New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 158

post #2356 of 2699

M4-2 - who needs a meter. 

 

(also, I'm selling one on the bay. ;)

 

 

 

As far as the CLA goes - there are surely people in signapore, hong kong, japan, etc. who are more than capable. I don't mind the bit of a break, speaking as a professional, I'm used to sending out every camera i have regularly (staggered) for cleaning, alignments, etc. The Leica is just one more. So for me, your comment makes me think "what! you're not already sending them out?" :)

 

But as leftnose has mentioned, I know several photographers who have never sent their leica's out, and have never had to futz with the alignment - and shoot just fine. (Pretty much, if you don't drop it, the alignment doesn't need to be checked - and yes, it is pretty easy, as I recall even from my first trys at it). 

 

Ultimately, a non-issue. 

 

I can certainly understand looking for reasons to not spend the dosh. 

 

-

 

Re- cornerfix on the Nex7, my CV 21mm exhibits pretty bad color shift, but it's an easy fix even without 3rd party (I just use a photoshop mask, I made myself). Pretty straightforward. I only bother with it on selects, I would never try to fix every picture - only winners. No color shift problems with any RF lens I've tried longer than 28mm though. 

 

FF - they would just need to design the optics to sit a little higher and throw a little straighter (sort of a self imposed retrofocus design) that would avoid most of those issues without much bulk (I suspect that's to blame for the length of the Zeiss 24/1.8) - and also shows why it's a non-issue if you are using adapted SLR lenses, I just don't like the size of them (even the little Oly and Canon FD mount ones) - still huge by RF standards.


Edited by liamstrain - 12/4/12 at 7:24pm
post #2357 of 2699

I was under the impression that any sort of non-superficial service/repair would have to go back to Solms... I guess I'll be doing further research into this.

 

A local store here has a used M6 TTL for the price of a 35L. I could afford one right now and be without lens until I afford a Summicron or go with a cheap Voigtlander, lol. But no, without that right amount of disposable income monthly, I cannot justify it.

post #2358 of 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

I don't know where you are in MY but I would be very surprised if there weren't a Leica repair center in Singapore.

When I say that it's a non-issue, I speak from my experience with three Leica bodies dating from the 50s-70s that were originally owned by my dad before I usurped them.  They've never needed adjustment.  Now, that doesn't mean there's no problem but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Look for a good late model M6.  Not a whole lot different than the MP and a bunch cheaper.

EDIT: Actually, the M6 might be preferable to the MP as the M6 has the M4 version rewind knob.  The MP uses the M3/M2 knob that's a complete pain to use, even if it looks nicer.
You can order your MP with the M6 rewind knob.
post #2359 of 2699
Quote:
I was under the impression that any sort of non-superficial service/repair would have to go back to Solms... I guess I'll be doing further research into this.

 

 

I'd probably send a brand spanking Digital M to Solms (or a verified Leica Technician/Service bureau - of which there are many, including in Singapore). But most of the other work isn't really rocket science. The rangefinder mechanism hasn't changed much in 60 years. 

post #2360 of 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

M4-2 - who needs a meter. 

 

(also, I'm selling one on the bay. ;)

 

 

 

I think I've mentioned the three Leica bodies that I own are the M2, a Wetzlar first series M4, and an M5.  When I shoot one, it's almost always the M4.  If I'm taking the time to shoot an MF rangefinder, I don't mind the extra effort in using a light meter and it's a more "complete" experience.  I prefer the M4 to the M2 because of its better rewind crank and it's easier to load.  The M5, though the light meter really works pretty well, is a bit of a bastardization of the Leica experience.

 

 

Quote:
As far as the CLA goes - there are surely people in signapore, hong kong, japan, etc. who are more than capable. I don't mind the bit of a break, speaking as a professional, I'm used to sending out every camera i have regularly (staggered) for cleaning, alignments, etc. The Leica is just one more. So for me, your comment makes me think "what! you're not already sending them out?" :)

 

Well, you know, it's always been my feeling that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  But, on the other hand, I'm not a pro so I don't depend on my gear to put food on the table.

post #2361 of 2699
Quote:

I don't mind the extra effort in using a light meter and it's a more "complete" experience.

