My New German Toy ....

[cegerer]

I've been a camera buff for 25 years. Owned many cameras in all sorts of formats. These days it's pretty much all digital for me. I use digitals daily for business. They're fantastic tools but so easy to use they're a bit boring for pleasure use. So today I bought what I've wanted for 20 some years - a Leica rangefinder! A black M6 (new in box but a few models years old) with a Summicron 35mm f2 and a Voightlander 21mm f4. If you've never handled a Leica, they're amazing pieces of equipment. If the weather holds, I'm going to try it out by taking some updated photos of the 911 tomorrow - the old-fashioned way (i.e. manually setting shutters speeds, f stops and focus!! And - oh yeah - I've got to remember how to load film and what to do with it when I'm done ..... )

Anybody else a Leica fan?

[djmcmath]

I don't do Leica, but I've heard great things about them. The Voightlander lenses are supposed to be excellent. 21mm should be suitably wide for virtually everything.

I do a lot of my photographic "work" with an old Crown Graphic 4x5 -- brings whole new meaning to the term "manual" in photography.

I know it won't do it justice, but post whatcha get with that beauty, will ya?

Dan

[cegerer]

I've had some medium format cameras (Mamiya, Rollei, Fuji, etc.) but never a 4x5. The print quality has to be stunning! Do you have any scanned P-car images in 4x5 you can post? I will confess to buying the M6 due to it's built-in meter - call me lazy , otherwise I probably would have went with an M4.

I've also heard very good things about the Voigtlander lenses. Some Leica guys even claim the 21 to be better than Leica's own (at what? 1/3 the price?). My favorite Nikon lense has always been my 20mm, so I think the 21mm will become my 'normal' lenses. That's one thing I miss with digital - the ultra wide angle. I do have an 18mm Nikon ED for my S1 but I think that converts to 28mm or so in digital - OK, but not quite wide enough for my taste. -- Curt

[Rufblackbird]

I've always loved photography, and have been a fan of Leica, though I've never owned one and is a newbie in terms of models and specs. How much do they usually run?

[jyl]

That is a beautiful camera. I really like Leica, but have never had money and desire coincide such that I could get one. The M6 seems like an ideal Leica if you're a "user". Nice lens selection too!

I've gone through phases of being into photography. In the last one I used Hasselblad stuff, still a whole Hassy set sitting in the closet. Before that it was 35mm SLR via various Canons.

I seem to be starting another phase now, focused on rangefinders. When I was in Japan last year, I picked up a used Canon P rangefinder, which is a fairly uncommon beast here in the US. Last week I dug out my old Rollei 35. Today I dropped by a local camera show and got a nice Olympus XA for casual use.

However, to go further in this I'm going to need a digital darkroom. I don't have room for the wet kind. So I am researching film scanners . . .

[Moneyguy1]

We went digital about two years ago. We have an 8 megapixel camers and a 5 megapix for "casual". I used to do some semi professional photography years ago (annual report covers, industrial type stuff), and life would have been a wholelot easier with digital!! Just think of doing a wedding..Opportunities galore for "do overs" with the instant gratification quotent!!

The other night we photographed lightning. 8 second exposure every 30 seconds. Just set it up on the tripod, and sit and enjoy the show while the camera does all the work. Pick the best ones, delete the rest, print out a few and you're done!!

I will probably never go back to film. And me with a passel of 35mm cameras and lenses....

[cegerer]

"enjoy the show while the camera does all the work. "

For professional use, digital is all I've used for the past 5-6 years. It is so efficient. I don't need to enlarge beyond 8x10or need extreme quality, so I rarely shoot more than 2 megapixels, even tho the S1 will do 6.1. Although my S1 has full manual control, it's mostly in 'point-and-shoot' mode and I just fire off dozens of frames indiscriminately knowing at least a few will turn out good. The Leica (or any manual film camera) slows that process WAY down and forces one to think about the photo - exposure, composition, etc. - and resulting in better photography.

Ruf, a new M6 body is around $2000. Lenses are anywhere from $750 (standard 50mm) to $3000. Used camera prices are way down right now and there are some incredible deals on eBay.

[djmcmath]

Ceg, I don't have any scanned images from the 4x5, as a 4x5 film scanner would cost more than my car. Even so, scanning 4x5 film is a bit of a silly thing to do, anyway -- you can get all the quality you need for non-professional digital from 35mm scans. I must say, the print quality is truly exceptional -- I use Ilford Delta Pro 100, processed normally, and produce 11x14s with no hint of grain. If you're into B&W, large format is really the way to go.

