Borrowed a Leica M6 TTL 0.85

[Pindy]

Which would you rather carry around?

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/697905723_xscgc-M.jpg

Been meaning to do this for a while. Hating the big DSLR thing right now for my people photos (it's a phase, obviously) and despite dabbling in flash and lighting, I'm an unabashed "available light" guy. My friend happens to have an idle M6 and a 35mm Summilux ASPH (for the uninitiated, Leica's f/1.4 lens line—a real premium piece of glass here) so I took receipt of it an hour ago for a week, maybe longer. Partly inspired by The Online Photographer's call to action (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html), I'll try to document the experience here with a camera that most of us SLR people have never, and will never have the opportunity to try. I'm less than enthusiastic about dealing with the timeframe and cost of film, and quite how I intend to get these into digital form I'm not sure.

Despite a rangefinder's long list of down sides, the benefits for somebody who shoots candidly is beguiling:

• Quiet shutter. To work unobtrusively is my highest goal.
• Small size. It's not light weight (!) but it sure is wee in comparison to my DSLR. Just look at the lenses! That's the size for an f/1.4 lens that God himself intended. With that hood off, it's tiny.
• The system is designed for the kind if thing I want to be doing.
• All primes; very, very fast glass is available—as fast as f/0.95. I tend to gravitate toward these type of lenses naturally.
• I'm finding the DSLR and lens combo to be making me very self-conscious, as I do not do this professionally, and even if I did, the noise and size of my DSLR is a drag in candid settings. It has made me favor the 50 f/1.4 partly for size and non-show-off-y appearance, apart from the fact it's a favorite FL.

hoping this will augment my photography in certain areas.

I'd be interested to hear from any grinners who are RF shooters. We don't have a forum for it here, but we should.

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/697886803_fxCij-L.jpg

[Seymore]

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/697886803_fxCij-M.jpg
Droooooooooooooool!!! http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/faeini1/tongue54.gif

[ReeRay]

Brilliant camera - awesome.

If you get the hang of shooting with a rangefinder (and manual at that) you'll love it.

RF shooting is a different style - no TTL view to start with.

Focusing and frame alignment can be an issue (especially with the 0.85) but the eventual results will be very pleasing.

I shoot a bevy of RF cameras, favourites being Contax G1 and G2, auto focusing, metered and Zeiss glass.

What more is there to say

p.s. I bet you'll find it difficult to hand back to your friend!

[Pindy]

Day one. Went out and bought a couple rolls of Tri-X and one of HP5, my former favorite from the days before I knew what I was doing, hoping to try all the B&W films to settle on one. Being halloween, I set out with the M6 and also with my D700, mostly used by my brother-in-law, which certainly proved to be useless at autofocusing in the dark, but boy, it's such an ergonomically pleasing camera. I get why the modern DSLR is as popular as it is. They have all the modern conveniences and they make life easy and you get a lot of keepers. But tonight, I understood why the RF is the low-light focus champ. As long as you can see the two images in the focus patch, you can accurately focus.

The Summilux has a focusing ring that has this handle on it with a finger notch in the middle. I'm sure a long-time Leica user could explain it to me, but the placement of this thing seems like it's in the wrong place. As you turn the focus ring—which has no texture, ribbing or contour of any kind—this handle, which is all you can grip, travels along the bottom third of the ring. I don't find that my fingers intuitively fall into the notch, or indeed around the sides of the handle. The hand falls naturally under the lens, as though you are cradling it from below, with both thumb and fingers supporting it's weight. This handle falls in the middle of that. If you put your thumb in the notch, your forefinger naturally goes on top of the lens barrel, at 12 o'clock. This blocks the rangefinder. I don't get it yet.

It's a shame you cannot see the SS or aperture settings in the viewfinder, but maybe that's what makes the Leica experience what it is. Still, it was easy to operate with your eye in the finder, and the mirrorless design had me worrying about my shutter speed much less than I would have on an SLR. It was refreshing to have such a minimum of control and also made me feel like I had a lot to give up.

The metering system works with 3 LEDs; two arrows and a dot to indicate exactly what you'd expect. Nicely, the arrows point in the direction that either the aperture ring or the shutter dial must turn to achieve a correct exposure. On the M6, you only have single stops: 1sec, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500 and 1000, and bulb and a stop at 1/50s for flash sync. A lot of the time, the meter indicates you are about a half-stop from optimal. The aperture ring can be moved in half-stop increments, so I found myself sometimes compensating to the meter with half-stop aperture adjustments. When I get this first batch back from the lab, I can see how much these half-stop under- and over-exposures are affecting the results. The bummer here is that all exposure compensation has to be done in your brain. You only know what a "correct" exposure is to the meter and you need to think about the settings to compensate for, say a dark environment you want to portray as dark, or for something light, like snow. You cannot simply look at the meter and see how far away your exposure adjustments are taking you from the meter's "proper" exposure. All part of "The Leica As Teacher" I should think.

The VF is very bright and looks great. There is only a 35mm with this camera and the 0.85 version has its largest field of view lines for the 35mm, so I can effectively use the whole VF and haven't had to use any of the other lines. The benefit you hear a lot, that the VF lets you see what's outside the frame, aiding compositional choice, hasn't dawned on me yet for the reason I've explained above. I still have no concept of parallax error and the other things that affect RF shooters so I have it easy for now. Ignorance is bliss.

Without having seen the results yet, the experience is pretty great. It takes me back to my OM-1, minus the TTL composing. I love the size. It's exactly what a personal camera is supposed to look and feel like. I'm not getting that feeling the DSLR gives me in public, which I find is a disincentive to being the kind of person who carries the camera "everywhere" with himself. The manual focus, I actually enjoy very much. It's terrible with moving subjects coming closer or going farther away and kids—forget it unless they're pretty stationary. But the method is easy to understand and I imagine people get good at fast, accurate focusing of moving objects with experience. I have no plans to give up shooting DSLRs!

I'm seriously not looking forward to all the film processing and scanning costs, which may become a bane. Then I think about the cost of an M9 and it doesn't seems so bad.

More to come and examples of some amateurish figuring-out in the near future.

[Pindy]

Brilliant camera - awesome.

If you get the hang of shooting with a rangefinder (and manual at that) you'll love it.


The Contax has some serious appeal :thumb

[ReeRay]

The Contax has some serious appeal :thumb

Forgot to mention a few extra points of a Contax G2

a) VF shows focus point/distance
b) VF shows shutter speed
c) 1/10th the price of a Leica - body and lenses
d) Glass equal to Leica easily (and not just my opinion)

Current Ebay listings show - G2 with 28, 45 and 90mm lenses c.$1,000!

You should try Fuji Acros in Black and white - awesome stuff.

