Voigtlander Color Skopar 21/4

The Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm f/4 is an excellent quality super wide angle lens at an affordable price. While older lenses with focal lengths 35mm and longer can be of excellent quality, older super wide angle lenses aren't as good in quality and have high prices due to collector value. This leaves us with three brands: Leica, Carl Zeiss, and Voigtlander.

The least expensive super wide Leica lens (new) is the the 24/3.8 Elmar which retails for $2395. The Voigtlander retails for about $400. Zeiss finds middle ground for about $1,000.

The first decision I really had to make was, which focal length? Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica also makes a 12mm, 15mm, and 25mm lenses. After doing some research, most users reported that the 15mm lens is more of a specialty lens. After buying and using the 21mm, I can't say I ever thought, "Oh, I wish my lens was wider." In Europe, it stayed on my camera almost all the time. Once in a while, I wondered if it was too wide as a general walkaround lens. Overall, it's a good comprimise.

While the maximum aperture is only f/4, the lens is quite small. It's hard not to bring the lens along.

Overall, it's a high quality lens and offers great value for the price. There is minimal vignetting at the corners and there is no noticeable distortion - straight lines appear to be straight. There is always some optical distortion with wide angle lenses.

Old Cameras on eBay: Questions for Buyers and Sellers

Buyers can avoid buying junk if they ask the right questions. Sellers can bidding by providing information. Sometimes people sell broken junk claiming "they don't know much about cameras." Other times, people have nice stuff that is poorly described, so bidding remains low as people are skeptical about whether it is junk.

Seller need to present a want to do is try to present some decent indication of the gear's condition. Most people want to buy something and use it, not bother with trying to fix it. If you don't say anything, people will price the risk of gear being in very poor condition into the final sales price.

So here are questions that buyers can ask and seller should address.

For lenses:

• Move the aperature and focus ring. Do they move freely and smoothly?
  
• Open the aperture and hold it up to an LED light. Can you see clearly through it? Does it look hazy or have any spider-like growth. Are there bubbles in the glass? Generally haze can be cleaned by a pro, but spider-like growth (fungus) or bubbles (seperation) are can permently effect the photos and the lens.
  
• Are the scratches? Minor scratches which generally come from cleaning are common and do not really effect picture quality.

For the camera:

• Wind and Release the shutter. (Your camera will require two small strokes of the winder lever). Did it go smoothly? Repeat at different shutter speeds. Try to time the opening of the shutter curtain at one second and a half second. Are they accurate?
  
• Look through the viewfinder? Is it clear?
  
• Attached a lens. Change the focus on the lens while looking through the viewfinder. A second image should move. How distinct is the second image? Try it indoors
  
• Look at the shutter curtain. Does it appear to be wrinkled or have any tiny holes?

Epson V500 Review

The Epson V500 is a great scanner for the ordinary home user. I bought it to scan in many older slides and negatives. I’ve already recuperated the value over what it would cost me to take it to a shop. It also can scan medium format negatives.

Easy of Use:
The scanner is very easy to set up and use. I’ve spent most of my time in Home Mode which gives you some basic options on what you are scanning, the resolution, brightness, color correction, ICE, etc. 4800 dpi is huge: it will create a file that is 4800 x 7200 pixels, which is over 34 MP. I scanned most of the scans at 1200 dpi, which produced about a 2MP file on 35mm negative.
When you are scanning 35mm negatives or slides, if you press “thumbnail” option, the scanner will detect and segment all the photos into different files after you run the preview scan. You also can rotate photos in the preview, so you don’t need to do any post processing. The segmentation and rotations only work for 35mm, not medium format.
In home mode, ICE, color correction, brightness, contrast, and backlight correction are all possible adjustments before you even scan, after you scan the preview. This is a good option to have, depending on your negative.

Scan times:
Scanning is very quick at 300 dpi, which is a screen quality size. Scan times do go up from there. Most scans at 1200 dpi seemed to take about 1-2 minutes. 4800 DPI takes about 5 minutes.

Digital ICE:
Adding “Digital ICE” option will remove dust from your negatives, but it will add significant scan time. A negative with too much damage will actually look worse with ICE. It also sometimes doesn't work well with older black and white negatives. A 1200 DPI scan of a 35mm negative with ICE takes about 10 minutes.

