Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Leica M6 and Lens
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leica M6 and Lens - Page 3

post #31 of 45
11/14/07 at 12:38pm
Digital can't reproduce black and white as well as film can.

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 45
11/14/07 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
Digital can't reproduce black and white as well as film can.

Jon.

You mean as compared to black and white film? Or black and white components in color photographs? If the latter, I disagree, and it's probably the easiest thing to adjust in PP if you're not happy. And don't forget, if you're looking at photos on an LCD, or any uncalibrated monitor for that matter, it probably won't look the same when printed. I'm actually glad I still have a 19" CRT for post-processing purposes. I did my first batch on LCD but i'm going back to the CRT for editing. Next year I'll probably get an s-ips panel and calibrate it though. Of course, since i'm shooting raw I can always go back and fix any color problems that were induced by viewing on an LCD.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 45
11/14/07 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
If you like autofocus and find it works for you, then use it. I'm expressing my own view of it, and I find it inadequate for many of the conditions in which I shoot. You and any number of pros can do as you please. I want manual focus, especially if I'm dropping more than a few hundred dollars on a camera.

I have a '76 F2 and a battery of lenses, all of which are pre-AI. Nikon is no longer offering the conversion, so no, my lenses won't work with the newer camerals --even if I wanted to deal with all their fussy, fiddly little knobs, levers, buttons and plethora of functions I find completely unnecessary. The fact is that if I want to shoot with my F2, I can still find pre-AI and AI lenses that are great values at today's prices. The F2 still works as beautifully as the day it was new.

I just find it annoying when you automatically label others as snapshooters because of your inability to get it work.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 45
11/14/07 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
As a former competitive marksman, I can say that heavier pistols definitively reduce low amplitude vibrations. My target .22 has a set of counterweights (several pounds' worth) for that purpose -- they are called Olympic weights commonly as the Olympic marksmen adopted them.

This does translate to photography as I can trust a handheld shot at 1/15sec, and have a decent shot of a clear 1/10sec shot.


i used to do competetive archery so i know about counter weights. with regards to the top plate either being a zink or brass and how that effects your hand held night shot abilities the argument is absurd. in a rf there is no mirror flapping around, i do 1/4s shots with my m6 without any problems and i don't wish for a heavier camera.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 45
11/14/07 at 3:03pm
The problem with a heavier camera is also that if you are shooting all day with it, lugging it around is a pain. Ever tired to carry, say, a field camera around for 8 hours?

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 45
11/14/07 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
You mean as compared to black and white film? Or black and white components in color photographs? If the latter, I disagree, and it's probably the easiest thing to adjust in PP if you're not happy. And don't forget, if you're looking at photos on an LCD, or any uncalibrated monitor for that matter, it probably won't look the same when printed. I'm actually glad I still have a 19" CRT for post-processing purposes. I did my first batch on LCD but i'm going back to the CRT for editing. Next year I'll probably get an s-ips panel and calibrate it though. Of course, since i'm shooting raw I can always go back and fix any color problems that were induced by viewing on an LCD.

It's the look; silver halide looks completely differently than a picture taken in black and white with an image sensor.

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 45
11/14/07 at 6:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
The problem with a heavier camera is also that if you are shooting all day with it, lugging it around is a pain. Ever tired to carry, say, a field camera around for 8 hours?

Jon.
I used to carry around a Rolleiflex TLR and old metal selenium meter for street use.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 45
11/14/07 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
Ask Kodak.

For most purposes, I think film is definitely dead, but i'm really just messing with LK because I think it's still useful for artsy stuff (he's shown this himself) or medium/large format for those people that can't afford 30k Hasselbads of equivalent resolution. Then again, most don't need that sort of resolution. I could also take a 10mp slr and stitch together 4 shots taken on a special pano-head and get a similar result, but that's obviously not as versatile. All in all though, I think good digitals far outperform film now.
I'm curious, what would you consider "artsy" stuff?

Most of my photography is street photography.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 45
11/14/07 at 8:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
Autofocus isn't the same on all cameras. Some are accurate and others not so accurate. Some are slow and some are lightning quick. The D200 is a great camera but there are better autofocus systems coming out now (D300, e-3). Even so, you can always manual focus if you need to. I don't see what the big deal is.

Also, a superzoom probably wasn't the best lens to test if you're used to shooting with fast primes on film cameras. It's not going to be as fast as what you're used to. You have to compare apples to apples.

I've been photographing with 35mm SLRs since the mid '70s. SLR design reached a peak in the '70s; they've only been adding bells and whistles since. I prefer the manual technology of that era. It's far easier to work with -- nothing superfluous.

