Portraiture, Canon vs. Leica, SLR vs. RF "seeing", etc. (lon

[BBAIN@imnet.com (BBAIN)]

          An omnibus post to several topics:
          
          1.    The M-lens I like best for portraiture is my 90mm f2.8 
          Elmarit (chrome).  It has the "look" of Leica glass that really 
          makes for wonderful color work.  Here we go again in trying to 
          describe something that defies facile description, but I find a 
          very special translucent, luminous look to fleshtones taken in 
          soft lighting that most folks find attractive.  Kids' skin tomes 
          look so wonderful!  My 35mm Summicron has a similar look, more so 
          than my 50mm Summicron.
          
          Plus, a 90 lets me stay close enough to the subject so that I 
          don't feel disconnected from them, and the moderate focal length 
          gives me sufficient control over DOF even though it's "only" a 
          f2.8.  Just my $0.02, YMMV.
          
          2.   For many years I shot with Canon RFs.  The glass may not be 
          Leica, but a lot of it is pretty darn close -- while I can tell 
          the difference between my Leica lens shots and my Canon ones, 
          it's not huge for some of the focal lengths (50mm f1.8 vs. 50mm 
          f/2 Summicron, for example).  The Canon bodies I used (VT, Canon 
          7, 7s) were definitely high quality, and the 7s (or 7sZ) were 
          definitely great cameras of high build quality and very useful 
          features.  I wish I had kept the 7s.
          
          3.    This weekend, I shot photos at my daughter's soccer 
          tournament using a borrowed Canon A-1 and 80-210 zoom.  It was 
          the first time in close to 20 years that I had used an SLR, and I 
          did notice a difference in how I "saw" the image between the SLR 
          and my Leica (used w/90mm for sideline shots of coach and 
          players).  Through the SLR, it seemed that I was more aware of 
          masses from a compositional perspective, while through the Leica, 
          I was more aware of the lines in the composition.  Whether this 
          was due to the fact that everything is in focus in the RF 
          viewfinder while it isn't in an SLR finder or some other reason I 
          don't know.  BTW, my daughter's team lost 1-0 in the finals on a 
          goal scored with 2:40 left in the game, after shutting out their 
          3 previous opponents to get to the finals. I don't think the 
          tension helped my picture taking (my daughter's the goalie). :-)
          
          4.    Christmas came early at my house.  When I got home from 
          work last night, sitting on the kitchen table was a new Canon 
          Elan IIe with a note from my wife that since I enjoyed taking 
          pictures at the games so much, I might as well have my own Canon. 
           She picked the Canon because I had had other Canons and liked 
          them.  While it's not a Leica R, in the interest of domestic 
          tranquillity, there is no way on God's green earth I'm taking it 
          back to the store!  I guess this is a forced defection from the 
          Leica camp, but I do confess to looking forward to having AF and 
          autoexeposure to play with.   I think I'll go with the Canon 
          100-300mm L zoom for a lens, but I'm open to the wisdom of the 
          'net.  At least she didn't trade in my M3!
          
          5.    Macro work.  I've used a Viso II on my M3 quite 
          successfully with the head from my 90 and the adapter (I can't 
          remember the #).  I've even used the lens without the adapter on 
          the Viso.  Figuring out the exposure compensation is a pain, but 
          there's a chart in the Leica Manual.  You can buy a Viso II for 
          100-150 in the U.S. and you can lock the mirror up.