Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Beyond that - the Visoflex may be a marvel of optical engineering - or enginoptics, but what has that got to do with its use for real photography in the real world? (And yes, I did own one many years ago, and thought it was a nifty gimmick.) It doesn't turn an M camera into a useful reflex camera, it turns an M camera into a rangefinder camera with a whopping tumor at the end of its nose. As many a photojournalist found in the 60s and into the early 70s, if one was a rangefinder shooter, there was no need to invest in a reflex system - Nikon F body, 105 2.5, 200 f4, and you were good to go - along with your M2, M3, and range of lenses from 21 to 50 mm. ;-) On 10/17/06 5:44 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: > Mark > > Certainly the Leica system makes close-ups possible. We all know and > love the excellent Germain (and Swedish) craftsmanship and I'd be the > first to admit they excel. There is, however, a big difference between > doing it for fun and doing it for money. I personally care little or > nothing for the current crop of pro digital cameras. If I still had to > shot for a living though I'd have whatever it took to compete. Tina and > I had a similar discussion the other and she was right in her evaluation > of professional needs. > > In 1936 Leitz may have had the right approach to dominate the market. > Today, Nikon and Canon are the standards used in judging results. > > Walt > > Marc James Small wrote: > >> At 03:45 PM 10/17/2006, Walt Johnson wrote: >> >>> Ralph >>> Leicas are great for some things but close-ups aren't it I guess it >>> depends on what you really pursue but for getting serious about >>> getting close Nikon wets all over the Leitz guys. Why not just throw >>> an F3/ Micro Nikkor in your bag for those times when $$$ talks and >>> nostalgia is for afterward? >>> >>> Just curious >> >> >> Walt >> >> With respect, I must dissent. The Visoflex system, from the first >> PLOOT of 1936 to the final Visoflex III of 1984, represented an >> elegant extension of the basic RF principle to allow it to conduct >> close-up and really long-focus applications: it was originally >> intended as a scientific apparatus and as an item for >> photo-journalists. The Visoflex system first came out when there just >> were not any SLR's on the market with such capabilities, and it only >> faded when quality SLR's became available which offered similar >> technical utility -- the Contarex was probably the best of these, but >> even a Canon F1 had a slew of the sort of doodads necessary to make a >> camera of use in a laboratory. >> >> The number of adapters and accessories available over the half-century >> life of the system is simply stunning: I have been slowly compiling a >> master list of these for the past decade and am only part-way through >> it -- I have to pick up a bunch of Leitz microscope catalogues as many >> of the adapters were only sold through Leitz scientific outlets and >> were not listed in the camera-store pricelists. (The same is true of >> Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon, incidentally, and some of the most useful items >> for macrophotography, such as the Luminar lenses, were not sold >> through Zeiss Ikon dealers but were only available from Carl Zeiss >> scientific outlets.) >> >> The Visoflex is useful if you are not into SLR's. I have some SLR's >> but almost never use them, as the Leica RF is my basic camera. Thus, >> a Visoflex makes sense for me. It would make far less sense for >> someone who already has an extensive Nikon or Canon or the like SLR >> system at hand. >> >> Macro lenses are really neat and eBay has brought a LOT of these onto >> the market at really reasonable prices: the days when the mystic name >> "Luminar" demanded $500 or more of freight are days of the past -- I >> paid $35 for one Luminar on eBay, and $75 for another. I have a >> complete set of Luminars, most of the Leitz Photars and Carl Zeiss >> Jena Mikrotars, and some of the Leitz Micro-Summars and Milars, the >> B&L Micro-Tessars, and the Staeble Katagons. These guys are a LOT of >> fun to use, as they are microscope objectives converted to >> photographic uses and are optically superb, albeit they have no >> appreciable depth of field. >> >> Thus, I can go from a 16mm Luminar which allows me a 10:1 or so >> reproduction ratio with the Bellows II up to a 2600mm telephoto with >> my Questar or even longer on my Celestar, albeit the latter is a bit >> clumsy for field use! (My personal choice is that wonderful 5/40cm >> Telyt-V for most purposes, as this is a really grand lens.) I >> generally use my M6 as, yes, inbuilt metering makes macro and >> long-focus photography a LOT easier! >> >> To be honest, I generally do macro work with a Hasselblad 2000 FCM on >> chrome films. There is nothing quite as dramatic as projecting a >> medium-format slide of, say, the engraving on a lens ring or the like. >> >> For BASIC close-up work, I would recommend a Bellows II, a Viso IIa M >> or Viso III, and a 4/9cm lenshead. That allows decent close-ups but >> is not a bank-buster. >> >> Marc >> >> >> >> >> >> msmall@aya.yale.edu >> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir! >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information