[rutt]

Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm (40mm 35 equiv.) f/1.7 is the modern HCB camera. I've had it about a month and just getting used to shooting without a viewfinder. It's great at ISO 800, not so much at ISO 1600, but it has all the advantages of small size, quiet, &etc. A little faster prime would be nice, not really great bokah wide open (but it does have bokah as opposed to the P&S cameras.) People just don't care if you shoot them with it, unlike the big creepy DSLRs.

http://www.ruttpix.com/Stories/Nantucket-31-Oct-2009/p1000324/699355283_e7Nnc-XL.jpg

http://www.ruttpix.com/Stories/Nantucket-31-Oct-2009/p1000248/699354178_YmpVH-XL.jpg

http://www.ruttpix.com/Stories/Nantucket-31-Oct-2009/p1000278/699354656_BR7PZ-XL.jpg

See the exif info and more outside dusk shots in the gallery here (http://www.ruttpix.com/Stories/Nantucket-31-Oct-2009/10163639_e43Ej#699354656_BR7PZ).

[pathfinder]

I was just about to mention the GF1 as a modern alternative rutt, and you beat me to it.

A lot cheaper than an M9 also. I even have some old Olympus glass from my OM-2

But you will get the bokeh with an M9, of course.

Cool Halloween shots.

We're still waiting for a good quality digital range finder other than a Leica.

[rutt]

I was just about to mention the GF1 as a modern alternative rutt, and you beat me to it.

A lot cheaper than an M9 also. I even have some old Olympus glass from my OM-2

Will those work in the GF1? If so, ebay, here I come.


But you will get the bokeh with an M9, of course.


I guess this really is more a function of sensor size than of the aperture of the lenses. With my 5D, there would have been great bokah in shot #3 even at f/2.8. But if micro 4/3 takes off, there will probably eventually be faster lenses.

[Pindy]

Rutt, some of the best examples of the GF1 are yours. I wasn't able to achieve anything close with the E-P1 in sharpness or detail. NICE.

[rutt]

Rutt, some of the best examples of the GF1 are yours. I wasn't able to achieve anything close with the E-P1 in sharpness or detail. NICE.

Thank you.

Well, you know I do cheat by being pretty good at post processing. Still, it's apples to apples with me because I was also doing that with my 5DmkII images.

[pathfinder]

Will those work in the GF1? If so, ebay, here I come.




John, I don't have a GF1, although I am considering one. So all I know is what I see on the web. Here are a few links about lenses for Micro 4/3s - there is even a rental source of lenses here - http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.08.20/micro-4-3-legacy-lenses

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm

http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm

http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43_fd.htm

This last link does mention an adapter for Olympus OM lenses but I don't see a picture of one here.

The GF1 has a very shallow lens mount to sensor plane distance, which allows adapters for almost all other interchangeable lenses although in manual focus, manual mode usage if I understand these links correctly.

If I am incorrect, please feel free to correct my errors.

I guess this really is more a function of sensor size than of the aperture of the lenses. With my 5D, there would have been great bokah in shot #3 even at f/2.8. But if micro 4/3 takes off, there will probably eventually be faster lenses

As you are well aware, DOF is deeper at a given aperture for smaller formats than larger formats. So Micro 4/3s will have more DOF than a full frame camera all other things being equal. On the other hand, a 100mm f2.0 Zeiss Macro Planar on a GF 1 body (http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.08.20/micro-4-3-legacy-lenses) will have the tele view of a 200mm lens on a full frame camera, but with an f2.0 aperture. That ought to provide adequately shallow DOF I would think.

[rutt]

As you are well aware, DOF is deeper at a given aperture for smaller formats than larger formats. So Micro 4/3s will have more DOF than a full frame camera all other things being equal. On the other hand, a 100mm f2.0 Zeiss Macro Planar on a GF 1 body (http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.08.20/micro-4-3-legacy-lenses) will have the tele view of a 200mm lens on a full frame camera, but with an f2.0 aperture. That ought to provide adequately shallow DOF I would think.

Kind of defeats the purpose of this camera. Might as well bring the 5D with 50mm f/1.4.

For me the point of this camera is to be able to get really close with a fairly wide lens and not have people absolutely freak out. Oh, and fits in a jacket pocket, is good.

[Grainbelt]

For me the point of this camera is to be able to get really close with a fairly wide lens and not have people absolutely freak out. Oh, and fits in a jacket pocket, is good.

:nod

The GF1 is the camera that will prompt me to sell my Pentax ME with 40mm 2.8 pancake. Love that little thing, but the GF1 is smaller, and, well, digital. :lol3

[rutt]

I kind of hijacked this thread. Maybe some ambitious moderator will do something to fix that and make Leica threads be about Leicas and GF1 threads be about GF1s.

[DoctorIt]

I kind of hijacked this thread. Maybe some ambitious moderator will do something to fix that and make Leica threads be about Leicas and GF1 threads be about GF1s.I think everything here is relevant, no need to take it to the chop shop IMO, unless Pindy asks, that is.

In fact, I'm interested in where this thread has gone in terms of DSLR alternatives - the EP-1 and GF1 are on my radar.

[pathfinder]

Pindy, the original poster in this thread, asked "Which would you rather carry around?" and below his question was a picture of a large DSLR with a longish lens and a diminutive Leica M6 with a small 35mm-ish lens.

SO I think the question of size of camera is worth exploring. But once you start talking about rangefinder Leicas ( whether digital or film ) other cameras can be considered as well. Like the GF1.

I have been waiting for Canon ( who once upon a time, along with Nikon, built lovely rangefinders ) to bring back a real world class digital rangefinder ( full frame or even APS sensor ) but it does not look like it is gonna happen.

Panasonic, a camera 'outsider' has jumped into the fray with a worthwhile contender, at less than 1/4 of the cost of a digital Leica and an appropriate lens. The GF1 with glass will cost less than the best Leica glass without a body even. Hard to ignore that. Hard for you too, apparently, John.

The ability of the GF1 to use so many alternate lenses will be attractive to many shooters, just not "street shooters" perhaps. Remember though, the Leicas all the street shooters used in the past, were all manual focus lenses also..... SO the GF1 may not be at that big of a disadvantage in focusing after all with manual lenses. F8 and be there!

[rutt]

I wouldn't like to focus manually on the GF1 finder.

On the other hand, I love its autofocus. Very impressive, and much better at picking focus points that any Canon I've used.

Look, I bought this camera and lens for a very particular purpose, and it's doing that job amazingly well. I feel that when I use this camera I'm making some of the same kind of compromises vs big Canon dSLRs that HCB made vs the large and medium format cameras favored by all the famous photographers who came before him. I think that's what he meant when he said, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."

[Pindy]

No worries on the hijacking. The Contax G2 is indeed a worthy comparison, as is the GF1, although without a viewfinder, I find it personally unappealing. But all other comparisons to the Leica M vis-à-vis size and stealth are welcome.

The last week with the M6 has taught me to love manual focus again. Perhaps it's that a rangefinder is simply built to focus with your eyes and your hands. When you land the correct tool, it can make a previously insufferable job enjoyable. Like when you buy a really great bread knife. I am unabashedly in favor of camera automation but except for a few instances, I'm feeling free of it in a great way. I haven't felt this in charge of a camera in 25 years. The other thing to love is that 1/15s is no longer a deal breaker for handholdability. I'm very curious to see if that makes up for the lack of ISO muscle I've come to expect in the D700/D3.

