Leica M6 and Lens

[LabelKing]

I use the original selenium M-meter on my M3. It's quite accurate and convenient, and stylish to boot:

(Not my picture, and not really a proper M-meter.)

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Well, I always thought that the Leica MP didn't have a meter. In fact, it would be better if it didn't since I'm not a fan of internal meters. And I'm not sure why an M7 even has something like auto-exposure; it's like those cars that have some sort of pointless electronic control built into the monstrously thick-rimmed steering wheel.

I don't see what the controversy is about; Leica doesn't use brass for their regular-line models. They only use it for the MPs. I've no idea about what Toyota use in their cars.

I've actually owned two Leica Ms, both M3s and do use them. However, I will say that my primary rangefinder cameras have been a LTM III and a Zeiss Contax IIa which I actually prefer to the M. The III is especially suited for street photography because of the small size. The Contax I like because of its refinement and rather luxe look.

Like my pens and watches, I prefer my machinery heavy. The heavier the better as I'm no fan of lightweights which does hinder my ability to take photos. I have particularly picky and esoteric habits--I won't buy something because I didn't like the label--and something like a camera's weight does influence my method of going about things, and if you feel sad about my preferences, then I think it's not me who has the issues.


Well if you like heavy, you should get a canon 1ds mk 3 or a nikon d3 Those things are bricks, as are the pro-grade lenses. And just think of all the wonderful technology in them. The d3 in particular is a beast of a camera.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Well if you like heavy, you should get a canon 1ds mk 3 or a nikon d3 Those things are bricks, as are the pro-grade lenses. And just think of all the wonderful technology in them. The d3 in particular is a beast of a camera.

One of the heaviest cameras I've owned was a Nikon F3 with MD4 motordrive. Leica's lenses are quite hefty too, especially the older ones. I have a '30s Summitar which while small is a heavy piece of work.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

One of the heaviest cameras I've owned was a Nikon F3 with MD4 motordrive.

Leica's lenses are quite hefty too, especially the older ones. I have a '30s Summitar which while small is a heavy piece of work.

yes, but can your camera from the 30s shoot at 25400 ISO?

 

[Nantucket Red]

I'm quite amazed at the weight of my new 35 Summicron. For such a compact thing, it's quite substantial.

LK, I'm amazed you've actually owned an F3. I never made it beyond the F2 because nothing about the electronics of the F3 appealed to me.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

yes, but can your camera from the 30s shoot at 25400 ISO?

Are you one of those "film is dead" types?

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

yes, but can your camera from the 30s shoot at 25400 ISO?

For that sort of thing, I'd need my "high-speed" Zeiss 50mm Sonnar 1.5 , which was considered a fast lens in the '50s. It still manages to pull through in a superior manner even compared to all the modern high-end lenses.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Are you one of those "film is dead" types?

Ask Kodak.

For most purposes, I think film is definitely dead, but i'm really just messing with LK because I think it's still useful for artsy stuff (he's shown this himself) or medium/large format for those people that can't afford 30k Hasselbads of equivalent resolution. Then again, most don't need that sort of resolution. I could also take a 10mp slr and stitch together 4 shots taken on a special pano-head and get a similar result, but that's obviously not as versatile. All in all though, I think good digitals far outperform film now.

 

[Nantucket Red]

I really don't know what you mean by "digital will outperform film." Digital and film are media with fundamentally different characteristics. Other than being a means of making images, they hardly stand comparison to one another. Now that digital has advanced to the point that renders images at a high enough resolution that they don't pixellate if you crop or blow them up a bit, I've bought myself a digital camera.

I don't think I'll ever be fond enough of the digital medium to spend more than a few hundred dollars on a digital camera that will be basically obsolete within a few years as the technology progresses. The fact is that shooting digital has made me miss film photography and substantial manual cameras with simple controls that are intuitive because they're where they have been for decades.

The other thing is that I'm growing to hate autfocus with a passion. It's fooled by low light, low contrast situations and is generally too problematic to be satisfactory except for the casual snapshooter. At least in my opinion. Autofocus has been a major factor in my going back to a simpler, more reliable technology; manual focus is basically foolproof.

I was all prepared to buy a Nikon D200 with an 18-200 zoom, but trying one rather extensively and learning my way around the controls made me want a camera with simpler functions placed where I'm used to them. I also really disliked the Nikon's autofocus. It's very quick and accurate in most situations, but I found it was fooled by several relatively simple situations and in a few instances inexplicably refused to work at all. I realize I could override it manually, but why not cut out the middleman?

