After one year of flawless performance, my Nikon D500 is in need of repair…

–

–

Fortunately it’s still under warranty.

But…

Tonight was the night of my son’s choir solo!

So, I loaded my Leica M3 with this:

↑Fuji Superia 1600 image courtesy of B&H

–

Yes, my Leica M3 + Undisclosed Lens #1 + ASA (ISO) 1600 Fujifilm.

Next week, I’ll have the roll developed and scanned.

Fingers crossed!

—Peter.

 

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of handling every single M rangefinder camera model Leica has ever manufactured (including a few limited edition examples of each).

And although I’ve previously worked with most of these cameras, I’ve never had the opportunity to handle all of them at the same time so that I could compare their build quality, viewfinders and shutters.

The one that remains my favourite is the Leica M3.  

Many photographers have previously discussed why the M3 is regarded as perhaps the best M camera Leica ever made, so I won’t re-hash all of that here.

Others, it will come as no surprise, disagree with that assessment and have been quick to point out its faults.  Even I recognize its not-too-insignificant shortcomings.

For example:

Do I wish the M3 had 35mm frame lines?  Yes.

Do I wish the M3 could focus closer than 1 meter for most lenses?  Of course.

Do I wish the M3 had a built-in light meter?  Sure.

But, I know that the addition of each of these features ultimately takes away from something else.   It essentially ruins the formula that makes the M3 the M3.

(Incidentally, the compromises inherent in every camera design decision is why a photographer who sets out to find the “perfect” camera is, in actuality, on a fool’s errand — and all of us have been guilty of playing the fool.)

Still, the sense of purpose and dependability that the M3 brings to the pursuit of photography seems unmatched by every other model.

I can tell you that its build quality really is second to none.  Pick up an M3, and it truly does feel like a solid and singular block of matter.  It’s an illusion of course, because the M3, like all subsequent M cameras, is made from a plethora of parts:

–

(↑ re-building of a Leica M3 by Kanto Camera)

–

But, in the M3, the decision process around which parts were chosen and how they were put together was done with the least number of compromises.  It’s evident when you pick one up.  Even the much-glorified modern film camera reincarnations of the M3, the Leica MP and M-A, feel somewhat tinny and hollow in comparison.

Besides build quality, the other attraction to the M3 for me is its clear viewfinder, which is the most resistant to flare and has the highest magnification of any M.  These qualities are very helpful when composing and focusing.  The view is also uncluttered.  In comparing the M3 viewfinder to the one found in the digital M10, where bright and blinking LED frame lines compete with the subject for the photographer’s attention,  I can’t help thinking that, somewhere along the way, Leica lost its focus, so to speak.

(But I know I am in the minority on this, since — more and more — blinking visual aids are the preferred feature set for many photographers.)

And, as much as I would love it for the M3 to have an internal light meter, I have to admit that, once again, the blinking lights in the M6, M7, and MP viewfinders seem to distract more than aid.

Am I being picky in writing all of the above?  Yes, of course.

Could I go on, and on?  Unfortunately, yes 🙂

But I will stop here.  The truth is, all of the M cameras do an excellent job of getting out of the way of the photographer.  For me, however, the M3 does it best.

—Peter.

A little late in coming, but I needed to be sure.

My camera(s) of the year:

–

1. Nikon D850 (for general photography).

–

2. Nikon D500 (for sports/action).

With these two cameras, there is nothing I can’t photograph.

As a bonus, they share the same battery and external controls.

The perfect duo.

—Peter.

–

Previous Prosophos Camera of the Year Winners:

2016: Leica M9/M-E.

2015: Leica M9/M-E.

2014: Leica M9/M-E

2013: Leica M9/M-E

2012: Leica M9/M-E

2011: Leica M9

2010: Leica M9

2009: Leica M9

2008: Leica M8/Nikon D3

2007: Leica M8/Nikon D3

2006: Leica M8

I received the question below via email yesterday and I thought I would share both it and my answer (expanded somewhat for this post) since I’ve been receiving many similar questions lately.

—Peter.

 

Hello Peter,

I’ve been thinking a lot about your comments… trying to decide if I’m going to change anything.  

As much I love the [Leica] SL, I’m not going to keep it.  The autofocus is good, but I’d say not great.  Autofocus always seems to be a love/hate thing for me.  I suspect the [Nikon] D850 would probably autofocus better.  I’m getting real close to pulling the trigger on the D850 and likely the 58mm you have.  The only reason I haven’t, is the size of the outfit, and do I really want to start investing in another platform.

Then there is my [Leica] M10/M9 debacle.  I have and really like the M10, but in the end maybe I should just use my M9 once it’s back with the new sensor.  It would certainly make for a better travel outfit.  I’m curious why you didn’t keep one of your M9s just for travel.  If it’s dollars, it certainly makes sense.  While I considered keeping the SL + M10, I really felt it would be financially irresponsible for me…

Any thoughts on the [Hasselblad] X1D?  I love the size and sensor, but I’m sure it would not make as good all rounder as the D850.

Anyway, loved your image today of your wife and son.  It’s really nice.

Mr. TM.

 

My response:

–

Hi TM,

Regarding the Leica M9 and M10:

• I once wrote an article for Steve Huff stating:  Always use the best camera you can afford (and learn to use) for your family.  The M9 — after 10 years — is no longer that camera.  The M10 isn’t either.
• The form factor and manual focus for M cameras are the main attractions for me, but I can no longer accept the trade-off of having an inferior sensor vs. something like the D850.