The other, more rather expected, effect of this experiment is that I now look upon DSLRs as hulking, massive attention-getters and it's only until you understand why having no mirror box affects the size of the camera and lens, do you start to realize the RF form-factor's diminutive build is in no way a compromise in image quality—in fact it's the opposite. It's hard for me not to begrudge the poor SLR these traits now. When you need to see through the lens, however, there's no substitute. Just another way of working.

I have a couple of rolls at my lab being developed and scanned and I'll have them Weds afternoon. Let's see if the results in any way support the love I'm feeling.

Thanks to whomever suggested Neopan 400. Picked up a couple of rolls this morning to try out.

[Pindy]

I shoot a bevy of RF cameras, favourites being Contax G1 and G2, auto focusing, metered and Zeiss glass.

G2 is a really cool camera. They were clearly on the losing side of history when this was released, but now, quite an amazing deal. I think the thing that would keep me from buying one (at least first) is the preponderance of features. Part of the exercise is to love manual again. The G2 seems like a brilliant hybrid, if that's what you're angling for.

[ReeRay]

G2 is a really cool camera. They were clearly on the losing side of history when this was released, but now, quite an amazing deal. I think the thing that would keep me from buying one (at least first) is the preponderance of features. Part of the exercise is to love manual again. The G2 seems like a brilliant hybrid, if that's what you're angling for.

Manual focusing is via a turn-wheel on the body with correct focus indicators and distance available in the VF. Very very accurate method.

Autofocus is great with moving subjects as "continuous" AF is available.

Now, here's an interesting spin off - there's an adapter available to fit the superb and Leica busting Contax G lenses to (say) a GF1, Gh1, G1!

These Zeiss G lenses can be got for a few hundred dollars each at present! And the 45mm F2 is generally regarded as the finest sharpest 35mm lens ever!

Interesting developments for sure

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11575

[Pindy]

Now then—got back the first two rolls. The good news is that out of two rolls, everything I tried to focus on was in focus. Due to the slow shutter speeds (I took the vast majority of these shots at night) you have motion blur, but for me the big win is the lack of camera-shake. Many of these were taken at 1/15s or 1/8s and, boy, mirrors really do suck, so I'm very very pleased with this particular advantage.

I did not quite remember the amount of grain inherent in 400 speed B&W film (These are Tri-X and HP5 Plus—not sure which, gotta look at my negs) but grain is not an enemy of sharpness, nor of aesthetics, so it just is what it is and I sort of understand why people want to emulate grain in their post processing. I can't say I like it or hate it. It just is.

One thing that really stands out to me about the Leica, is that the majority of my people shots, even the ones in exterior darkness, tend to have the faces properly exposed. In my digital SLR life, I am constantly looking at shots where the faces tend to be dark and ruddy after the matrix metering exposed for something other than the face I pointed the camera at. Liking this simplistic metering—it's working for me.

None of these test shots are supposed to be anything resembling good photography and I clearly need to do a little black-point work, etc.

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0014-1/710790102_LikDL-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0005-1/710789017_csBie-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0006-1/710789167_nn6xy-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0036/710788430_fpTwL-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0028/710787955_YytNP-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0027/710787869_axgh7-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0025/710787795_nqJPo-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0034-1/710792194_9cRLb-L.jpg

[DoctorIt]

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0028/710787955_YytNP-S.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0034-1/710792194_9cRLb-S.jpgGreat exposure, sharp faces, shallow depth, smooth bokeh... what's not to like???!

[Pindy]

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0004/710786476_zEM6M-L.jpg

The limitations imposed on me by this way of working is actually wonderful. It also makes me think, with hand-holdability like this, who needs ISO 6400? (Okay, not really. But still, 1/8s or 1/15s was always an impossibility in reflex-land)

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20091111-0016/710787294_8b23Y-M.jpg

The concept of pre-focusing is beginning to dawn on me. There's this finger grip around the focus rings of many Leica lenses that was baffling at first, but now I can see it's a way of fostering muscle-memory and also giving the photographer a reference of where the lens is focused by feel. I have been told to set the focus ring to infinity after each shot so you only have to move it in one direction as you get ready to make an image. Furthermore, the grip at 6 o'clock (stright down in other words) is 4ft. It would not take much to familiarize oneself with the positions of the grip and their focal distances. More to figure out.

[Pindy]

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:

1. Complexity or an attempt to be all-singing, all-dancing. Sorry Contax G2!
2. Crop factor. Sorry M8 and Epson. Did the APS-C thing and not going back again. Panasonic and Olympus are at least creating lenses for the sensor but both suffer from point #3.
3. No viewfinder

The Zeiss Ikon is a nice alternative to an M6 or M7 and should be considered. But in the end, I want the M9 because it's the way forward, until somebody else does a FFRF.

Could I actually divest myself of the DSLR to fund this desire? I think I would seriously regret it. When I think of all I would miss it doesn't appeal so much. Macro lenses. Telephoto lenses. Wireless flash. Remote triggering (something I do enough to make it a loss). Today's DSLRs are an incredible value for money. Still, I think the RF could cover 80% of the photography I do so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

[ReeRay]

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:

1. Complexity or an attempt to be all-singing, all-dancing. Sorry Contax G2!
2. Crop factor. Sorry M8 and Epson. Did the APS-C thing and not going back again. Panasonic and Olympus are at least creating lenses for the sensor but both suffer from point #3.
3. No viewfinder

The Zeiss Ikon is a nice alternative to an M6 or M7 and should be considered. But in the end, I want the M9 because it's the way forward, until somebody else does a FFRF.

Could I actually divest myself of the DSLR to fund this desire? I think I would seriously regret it. When I think of all I would miss it doesn't appeal so much. Macro lenses. Telephoto lenses. Wireless flash. Remote triggering (something I do enough to make it a loss). Today's DSLRs are an incredible value for money. Still, I think the RF could cover 80% of the photography I do so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

I said you would have trouble handing it back :D

Welcome to the RF world

[DoctorIt]

... so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.:lol3

Thanks for a great couple posts - really good info/analysis here for anyone who enjoys this kind of gear and shooting.

[Moogle Pepper]

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:



Made some hacking program to steal a fraction of a penny from everyone's bank account. :D

[rutt]

Nice shots.

I have an old Leica, unused for years. You may have inspired me to get it out and play with it if I get bored with my GF1.

[angevin1]

:lol3

Thanks for a great couple posts - really good info/analysis here for anyone who enjoys this kind of gear and shooting.

ditto!

:clap

[ReeRay]

Have you noticed the way film and related hardware is creeping up in price?

It's not scarcity related either as there's a plentiful supply of all products.

I bought a complete Rollei 6002 kit on Ebay 18 months ago. Mint condition, charger, 4 spare batteries, prism finder, 50, 80 and 150 PQ lenses - total cost was $985. It was a steal.

