I think you'll love your M-9P. Bresson used a 50 primarily, and, if you like that look (which is actually less contrast) you can buy and shoot a 1st version rigid Summicron that will fairly approximate it for around $1000. I think this was the last lens HCB used. Still had enough flare/veiling to give it that Leica glow. Old glass works beautifully on M9s. And it doesn't have to be Leica. A 60's era Canon 35 f/2 LTM is a tiny lens that's magnificent -- $400 or so on eBay. The Jupiter 3 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is an astonishing lens at around $250.

However, if you have the money, go for the 35 Lux Asph. I think it's the single best lens for the M series - and you don't have to buy the FLE, the asph is just fine. I think 35mm is far better for street shooting than 50. But that's my preference. Go on the boards and look at photos/lenses and see which ones speak to you.

Of course, for the price of a used Lux, you could get a 28, 35, & 50 Zeiss. All superb. And my personal favorite, the 40mm Nokton f/1.4 - a small, great all rounder that fits the M9's 35mm frame lines perfectly. It's a steal at $409 new. As is a used Leica 40mm Summicron for a little more.

So many choices, so little time. Ken Rockwell says pop for the Leica lenses and be done with it. That may be wise. But it's so much fun to do otherwise.

Wow. Yes. Great shots and much needed on this forum. Thank you for your talent and insight.

I've been getting so frustrated here. Seems like the best photogs have been leaving. (iI'm not counting the Captain -a superb portrait photographer or Roger Francis - the king of rangefinders). But The Alaskan is gone. Notnobuddah ain't here no more - although he posted not much, like I do. Seems like we've been left with flowers and squirrels and hummingbirds.

Please keep posting. You inspire, and encourage to stretch. That needs to be done. Thank you.

Thank you. Am a fan of your work. So tired of seeing animals and bees and flowers shot like Burpee seed packets. This is good stuff and it's appreciated.

The Chromatic Aberration is also a sign of a wide open lens. Most modern glass gets rid of CA in mid-range stops.

Meant "didn't publish your apertures" - early in the morning...

You don't publish your apertures. ND filter = wider aperture. Wider aperture (if you're wide open)=softer focus. There are very few lenses that are as sharp wide open as they are stopped down.

However, if you first shot was at f16 and your second shot was f8, the filter's to blame.

Nikonian is right. The true DOF experiment would be to change the aperture. But...

Depth of field is also determined by the focal length of your lens. Longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field. Your second photo was taken with a longer focal length (then focused on the guitar). That's why, even with the same aperture, you achieved a shallower depth of field.

It's the democratization of the medium. It's what happened in music and film - anyone with a decent computer can make a movie or record a song. And, yes, it can lead to job loss. Television and some movie scores are done by the composer and maybe a couple of assistants on computers now, putting hundreds of musicians out of work (actually, that change happened almost 20 years ago).

Everyone has the means now to take and post produce stunning images. But, as in any medium, only the cream rises. Talent will out.

Now THAT is a flower shot. Great light, well composed.

Technology can be a wonderful thing. #1 is a perfect example.

I think you're probably right, Merlin. At least for most people. But I appreciate the extended dynamic range of RAW. And then there are those of us who shoot with problematic cameras, like my M9, which has - in this day and age and at that price point - an utterly shameful crappy automatic white balance. My iPhone is a hundred times better. Actually, just about any camera made is a hundred times better.

RAW allows me to make perfect, and infinite, adjustments in Lightroom. JPEGs simply don't do as well.

I can't tell you how many duplicate images I have of some photos - each with a different tweak. I'm amazed at how I can back to an image and see it in a completely different way.

Roger, I might be crazy, but for me, it's the complications that make Sunny 16 interesting and satisfying. I'm in the TV business and was on a set where Gerry Perry Finnerman was the DP (this was way back). He was asleep in his chair and the gaffer jostled him awake for a light reading. Gerry snorted, lifted his head for a quick look, said "5.6" and went right back to sleep. The exposure was dead on.

I've alway wanted to have that eye. Not there yet, but trying.

My Photography Manifesto.

I guess I’m encouraging everyone to join me and state where they stand in this diverse and expanding world of photography. Here are my thoughts:

First thing: Photography is about 1) light, 2) subject matter, and 3) composition. It doesn’t matter what instrument you use, DSLR, rangefinder, iPhone, P&S - as long as you use it well. I have to bite my tongue when I read posts that ask “what can I do to make this better?”, then open the post to a photo that has flat light, and a centered, dully framed object - be it truck, bird, barn, or flower. The answer is not a new lens, or a tripod, or “your focus is a little soft” - which may all be true but dodge the point. The answer is find an interesting subject, frame creatively and wait for or create good light. I actually think the subject is the least of it - I’ve seen great photos of rusty soup cans. In fact, I’ve seen spectacular abstracts where I have no idea what the subject is at all. There was a great shadowy shot posted here the other day.

Second thing: While I love the digital world and am amazed by what it can do, I fear it creates lazy photographers (and newbies who will never understand the underlying craft). Anyone can point a Canon whatever into the setting sun, put it on automatic, and get perfect silhouettes and exposure. I’ve done it a million times. Computers are amazing. Three cheers for that - I get it. It’s the democratization of photography. And, if you have a DSLR and want to really learn how to shoot , you can go to manual - although I’m not sure how many people really do. Aperture priority, AE and AF are just too easy and tempting. The result is too many folks using their expensive, high resolution instruments as point and shoots. Although, obviously, this doesn’t apply to sports or wildlife photography, where you need all the help you can get.

I believe (remember this is my manifesto) that there’s nothing more satisfying than learning Sunny 16 and being able to nail an exposure without a meter on film. Or digital, for that matter. I love to focus myself - it connects me to the image - and I’m primarily a rangefinder guy. I know that there are shots that I’ll blow to operator error - I’m good with that. I improve with every shot, and with every miss. It’s a journey I accept and love.

And I agree that that’s my problem. Call me a Luddite. In this day and age, I would never push it on anyone else (other than to give it a try).

Third thing: Digital post processing is a miracle. Its very ease is why I’m back to shooting film. No chemicals - and mind boggling results that are limited only by my imagination and skill. And, hey - this is an art form, folks. Nothing is sacred. Manipulate all you want. But personally, I hate overcooked HDR and etch-a-sketch edge work. Makes everything look like a Thomas Kincaid painting. There. Said it.

Fourth and final thing: the siren call of new equipment and chasing pixel counts. Honestly? Unless you’re making huge prints, 8 or so megapixels is fine. How much detail do you need? If you’re into very large prints, or shooting professionally, fine. But, in the real world, 18+ megapixels is overkill. We have reached the point where the equipment far exceeds the requirements and talent of most photographers. So we need to face....

That it’s an addiction. And, man - I am as guilty of this as anyone. I spend way too much time reading camera reviews and on eBay cruising for old Leica glass and LTM mount lenses. (And, as I’ve said before, the Leica thing is actually a fetish). Thank God, I’m disciplined enough to back off most of the time. But what a waste of time. I have fine lenses. I have fine cameras. I should be out shooting.

... instead of writing this manifesto.

I love the mood you're going for in the first two - but they're a little too centered for me. Bullseye flower shots remind me of seed packets.

The third photo's background provides context and you've composed it well. This is by far the most interesting shot. Nice work. More of this, not less.