megapixels produces a

result sharper than 63 megapixels does I shall be delighted.

<p>

One possibility is that in-camera sharpening on D30 was turned

on, but that the FS4000 scans were viewed without use of the

unsharp mask.

<p>

Rob, regarding direct digital capture, with 35mm high end digital

SLR cameras, the problems are dust particles on ccd chip (or

whatever is protecting it), lack of shadow detail, lack of high light

detail, narrow dynamic range, high price of cameras, list goes

on. It all depends on ones needs. If I was a press pro I would

only use.digital cameras, but if I need top quality 35mm digital

results, I will shoot neg film and scan it, until someone can show

me a better way of doing it.

Jay, your information is not correct. For quality digital work, the

recommendation is to shoot neg film (not tranny) and then use a

scanner to digitize the image. You haven't given us resolution

figures, degree of enlargement and other factors, but I cannot

see how a 6mb from an SLR file produces a sharper, better

image then an over 20MB file (from a 2700dpi scanner). Things

just don't add up. May be you can enlighten us.

Yes, and the subject was travelling towards me at 100 kph and I

was standing on a hammock. No need to be silly about it !

dear kenny,

3 fps is actually quite slow. If you practice a bit you will see that

you can shoot as fast or faster manually either by Ms or Nikon F2

/3. Try it sometime.

Here is my 5 buck's worth:

a. If you are using Leica lenses only, it is possible to adjust the

Hexar RF to focus OK with these, both at infinity and close up,

from wide angle to 90mm f2.8 inclusive. I don't think it is

possible to use Leica and Konica lenses on the same camera

for critical results.

b. I don't think the exposure meter is centre-weighted as

claimed, not in a Nikon sense anyway. It is more of a selective

wide-spot meter (bit like M6), and the sensitivity is elipse shaped

instead of being round as in the M6. I am not sure that a

wide-spot meter is a good basis for AE operations. I imagine

this will be the problem with M7 AE too. I am also not sure

whether I like the elipse shaped (as opposed to round)

sensitivity of the meter.

c. There is a shutter lag, and I feel that I can take three shots in

quick succession faster with manual wind Leica Ms or Nikon

F2/3, than with the RF on S or C setting. Shutter lag can be

minimized by using the C setting in manual exposure control,

and for the first shot by pressing the shutter button halfway, ready

to go, but this does not help with the following shots.

d. If you are shooting in the street or a public place then the RF

feels just as quiet if not quiter than the Ms. If you are at home

"playing with cameras" than Leica sounds better. With the RF

even when people know I am taking photographs, it is difficult for

them to know how many, if any shots I have taken, because there

is no hand/arm movement advancing the film.

e. I am not sure about film loading. I never had any problems

loading screw or M Leicas, or Nikon 90s or F100s but have had

the occasional "non-load" with Nikon F4s and the Hexar RF.

f. Although RF is similar in weight to the Leica Ms, it has a more

fragile feel. Specially some of the dials and rf mechanisms feel

and look light-weight. The paint finish scratches easily.

<p>

At the moment I trust the RF more than my M4-P. If Leica's

"legendary build quality" was real than we would not be forced to

consider all these alternatives, for I don't think anything matches

the tactile pleasures one experiences with a Leica.

Ray has the right answer! As additional info, if you leave a wine

bottle in a freezer for an hour, it almost freezes despite all the

alchohol, so I don't think it would be a good idea to leave your

camera and film in freezer for whatever reason. The film will take

about 2 hours to come to shooting temp.

Advice from ex-Turk now living in New Zealand. I go back to

Istanbul once every 2 years to visit my parents. Best time to visit

is late September and early October. The weather is not very hot,

but nicely settled around 24C (Can go upto mid 30's in summer).

Plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. From 01 October airfares

are cheaper (at least from New Zealand). March can be bitterly

cold and miserable They will hand check film at the airport

without any problems - just ask. ( I was there last October). You

can contact me direct by e-mail if you wish, for any specific

questions you might want to ask.

The answers to all your questions are in the : "M7 Predictions

(Dennis Couvillion, 2002-02-25) " thread a few lines down.

I agree, it is a very 80's corporate brochure look. The difference

is photographers tried to make models look like real people,

where as you have succeeded in making real people look like

models. Photogaphic source books (e.g THE BLACK BOOK)

have been full of this type of work for a long time.