Last week on Ebay a 6002 with just an 80mm HFT went for the same price!

Conclusion - film still rocks:barb

[Pindy]

It's been interesting perusing the rangefinder forums; I'm struck by a few differences. First, many of the participants don't seem to care much about critical focus and I suppose they're quite right as hobbyists to concentrate on mood, emotion, color, light, gesture and all the other things you may want to concentrate on. Still, it makes a change from the technical perfection a lot of digital photographers seem to strive for, here and elsewhere. The other notable thing is, because so many RF shooters still use film, you see a range of prowess in how well the person can scan a negative, slide or print (or how well their lab did) and a lot of scans that I would have nixed are proudly presented. Again, how interesting it is to visit with similarly-minded people who espouse different aesthetic ideals!

I cannot say, from my time lurking amongst the rangefinderati that I have come to love film any more than I did. In some cases, it's breathtakingly beautiful in the right hands and eyes. There seems to be a pattern of me liking Portra 160VC quite a bit. Other times, it's like driving miles of hard road. Seeing a digital shot is sometimes soothing with its lack of grain and other filmic qualities that are less than ideal.

It makes a horse race.

[michswiss]

I'm struggling right now where to take myself technically, whether to stick with dSLRs or experimenting with film, RF, MF or something other. It would be a jump back to where I started many decades ago, but I'm so tempted. Thanks for documenting your experience.

[ReeRay]

I had the same quandary some 18 months back. Everyone was extolling the virtues of digital, it's immediacy and efficiency

Then I realised they were all working Pro's under pressure to meet deadlines

Film was not an option

Then I realised how lucky I am

I don't have, want or need any clients. No delivery deadlines, no pressure and no problems if I screw up.

So I can shoot film, take my time scanning (which I love) and spotting (thank God for ICE) and know it's all my own work.

I figured what film to use, the exposure, filtration and lighting and not some pre-programmed chip in my DSLR

I guess it's like comparing prints from the lab as opposed to my own darkroom.

The satisfaction factor is immense

And is there really a better sight than a dozen wonderful glowing trannies on a light box?

The blessing of being an amateur eh?

[Pindy]

The blessing of being an amateur eh?

This is one of the truths that reminds me I don't have anyone to please but myself. I don't need to have a "pro" camera because I'm not a pro—never will be. I may want a feature (like ISO 12,800!) but it doesn't dictate if I eat or not.

I cannot convince myself that film is where it's at, but the digital alternative in the format I'm pursuing is, in camera terms, like buying a $75,000 car.

[ReeRay]

This is one of the truths that reminds me I don't have anyone to please but myself. I don't need to have a "pro" camera because I'm not a pro—never will be. I may want a feature (like ISO 12,800!) but it doesn't dictate if I eat or not.

I cannot convince myself that film is where it's at, but the digital alternative in the format I'm pursuing is, in camera terms, like buying a $75,000 car.

Don't we just know it!

Turning back to RF cameras - lots of places I've attempted to shoot with my DSLR are a no-go area. Camera is taken off me, locked away in a closet pending my exit!

Now I return with my little old G2 - "senile old man with his pre-war film camera, leave him to it, he's harmless"

Thank you very much! :D

[Eddy]

.http://ejwadddel.smugmug.com/Other/Black-Wite/071109/705962308_Qv2cc-M.jpg

Here are some of my shots with the Leica M8.2..You gotta luv this camera easy to carry and very discret

[Eddy]

http://ejwadddel.smugmug.com/Other/Black-Wite/18100913/684844004_NgFjV-M.jpg

[Pindy]

Very nice! It seems like such a long way to go to save, but I think it'll be worth it.

[Pindy]

I bought an M6 TTL off Fred Miranda. I have no lens yet, but that's a start. WOuld've liked an M7 but I can't swing it right now. The trouble with this whole thing is film. It just... sucks. Oh, it can look nice. but it's so expensive to process and have scanned. I have mulled over buying a scanner, but I would prefer to find a service that does it well for me that's not too expensive. My local pro lab (A&I) do a decent job but their scanning prices are outrageous and I cannot afford to keep spending $25/roll to process and scan film at medium res. High res is $35! Seriously? I'm paying way too much for labor.

I need a scanner or I'm gonna lose my shirt dealing with this.

[Pindy]

Black M6 TTL arrived today—yippee! Must scrounge up enough for a lens. I think you're right, Molsondog, the used 50 Summicron is probably the best deal going in Leicaland.

[ziggy53]

Black M6 TTL arrived today—yippee! Must scrounge up enough for a lens. I think you're right, Molsondog, the used 50 Summicron is probably the best deal going in Leicaland.

Congratulations. :clap

[Pindy]

Congratulations. :clap
:lust It may not be the perfect camera, but I think it's the perfectly sized camera. Excited to get some 90mm f/2 action soon.

[Pindy]

So this is the first time I've been able to compare two different viewfinder magnifications. My friend's was 0.85x and mine is the standard 0.72x. There's not a huge difference, only each brightline occupies a slightly smaller area of the overall viewfinder. I notice with the 0.72, there's a bright line for 28mm which shares with 90mm. The 28mm lines are about the same size as the 35mm lines were on the 0.85. It'll be interesting getting used to composing in a smaller space—the 35mm lines took up the entire viewfinder before so I was spoiled.

If you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about, the viewfinder shows 6 different "bright lines", essentially the lines inside which your intended focal length is framed, and these boxes are of different sizes because there's only one viewfinder, so 135mm is REALLY LITTLE and 28mm or 35mm takes up most of the viewfinder. There are 3 different sets of lines which are visible depending on which lens you connect: 35 & 135mm, 50 & 70mm, 28 & 90mm.

[Pindy]

Very nice! I was also thinking about this lens as a starter, partly because of the good deal and partly because it's a FL I'm very comfortable with. Keep 'em coming!

Been reading loads on film stock and have XP2 in the camera now. Curious to try Fuji Neopan CN, which has to be imported to the USA, but was Jeff Ascough's favourite film until he went digital SLR. One of my top people photogs, I have to say. The man's a master of available light and was an M6 TTL man for years and years.

[Pindy]

How timely that the ignominious-yet-entertaining Ken Rockwell has reviewed both the M6 TTL (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m6.htm) and done his opinion piece on Leica viewfinder magnifications (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/viewfinder-magnifications.htm)

[ReeRay]

Molsondog

I think your shots are excellent - as opposed to being embarrassed I'd be absolutely delighted with these.

Love to see some more

Ray

[Justiceiro]

Oh man,

I am reading this and glancing over at my Pentacon 6, sitting on the shelf. It's been I while since I took the big dog out for a walk.

Frame spacing is an issue, and it weighs about 5 kilos, but can you get color like this with a digital?

http://justiceiro.smugmug.com/photos/57824973_9yvhG-M-5.jpg

[Brett1000]

Oh man,

I am reading this and glancing over at my Pentacon 6, sitting on the shelf. It's been I while since I took the big dog out for a walk.

