cpj

<p>Johnathan,<br>

Frankly, I don't see the joke. The level of experience of the 60,000 members of this forum varies widely. Would you like to discuss individual wet glass plates coated within two minutes of exposure vs. digital images? Hell, I stopped using those plates about 1868 when everybody switched to albumen Cartes de Visite. (The mercury used in the process drove me mad !)</p>

 

<p>Confirmed by a big US Dealer that it is the M9 that will be introduced, but the potential "wrinkle" is that internally it may have some chips and wires that lets Leica tout that the M9 is "autofocus ready."</p>

<p>How to do it and still make the camera look and feel like an M is going to be the trick. I doubt they want to repeat the M5 experience. Perhaps they have come up with an "autofocus rangefinder" combination. Such direction would make sense and a lot of money for Leica since just about every camera being made today has autofocus. Think of how large the market might be for an "autofocus Summicron" and the fact that it would open up the Leica market to the non-pro with big bucks.</p>

<p>Making autofocus lenses is old technology for Leica but integrating them into something lightweight, compact, and compatible with the M we all know is the hard part. I would guess AF lenses for the M would price between $4500 and $5500 for a 50 mm or 35 mm and I understand the list price of the M9 will be $6500.</p>

<p>All this comes from one dealer who claims some inside knowledge, so for a couple of weeks it is all speculation.</p>

<p><strong>HERE's the ANSWER: </strong><br>

It's all back to basics folks. You are letting "opinions" get in the way of "facts." See the 2000 Copyright version of Ansel Adams Volume No. 3, The Print, pages 43 and 44, for reference for verification of what I am about to tell you. [Adams, by the way, started the series in 1948 and he's been dead since 1984, but it is still THE REFERENCE WORK regarding chemically reproduced images.]</p>

<p>Silver Prints and Digital Prints are made using completely different processes. You are comparing Apples & Oranges. (Or Macs and PC's.) B&W silver prints start with a paper base coated with several layers of chemicals that react to light and then change density when immersed in other chemicals, producing a range of black to white reflections which, when measured in the best testing labs can only be broken down into 13 distinctive "ranges" or tones. [Most film itself captures more than 250 tones, by the way.]</p>

<p>Even Ansel Adams drops the true Zones #1 (totally black) and #13 (totally white) from his target range of printed tones, using a formula only an artist and printmaker of his experience and education can completely understand. So right there more than 200 tones (or Zones) reproduced by the film are eliminated from any possibility of being distinguishable from one another on the chemically developed paper print.</p>

<p>WITH DIGITIAL printing, you are either (a) applying ink to paper from an external reservoir via a computer-controlled spray process, or (b) applying pinpoints of computer-controlled light (each point having the ability to be different from the one beside it by manipulating the intensity of the light and the time of exposure) to a paper base made from an entirely different material than the silver-coated, chemically developed print. This digital paper base been designed to react to computerized bursts of LEDs or other light-originating sources.</p>

<p>Look at the "enlarger" you are using for a digital print and its single bulb of a known degree K that produces ALL the original light used in making the photographic print on this type of paper.</p>

<p><strong>See the enlarger?</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>No. Because it is not there.</strong></p>

<p>Just like there is no 8-cylinder automobile engine anywhere in the Space Shuttle, going like the hammers of hell to get it into orbit, there is no single light source enlarger in the digital printing process.</p>

<p>See. No need for "opinion" and the "I think this or I think that, reasoning." </p>

<p>When you want to fly in space, just start your car about 100 feet from the edge of the Grand Canyon, put 'er in drive and floor it. They say the flight is nice but you can't see much of the finished print when you come to the stop. (You're using the wrong engine; that V-8 just wasn't designed to do the work you are trying to do.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, that is a very likely cause of this and other problems because a very minor change in the relationship between the four elements of a Tessar lens---I'd guess as little as .013 mm or 1/2-thousandth of an inch--could be enough to change the calculated lens formula and resulting DOF. I am no expert on optical design for sure, but I've seen MAJOR differences--like a Leica lens with one element reassembled backwards by an incompetent repairman--have minimal obvious effect on enlargements up to 8x10. On the other hand, MINOR changes to a different element can produce an obvious disaster. </p>

<p>I hate to see people like me try to take lenses apart because successfully putting them back together is a lot more difficult, even for some professional camera repair people. The whole venture is educational when you have reference sources and relatively little money is at stake, but can become frustrating and expensive when you run into problems requiring multiple trial and error trips to the workbench.</p>