Oh -- and slides! There's nothing so cool as a 4x5 transparency! My dad brought his 4x5 to Italy on his last trip. The leaning tower, Rome, etc. on 4x5 transparencies, holy cow! (ahem) Right, yes, but I'm a film-geek.

On scanners, briefly -- I've been using an Acer ScanWit 2720S for quite some time now. It runs about $300ish, and produces (with some effort) pretty good scans. It isn't a $10000 machine, but there's a pretty big chasm between the "coupla-hundred" class machines and the multi-thousand class machines.

Anyhow, I'd love to get into medium format. I don't know that a Hassy is in my reach right now (just rebuilt tranny, ouch), but that seems like it'd be ideal -- a good compromise between the convenience of 35mm and the Big Negatives of 4x5.


Dan

[cegerer]

I guess I'm wondering if the quality would show thru somewhat on a scanned black & white print from a 4x5 neg??? I was at a client's house who was into 4x5 and he had B&W prints framed thru-out the house. They were absolutly incredible - they have a certain 'depth' to them.

I shot medium format for quite a while. I really liked it. As you say, a great compromise. One of my favorite shots is this one from the Detroit GP with a 210/f4 lense. It's an 18x26 inch print from a 645 transparency. The detail is excellent - small stones and pieces of rubber no larger than popcorn kernals are clearly visible along the guardrail.

[djmcmath]

Sadly, the quality doesn't show through. I could take a picture of the 11x14 over my computer, but you can't tell that there's absolutely no grain, or that the progression of greys from jet-black to straight-up-white (Zone 1 to Zone 10, if you're into that) is perfectly smooth.

Like the poster you show -- it's nice, for sure, but from here the relections and lighting problems nullify much of the quality. Did you shoot that? That would have been really incredible. What kind of film did you use? Can you see the grain at that size?

Suffice it to say that 4x5 is like MF, except more so. Not so convenient as the smaller formats (in fact, quite a hassle sometimes), more expensive, but having big negatives is sometimes worth it.

Having shot with a number of different MF cameras, I'd be curious as to your opinions -- some of the folks say that a Hassy is absolutely the finest. Others say that it just isn't worth the money, and you'll do just as well with a Mamiya/Rollei/etc. My dad's line: "Sure, the guy with the Hasselblad gets some good pictures... but I'm always amazed at the work that the 8 year old does with a little Brownie Box!"


Dan

[cegerer]

I believe I shot that with 64 Ektachrome with a Mamiya 645. There is no noticeable grain, even at the 'poster size' of the print. It looks like just another photo in the digital image of it posted here .... in real life it is spectacular. In 1983 they sold 'photo passes' for $100. It gave access to all sorts of areas right along the barriers and full access to the pit lane. I've got some incredible photos from that weekend.

Hasselblad is a lot like Leica. I think one of the reasons for owning either is sheer appreciation of the equipment itself. Do either really take better photos than other top equipment? I doubt it. I once owned a Russian Kiev 6x6 (looked similar to the Pentax 6x7 SLR). This thing was a poorly made piece of junk to be honest. But it was priced accordingly. That said, I took some really nice images with it!

For the money, I think it's really tough to beat Mamiya in medium format. If I were buying MF, I'd go with the Mamiya 7 - it would be like a point and shoot instamatic for you, coming from 4x5!!

[djmcmath]

Boy, I'll bet you have some good shots, too. That's prolly about the best $100 you ever spent, eh? Wow //green with envy.

I've looked into Kiev. IIRC from my research, the brand spanking new shiny Kievs were running about the same prices as the half-elderly Hassys, and I figured the Hassy'd be a better buy. Once I finish paying for this tranny rebuild, I'll have to start watching for used Mamiya bits. Goldernit, you've gotten me fired up about my other hobby again!! Curse you, Cegerer!!

Dan

[dd74]

Originally posted by cegerer

Anybody else a Leica fan?

My wife is a graduate of Art Center in Pasadena, her major: photography. We collect photography in fact. Michael Kenna, Sally Man, Elliot Erwitt, among others. Of course, that put me smack into the middle of what goes into photography. I've heard the Leica is the choice of photographers in high stress situations. From what I know, that means the Leica cameras are durable, lightweight, and most importantly very quiet. They are the favorite cameras of foreign correspondents for these obvious reasons; plus photography students, according to my wife, hold them in the highest regard.

As I remember, Leicas are something like three times the cost of other 35mm cameras, but from what I've seen, they're by and far beautiful pieces of machinery.