Frame spacing is an issue, and it weighs about 5 kilos, but can you get color like this with a digital?



sure, you can get any color you want with Photoshop !

[ziggy53]

... is anyone else out there in Dgrin land shooting a film range finder ...

I still have a pair of Fed 5 rangefinders:

FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)

Sorry, no recent image scans from either, but you can trust me that they are both capable of excellent images. :thumb

[Pindy]

Wonderful tonal range in that brickwork. Are you exposing Tri-X at a higher ISO? They look so clean compared to mine, which have been 400-800 depending.

Loving the M6 TTL, especially since it's mine now. Frustrating to have to wait to buy a lens, but my borrowed one is doing fine for now. Keep the RF shots coming.

[ReeRay]

I agree that your Tri-X looks wonderful

Care to share some more details ref exposure, processing?

And yes, I'm still shooting a Contax G2 but (to my shame I guess) I shoot Velvia or Ektar 100G slide.

Maybe I'll try a bit of Tri-X !

[Pindy]

There is no luxury of coming home and popping the CF card in the computer to see how it went. I have to finish off the roll. Devolving to film means becoming patient again.

Yes, I think I wanted an M7 as well, just for those times when I wanted the camera to think a little for me, but it's not a bad thing for me to have to do the brain-work.

Missing EXIFs and the instant gratification deeply, and after doing an afternoon's research on film scanners, it seems like there is truly no good solution that isn't prohibitively expensive, or wrought with inconvenience:

Epson V700/750 — good on MF and photos, not great on 35mm
Nikon Coolscans — expensive, still the best game in town, on the way out and not really supported
Plustek scanners — cheap, manual advance, not great resolution, blurry, no ICE
Canon 8800F — best of the Canons but really not great on 35mm.
Minolta film scanners — long gone

That was a little depressing.

[ReeRay]

Using a Minolta Multi Pro which albeit quite a rarity and somewhat expensive at $1,500 or so are still available with research.

Also use a Minolta Elite 5400 II - restricted to 35mm but an amazing scanner and frequently seen on Ebay.

Agreed that official support no longer exists but the user groups are incredibly helpful and pretty instant.

[Pindy]

Also use a Minolta Elite 5400 II - restricted to 35mm but an amazing scanner and frequently seen on Ebay.


Watching a couple of these on eBay. Do they have D-ICE?

[ReeRay]

Watching a couple of these on eBay. Do they have D-ICE?

The MK11 certainly has ICE - not sure about the MK1 version.

Seemingly the MK1 is better for B+W but the MK11 is the one for colour and a lot, lot faster.

I've never used a MK1 so can't actually verify this but the source was a very prominent and successful New York based Pro on the GETDPI forum.

On both my Minoltas I use the OEM Dimage Scan software - tried Silverfast, Vuescan etc and couldn't see any improvement. The latest software is available on the Minolta site and works great.

ICE, of course, doesn't work on B+W (so we're told) but it does on my 5400!

Hope this encourages you :D

[ReeRay]

Forgot to say - here's a sample of my scans here

http://reeray.smugmug.com/Travel/Around-the-World/9831215_DDMrv#668201241_qznNA

And here

http://reeray.smugmug.com/Photography/English-Memory/9824842_rWPND#668555014_Uh2yX

All shot 20 something years ago and recently scanned so some pretty old slides believe me!

[Pindy]

Those scans (and the photos!) do not suck. Thinking more and more about the minolta, as it's a decent deal and has film loading.

[ReeRay]

Thank you both for the compliments and I hope you don't think I was showing off - just trying to endorse the scanner abilities.

As stated I'd shot these images 20+ years ago and had never seen them in all their glory until I bought my scanners a year or so ago.

I ain't no scanning expert so what you see is actually a reduction in quality from what I see on the lightbox. It is, after all, a second generation image.

I didn't need to do much PP. I scan as "flat" as possible i.e. low contrast and maximum range avoiding clipping at both ends. I use an 8x pass and that's about it. In CS3 I then adjust curves to boost the low contrast scan and I'm done.

Velvia/Provia and now Ektar 100G are brilliant emulsions and the Minoltas are as good as a drum scan (IMHO)

[iambarefoot]

Just a couple suggestions - if you live near a Costco, they do C-41 processing (color negative) pretty well and at a very reasonable price - a roll developed and scanned for less than $5. The scans are pretty high-res (I forget exactly how high, but higher than a "pro" photolab scan for 4x the price).

Shortly after purchasing my 1st 'nice' camera (a D40 about a year and a half ago) I developed an interest in the broader scope of the photographic process (ok, I admit, partly spurred by Rockwell's film fetish), and started using film in non-auto cameras, beginning with a Nikon FE (and followed with a couple rangefinders, to keep this thread on track).

This year, I went primitive and signed up for a photo darkroom class at a local art school. It's been really fun, and has opened my eyes to the level of effort involved in pre-digital photography. Not for everybody (obviously), but it has accelerated my skills behind the camera, too, being directly involved in all the subsequent processing.

I'm currently setting pennies aside for an M6 TTL and 28 Elmarit-m ASPH (that's a lot of pennies).

[Pindy]

I think I've found my B&W film for now: XP2. Is it maybe a little too contrasty? Maybe, but time will tell. I'm digging it for now.

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/737755006_Qhqrp-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/737756864_LWKo9-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/737756139_aq3xv-L.jpg

But there's a problem, I forgot all about in the last decade's scrabble to digital and that is color temperature correction for tungsten. What am I supposed to do, again—80A? Simply adjusting the WB cooler or warmer in LR achieves a terrible result. I assume I need a cooling filter or something, but what can be done in post:

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/737752097_xZV4K-L.jpg

[Pindy]

Just a couple suggestions - if you live near a Costco, they do C-41 processing (color negative) pretty well and at a very reasonable price - a roll developed and scanned for less than $5. The scans are pretty high-res (I forget exactly how high, but higher than a "pro" photolab scan for 4x the price).

Shortly after purchasing my 1st 'nice' camera (a D40 about a year and a half ago) I developed an interest in the broader scope of the photographic process (ok, I admit, partly spurred by Rockwell's film fetish), and started using film in non-auto cameras, beginning with a Nikon FE (and followed with a couple rangefinders, to keep this thread on track).

This year, I went primitive and signed up for a photo darkroom class at a local art school. It's been really fun, and has opened my eyes to the level of effort involved in pre-digital photography. Not for everybody (obviously), but it has accelerated my skills behind the camera, too, being directly involved in all the subsequent processing.

I'm currently setting pennies aside for an M6 TTL and 28 Elmarit-m ASPH (that's a lot of pennies).

Film's been a gamut of feelings, but when it's good, it's great. Looking into Costco, though I cannot imagine what the quality could be like. Can't hurt to try it once, eh?

[Jane B.]