 

 

Or at this point, sunny 16 and experience, I can usually get within a stop by "guesstimate" - I might take a baseline meter reading if the lighting seems odd, then adjust by feel as needed. I'd say 90% of the time, I don't bother with the meter. 

post #2362 of 2699

Hi again guys, I hope I'm not contaminating this Canon thread with more Leica talk... but just wanted to bounce this off you.

 

Just a fleeting idea right now, I'm not particularly serious about it yet, but I calculated I might be able to get away will selling off all my Canon gear *except* the 5D3 and the 85L, and then spring for an M9-P with Zeiss Biogon 35/2.

 

Your thoughts?

post #2363 of 2699

Not sure I think that's a wise move.  From what I've seen of your photography, a lot of it seems studio based or working outdoors with off camera flash or low light.  For two of those three, a Leica is a poor choice but they are truly magical for low light work.  Have you spent a decent amount of time with a Leica?  If not, try to beg/borrow/steal one for a while to see if you could live with one as your sole body.  I personally could not, even a digital version.  While I'm not a pro, just an amateur who has spent too much money on gear and can occasionally luck into a good shot, I end up taking enough different kinds of photos that I need the versatility of a DSLR.  This summer I spent a lot of time on macro photos but I also had to shoot some events with some action involved and then a medal ceremony for a world championship that was outdoors at night and now I'm setting up a table top studio.  I couldn't do all these things with a rangefinder.  In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing any of these things with a rangefinder and that was my last ~7500 photos.

 

And, while I understand the motive, you could upset a Leica purist or two if you skimp out on the lens.  What makes a Leica so magic is the glass.  As I've said before, I would be OK with only having one lens and I would want it to be a 35 but I just don't know about "skimping" on glass to get into a system.  I don't know the used market in MY but around here a used Canadian 35mm Summicron tops out at $1500.  Even though those same purists would give you flack for having a Canadian lens, that would be my choice instead of a Zeiss.

 

But, I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to go to the store and buy some film or maybe thaw out some FP4+ and load up the M4 this weekend.

post #2364 of 2699

 

 

Quote:
Not sure I think that's a wise move.  From what I've seen of your photography, a lot of it seems studio based or working outdoors with off camera flash or low light.  For two of those three, a Leica is a poor choice but they are truly magical for low light work.  Have you spent a decent amount of time with a Leica?  If not, try to beg/borrow/steal one for a while to see if you could live with one as your sole body.  I personally could not, even a digital version.  While I'm not a pro, just an amateur who has spent too much money on gear and can occasionally luck into a good shot, I end up taking enough different kinds of photos that I need the versatility of a DSLR.  This summer I spent a lot of time on macro photos but I also had to shoot some events with some action involved and then a medal ceremony for a world championship that was outdoors at night and now I'm setting up a table top studio.  I couldn't do all these things with a rangefinder.  In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing any of these things with a rangefinder and that was my last ~7500 photos.

 

 

 

I agree entirely. I love my Leicas, but I do not do much professional work with them. I would only be comfortable with it as a sole camera if I really liked documentary/street work, and never wanted to shoot anything else.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
And, while I understand the motive, you could upset a Leica purist or two if you skimp out on the lens.  What makes a Leica so magic is the glass.  As I've said before, I would be OK with only having one lens and I would want it to be a 35 but I just don't know about "skimping" on glass to get into a system.  I don't know the used market in MY but around here a used Canadian 35mm Summicron tops out at $1500.  Even though those same purists would give you flack for having a Canadian lens, that would be my choice instead of a Zeiss.

 

 

I disagree here. Leitz glass is good, but there is no magic fairy dust here. I have and used Rangefinder lenses from Canon (1950s), Zeiss (1940s), Cosina/Voightlander (2000s), Zeiss (2000s), Leica (1960s, 70s, 90s, 2000s) - they all paint differently and all have their strengths. The newer Zeiss lenses are better than just about anything out there, including the Leica lenses until you hit the newest asph summicrons and lux's. And those are very incremental improvements in IQ for the extra money you are paying. For what it's worth, my favorite lens is the Canon 35/1.8 LTM lens from the mid 60s. With an M-adapter, it ran me about $300. I'd put the images it can create up against anything ever made for 35mm film or digital.