What's the big deal? Manual focus is easier for me and more reliable. I don't have to set modes or think about zones. It's failsafe. It's quiet. It doesn't require batteries. Shall I go on?

Why should I pay for a technology I don't like?


Quote:
Originally Posted by metkirk View Post
I just find it annoying when you automatically label others as snapshooters because of your inability to get it work.

You've fixated on one offhand remark. It's not that I can't get it right. It's that I prefer the control I have with manual focus. I've really never found a situation in which it's not superior. It must be a godsend for people who can't be bothered to learn to focus on their own. Run with that.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 45
11/14/07 at 9:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
Also, a superzoom probably wasn't the best lens to test if you're used to shooting with fast primes on film cameras. It's not going to be as fast as what you're used to. You have to compare apples to apples.

I'm used to using all kinds of lenses. It only made sense to test the camera with the lens I was planning to buy, don't you think?

I found the D200 rather soulless.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 45
11/14/07 at 9:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
I'm curious, what would you consider "artsy" stuff?

Most of my photography is street photography.

Of the photos i've seen from you, i'd definitely consider them artsy, but maybe that's the wrong term. Either way, they definitely benefited from whatever gear you were using.

NR, i'm not saying you have to switch. I was just saying that not all dSLR's are created equal, in any number of areas in which they can be judged. I also think it's a bit disingenous to say that they peaked in the 70s. The new dslrs are really phenomenal beasts capable of many things that film slrs are not. You may not like them, or find them too complicated, but that doesn't make it less true.

Also, if stree photography is your main thing, you'd probably chose something other than a big slr. They're not exactly discreet and they're a bit difficult to put in your pocket for when a good picture presents itself. Maybe a digicam instead. (relax, i kid)

i don't have anything against film, per se, but i don't see myself using it any time soon because i think digital does most things better and I think it's more versatile.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 45
11/14/07 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
I also think it's a bit disingenous to say that they peaked in the 70s. The new dslrs are really phenomenal beasts capable of many things that film slrs are not. You may not like them, or find them too complicated, but that doesn't make it less true.

The new designs are still based on the basic layout of the '70s SLRs. Perhaps I should go back a decade earlier to the Nikon F. The guts are now electronic and the medium has changed from film to digital, but the basic design is the same.

It's not that they're necessarily too complicated. They're just packed with lots of fussy little buttons and switches and features I don't need. I need three basic controls in a camera: shutter speed, aperture, and depth-of-field preview (in an SLR). Everything else -- and there's a whole lot else in these digital babies -- is extra, and I find that all that extra stuff detracts from my experience. Lots of amazing features, to be sure, but for now I've decided to go back to something simpler.

Don't get me wrong. I think digital is an amazing medium with a lot to recommend it. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water, just going back to basics.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 45
11/14/07 at 11:16pm
There's definitely more of a learning curve to the dSLRs, but they're not that difficult. Then again, i've really never tried the nikon so i can't comment directly on it.

I love the layout on my olympus though. I found it very intuitive. It's got iso, metering mode, af mode, right at your thumb as well as a control wheel for shutter or aperature depending on what mode you're shooting in. The buttons spare you going in to the menus, and I found that by the end of the night i was adjusting things without taking my eye from the viewfinder. It's got a 180 page manual but it's all easy enough to figure out, even for a newb (though a technical one that's capable of absorbing these things).

Maybe look at olympus next time instead of going with the Canikon herd. :P I'm very happy i've gone this route over canon or nikon (and i researched endlessly before i decided on a system). You live in the mecca of the camera world so you should go try out the new e-3 at some point (and post pics of japanese hotties to the thread in your name). I promise it won't disappoint. It burns me I can't afford it before my vacation but the practice i'm getting with my much cheaper e-330 is more benefitial than the extra features of the e-3 would be at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 45
11/15/07 at 2:06am
The thing about the Nikon is that, first of all, I've shot with Nikons for decades, and also I can get a pristine used one for nearly half the price of new. I could use my old Nikkor lenses on it, as it can be indexed for any Nikkor lens ever made. Of course, the focal length would shift (another pet peeve about digital), but I'd gain speed over the zoom and would also have manual focus. The D200 makes sense for me in terms of integrating my film and digital capabilities. I'll get it sooner or later.

I don't think the learning curve is so steep. I checked out the video tutorial on the Nikon website and found out what all the fussy little controls do. I think a week with the camera would suffice to make it second nature. For now, though, my little Leica point-and-shoot is sufficient for my digital needs, and I can literally carry it around in my pocket.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 45
11/15/07 at 12:25pm
Well, here's an M6 with 35 Summicron ASPH, which I believe is the camera and lens the OP was inquiring about.

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Leica M6 and Lens