Forgot to say - here's a sample of my scans here

http://reeray.smugmug.com/Travel/Around-the-World/9831215_DDMrv#668201241_qznNA

And here

http://reeray.smugmug.com/Photography/English-Memory/9824842_rWPND#668555014_Uh2yX

All shot 20 something years ago and recently scanned so some pretty old slides believe me!
Those aren't old! I have slides taken by my aunt for the late 1930's through into the 1950's. Here is one that I scanned for a different purpose in 2004 that was taken in 1949. The scanner is a Microtek ScanMaker V6USL with 35mm film/slide adapter (one of the first scanners with a USB connection).

Hope you get to see my doll whose wedding gown was a Christmas present in 1949 as it has been a very long time since I tried to attach a file and I had a time getting this resaved to a size that would upload!

Jane B.

[Pindy]

How giddy am I? My Summilux 35mm ASPH is on its way to me from our very own B D Colen who was kind enough to let me take it off his hands. What a great way to kick off my Leica career.

[ReeRay]

How giddy am I? My Summilux 35mm ASPH is on its way to me from our very own B D Colen who was kind enough to let me take it off his hands. What a great way to kick off my Leica career.
You see - if you're a good boy Santa does listen ! :D

[Pindy]

Excellent! Superb choice.

Is this the f/2 or the f/1.4 version?

1.4

Summiluxes are f/1.4. Summicrons are f/2. They have a funny naming scheme, don't they? Either would be fine, but I think this is the one I really wanted, truth be told. it's the same one as in my first photo on this thread, just a lot less mint, as B. D. has used it for the last ten years, doing real work.

http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/photos/742499429_TsKHA-L-1.jpg

http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/photos/742499206_xGgZF-L-2.jpg

[Pindy]

I have way too many photos of my kids, whom I don't like to lay bare on the forums too much and haven't been let out into the daylight much, so I gotta get out there this weekend. The pier is often a good place for unleashing a new lens.

[Pindy]

In other news, very disappointed by the Samy's Camera film department's scanning policy. The development was good but they swore "hi res" scanning. The scans came back at 3130 x 2075, which is the medium res of the scanner they're using, the Noritsu QSS 32 minilab. I did my research on this and the woman asked to make a copy of my findings for her own edification! Annoyingly, the Hi Res capability of the scanner is 4492 x 6774, which is what I was expecting, but they won't do it because of the time it takes. 3130x2075 is what they consider to be a 5x7 print. For $19 a roll, I want full-res. The search continues before I think about buying a scanner I have little time to use.

[ReeRay]

Happy Xmas to the RF/film/scanner sub-forum :barb

[Pindy]

Happy Xmas to the RF/film/scanner sub-forum :barb
Same to you!

Like a virus, we shall eventually eat the other forums.

[ReeRay]

In other news, very disappointed by the Samy's Camera film department's scanning policy. The development was good but they swore "hi res" scanning. The scans came back at 3130 x 2075, which is the medium res of the scanner they're using, the Noritsu QSS 32 minilab. I did my research on this and the woman asked to make a copy of my findings for her own edification! Annoyingly, the Hi Res capability of the scanner is 4492 x 6774, which is what I was expecting, but they won't do it because of the time it takes. 3130x2075 is what they consider to be a 5x7 print. For $19 a roll, I want full-res. The search continues before I think about buying a scanner I have little time to use.

This seems a deal

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-CanoScan-FS-4000-US-slide-scanner-Excellent_W0QQitemZ140367118323QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ LH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item20ae883ff3

[DoctorIt]

That's very funny.

Note to Dgrin Management - How about a little corner of the Dgrin Universe for this topic.Noted, but not likely to happen - we've always tried to make it about the shots, for which we have more and more forums, and by necessity of neatness, the flea market has seperate compartments. However, you'll notice all the gear talk is in one forum (has been forever), and we like it that way. :nod

[Pindy]

we've always tried to make it about the shots

The Doctor is quite right. It IS about the shots whether its a Diana or a Polaroid or a Minolta or a Leica.

[ian408]

Pindy, thank you for starting this. And though I don't have a Leica, I do have a Mamyia 645 that I rarely shoot with--I should get out more.

And thanks for the scanner info--I need that for some stuff I'm doing too.

[SteveF]

Hello,

This thread has covered a few topics - but I liked the initial question - which would you rather carry?

My primary landscape camera used to be a D3X and the 14-24 lens. I purchased a M9 and a wate (wide angle tri-elmar) which is a 16mm, 18mm and 21mm lens (three clicks, not a zoom) to compare.

I sold the D3x pretty soon after that.

Since then I've added a 35mm and 75mm lens to the line up and LOVE carrying them everywhere with me. This is because they all fit in a small fanny pack.

RF's are not for everyone, but as a landscape camera the Leica has really bumped my excitement about photography. Getting rid of the backpack was really nice.

A recent M9 / wate pic from Antelope.

http://www.efines.net/images/fm/Fines_20091208_0221_2_3_4_tonemapped_adj_web_800.j pg

[Pindy]

Hello,

This thread has covered a few topics - but I liked the initial question - which would you rather carry?

My primary landscape camera used to be a D3X and the 14-24 lens. I purchased a M9 and a wate (wide angle tri-elmar) which is a 16mm, 18mm and 21mm lens (three clicks, not a zoom) to compare.

I sold the D3x pretty soon after that.

Since then I've added a 35mm and 75mm lens to the line up and LOVE carrying them everywhere with me. This is because they all fit in a small fanny pack.

RF's are not for everyone, but as a landscape camera the Leica has really bumped my excitement about photography. Getting rid of the backpack was really nice.

A recent M9 / wate pic from Antelope.



Now we're talking! Thanks for sharing that and great photo. Self-timer or old fashioned shutter release?

[SteveF]

Hello,

Shutter release cable and the second hand on my watch. Funny thing is that I did it the same way with my Canon last time I was there. The auto-bracket never got the exposures I wanted and I found it easier just to shoot manual and judge by the histogram.


A couple of others from the dGrin Acadia shootout. Nothing especially 'Leica' about these except the small size of the camera that took them. That and the fact that the tiny lenses are as good as or better than the Nikon's they replaced.

m9, 35lux
http://www.dgrin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=28745&stc=1&d=1255299651

m9, wate
http://efines.net/images/fm/Fines_20091011_0491_web.jpg

[Pindy]

Excellent! That 50 is a very nice lens. I love the rendering of the leaves out the window in your #3. I have 6 rolls ready to go but am looking for another processor that will give me better prices and higher resolution. Need more photos of the outside world, but they don't let me run around much these days!

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Family-Friends/2009/dp-20091210-0017-1/738159060_5b5U8-L.jpg

[Pindy]

It's funny—after only a few weeks of ownership, I managed to bump the prism out of alignment and the focus coupling went off a bit. Steve Choi has it now and is gonna fix it and install the MP rangefinder modification to help with contrast and flare in the rangefinder patch. Yeah!

[Pindy]

Rangefinder mod is complete and I haven't been able to put it through its paces yet, but it's good to have it be the best it can be. I also had Steve look at my 35mm Summilux, which, despite having undergone a CLA in Boston, had a dry and loose aperture ring. He tightened it up and it feels like a new lens now and the ring won't be easily bumped off its setting. NICE.