 

Shoot more, worry less. All modern RF lenses in the 35-50mm range are capable of out-resolving film or small format digital sensors (especially at print sizes). Pick one in your budget and shoot with it for a while before worrying if you need to "upgrade."

 

 

 

Quote:
But, I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to go to the store and buy some film or maybe thaw out some FP4+ and load up the M4 this weekend.

 

 

Sounds like heaven. I've got a brick of TriX and the last of my APX 25 calling my name. 


Edited by liamstrain - 12/6/12 at 8:10am
post #2365 of 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

 I would only be comfortable with it as a sole camera if I really liked documentary/street work, and never wanted to shoot anything else.

 

 

The less time there is to take a photo and the less control there is over the scene, the better a Leica becomes.  If ones start to obsess over composition or lighting, one is better off with an (D)SLR.

 

I'd add non-landscape travel to the two genres above but if you were to claim that travel is a subset of documentary, I wouldn't really argue.

post #2366 of 2699

Yes. Travel would fit there. I've often only taken a Leica and 1 or 2 lenses (35, 35/50 or at most 21/35/50) on extended trips. 

post #2367 of 2699

You guys are right, it was just an impulsive, fleeting thought anyway. I always thought that I would never be able to afford a Leica, but with the recent price drops due to the upcoming M-240, it seemed like I had an opportunity so I just did the math to see what I could get away with. But it is also a non-trivial amount of cost (both monetary and paradigm), when the cheaper solution (at least in my case) is to just learn to develop a thicker skin when I pull out my DSLR.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

Yes. Travel would fit there. I've often only taken a Leica and 1 or 2 lenses (35, 35/50 or at most 21/35/50) on extended trips. 

Funny how I was also thinking, if I switched to Leica 21/35/50 would be my end goal. Anything over 50 and I'll reach for my DSLR instead.

post #2368 of 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

Funny how I was also thinking, if I switched to Leica 21/35/50 would be my end goal. Anything over 50 and I'll reach for my DSLR instead.

 

A 35 'Cron is pretty much glued to my M4 but I also have access to 90 and 135 Elmarits.  Funny how my most used Canon primes are the 35L, 85/1.8 and 135L.  Things get a bit tricky with the rangefinder and the 135 but I think anything wider than 28 on a Leica, depending on the viewfinder magnification of the body, requires an external viewfinder.  I've said it a few times but I am a 35mm whore but I really think that's the sweet spot on an M and I think if I were to travel with a Leica, it would be with the 35 and 90.

 

On a slightly related note, I'm in the middle of a discussion on another board about vintage gear.  I snapped this tonight with my phone:

 

(the 5D2 does have the grip installed)

 

Not that it's a quality photo or anything but really shows why the M is a great travel system.


Edited by leftnose - 12/6/12 at 7:06pm
post #2369 of 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

Very nice, I love the look of vintage gear over modern functionality. I miss my Fuji X100 that I sold previously to help finance the 5D3. When I go back to my hometown next year, I need to go dig out the old AE-1 and shoot some film again.

post #2370 of 2699

It has *not* been a good weekend for me.

 

I discovered what is very likely fungus infection in my 70-200/2.8 L IS, on at least 2 glass elements deep inside the lens. Tiny little dots across the glass that at first glance looks like dust or oil droplets, but the way they are distributed and spread out is too organic to be dust or oil. I have no idea when or how it happened either, that lens sits in my dry box most of the time except when I take it out to shoot, and then it promptly goes back into the dry box at the end of the day.

 

Currently I have the lens bagged in an airtight ziplock bag with some silica gel to keep it quarantined, but I haven't decided what to do with it yet. It is out of warranty so a trip to Canon is going to be expensive. :-(

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home