I still use both. And, truth be known, it's the digital world - the ease of scanning and editing in Photoshop & Lightroom - that has me doing more of it. I enjoy the process, and I get to use cameras that I love like my beautiful IIIF and Minolta TC-1.

Great eye. Nice to see subject matter and framing that isn't bullseye animals or flowers.

Color. Really nice composition. This is what I consider a true photograph, as opposed to a picture of a stump.

Regarding image quality - you're absolutely right. And the status thing factors in with some users, no doubt. But spend some time with a Leica. It's a different experience. You may hate it - many do. But there are those of us who love it and find that it allows us to shoot better, more considered frames. And that's invaluable.

My first camera - the first one I paid hard earned cash for - was a Leica IIIF that I bought from a classmate in Junior High. Paid 60 bucks for it and its 35mm F3.5 Elmar lens. I shoot with that camera today and love it.

Recently, I bought a full frame M9, and some thread mount lenses that I could use with both cameras. Used lenses, a couple of new Voigtlanders, and a Zeiss.

It's an expensive camera and it took a lot of soul searching before i took the leap. I shot exclusively with my IIIF for a couple of months to make sure I really wanted to commit to a rangefinder. By the end of those two months, I realized that I was never leaving the house without my camera. It's small, it's fun, it had become a part of me. And I was getting terrific stuff with it.

But, understand -- Leica's aren't for sports or for wildlife.... or even for shooting your moving kids. They work best as landscape and street photography cameras. They also aren't for photogs who like to switch lenses frequently or use zooms. The Leica ethos is to use one lens as your primary - usually a 35mm or a 50 - and maybe carry a second lens in your pocket. Your legs are your zoom.

And, as for the expense, I think it's ridiculous. I will never buy a Leica lens new and can't even justify popping for one of the newer lenses used -- they start at about 2 grand on eBay. I use old Leica glass, Voigtlander and Zeiss and am very happy with the results. The super expensive camera bodies (like the Titanium M9) are made for Asia and rich fetishists.

And that's my final point: I think in general, Leica is a fetish camera. In this day and age, there are amazing cameras out there that do everything and deliver stunning IQ. Leica's make you work for the shot. You buy a Leica because it speaks to you. They're beautifully made. They don't belong in a drawer. They belong on a shelf or desk within reach so you can pick them up and admire them and play with them. They're small, so they belong over your shoulder when you head out for the day. And, when you see a shot, the camera's there, in your hands. Aperture, shutter speed, focus, click - when it all becomes automatic to you, it's magic.

I think the new iPhone is a terrific camera. Not for wildlife or anything that needs a long lens. But it's a very stealthy street camera and can produce fine files with its sharp lens and 8MP sensor.

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Here are a couple of frames that I shot at the Santa Monica pier last weekend. I've stored the originals so you can download and inspect this quality.

Sweet. Just great stuff.

Okay... I know this small sensor, always with you, P&S is exactly the opposite of my renewed interest in film and my old IIIf Leica. But my wife and I were on Santa Monica pier today and this is what I shot.

I like Ilford, too. Definitely going to be shooting some. And nice barn.

I guess what I mean by fetish is that there are days when I get pleasure just picking it up and playing with it. Don't shoot a frame. Just appreciate the machining and feel of it.

Okay... now I'm embarrassing myself.

My first real camera was a 1953 Leica IIIF that I bought in Jr. High from my classmate David Morgan (his father didn't want it - go figure). Cost me 60 bucks and came with an Elmar 35 and a leather case. These were 1963 dollars, so it still was a chunk of lawn mowing money. But oh... to have that sweet little machine in my hands.

In the 70's I bought a Nikon SLR with metering and never looked back. (actually, I loved the Olympus XA rangefinder - but that was a pocket camera). The Leica took a place of honor on the shelf. Dissolve to: a few months ago, when I bought a photo scanner to digitize a lifetime of photos in a trunk... and realized that, with negative scanning, I could economically play around with film again. Hmmm.

So, I had Steve's in LA do a CLA on the IIIF, bought some film at Freestyle Camera and shot a couple of roles. I'm able to come in at under $10 a role, if I scan at home. I use my 35mm Elmar, a Voightlander 50, and a Leitz Hectar 135 that I picked up in the 70s for eighty bucks.

I'm wondering if any of you are doing similar things.

These are low rez scans of Tri-X from the first two roles. Contrasty but fun. Street shots are tough to meter, because metering calls attention to you. You kind of have to do a general metering before you shoot, then guess/adjust as you go.

my son




hollywood blvd

I've done a bunch of walking around in Europe - with mega camera and without (a bridge camera). I greatly prefer the smaller, lighter package. In fact, my best photos came from a trip where all I carried was an Olympus XA (a little 35, f2, rangefinder).

My point: don't become a pack animal with too much equipment. Enjoy this wonderful experience. Your 18-135 is a reasonably compact lens (although it would still be too much for me) -- I think it's plenty. The idea of a fast 50 is a good one, though. I suspect that you'd put it on and never take it off and start leaving your zoom in the room.

Yeah, they really do. For billboards, the sides of buildings... they want all the detail they can get. The images from one shoot have to be able to cover it all.

Thanks, Sherrie. Got lucky with the flat. There really was surf that evening.

Thanks, Jay. I'm always debating the horizon thing when I shoot the beach. Most of the time I level it. But, sometimes, I go with the waterline of the surf, or the sand,or, in this case, the angle of the guy's body. Just a gut thing. Maybe I was wrong here.