Nice shots Edward. Every time you post with the Sonnar-C I have to run and look at old Sonnar photos to remind myself not to buy one. You're images tempt me
adamdewilde wrote:
Nice shots Edward. Every time you post with the Sonnar-C I have to run and look at old Sonnar photos to remind myself not to buy one. You're images tempt me
Thank you Adam but I don't advise you to get another one sometimes it works great and some other times it sucks. It's not a consistent lens in terms of rendering.
Too many to comment on since my last post too long ago... but will say:
Edward - love the first portrait too!
Joakim - great lunch break set, especially the first two.
Chuck - great timing with the diving photos, the first one is great!
Gary - once again looks like a great time out in the wilderness for the Clennan clan!
Cal - thanks, I will keep that in mind, though I'm kind of stuck in the Hamilton area with unresolved car reliability problems.
Here's a bunch to spam the thread from a wedding last week... again, working as the second photographer and therefore having a lot more fun.
Ron, these wedding photographs are refreshing, and uniquely tell a story. I'm sure they will be very happy with them.
My last professional wedding gig's, was back in the late 80's, and I thought I was "cutting edge" by trying to tell a story, when at that time, the photographer's place was to be at the church and also catch the guests.
Gasp, they would have run me out of town if I sent them B&W prints.
Paul, thanks! Seems you were ahead of your time! And about 5-10 years ahead of me when I started shooting weddings in a 'photojournalistic' style. By then, at least in our market, there was demand for B&W images to 'accent' color coverage. Of course that meant dedicating a camera specifically to B&W. I worked in photo retail at that time and dealt with all of the wedding studios, as well as the weekend warriors. The studios were definitely set in their specific styles, heavy on posing and a lot of on-location lighting (such as setting up a mini studio at the bride's place before the ceremony). The PJ style was a lot more comfortable for me, and in hindsight, I definitely wasn't a whiz at posing. The transition away from heavily posed photography was definitely less profitable for the established guys because it meant shooting a lot more film on stuff that normally would't sell as standalone prints or make it into the album.
But if you think things have chanced a lot in the North American wedding photography industry, you should see what they do in Taiwan. Or maybe that's where all the posing has gone to now.
Once again, at this wedding I was asked why I was shooting film (the Leica).
relms wrote:
Cal, I am curious... how do you see the Q fitting into an M kit? I think of the Q as, perhaps, an entree into the world of Leica. A way to experience photography with a simple, yet highly capable camera, where the photographer, not the camera, decides the outcome. And with this experience comes the desire to want more, and that more would be to move up to the M series, with more lens choices and more artistic capability.
I see the Q as a brilliant step by the marketing folks in Wetzler to introduce more people to the Leica brand. Many of those who can afford to move up to the M series will do so; others are still able to experience shooting with a Leica - probably for life.
Cal, I will be extremely interested in hearing from you and others on these points.
I'll try and describe what I mean. First, with the exception of AF mode, the Q works very much like a Leica M. Similar ergonomics, similar controls. Second, since the camera works so much like a M, it fits along with a M body in a variety of typical 2 or 3 lens kits..ie 21mm/28mm(Q)/50mm...28mm(Q)/75mm...28mm(Q)/50mm/90mm. I know that many would rather, just take a 28mm lens, but I find that I often wanted to have AF as an option and so I'd tend to add a AF camera and lens...the Q fills the role of the second camera and the 28mm(or35mm) lens.
Cal
