35 mm photography [OT?]

In article om,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Feb 15, 11:52 am, Harry Lockwood wrote:

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?)


First off, the eyepeice magnifier should have no effect on image
quality except to improve it through more accurate focusing.

More accurate focusing is a given, but I was concerned about loss of VF
image quality. Probably not a problem.


My question to you is why would you blow $3500 for a M7 body and
another $280 for an eyepiece magnifier when you could get a MUCH
better body like the Fabulous EOS-1V (with its 100% viewfinder) for
about half the price of the M7?

This is a matter choice; I won't argue with yours. Besides, I have a
Fabulous Nikon for when I need an SLR.


I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Damn, how did you know I had a 64 Volvo?! But, it gave way to a modern
BMW.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 15, 11:52 am, Harry Lockwood wrote:

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?)


First off, the eyepeice magnifier should have no effect on image
quality except to improve it through more accurate focusing.

My question to you is why would you blow $3500 for a M7 body and
another $280 for an eyepiece magnifier when you could get a MUCH
better body like the Fabulous EOS-1V (with its 100% viewfinder) for
about half the price of the M7?

I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.


Errrrrr.....The 1964 Volvo was a honey of a car, and when properly restored,
is probably worth as much as a new Lexus.......

Truth be told, I poured thousands into restoring my 64 Volvo. Then I
got weary and donated it to charity.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

In article ,
Drew Saunders wrote:

In article ,
Harry Lockwood wrote:

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?) Is there any down side to
adding the magnifier? What about the frame lines in the VF? Also, how
does wearing eyeglasses, full time, influence the choice, if at all?

I have an M6TTL 0.58 and the 1.25x. I'm left-eye dominant and wear
glasses, and the two combine to make the 35mm frame lines unusable for
me with a 0.72 viewfinder (I had a regular M6 before), so the 0.58 is
best for me. I do, however, like to use a 90mm lens, and, while it works
OK without the magnifier, adding it does make a difference, especially
for critical focus. With the magnifier the 35mm frame lines aren't
usable. Without, I can just barely see the 28mm frame lines (I don't use
that FL, so it isn't a problem for me).

I even have a 135/2.8 which works surprisingly well with the magnifier
(it uses the 90mm frame lines). It's a bit clunky to set up, but it
works, and I get accurate focusing out of that combo. I don't use it
much, but, being an oddball Canadian lens, the 135/2.8 is surprisingly
cheap for any Leica lens.

Glasses do get in the way, so it's well worth the bother to try to get
your hands on a .58 and a .72 if you can. I don't think the .85 would
work for anyone with glasses who wanted to see the 35mm frame lines.

Drew

Thanks, Drew. I'm covered at the .58 end with my Konica (.6). And
besides, what would Annika say if I were to consider 2 Leicas instead of
the Fabulous EOS!

I'll be visiting my local Leica dealer soon to get hands-on experience
to flesh out some of these issues.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Harry Lockwood wrote:

I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Damn, how did you know I had a 64 Volvo?! But, it gave way to a modern
BMW.

Don't all Leica owners drive '64 Volvos?

Probably a good decision to modernize. Get the 1V.

Annika1980 wrote:

On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Harry Lockwood wrote:

I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Damn, how did you know I had a 64 Volvo?! But, it gave way to a modern
BMW.

Don't all Leica owners drive '64 Volvos?

Probably a good decision to modernize. Get the 1V.


I'd recommend a Yashica Electro 35 - cheep but very cheerful if you don't
want interchangable lenses.
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 16, 1:04 am, "William Graham" wrote:
I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Errrrrr.....The 1964 Volvo was a honey of a car, and when properly
restored,
is probably worth as much as a new Lexus

You make my point for me. The restored Volvo may fetch more on the
market just as the Leica is twice the price of a Fabulous EOS-1V. But
the Volvo isn't anywhere near the car rhat the Lexus is. Similarly,
the M7 can't hang with the Fabulous EOS-1V.

Yes. - With cameras, you are only interested in functionality. But with
cars, looks are important. Having just gotten back from the new car show in
Portland, I can tell you that they are the ugliest bunch of inverted square
bathtubs that I have ever seen......I don't know why the automakers can't
make a modern car that's as pretty as the cars from the 40's and 50's were.
Even the cheap ones like the MG "A", or "TC" were beautiful compared to the
crap they are pushing on the public today.....

In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Harry Lockwood wrote:

I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Damn, how did you know I had a 64 Volvo?! But, it gave way to a modern
BMW.

Don't all Leica owners drive '64 Volvos?

Probably a good decision to modernize. Get the 1V.

Modernize, schmodernize! That '64 Volvo was a dream car - until it
started falling apart, something that's not likely to happen with the
Leica. More likely I'll fall apart long before it does. ;-(

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

On Feb 17, 8:33 am, Harry Lockwood wrote:
In article .com,

"Annika1980" wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:08 pm, Harry Lockwood wrote:

I suppose you must have a tidy sum already tied up in Leica glass.
Otherwise, it is a bit like choosing a 1964 Volvo over a modern Lexus.

Damn, how did you know I had a 64 Volvo?! But, it gave way to a modern
BMW.

