Back to basics. I can't explain how this happened but a while ago I became pretty tired of everything digital and superpractical and TFT and DVD. I started to think about what I things (both material and immaterial) I have wished for thru the years, what came true and what that didn't.

I have always enjoyed taking pictures. Sometimes this must have been a little annoying to friends in different situations - it's not always a please to stare right into a lens... I have owned numerous 35mm cameras over the years and lately I have been longing for a Leica Digilux 2 (or a Panasonic DMC LC-1 which is the same thing). Well, I went to a shop and had a look at it, found that it for sure is a nice tool but also with several drawbacks, and that is except of the pricetag that is repelling). As I haven't seen any other digicam I would like to have I put the whole ideea aside - I'm still not ready for a digicam.

Anyway, in this certain field my old dreams (and that is since the 70ties) embrace a Leica M5. Why such a thing? I can't really tell... Maybe I was appealed by that German design of the time together with the "new" feature from Wetzlar; an inbuilt lightmeter... :) And the shutter was even more smooth than on previous models and there was a shutter speed indicator in the viewfinder...
Ok, you guess it, I have today spent all my money (supposed to be saved for important things) and bought myself a 32 year old Leica M5 together with a 50 mm Summicron lens. And as a digital gadget a new filmscanner too.

Lol, I never stop to wonder at the strange things one (at least me) do. I feel totally content with this used piece of photografic equipment, pretty scratched and ugly (=affordable) allthough perfectly functioning. And mind you, the lens is a youngster at the age of 20 years only...

Now off to a photo forum, just felt like telling you about my absence.

(Some day I will by a digicam, they just have to build one I like.)

So does it work well?

I heard that some professional photographers prefer older cameras than newer digital ones

I have to confess that I prefer new ones though ;)

I'm a former old time ham radio operator and built transmitters with vacuum tubes when I was in high school (1950's) I lost interest when solid state came about. Too dam small to solder connections and fix things.

I'd give gold to own old time radio equipment.

Same thing for photos. Leica and all the rest. I used to do all my own processing and printing, but who can afford the space to devote to a real dark room now?

Enter digital photograpy. Wonderful. No bad smells, no washing. I've been doing digital photography exclusively since 1996 and have a fantastic archive now of trips oll over the world that I can print in "35mm photo quality" any time of the day on my HP printer. Plus thanks to Vinnie, I can do a pro style DVD show with sound.

In Feb I took a trip to Antarctica and with a Lumix 12X (optical) digital camera, equivalent to a 440mm zoom in 35mm format. I could look at the photos instantly on my laptop and organize my slide show, without ever thinking of chemicals, paper and washing, drying, etc.

The old ways were good, but the new ways are better. On our Antarctic cruise we listened to seminars given by old fashioned 35mm film guys and man, you gotta ask youself about which century you are living in.

When I got home I went down to the photo shop where I bought my Lumix 12X digital and sold it back against a store credit. At the end of the summer I'm going back and buy the latest "thing". It's wonderful. But, it's like PC's the technology keeps changing and it is really a challenge to keep up to date.

All that is true. But this isn't about logic or practical thinking. I was on the look for the Digilux 2/DMC LC-1 for months. When it finally arrived (overprised and somewhat outdated) I noticed the drawbacks and my brain went into this retro state.

This is about love. My affair with Leica and rangefinders started with an old screwmount model III. Then I for quite some time had a flirt with SLR cameras like Canon EF and Canon F-1 and Olympus (still have a Olympus OM-4 Ti) but went back to rangefinders and Leica with model M4-P (A Canadian beuty). With this move to M5 I'm just upgrading and getting a inbuilt light meter device. The handcrafted all metal body is solid, you might run out of batteries (once a year or so) and it will still work, the size is about right for my hands (with or without gloves). The sound of the shutter is close to having commondream whispering about love in the night. And in the end, or front rather, there is the lens; a somewhat ugly black 50mm Summicron in good condition is optically the standard to which all other 50mm lenses are compared.

Technically superior if needed; lots of megapixels there, and a wider exposure latitude (is that the correct word? I mean it covers a greater span, from details in the highlights til details in the dark parts).