Kodachrome
Kodachrome has a reputation of scanning poorly, and the scanner’s performance on KR was important to me. The good news is that it works very well. While some say ICE doesn't work well with KR, I've successfully scan KR with ICE.

Extras:
The scanner came with Adobe Elements 6. I literally can’t tell the difference between Elements 6 and the current offering, Elements 7. Elements has all the tools a home user will need: color correction, brightness & contrast corrections, fixing spot marks.

The Downside:
As other people have mentioned, the negative trays are a little flimsy, but as long as you are careful, they’ll be okay.
If you are scanning medium format, there isn’t a thumbnail preview. You have to do it one at a time, and may have to rotate the photo after scanning.
Scan times, including the time switch out the negatives or slides, can be higher, but I think to increase scanning times, with autofeeders, you will be spending 5 times as much. Normally I am doing something else while scanning, so it’s
If you unplug the scanner from the computer after using it and you plug it back in, the computer may not recognize the scanner. If you restart your computer and scanner, it will fix the problem.

Is Lomo, loco?

I have a hard time understanding the interest in Holga, Diana, and the other Lomo products. They have a fixed focal length, fixed aperture, a plastic lens, and one or maybe two shutter speeds. To me, that is a reloadable disposable camera. Otherwise, the main difference is just the price tag.

Why do people shell out $50-$100 on the Lomo? The margin on these cameras has to be tremendous. For that money, I could get a lot nicer used camera. I'm thinking a fixed lens 35mm rangefinder like a Olympus SP35 a Canonet QL17, or vintage TLR if you want medium format, a Ricoh TLR.

Lomo markets the poor quality as an advantage. From the manufacturer's product description: "Beloved Holga effects: soft focus, double-exposures, streaming colors, intense vignetting and unpredictable light leaks." These are bad things!!!!!

• "Soft focus" is a cute phrase meaning pictures are a little blurry.


• "Intense vignetting" - the low quality plastic lens makes the edges of the photo much darker than the center. Perhaps nice in some portraits, but not as a general purpose.


• "Unpredicitable light leaks" - the camera is so poorly constructed that that light hits the film through the camera back. It makes a white streak across your picture.

Is it purely marketing that tell people they will be "hip and different" if they own one?

My Kodachrome has been taken away.

In 1973, Paul Simon pleaded not to take his Kodachrome away. Today, 36 years later, Kodak finally did.

Kodak: Today, Eastman Kodak Corporation has officially announced the retirement of Kodachrome 64, the last remaining variation of legendary Kodachrome Color Film. This includes both consumer 135 KR-64-36 and professional 135 PKR-64-36 versions. However, Kodak and the only remaining lab in the world that develops Kodachrome have contracted to honor customer's requests for Kodachrome processing until at least 12/31/2010. In addition to this support, Kodak has stated that in current production and supply, Kodachrome film should be available until early Fall of this year with distribution that is considerate to all who would want to use it.
This presents the public with a unique opportunity to still experience the film first hand before it is too late, with it’'s 75th anniversary being well within reach of Kodachrome fans next year.

“"Kodachrome Film is an iconic product and a testament to Kodak’'s long and continuing leadership in imaging technology",” said Mary Jane Hellyar, President of Kodak’'s Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group. "It was certainly a difficult decision to retire it, given it's rich history. However, the majority of today's photographers have voiced their preference to capture images with newer technology,– both film and digital. Kodak remains committed to providing the highest-performing products –both film and digital –to meet those needs.”"

Kodachrome 64:

Travel Telephoto Lenses in Leica Thread Mount

You need a lightweight short telephoto lens for travelling. What to get? That was my question. I considered three choices: Komura 105mm f/3.5, Canon 100mm f/3.5, and the Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4. I also did some minor comparison to two heavier and larger alternates, the Nikkor 85mm f/2 and the Nikkor 135 f/3.5.