<p>Something like this that bothers you so much might be best resolved by trading the camera for a similar era model to a big dealer like KEH, B&H, Adorama or other on-line company which moves a lot of antique stuff and let their appraisers review the value vs. cost of problems they find. </p>

<p>This is a two-part answer:<br>

1. I've been shooting professionally since the 1960s and never noticed an "optical" difference in filters, just scratch prone ones, or mechanical fit problems with screw threads not going all the way on, etc.</p>

<p>2. If you are buying a filter, get one with the lens manufacturer's name on it, even if it is $10 more because no lens manufacturer wants his lens to get a bad name because of a poorly matched filter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You have a really early Tessar with no lens coatings at all. Thus light scatter, internal reflections, slight element separations, and all other possible anomalies are likely, any one of which can affect Bokeh which is subjective anyway. One 80 year old lens might produce completely different results than any other lens of the same vintage depending on storage, years in direct sunlight, original assembly and myriad other conditions. What would really be surprising is finding a 1930 Rollei with a Tessar that produced equal and identical results to a 1932 Tessar when one spent its years in England and the other in Florida, for example.</p>

<p>This "controversy" has been resurrected for years again and again. While I have today's NYT story in front of me I haven't read it yet, but I do own three or four books on Capa.<br>

If this was a one-shot Pulitzer Prize photo never to be repeated again by the same photographer, there might be reason for controversy. But Capa was a pioneer photojournalist of his time and he repeatedly produced outstanding work during WWII (even though Larry Burrows screwed up his D-Day in the surf photo when processing the film) Capa still stands as an icon to many. There was no percentage in him faking a shot that would be processed and distributed by someone else.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I bought the SD780 based on the above recommendation and it looks like it will be a good pocket camera.</p>

<p>Does anybody know of a shirt pocket sized P&S digital of 6 mp or more that has an optical viewfinder in addition to the LED screen on the back? Sony used to make one a couple of years ago, but it seems all current pocket cameras I can find require you to hold the camera at arms length to compose and shoot. thanks for your help</p>

<p>Since you already have some Nikon manual lenses, you should seriously look into a reasonably priced NIKON SLR. Your lenses are really worth more to you than to anybody else or as trade-ins. As someone else said, Nikon/Canon are equal for general photography when comparing the same price range digital camera bodies. A friend of mine--who has owned a camera shop for 30+ years and is a Nikon and Leica dealer--showed up for a visit a few weeks ago with a D-40 that he grabbed off the shelf and an inexpensive Nikon zoom from his used case--I now live 200 miles from him--and started shooting grab shot as soon as he got out of his Mercedes. Well, he's' not a photographer and never had any formal training, but he later sent me 56 digital shots that when printed to 8x10 wouid match my D-3 output with a $1200 zoom.<br>

In other words, the current digital SLR's will out perform anything the average amateur can produce. Adorama has the D-40 "refurbished" for about $299 and for what you describe, I don't think you can beat it. Keep your Leica but perhaps trade the 135 mm for a 90mm or toward a D-40 & zoom lens and you'll be pleased you did. (I've had a 135 Leica lens for 20 years (and I just upgraded it) but find I use it very little and I shoot professionally.)<br>

Good luck, but get into digital SLR where you can make use of the lenses you already have.</p>

<p>You need a wide angle lens as your primary lens. And the 50mm and 40 mm are too close together to provide the difference. Take your $200 plus both lenses and trade for a 35 mm Summicron which is perfect for the M-2 because of the built in viewfinder. (I carried an M2 with 35mm over my shoulder for years while a Nikon was around my neck with a zoom on it. The 35 mm comes in very handy whether it is on your ONLY camera or supplementary. And a used Summicron in 35 is a far better lens than the set up you have now. Plus, there is no depreciation on it--you'll always get back your investment (less perhaps 20% dealers profit) but check KEH on line to see what they might have.</p>

<p>There is only one answer and no justification required--just experience. The 150 mm. Period. End of discussion. </p>

<p>HI, <br>

It is a light leak but you may be looking in the wrong place for it. Remember that the way the film is exposed in the camera is upside-down and backwards to the way the image look on the slide or negative. So this leak is at the top, right, near the hinge of the door that you flip open when loading the roll. Now, if it only happened to this one roll, it could be that the film canister was defective in one spot, in which case the leak would repeat every 5th, 6th or 7th frame, depending on how much film had been used up.</p>