Then I will of course go digital, it's just a question about time until I'll convert. Digilux 3/LC-2 maybe? Just give me more of those pixels, less noise and I'm sure I'll line up when they reach the stores here.
I have allready said goodbye to the darkroom; I let a little shop here develop my films, then I scan them and the rest is digital. There are rumours about a digital add-on for Leica cameras to be presented either this autumn or next year. There are Epson that allready showed their digital rangefinder and with no doubt I'll find something one of theese days.

In the start as well in the end it is a question of love. Seriously - you work better with a tool you like to handle, a tool that fits your hands and yet appeals to your hart. The feeling of shifting (adjusting ?) focus is now mechanical direct coupled and silk smooth at the same time.

Ah, I think you all understand.

There is no equal to caressing something you love, animate or inanimate. :) Got it, unicorn. And I agree with you. My daughter still has my old Canon F-1. I only recently sold my beloved Olympus OM-1 that to me was the only camera I ever really admired and trusted.

There are some wonderful SLR digitals out there now. Notably the Nikon 6 MP and the Canon 8 MP. On our trip to Antarctica in Feb, one person had a 35mm Nikon SLR and a matching Nikon Digital SLR, which used the same lenses. This was a labor of love, because "she" carried all this gear into the Zodiac rubber boats and spent hours setting things up on a tripod. She had roughly the same number of pix shared between the two systems, but admitted when we were homeward bound that it was more fun to download pictures instantly to her IBM laptop than contemplate all the processing tra la la once whe got home. Enjoy!

I sold the Lumix 12X digital I bought especially for the trip yesterday for a store credit. The Lumix was a good compromise. Big and clumky and sure like my old Canon F-1, yet no chemicals. I'll be back to see them late summer to see what is new, hoping to find my "dream" camera. The domain is changing fast.

To Unicorn....a wider exposure latitude...is a proper way of describing it.

I also have a lot of Nikon equipment, as well as a good 4MP Canon G3 digital. We have used both extensively in Europe and North America. The digital stuff is quickly becoming unbelievably good, but still there are places where it will never be as good as the old equipment.
One of these days I think I will get a Nikon SLR digital, so I can use my Nikon lenses with it..

Today it nearly happened... I was _so_ close to buy a Minolta Dimage A2. Then I realized that I don't really need it. It is all this with the digitalizing that sometimes grabs me.
Finally I'll by a either a digicam or a dSLR (Minolta are on the go with a new dSLR equipped with the same nice anti shake feature as A1 and A2), but I still haven't found a camera that make me want to have it.

Maybe that new Minolta will make me convert? The Canon and Nikon models I have tried are either to heavy and clumsy and expensive, or just not good enough. The same with Nikon (the D70 not that expensive but what a poor built - no quality feeling at all). Olympus E1 is nice and I wouldn't mind one, but too expensive compared to the resulting pictures and I guess I want a E2, maybe.

Here are some thoughts, Unicorn. 2 weeks ago I bought an Olympus C-8080. 8Mp 5X optical zoom. Big camera, heavy good in the hand, but I'm now thinking I might have preferred an SLR, probably Canon. However I don't want to get back into carrying lenses. My short list was Nikon 8700, Canon Pro 1 and C-8080. Sony was just to big and weird.

I used my credit for the Lumix 12X I sold back. Frankly that 3MP camera was easier to use and more "pro" than the Olympus. The Lumix was very hard to hold in my hand, which I didn't like it. I was enamored by the 12X zoom for that one trip. ...and it was perfect for that trip equiv to a 440 zoom in 35mm terms.

I think 3MP is enough for most people, but 5-6 MP if you like to do a lot of cropping. AFter that no one will notice any differnce in prints or DVD slide shows.

The key, as you say, is how the machine feels in your hands, how the menus work. The Olympus has a really antiquated menu system they've used for years and it isn't terribly intuitive. I've owned many Olympus digitals since 1997, starting with the 0.7 mp and working up to my present model. I've always liked their product and feel comfortable with the brand (not to mention my long gone OM-1 with its 1.4f lens). None of the new digital zooms have faster than a f2 lens and that is unfortuant. Also, the smallest aperature is f8 on most. So, maybe the SLR is the way to go. Depends on if you are young and courageous enough to carry the weight. I'm near 70 and travel a great deal. I just can't be bothered with all the kilos hanging on my shoulders anymore. And, I insist on carrying along my 2 kiilo laptop. Maybe the new OQO will solve that weight problem. :)

On my recent trip to the Antarctic the best pictures taken by the group were on a Minolta digital zoom. :)

Keep us advised of your ideas and eventual conclusion.