From Left to Right:
-Nikkor 135/3.5
-Komura 105/3.5
-Canon 100/3.5 (Version 3 according to Canon Camera Museum site)
-Leica Elmar 90/4
-Canon 100/3.5 (Version 2 according to Canon Camera Museum site)
-Nikkor 85/2

Preconceptions and Overall Impression:

Coming into the study, I was under the impression that the Canon would best of the three. I haven't been impressed by the Elmar, so I wasn't expecting much. While I wasn't sure about the Komura, it's lower price signaled that it may not be as good.

I was surprised by the performance quality of the Komura. I find the performance to be almost indistinguishable from the Canon 100/3.5. I was also surprised how all the lenses seemed to perform equally well at mid-aperature at infiniti.

Film & Scanning: Film used was Ektar 100 and scanned on a Epson V500. Sometimes I need to tweak the colors after scanning negative film. I didn't bother to do that. There was no color difference when


Sharpness at Infiniti, mid aperture

I found little difference here. All lenses performed equally well. PLEASE NOTE: Color difference are only the results of uncorrected scanning. Prints were indentically normal colors.


Komura 105mm f3.5:


Komura, deep scan of center:


Canon 100mm f/3.5:


Canon, deep scan of center:



Elmar 90mm f/4: (please ignore the dust)


Elmar, deep scan of center:



Performance at closer distance, mid aperature

Coming Soon.

Performance at wider aperatures

Coming Soon.

Size and Weight

The Elmar (200 g) and the Canon, version 2 (182 g) are roughly the same size and ight, although the Canon is 10mm longer and 1/3 stop faster. The 3rd version of the Canon 100/3.5 is slightly heavier (224 g). The Komura is noticeably larger (about 30%) but it isn't much heavier. I don't have a scale but I'd guess about 260 g, whereas the Nikkor 135/3.5 is 510g.


Price:
A postwar Elmar seems to go for about $90 and Canon 100/3.5 is about $170. Since the Komura is opitcally extremely close to the Canon and only larger, I think the price should be closer to that of the Canon.

Leica D-Lux 4 Review part deux

The focal length of the D-Lux-4 varies 5.1-12.8mm, which is the equivalent view of a 24-60mm on a 35mm film.


Equivalent of 24mm:


Equivalent of 60mm:


Equivalent of 240mm (beyond 60mm is digital zoom). The quality is sufficient for the amount I'd use a long focal length on digital p&s.


Separating the subject from the background is very difficult since the focal length is so short. But if you manage to, the bokeh looks rough.

Leica D-Lux 4 Review

The Leica D-Lux 4 is a formidable digital point & shoot. While I generally shoot film, having a digital p&s for one off photos and for the Mrs. I looked at many alternatives and am happy with the pick.

It leads the digital point & shoot world with a fast f/2.0 lens and wide angle lens equivalent to 24mm in the

The different control settings are a better for more advanced photographers than a lot of consumer p&s. Instead of a wheel with choices of "Nightime" and "Sports", there is Shutter Priority, Aperature Priority, Manual, and then a couple options which you can program. It is a bit more intuitive to me and I like having a bit more control. Of course, there is also full Auto.

Cons: Most of what I don't like is common amongst digital p&s.

Another advantage of the D-Lux is low light shooting. Due to it's really short ACTUAL focal length, I can take nice indoor no-flash photos at 1/10 shutter speed, f/2.0 and ISO 400. However, due to that short focal length it's nearly impossible to seperate the subject from the background since the actual focal length is so short.


The Leica vs. Panasonic debate: There is different software and a longer warranty with the Leica. So it is a bit more than a red dot, but not a tremendous amount. I also do like hte Leica finish bit more. However, the current big difference is that availablity of the Panasonic is non-existant. Sure it says $460 at B&H,which is $240 less than the Leica, but they are out of stock. Same with Adorama and every other reputable dealer that I know of. It's available over Amazon... for $699, the same price as the D-Lux4.

Full Evaluation: I'm going to look at the D-Lux along several different aspects

--ISO
--Various Focal Lengths
--Bokeh
--Video

ISO:

ISO setting give good results up to 400, and drops off significantly after that. The camera has a nice setting which will automatically limits ISO.

For the test: below photos are a crop taken wide open at about 20 feet away.

ISO 80: This is the lowest ISO setting.



ISO 400: The quality is still decent.


