batmobile

My exact same thoughts.

Enjoying what you do will usually bring about better results because you do it more often. So maybe. I can't say that I have thought about it in those terms, only that I have been very happy with the results I have achieved.

Someone developing the film. ... then contact sheets. ....then top quality 20x16" prints from my selected shots. ... all for free. Too little time and too much else to do. Its not a cost thing for me, but the massive demand on time and the extra hassle getting work online from prints.

After all, the camera is marketed as having a discreet mode, so its not hard to understand why people might hope and expect that it works properly. Yes, experienced Leica users know it is buggy, but that does not alter my previous sentences.

I agree with thighslapper: if you like the results, then they are good. If you don't, then they are not. Lloyd can deconstruct things as much as he likes, but it does not alter the fundamental importance of the 'do you like the output or not' question, or the answer.

IMHO, if you want 'wide' and 'separation' in the same sentence, you are probably better off with a 24mm or 28 summilux. Were I personally buying I would almost certainly go for the CV f1.8 if I needed sheer speed, but I would not be expecting much by way of separation unless forcing it. I have the 24 lux and that is easier to work separation into the shot that the 21mm and its still a bit forced IMHO. I got it for speed and low light bombed out basement documentary shooting. If you want speed, I'd suggest the 21mm CV... with the 35mm f1.2 II on top. The latter is astonishing IMHO and this pair is still half the price of the Leica 21mm f1.4.

focus shift is not an issue with yellow and medium orange filters for landscapes, but deep red causes huge shift on the MM1. One needs to focus bracket and test to see what adjustment to make. I guess with the MM2 you can just confirm focus using live view.

I don't think 1/8th of a stop amounts to more than a mouse farting in church. Personally, I think the 46mm thread is the best part, but the choice is not only about new vs new, but used mint, warrantied f2.5 versions against the f2.4 new price, as the latter are not really on the used market yet. In this case, the price of getting the tiny benefits of the f2.4 is a lot more than $150 if you would otherwise be open to a used f2.5.

I wrote about this a while back here: http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=1327 I would not go back to regular screens. No. Way. At 220ppi, you can get a very good idea of how detail will present on print.

The link is now dead, but lets hope Leica follows thru. As a CCD Monochrom owner, this is wonderful (possible) news indeed.

Hi Neil, I'd go for the 30mm (out of the 24 and 30) because it is not as wide and for the vast majority of photographers, the 30mm will be plenty wide enough to be your 'go to wide angle'. Its equivalent of 23.5mm in Full Frame terms. The 24mm S is equivalent to 19mm, which is in super-wide territory and, if you are like the vast majority of users', ultra-wides dont get used as much as more modest wides. I'd even say that a 35mm might be the best bet, because that comes out a 27/28mm which is perhaps the ideal general purpose wide. If you then find yourself with the cash and inclination at a later point, you could add the 24mm S and have a very nice paring of 24 and 35. The 30mm would perhaps be ideal if you are only ever going to own one lens wider than the 70 and you want a strong wide angle look, but it could become an awkward piggy in the middle of you decide you want more out of your wide angles. Both 24mm and 35mm will be very close to your 30mm. Just thoughts about how I would approach this, but as always, YMMV!

If you have nothing close in focal length I would say 30mm would be a much more useful focal length overall.

You could consider exchanging the 35mm lux for the 28mm lux, giving you a flexible 21-28-50 set up. I would regard 28-35-50 are much less flexible and contributing little more.

Overall, I prefer Leica, but I prefer Zeiss prices. Due to the price, I therefore sometimes prefer Zeiss. Both are superb and give us options. Aren't we lucky?

It all depends on what you want to achieve and the skills you (or your printer have). I have produced better prints from 35mm Delta 3200 than some of my 5x4 Delta 100. Size of forma has nothing to do with it unless exceptionally fine grain, high resolution and large print size are integral to the artistic vision. When your vision is large, crisp grain that creates an immediate sense of roughness... adversity.... then smaller formats make it much easier. I shoot digital and use film. I shot film for massively important projects in Afghanistan that I knew would be unrepeatable. Why film? Because at the time I was more skilled with film and the associated workflow, not to mention that digital was less advanced then than it is now. Both can produce eye watering prints, but have different strengths. Without know what you like, its hard to know how to expand on this; however, neither have such organic benefits that they will override a lack of skill. Go with what you know best until you know better, I say!