Tried processing 7 rolls at North Coast Photographic Services and they were fast and communicative and so far has been the best deal I've found.

[Pindy]

Ilford XP2 Super exposed between 260-800 ISO

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20100114-0145/766884103_mdRNn-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20100114-0140/766884492_XHJk9-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20100114-0141/766883222_Lowzn-L.jpg

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-M6-The-Good-the-Bad-the/dp-20100114-0134/766882789_z38QH-L.jpg

[ian408]

i dig these.

[Pindy]

I swear I didn't jack with the contrast! It's a much different curve than Tri-X.

I was reading the little paper than comes in a box of XP2 and Ilford tell you you are free to expose between 50 and 800 and you should just develop normally and—somehow—it all works out in the end. I'm not positive how. They actively discourage and push/pull processing believe it or not. I'm trying to do more testing on this, but it could be like them saying to adjust your ASA like you would a digicam and if it's within that range, there should be enough info there to make a print. Now this doesn't assume I'm scanning without ever making a print, but I have to say, of the 5 rolls of XP2 I got developed, they all looked correctly exposed and a couple of them were exposed for 800 and even 1600.

It's not magic film, but it's great to be able to adjust your meter bias on the fly :thumb

From the XP2 Fact Sheet:

"No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended."

Here's the link (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf)

[Pindy]

i dig these.

Thanks Ian. I hope to have more up soon... after this rain stops.

[Pindy]

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Family-Friends/2010/dp-20100114-0132/769518435_QCXLb-XL.jpg

[Eddy]

Just to mention somthing i have the Leica M8.2 and all 3 of my lenses can go on the PanaGF-1 with the M - adapter so to can my canon lens or an FD lens..BTW the Pana GF-1 is a sweet camera for a walk around mini dslr..lollif you can get one go for it..the pancake lens is soooo nice..

[Pindy]

Just to mention somthing i have the Leica M8.2 and all 3 of my lenses can go on the PanaGF-1 with the M - adapter so to can my canon lens or an FD lens..BTW the Pana GF-1 is a sweet camera for a walk around mini dslr..lollif you can get one go for it..the pancake lens is soooo nice..

The GF-1 seems to be the one to beat right now. After really not digging the E-P1, I'd have to get one in my hands to lift the guilt by association.

[jonboy61]

The Olympus versions have in-body stabilization... just sayin'

[Pindy]

The Olympus versions have in-body stabilization... just sayin'

I wasn't aware the Panasonic didn't. I think whichever one feels more like a camera [should feel to you] wins.

[Pindy]

Been borrowing a 90mm Summicron-M (f/2) ASPH. Film went out today and should return by Thursday or Friday. We'll see if I can successfully focus this guy. If you haven't seen one in person, it's remarkably small for a reflex lens but also quite large for a rangefinder lens. It's about as long as the Canon 35/1.4 (maybe just under 3 inches long), has a built-in sliding hood, but has a 55mm filter size. The build quality is as good as anything I've ever held in my mortal hands.

90mm Summicron ASPH (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/portrait/2189.html)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HJ1CH8WNL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

[ziggy53]

Been borrowing a 90mm Summicron-M (f/2) ASPH. Film went out today and should return by Thursday or Friday. We'll see if I can successfully focus this guy. If you haven't seen one in person, it's remarkably small for a reflex lens but also quite large for a rangefinder lens. It's about as long as the Canon 35/1.4 (maybe just under 3 inches long), has a built-in sliding hood, but has a 55mm filter size. The build quality is as good as anything I've ever held in my mortal hands.

90mm Summicron ASPH (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/portrait/2189.html)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HJ1CH8WNL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Just as an aside, the term "reflex lens" usually refers to a mirror or catadioptric lens design (implying a folded design.) I suspect the reference in this case is just a contraction of a "single-lens-reflex" lens.

Just mildly amusing in that it had me going to look up the lens to be sure, so thanks for the link. :thumb

[Pindy]

Just as an aside, the term "reflex lens" usually refers to a mirror or catadioptric lens design (implying a folded design.) I suspect the reference in this case is just a contraction of a "single-lens-reflex" lens.

You're quite right: short for single lens reflex lens and the dimension requirements that a lens of that type requires by design.

[Shizam]

Somehow I missed this thread. Just wanted to chime in from a fellow DSLR photographer (5D/1Ds + great glass) that after I bought a M7 and 35mm Summilux I wound up reaching for my Leica for almost every situation where I was taking pictures for some reason for keepsakes, for a looong time. Friggn' love it. Only downside was I got to taste Kodachrome for a couple years right before it was taken away :p

:thumb

Sam

[Pindy]

Somehow I missed this thread. ...after I bought a M7 and 35mm Summilux I wound up reaching for my Leica for almost every situation where I was taking pictures for some reason...

I'm experiencing the same thing. Having trouble finding the enthusiasm for SLR photography these days. It's as though my interest has undergone a serious distillation. Thanks for sharing!

[Shizam]

I'm experiencing the same thing. Having trouble finding the enthusiasm for SLR photography these days. It's as though my interest has undergone a serious distillation. Thanks for sharing!

Wait till you try Large Format, that had a massive impact on the way I photograph :)

[ReeRay]

Just jumping in here I've been using the Panasonic GF1, 20mm pancake and my Contax G lenses via the RJ adaptor.

Here's a link to a few shots http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4foto_grafs/sets/72157623122625175/

This is a 100% crop from a Planar 45mm F2 wide open and handheld (no artistic intent)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4290201474_00a5726a33_o.jpg

Bit of a pig to focus with just a "squidgy" little wheel to operate but I understand a new full focusing wheel is now available from a few manufactures and indeed I have one on order. More on this later.

[Pindy]

Some awfully nice shots in the Flickr gallery. It's a hard choice in MFT right now, with these cameras getting better and better.

[Pindy]

Got some more pics back. Shot quite a few rolls of Kodak BW400CN chromogenic film (like XP2 Super) but I definitely see a difference in the response of the two now. There's something about the curve of BW400CN that is not quite right, to my eye:

http://pindy.smugmug.com/Family-Friends/2010/dp-20100303-0029-2/803627469_YgVDF-L.jpg

That was the magic 90mm Summicron ASPH. I like the photo, but I had to actually add contrast to the skin to make a lot of middle-grey tonality go away, you know how when you remove too much contrast and everything becomes middling and it looks wrong? I think I'll stick with XP2.

[ReeRay]

I swear I didn't jack with the contrast! It's a much different curve than Tri-X.

I was reading the little paper than comes in a box of XP2 and Ilford tell you you are free to expose between 50 and 800 and you should just develop normally and—somehow—it all works out in the end. I'm not positive how. They actively discourage and push/pull processing believe it or not. I'm trying to do more testing on this, but it could be like them saying to adjust your ASA like you would a digicam and if it's within that range, there should be enough info there to make a print. Now this doesn't assume I'm scanning without ever making a print, but I have to say, of the 5 rolls of XP2 I got developed, they all looked correctly exposed and a couple of them were exposed for 800 and even 1600.

