Also after using the 100S on the SL, I'm reminded of just how "dirty" (for lack of a better word) the 24-90SL zoom is. I think I'll keep the 100S on until I sell the system or until something good (35/75?) comes along for the system.
Some random "test" shots from my jet-lag zombie like walk to lunch with the 100S on the SL:
(I like how close the lens focuses, especially with the crop on the SL, as seen in the food shot [none of the shots are crops, well maybe one or two are slightly cropped due to me being tired and holding the camera crooked].)
P.S. Either those sweet potatoes were nuclear in color, or the camera has a problem with magentas I'm fairly certain it was the sweet potatoes.
Sgt_Gatr wrote:
This was taken at q39 in Kansas City with my new (to me) M9 and CV 50mm f1.1! Not sure why the EXIF says the aperture was f6.7 and f9.5 as I had it set at f5.6.
FYI - your aperture values will only be an estimate calculated in camera due to the fact there is no electronic coupling between the lens and camera.
joakim wrote:
Adam, have you sold your S-006? It makes the 100S so must more justice I believe.
MM-246 and 35 Summilux
Completely agree with you!
There is so much more magic when used on a S-006. But yes I have sold it off.
Eventually everything from Leica will go aside from the 50APO and one body. I've just had to much bad experience with Leica to use them professionally.
The SL + 100S only came about because the 100S has not sold, and the SL still hasn't sold yet either.
Not too terrible, focus via googles and all at 2.8 or f/4. Even the near misses are OK, but when you hit the focus right, you see the elmarit belt out some high notes
I also took the great nikkor 300 2.8 AIS ED Which you see in action here
I like these two (135 and 300) on the street alot. You are back far enough you usually are not a player, so the candid factor is increased. The whole look of the longer shots is flatter and subjects are isolated, which causes you to seek special vantages where you can get multiple subjects in a recognizable focus. Here an example at 300
There are lots of sharp nikkor lenses, but the 300 goes way past that and draws in a class by itself (to my eye). It was a professional sensation when introduced in the early 80's and is credited with "saving Nikon" with the press corp when faced by stiff canon competition. The lens is less known than something like the 105/2.5, simply because it was so expensive mostly organizations bought them. A clean one today brings around 800 or more, with exceptions.
In this day and age of really fast glass the look is so not far out, yet compared to "classic" zone focus at f/8 or more, which of course I love also, it's completely different.
But look at the 50cron, F/8 when you are closer: Handy by unoh7, on Flickr
The big DOF modern Leica street shooting usually shows, is maybe a partial product of 35mm lenses being preferred today, which can give so much more DOF than a 50.
What I want is a nice kolari A7S, with which I could shoot that 135 elmarit at f/11 1600 shutter on an overcast day, because it is so sick with the high ISO.
I'm starting to think I made a poor decision in selling my M240; I have been loving shooting more film, no regrets there, but I'm just finding that I don't enjoy digital as much, there's just something missing for me. I've been telling myself though that the two digital cameras that actually interest me are the Monochrom and the Q, everything else is just not on my radar. So I'm going to finally give myself the chance to try a M Monochrom (v1)!
Great images on this thread as usual and a huge lot of great Halloween and autumn (fall) images.
Here are some from a day spent wandering around Sydney last Friday - our Spring continues much cooler and inclement than normal. These are from on my M9, although I also used my M3 and a Ricoh GXR with A12 LM module converted to IR.
To continue the vintage glass theme, the first few are Summicron 35 Type 1 (8 element with goggles).