<p>Now, it is possible it is a light leak during the film processing, so the way to check that would be to process one completely blank, unexposed roll and process it with the same equipment or at the same lab. NEXT step is to set the camera on a tripod (or handheld is ok) and shoot a plain blue sky for a complete roll. Then when examining the negatives, check to see if the light leak repeats every so many frames at first and then increases (or decreases) the number of frames between the leak as you use up film.</p>

<p>The leak is small, but I am betting it is somewhere near the top, back, right edge of the hinge.<br>

Another check, is to expose just 10 frames--enough to get ONE light leak streak. Then let the camera itself sit in the sunlight for an hour with the back toward the sun. Process the film and look for light streaks on the remaining BLANK 26 frames. That again would prove a light leak coming through from the outside if they are SEQUENTIAL, as mentioned every 5th, 6th or whatever frame, and then changing and getting closer together and less and less apparent as you get toward the end of the unexposed part of the film.</p>

<p>Let me know how you make out.</p>

<p>THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER: It is the Canon G-10. It is top rated in Consumer Reports and, as a working journalist for more than 40 years, it is the best P&S I've ever used (next to the G9 which I traded to get the G-10.)<br>

And don't pay attention to people whose preference is based on "I like this, I like that, my friend has, etc." This forum is the place where you collect "information" and not subtle personal preferences like "color." If the G-10 was pink or purple or green it would still be the best camera, with the easiest to understand operating system, the best lens and the largest LCD Screen AND 14 megapixels.<br>

Ask the question a different way, such as "What's the best P&S, the Canon G-10 or the Leica D-LUX4 at twice the price. I have BOTH and if anybody wants a great price on the Leica--$300 off list--just contact me. The G-10 is by far the better P&S. [And I have the Nikon D-3, D-200, a Leica M8.2, Leica M7, and three Hasselblads.] The G-10 I carry everywhere and recommend it to all who inquire. Remember this camera started years ago as the G-2 and has been modified and developed into the best P&S ever made. Period.</p>

<p>All I can say is "caution." I guess it depends on the salesperson you get on the phone and other things. I've never bought anything from them but a friend of mine was pressured excessively with a lot of BS as to why he should buy a different Nikon outfit than the one he called about. <br>

If you are saving 20% perhaps it's worth running a risk. But if you are saving just $20 or so, go to B&H or Adorama who have strong reputations for no-questions-asked returns.</p>

<p>First, the answer to "comparison" has to be framed according to what you want to produce with the lens. I've been regularly using the Leica 24/2.8 and never had any noticeable problems. Of course, the largest prints I've made have been 8x10's. (In some cases, it would be a crop out of an 11 x 14 or a little larger.) If you are expecting to make 24 x 36 prints, I can't help you as I haven't done it.<br>

As for he viewfinders, either one will work fine with either lens. At 24 mm if one was slightly different than the other due to manufacturing variations, you'd need an optical bench to see the difference. </p>

<p>Note in my crop above, the eye focuses on the hawk about to land on a tree branch. Everything else is gone. Excess sky and branches have been cropped out as they are unnecessary to the thought I'm trying to express. Also note that the relationship between the angle of the bird's wings and the big branch in the foreground help to "frame" the bird and draw your eye to the subject.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I've been cropping photos for publication for nearly 40 years, professionally, and have a degree in photojournalism. Now that may not be worth much since the photo editor of my local daily newspaper does the worst job of cropping photo of anyone in the United States--and he gets paid for it too. Then again, I don't know if he studied the basic principles that apply to visual presentations of all sorts--including ads. <br>

So, here' my version, without cloning or photoshop or anything as it is against the ethics principles of the National Press Photographers Association of which I am a long time member:</p><div></div>

<p>Now, on to the information you requested about Leicas. I have owned every model "M" Leica since 1960, and as a working photojournalist for most of my career, I have usually owned TWO at a time of each model as they came out. I also own Nikons including an F5, F6, and D3 plus some of the lesser digital models and a host of lenses. Until the most recent spat of Leica lens releases, I owned the Summicrons in every version offered and all Leica lenses as follows: 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135. (I don't have the 2008 Summicrons or Elmarits)</p>

<p>Currently I have an M8.2 and an M7. I sold my M8 a few months ago to purchase the M 8.2 (and took a beating on the depreciation.) However, here is the point of my story:</p>