It's not magic film, but it's great to be able to adjust your meter bias on the fly :thumb

From the XP2 Fact Sheet:

"No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended."

Here's the link (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf)

I've not used XP2. Are you saying that on one roll you can alter the ISO according to the conditions and within set parameters i.e. 200-800?

Intrigued.

[Pindy]

Pretty much, yeah. It's nice.

[ReeRay]

Pretty much, yeah. It's nice.

Just ordered a batch - thanks

[Pindy]

Interesting. I somehow got it in my head that ISO 6400 was mandatory for the poorly lit interiors I shoot. Having just sold all my DSLRs, I'm finding I have plenty of light at ISO 640, f/1.4 or 2.0 and 1/60s on XP2. Is it the spot metering of the M6 or have I just grown up? I seem to have all sorts of memories of my Canon 30D with f/1.4 lenses choking at 1600 ISO and 1/15s or 1/30s. I'll post pics when I'm back in the states and get these boys developed.

Thinking about it for a minute, I think the automation I was using (aperture priority probably) was yielding all kinds of wrong exposures. Honestly, I'm loving all-manual.

[jmphotocraft]

Just shot my first couple of rolls of XP2. Very fun, I don't think I've seen digital b&w's that were this appealing to me.

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Weddings/Natalie-and-Randall/Reception/115754M-R1-012-4A/926326500_PGGch-L.jpg

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Camp-2010/118747M-R1-040-18A/943900594_CTuq5-L.jpg

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Camp-2010/118747M-R1-054-25A/943901068_2E3K4-L.jpg

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Camp-2010/118747M-R1-076-36A/943902097_ozeB8-L.jpg

shot with my Pentax K1000 and 3 different SMC-M lenses.

I'm interested to hear about people such as yourself who have gone back to film. Sometimes when I'm shooting my K1000 and I get the results I think man, this is all I need. But then I remember that film is useless above ISO 400, lol. And even 400 film looks about like 3200 on my 5DII. And at the rate I shoot digital, I'd be bankrupted by film and processing costs. Although my kids would probably prefer me to shoot less!

[Pindy]

Nice tonality in those. I got excited that that was XP2 until I scrolled down further. I truly haven't gone back to film out of some love for film, mostly just to get in on the ground floor of Leica M.

[jmphotocraft]

Nice tonality in those. I got excited that that was XP2 until I scrolled down further.

What is that supposed to mean?

I truly haven't gone back to film out of some love for film, mostly just to get in on the ground floor of Leica M.

Makes sense, and it is tempting, although I'm not there yet financially. But if I was, I'd go for a film Leica too. I mean if it's full manual, it may as well be film, right? Leica digital bodies aren't able to hang with Canikon in the upper ISO's, but I wonder how the M9 compares from 100-400.

[Pindy]

What is that supposed to mean?



Makes sense, and it is tempting, although I'm not there yet financially. But if I was, I'd go for a film Leica too. I mean if it's full manual, it may as well be film, right? Leica digital bodies aren't able to hang with Canikon in the upper ISO's, but I wonder how the M9 compares from 100-400.

What I meant was that I was expecting the really nice photos you posted to be film. I had thought, "What nice tonality and resolution" and was slightly crestfallen when I scrolled down and read it was the digital Pentax.

on the ISO front, I had thought that ISO 6400 was essential. I've since revised this "requirement".

[jmphotocraft]

What I meant was that I was expecting the really nice photos you posted to be film. I had thought, "What nice tonality and resolution" and was slightly crestfallen when I scrolled down and read it was the digital Pentax.

Oh, haha. Pick your crest back up and check out the blazing glory of the Pentax K1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K1000). Those shots were XP2 400.

on the ISO front, I had thought that ISO 6400 was essential. I've since revised this "requirement".

Well it is if you want to shoot night or indoor sports. High ISO definitely has its place, which is why I'll never leave digital.

ISO 1600:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/photos/912609355_DvSqr-L-1.jpg

ISO 3200:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Friends/SuperSplashDown2010/IMG8915/906516464_dvenm-L.jpg

But I will continue to shoot film every now and then for a change of pace. It definitely has a unique look.

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Camp-2009/101275M-R1-021-9/629016437_6pRU9-L.jpg

[InsuredDisaster]

Earlier this year, I went to Cambodia for about a week. I had been bitten very badly by the film bug (its a cyclic thing for me) and I decided to go back to the day when I had a minolta SLR and film. Only now I had a Nikon N80 (which I wanted ever since I wanted one.)

I sincerely intended to shoot the entire trip on film, but by the end, I realized that digital is way better for me. For one thing, during the day, ISO200 speed film is great, but then at night, I was unable to find anything over ISO800, or even worse, I'd have switched rolls earlier and then wind up in the dark with 27 shots of ISO200 left in the camera and a desire to shoot some dancers without calling it "abstract art." Being able to switch ISO at any time is something I can't live without. Eventually I shot digital at night and film during the day. Worked pretty well for the most part.

But then there is the editing ability as well. Film has a great look, and one that I often spend 10 minutes trying to recreate on a photo, but at the same time, it is great to be able to change a color photo to black and white or fix a color shift, or even do something creative.

And finally, with digital, I have complete control over the entire process. How many people still have a dark room ready to go? I move around too much to do that though it was fun.


Still, for me, film cameras give me a bad case of Iwantitus. I've got an N80, an FM2, two Holga 135's, a canon kit that I don't use much,
but I still want an F4, a Rollie35, a FED3, a TLR camera, a . . . . .

and the list goes on. Fliping actually switchs and levers and dials is so much more cooler than pressing a button. I do enjoy shooting film!

[Pindy]

Agreed, the need to switch it up is a constant bring-down. I think that's why I've more or less standardized on XP2, since I can successfully switch from 50-800 on the fly with good results. Having said that, I'm about 2/3 saved up for an M9 (which I'm half-hoping will be an M9.2 by that time) so I should hope to have my cake and eat it too.

[InsuredDisaster]

Agreed, the need to switch it up is a constant bring-down. I think that's why I've more or less standardized on XP2, since I can successfully switch from 50-800 on the fly with good results. Having said that, I'm about 2/3 saved up for an M9 (which I'm half-hoping will be an M9.2 by that time) so I should hope to have my cake and eat it too.


Yes, I do have a desire for an M9 as well too! It is too bad that it is so expensive. I wasn't interesting in the M8 since it was only an APS sensor, and I'm tired of the "zoom" effect of smaller sensors on lenses. I'm a bit of a wide angle guy favoring the 20-30mm range (as shot on a 35mm film camera.) Once Leica went FF, I was a lot more interested save for the price tag. About $2K more than I'm willing to spend right now, especially since I don't have a lens for it!

Goood luck and can't wait to see what you do with you M9 when you get it.