I have been thinking of a Olympus 8080 too.

Shooting RAW is the way to go and then it is supported by Vuescan which is good. What that I found bad is that after a few frames in RAW the camera locks for some minute before it has done it's things.
I also had some problems with controlling the zoom - it went to fast and it was hard to make it stop at the desired focal length.
Then again it has some significant benefits when comparing it to the other 8 MP cameras out there - a good lens and also an overall good picture quality. Not bad.

As I see it the choice isn't that easy. The Minolta f eks has a lot of bells and whistles and among them the real good anti shake feature. Drawback: a poor built quality and a less than average lens. Thankfully, as that was what made me hesitate.

I'll get back here with my findings.

i finally broke down and bought me a new digital camera.

got a canon s1 IS, 3.1MP, 10x optical. I figured I wouldn't be needing to print over an 8x10 so it suits me just fine. i wanted more zoom than megapixels. i've had it for almost 3 weeks and love it. but unicorn, it only saves the pictures as jpg, but that part wasn't worth spending more money on to me.

I think 3 MP is pretty okey. Everybody have to make their own decisions. As I'm having an Epson R800 I guess 8 MP is overdue. Then I actually would like to have a Epson 4000 or at least 2100/2200... The R800 is to small.
So, I can understand the decisions about MP and zoom you made there adams. What I never would go for is an electrical zoom, I think that would drive me crazy. But your choize is still ok, spending money on "IS" can't be wrong with that type of zoom. By Minolta stops at 200mm (equiv) max focal length and the "AS" does a good job there.

(IS=image stabilized, AS=anti shake; two different methods that give roughly the same result - about 2-2.5 more stops to play with when you forgot your tripod.)

EDIT: For the jpg format only... Well, you allready understand I need RAW, otherwise I don't think it's fun enough.I understand that most people won't miss the RAW format.

I only use jpg, even with my C-8080. I sent my C-740 Olympus 3 MP 10X zoom to my daughter. That is a very nice camera and I regretted parting with it. The C-8080 is heavy and much bulkier. But, I do love handling it. I would say that in the general scheme of things the C-740 produced pictures with as good quality as the C-8080. A bit less versatility.

My back up camera is a Pentax 4 MP Optio S4, very small 3X zoom. No bigger than a pack of cigarettes. I used it for a trip and it is OK, tho the lens is no where near the bigger cameras in terms if resolution, finess, or whatever the optical term is. Good for 4X6 prints but you wouldn't want to do much cropping.

After some time I have now made a color profile for the camer, the screen and the printer. I am now getting prints that look nearly as expected... I think that profiling the screen was made the greatest impact.
It is not that bad spending an evening sorting pics and discover something with photoshop.
I gave up smoking, this is day 21 without any nichotin. Life is dull but slowly getting better. Killing an hour or two together with Photoshop makes it easier sometimes.
-------end of blogging---------

unicorn, did you use some software to get everything calibrated the same or how did you do it?

my cousin who is a photophile, says that the Lecia is the most difficult camera ever to use. Though he took some amazing pictures with it. Sorry I don't have any shots. :(

adams:

Calibration... a pretty complicated and boring procedure. And it costs money too. Ouch.
I have made color profiles for my scanner, camera, printer and monitors. Tedious. If you don't scan anything and if you can live without a special profile for your camera things are a little easier, but the two most important items to get profiled are still there - the printer(s) and the monitor(s) somehow must get profiled (=calibrated).
For my scanner and printer I use the software Profile Prism from ddisoftware. There are several to choose from but I bought Profile Prism as I had the necessary equipment (a flatbed scanner) to make the profiles. There are no other hardware needed. Another reason for choosing Profile Prism is that the same company makes the strange but indeed very well working software Qimage.
The monitor(s) is/are more tricky. Software only methods are not gonna make it for you. Using Adobe Gamma and similar methods is better than not doing anything. However - you will not get consistent results from time to time and any try to make two different monitors show the samw colors will fail. I finally had to buy a Spyder from Pantone/Colorvision. The same Spyder (a hardware measure tool you connect to the USB port) is used for their two different softwares PhotoCal and Optical. Optical is around $220 (PhotoCal is $150 only) but needed if you want the ability to match two monitors more exact to eachother (plus a lot of other features).
Expensive and not very sexy. But - I now suddenly get consistent colors from my printer. I also see colors in another way now and it took like half a second to see that the new AcDsee 7 needed some settings changed when I tried it the other day here...

Many will not need to calibrate their stuff. And that's good, there are more fun things to do with $250... If you just use a "simple" digicam producing so so jpegs and print them on your old cheap inkjet printer that came bundled with the box for example. Or in a single user system were you learn to adjust the colors to something acceptable and think that just a few prints are just a little out of line (colorwise) - maybe you can skip it.

If you think the colors change in a way you can predict. If you in vain try to get rid of color casts in pictures. If you want to be able to predict the result and if you want to be able to use Proof colors to see what the pics gonna look like... Well - then you have to start calibrate the monitor and printer setup.

hth,

Nah, the Leica isn't complicated. You focus very fast and accurate. Then there is the shutter and the aperture to set. Mostly the same settings as a few minutes ago when you measured the light (always be prepared).
If you don't like to do it manual it's complicated. One has to find a way to work with it.
I miss my Leica a little now. The 35mm lens was so... so good! Absolutely flat, great bokeh and sharp from corner to corner. Theese prosumer digicams aren't close.

regards,



Leica M5, Summicron 35mm
The picture above shot just for the fun of it, the colors were cool with a pretty strange weather on it's way.

100%.. I was told that even the 8MP camera can't match a camera like that. Its also about the ccd not being any bigger and the image being worse on anything above 5MP, but I don't have a digi yet (always in the market).

That is a wonderful primer on calibration, unicorn. Gonna give it a think. Thanks.

The more I work with my freshly calibrated screens/monitors the more content I get - I should have done this long ago. When working with subtle details it is so nice to get prints looking like the pictures on the screen. For example this picture here:

Minolta Dimage A2, September 2004

Above it is in a small version in color. It is a strange motif - at first glance it can be hard to say what it is (or why?!). I wanted to show it in black and white instead, so I converted it. The purpose of this was to give an impression of a picture shoot like 20 or 30 years ago. It seemed a little boring or dull, became better when I adjusted the curves/levels and finally after turning it into a Duotone and sharpening it to get the combo of sharpness and grain it was another thing. The subtle differences from B&W to Duotone and trying different tones would have been hard to do without having the monitor calibrated. Now I could do it without to much of a guesswork; the first print was spot on. I'm not always that lucky, it still happens that I have to print a picture twice to get it right but it's much better now.

Here are links to the pictures for the interested (warning: 2 meg each), first
() and then (). I have no idea about how the B&W version look at your place unless you have calibrated your screen...

hmm, my monitor must be pretty much on que cause your B&W looks pretty good here. i haven't done anything with it, just out of the box and onto the desk.

i'll try it at work with my two monitors there that i've been trying to calibrate some what.

It is supposed to be pretty good... :)

Really, if you open the BW version in Photoshop (or similar software) you can use the Eyedropper Tool to check the color at different places. Then you can see that the three channels (RGB) aren't exactly the same - this is not a B&W picture, it is a Duotone converted to rgb and saved as jpeg... Then go to picture mode and convert to greyscale to get a true B&W picture and see the difference (Ctrl+Z a few times). When choosing the color and adjusting it for the Duotone a calibrated monitor is handy.

You (me, I forget sometimes...) must of course choose the correct working color spaces and also check that the monitor shows the proof color output.

Autumn is here. As this thread slowly develops into a picture gallery I have to throw in some autumn leaves (obligatoire). Here (picture 1):


Minolta Dimage A2, September 2004

...and here (pic 2 of 2):


Minolta Dimage A2, September 2004