<p> In all that time--49 years--I only had ONE Leica, an M2, that had the rangefinder go out of whack and that was the result of bouncing around at 1,000 ft in the air in a helicopter with the door open. But in April, I apparently failed to pack the M 8.2 properly in my baggage or the airlines was especially rough with that bag. Traveling from Boston to Chicago and the changing planes for Indianapolis, the rangefinder in the M 8.2 was thrown out of whack in BOTH directions. The view finder was out top to bottom so the images didn't coincide--but I thought the left to right was ok because I could line things up. Not so. Shooting at f2 with the 75mm the actual focus point was about 5-feet behind the point focused upon with the rangefinder.</p>

<p> I am aghast! I have traveled everywhere as a working newspaper photographer, and later magazine photographer, and NEVER except for the helicopter incident in the mid-1960's have I had to send any Leica M back to the factory for anything.</p>

<p> I don't know what to say. I believe the camera was rolled up inside a T-shirt in my bag as I was carrying it as a "just in case" camera and not on an assignment. {I've had two M4s, two M6s, two M7s, an M2 and and M3 at the same time and, (fortunately) only one M5 which I still think of as an abominable error in the M-line.)</p>

<p> So, with that background, I'd say in my mind the jury is OUT as far as the ruggedness of the M 8.2 goes and, for that matter, the M8. I've had friends who've carried M3's and M2's for over a year at a time in 'Nam and never had a problem, so this has me really wondering.</p>

<p>It looks like the camera uses a focal plane shutter as opposed to a leaf shutter and there is something causing a slight delay in smooth movement across the film. In other words, the shutter is not running at a constant speed but has a 1/100th or so "hesitation" midway during the exposure. It needs a CLA if that's the case.</p>

<p>Here is how to check shutter speeds with any camera. Put in a roll of b&W or color transparency film since you need to look at the "film" not the prints to determine if there is a problem. Go outside on a cloudless day, and shoot the blue sky (with the sun to you back) starting at 1/500th at f16, then 1/250 at f11, 125 at f8 and shoot through the full range of speeds, each one stop wider than the previous one, and one speed slower. (You may need two rolls to do the whole range and two different ISO ratings so you can shoot the slow speeds too.)<br>

When the negatives (or transparencies) are developed, don't let them cut the film strip. Then hold the film strip to window light or over a light table. If the shutter speeds are exactly "on speed" then each frame should be of equal density. Usually there will be some variation because 1/500 th may be going off at 1/400th or 1/60th may be 1/45th, but you will see slight variations in what should be a "perfect" pattern of similar exposures. <br>

When you find a vast difference between one frame and the next---or there is a dramatic change at some point from fast to slower speeds, then your shutter is out-of-time and needs a cleaning or overhaul. Being off a 1/2 stop is not unusual. You are looking for the point where there is an obvious and major change in density.</p>

<p>TAKE THE SUPERWIDE. Period. Nothing can do what it can do and your D300 will easily handle all else. Having a Superwide Hasselblad available is like traveling with a blessing from the Pope. You never know now when you'll need it but when the time comes, you'll know for sure!</p>

<p>This is a question whose answer does not tell us anything; it is designed to generate more questions. To measure "popularity" by volume, it is more insightful to look at the Classified Ads under Leica & Rangefinders of which there are currently 101, the majority (perhaps 80%) being Leica related. And for that to tell us anything it still needs some perspective. So I checked; currently there are 803 active Classified Ads. So assuming there are 80 Leica related ads running out of 803, that would mean 10% of the people with stuff to sell are selling Leica gear. Which raises another question . . . </p>

 

<p>Forget about any perceived "need" for interchangeable batteries and cards. They don't have anything to do with the functionality of the camera. Check out the Canon G9 and G10 and then buy one or the other. They are the best semi-pro point and shoots on the market. Carrying an extra set of batteries and a card that fits in your wallet is no particular inconvenience when in the field.</p>

<p>All the above answers are correct. I've owned more than 20 Rolleis over 40 years and still have 6, some of which will be coming up for sale soon. The E-2 with the removable hood (via two push buttons on the side) is the version you want. The meters are not very accurate as they are all the old selenium type and even though they might still work after all these years, they will be the first thing to go after you start using the camera, either due to vibration or electronic connection problems. With the removable hood, you can just slip it off to the rear, drop in a Maxwell Screen and reinstall the hood in less than a minute. Without that system it will cost you$100+ just to have someone take the hood off and replace it.</p>