Don't all Leica owners drive '64 Volvos?

Probably a good decision to modernize. Get the 1V.

Modernize, schmodernize! That '64 Volvo was a dream car ..


I'm sure it was .... in 1964.

Do you develop you B/W films youself and also make the prints
in the darkroom?

It is possible to make good looking B/W prints from digital color.
Special converting tools from color to B/W is available in Photoshop
and some home printers today can print using only the black and
gray inks. It can look very good. Then you wont get wet fingers
either :-) .....so maybe the M8 or D200 or maybe 400D?

Max


"Harry Lockwood" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I've been away from this newsgroup for more than 2 years helping a
startup company get off the ground. That's behind me now, and I'm
firing up my quadtone printer anew and starting over with PS 9.02. So
much to relearn!

A change I've observed is that this NG seems to be very much about
personal attacks and little about 35 mm photography. Back in the day,
there was indeed some ad hominem stuff, but the emphasis was on
"rec.photo.equipment.35mm." The language in many of the current posts
is not simply "colorful"; it's absolutely juvenile, indicating, to me at
least, a very limited vocabulary. Even some familiar names, clearly
adults, seem to have fallen into this mode. Must be the new zeitgeist.

So, at the risk of being off topic I'd like to discuss things 35 mm
(film). Again, back in the day, I got tired of waiting for the
long-rumored Leica M7 and bought a Konica RF which (you may have
forgotten) is a Leica look-alike and has proven to be a fine camera. I
don't regret the purchase. But I'm now thinking about the M7 again. In
particular, the VF magnification of the Konica is rather low (0.6)
making accurate focussing with a longer lens (~ 75 mm or 90 mm)
somewhat risky. (My standard lens on the Konica has been the 35-mm
Summicron.)

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?) Is there any down side to
adding the magnifier? What about the frame lines in the VF? Also, how
does wearing eyeglasses, full time, influence the choice, if at all?

BTW, I'm not open to suggestions to buy an M8. At this time I'm not
interested in digital or color. B&W film is where I am. And it's not
because I'm a neanderthal or "arsty-fartsy" (to paraphrase a recent
thread); I just don't know how effectively to add color to the kind of
photography I like to do. Maybe I'll eventually get over this "hurdle"
but not for the present.

Appreciate your comments.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

In article ,
"Max Perl" wrote:

Do you develop you B/W films youself and also make the prints
in the darkroom?

It is possible to make good looking B/W prints from digital color.
Special converting tools from color to B/W is available in Photoshop
and some home printers today can print using only the black and
gray inks. It can look very good. Then you wont get wet fingers
either :-) .....so maybe the M8 or D200 or maybe 400D?

Max


"Harry Lockwood" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I've been away from this newsgroup for more than 2 years helping a
startup company get off the ground. That's behind me now, and I'm
firing up my quadtone printer anew and starting over with PS 9.02. So
much to relearn!

A change I've observed is that this NG seems to be very much about
personal attacks and little about 35 mm photography. Back in the day,
there was indeed some ad hominem stuff, but the emphasis was on
"rec.photo.equipment.35mm." The language in many of the current posts
is not simply "colorful"; it's absolutely juvenile, indicating, to me at
least, a very limited vocabulary. Even some familiar names, clearly
adults, seem to have fallen into this mode. Must be the new zeitgeist.

So, at the risk of being off topic I'd like to discuss things 35 mm
(film). Again, back in the day, I got tired of waiting for the
long-rumored Leica M7 and bought a Konica RF which (you may have
forgotten) is a Leica look-alike and has proven to be a fine camera. I
don't regret the purchase. But I'm now thinking about the M7 again. In
particular, the VF magnification of the Konica is rather low (0.6)
making accurate focussing with a longer lens (~ 75 mm or 90 mm)
somewhat risky. (My standard lens on the Konica has been the 35-mm
Summicron.)

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?) Is there any down side to
adding the magnifier? What about the frame lines in the VF? Also, how
does wearing eyeglasses, full time, influence the choice, if at all?

BTW, I'm not open to suggestions to buy an M8. At this time I'm not
interested in digital or color. B&W film is where I am. And it's not
because I'm a neanderthal or "arsty-fartsy" (to paraphrase a recent
thread); I just don't know how effectively to add color to the kind of
photography I like to do. Maybe I'll eventually get over this "hurdle"
but not for the present.

Appreciate your comments.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

Max,

Yes, I develop my own B&W films, but I no longer do wet printing. Gave
away the enlarger, trays, etc. to a young guy who was just starting out
in photography and was doing B&W in school.

My workflow is to develop (D 76) the film (after loading the tank in a
changing bag) then scan with a Nikon 4000ED as a plugin to Photoshop
(now 9.02).
I print, using quadtone inks from MIS, on rag, "carbon on cotton" in an
oldie-but-goodie Epson 1160. Eventually, I'll probably go to a hextone
printer for more shades of gray.
Indeed, I have converted color images to B&W in Photoshop and gotten
some pretty good results, but I prefer B&W film. I usually use TMax 400
or 100, but I've used others as well.
If I buy a digital camera it will probably be a pocketable compact for
snap shots.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address