ISO 800: There is a noticeable dropoff of quality.



ISO 3200: The quality here is unusable. Find a tripod.

Why Film Will Last For A While

Many people envision that film will disappear completely at some point. While it is easy to see that it will dwindle for a long time, the final demise of film may not be in my lifetime.

Film is profitable. Look at Kodak's annual report. While film sales dropped, they were still the most profitable division, having a gross income of $196 million, while the digital group lost $177 MM.

The digital business model is much different that the film world. Digital cameras have a short product life and high R&D costs. A good film could last decades. Now that the capital costs for the film machinery has been long paid, the only cost for producing film is the variable cost. Thus it's profitability is higher.

Despite the advent of the 8-track tape, the cassette tape, the CD, and the MP3, vinyl is still around. It's enjoying a renessance.

The Case for Film

Nothing makes people look at you like you are crazy than having them see that you still shoot film. People cannot fathom why one might still want to use film. We all know the advantages of digital:
--You get a instant results
--There is no cost or time to develop.
--You can switch ISO settings from picture to picture.

1. Ability to upgrade film as film technology improves.The quality of film overall has improved tremedously even in the last 20 years, not to mention the last 50 or 80 years. I put modern film in a 50 year old camera and get outstanding images. Just because I'm using an older camera doesn't mean I am required to use old film. As digital technology improves, you must buy a new camera to take advantage of it.

2. Low cost choice to shoot wide angles.

Since the sensor size of a DSLR is smaller than that of 35mm film, all images are effective croped in the center. So a 24mm focal length gives a similar field of view to a 35mm and 15mm lens acts like a 22 mm focal length.
As lenses get wider they are harder to design and are often slower. So if you want a the same field of view as 35mm focal length, you need to get a more expensive and slower lens. A 35mm f/2 lens is not very expensive. To get the same field of view, you will need a 24/2, when would be expensive if not impossible to find, or a 24/4 which is substaintailly slower. Your other alternative is to get a full frame DSLR, which start at $3000 for the body alone.

To get to 35mm:
Digital = Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 + Nikkor D40 = $360 + $400 = $760
Film = Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 + Bessa R = $240 + $200 = $440

To get to 21mm:
Digital = Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 + Nikon D40 = $1630 + $500 = $2130
Digital = Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 + Nikon D700 = $560 + $2600 = $3160
Film = Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 + Bessa R2m = $1100 + $560 = $1660
Film, used = Voigtlander 21mm f/4 + Bessa L = $300 + $100 = $400 (While used and a stop slower, it is still an available choice).

To get to 15mm:
Digital = Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 + Nikon D700 = $1630 + $2300 = $3930
Film = Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 + Bessa R4m = $400 + $650 = $1050

3. Low cost choice for lower volume shooters
Digital = A Nikon D40 with kit lens = $500
Film = A Vivitar V3800N with kit lens = $170.
Film, used (keh.com) = Pentax MZ30 with 28-105 lens = $77

I can buy and develop Kodak Gold film for $6.50 for a roll of 36. That means that I can take a roll a month for 5 years, equal the cost of the D40.


4. Negative film has better exposure latitude
The exposure latitude for digital is limited. Overexposure leads to blown out highlights, especially with long exposure night shots. Negative film has much greater exposure latitude.


5. Low cost choice for large prints
While 10 MP can print a quality 8x10, it still can't get much larger. 35mm film can reliably go to at least 11x14, while medium format can go significantly larger. A medium format digital SLR costs the same as a nice car, while a quality medium format film camera can be bought for $200.

6. You still can get a digital image from film.
I don't shun the digital world. I scan a lot of my photos. An Espon V500 goes for $150.

7. The digital image scanned from film can improve as technology improves.
I've been scanning photos I took 10 years ago. The resulting digital image. If I had taken a digital photo, I would stuck with the digital image.

8. Paying a small amount for each image may make you shoot with more care.
This is more of a personal choice of how I act with a digital camera and not everyone may not feel the same. Since a digital shot is "free", I often tend take a very high amount of photos. I get 500 poorly composed photos of the same thing. All the photos stay on the camera and I never delete them or print them. It's like I take a machine gun approach when a sniper's approach is favorable.