Regarding the Hasselblad X1D:

• I like it too (amazing form factor) but it’s outside of my budget.
• It’s still a product-in-evolution, so that makes the price point even more unattractive to me.
• The larger sensor is indeed the main draw, but for my use the D850 is much more versatile and will likely yield me more keepers.

Regarding the Nikon D850:

• All of the above comments, and:
• It’s not convenient as a carry-everywhere camera, so I can’t casually head out the door with it.
• But I would consider carrying it with the Nikon 58/1.4G for an outing with my family if I thought there would be opportunities to photograph.
• I mostly use it when I deliberately want to photograph, and want high quality output.

Thank you for your good words!

—Peter.

There’s a DPReview “user review” thread on the Nikon 58/1.4G that summarizes better than I ever could what is so special about this lens:

DPReview Nikon 58mm 1.4G User Review

Also worth reading is this response, also in the same thread:

Response re: Nikon 58mm 1.4G (practical advantage)

(pay particular attention to the ruler demonstration which reveals the practical advantages of this lens when shot wide open)

—Peter.

 

I’m going to request your assistance today with an admittedly niche “problem” regarding the Nikon 200mm f/2 that I haven’t been able to solve despite some research and a little trial and error.

What I’m trying to figure out is:  What is a suitable lens cap for this lens?

Nikon ships the 200/2 with this:

–

It fits over the lens (and the reversed hood) and cinches closed.

The trouble is that it requires two hands to either place over or remove from the lens, and although that doesn’t sound like something to worry about, it is a real practical hindrance out in the field.

A replacement cap that is often recommended is the Don Zeck cap:

The Don Zeck is placed inside the lens barrel.  Admittedly, it looks a little goofy with the loop “handle” but some people swear by it.  Others say it’s a little rough around the edges (figuratively and literally) and it either scratches the inside of the lens or doesn’t fit well (too loose or tight).   Given the current price of this plastic piece of engineering is US$75, I’m not inclined to take my chances and order it.

The second lens cover often recommended is the AquaTech soft cap:

–

This cap looks promising in that it is soft/flexible and also fits inside the lens barrel (with the unfortunate attention-seeking logo facing outward); it is removed by pulling on the lip in the top portion.

The cost is a more “reasonable” US$40.  The trouble with this one — despite the manufacturer’s claims — is that the cap can sometimes contact the front lens element and leave an oily residue.

The third solution that some people recommend is the Kaiser push-on cap (size 120mm) from B&H:

–

The price of this is a relatively low US$18 (though I’m sure it costs $1 to manufacture).  What I don’t know is how well it fits on the lens, and — more importantly — whether it is prone to being accidentally knocked off (since it fits over the lens).   Lastly, I have no idea whether the 200/2 lens hood can be placed over it and, if yes, whether the Kaiser can then easily be removed.  I would be tempted to bite the bullet and buy it anyway but factoring in the $CAN-$US exchange rate, the price for delivery, and customs charges, the price for this simple piece of plastic would more than double.

The last recommendation is the Folgers instant coffee plastic cap that is legendary in internet folklore:

 

I’m not kidding… the internet says this is the best and most economical solution to place in front of your exotic telephoto lens (by the time you start considering this one you will have been secretly repetitively cursing at Nikon for not shipping a proper lens cap in the first place).

Well, it turns out the internet is wrong.  Or its information is out of date.  I canvassed two large stores with various sizes of Folgers coffee cans and none of them had the correct-sized lids.

I won’t even tell you about the Tupperware lids I tried 😩

So I’m humbly asking for your input.

I’m wondering if the Kaiser cap is ultimately the one I should get, or whether there is something better out there.

Thanks,

—Peter.

 

Yesterday in addition to a new image (here), I posted a few from 2016 (here and here) that I’d never gotten around to sharing (so in a sense they were new too).

This all came about because the winter here has really decreased my photo opportunities lately and in my restlessness to do something creative I decided go back and revisit some old images of mine.  As an aside, this is a good thing to do from time-to-time because it inevitably leads to some form of insight (though I must admit that I haven’t been good about engaging in photographic self-evaluation lately).

Specifically, I was looking at this image from last summer:

↑ Nikon D500 + Nikon 200mm f/2 G ED VR II.

–

… and realized that, in my haste to post-process it along with 100 other images from that day, I had probably not optimally processed it.

Post-processing has been on my mind lately because a reader of this blog recently shared a photo with me (taken by another photographer) that he considered “over-cooked”.  I have written about such over-zealous post-processing in the past and I heartily agreed with him.

In looking at the photo above, I wondered whether I had shown too much restraint — whether I had, in fact, under-processed it.  I subsequently fired up Lightroom and played with the settings to arrive at this alternate version:

–

The two versions are not drastically different (remember, I’m still trying to be cautious) but I believe the re-worked version is better than the original.

I will take what I learned from experimenting with this image and most certainly will apply that knowledge to my images this year, and it will probably make a bigger difference to my output than any gear-related change I could potentially make.  I’m therefore glad that the winter weather forced me to pause and reflect.

As a second aside, I can’t wait for spring to arrive so I can use this combination of gear (D500 and 200mm f/2) again; I only had one chance to use the lens before the baseball season ended.

For those interested in a how sharp the Nikon 200mm is @ f/2, I’ve provided a crop:

–

Did I mention that I can’t wait for spring?

—Peter.