Ultimately, I just couldn't bring myself to buy the Nikon. Instead, I ended up doubling my budget to buy a used Leica M6 rangefinder and one fixed focal length lens. I considered the decision very carefully and weighed the relative benefits of both over the course of a month. Finally, I decided that I like the tactile sensation of a film camera and the characteristics of various films as well as the aesthetic quality of film grain versus pixels. Having shot both, I find the experience of film and film cameras much more satisfying.

I am not trying to argue that one medium or the other is necessarily superior. They both have their pros and cons. I do think that both will be coexisting for quite a long time to come. One of my reasons for choosing the Leica over the Nikon is that I'll be able to use the same lenses to shoot digital with the M8 if I ever decide to go in that direction. Meanwhile, my Leica C-Lux 2 is perfectly adequate for my digital needs.

 

[metkirk]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

The other thing is that I'm growing to hate autfocus with a passion. It's fooled by low light, low contrast situations and is generally too problematic to be satisfactory except for the casual snapshooter.
You're calling a thousand pros including sport photogs and journalists out there snapshooter. I don't know if you have tried Nikon CAM2000 autofocus system or not but I rarely missed a single shot even in low light with CAM1300. And btw, most old Nikon lenses work with the newer cameras like D3, too.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by iridium7777

has the lighter weight significantly hindered your ability to take photos? to be honest, and not to be rude, you just seem to be throwing in your 5 cents just to show that you know something, of which you've read a glimpse somewhere else.

As a former competitive marksman, I can say that heavier pistols definitively reduce low amplitude vibrations. My target .22 has a set of counterweights (several pounds' worth) for that purpose -- they are called Olympic weights commonly as the Olympic marksmen adopted them.

This does translate to photography as I can trust a handheld shot at 1/15sec, and have a decent shot of a clear 1/10sec shot.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

One of the heaviest cameras I've owned was a Nikon F3 with MD4 motordrive.

.

It is a beast! I have one myself -- I recently took it on a business trip with my favorite lens, a Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 for some night work and I really enjoyed it. Perhaps unfortunately in some views, it convinced me its time to get a D200/300 now so I can shoot digital with the fun lenses.

~ Huntsman

 

[LabelKing]

Huntsman, thank you for the input. I've never used that particular Nikon lens, but have heard of its prowess. Rather a costly bit of work too. Here's some of my daily use items: Early '50s European model Contax IIa with lenses: 50mm Sonnar 2.0; 50mm Sonnar 1.5; 35mm Biogon 2.8; 135mm Sonnar 4.0

The Biogon is an especially nice piece of kit, hand-machined out of heavy marine brass, and the inner parts gold-plated, I believe. It is far heavier than other Zeiss lenses I've held. It has beautifully chamfered and polished edges with black enamel details and spun aluminum caps. A real piece of optical art.

DS Leica M3 with M-Meter and 50mm rigid Summicron:

Leica black-bodied III with post-war VIOOH finder and special high-dome case:

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by metkirk

You're calling a thousand pros including sport photogs and journalists out there snapshooter. I don't know if you have tried Nikon CAM2000 autofocus system or not but I rarely missed a single shot even in low light with CAM1300.

And btw, most old Nikon lenses work with the newer cameras like D3, too.

If you like autofocus and find it works for you, then use it. I'm expressing my own view of it, and I find it inadequate for many of the conditions in which I shoot. You and any number of pros can do as you please. I want manual focus, especially if I'm dropping more than a few hundred dollars on a camera.

I have a '76 F2 and a battery of lenses, all of which are pre-AI. Nikon is no longer offering the conversion, so no, my lenses won't work with the newer camerals --even if I wanted to deal with all their fussy, fiddly little knobs, levers, buttons and plethora of functions I find completely unnecessary. The fact is that if I want to shoot with my F2, I can still find pre-AI and AI lenses that are great values at today's prices. The F2 still works as beautifully as the day it was new.

 

[culverwood]

Thank you all for your help and opinions. I have looked at the difference in price between the USA and UK and it is not as large as I expected and on that basis I think I am looking at UK suppliers.

My quick research has come up with:

Aperture - http://www.apertureuk.com/
Classic Camera - http://www.theclassiccamera.com/
ffordes - https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm
Mr Cad - http://www.mrcad.co.uk/shop/home.php
Nicholas Camera - http://www.nicholascamera.com/​

Does anyone know any of these companies?

I am told that the titanium version is to be preferred then black then chrome is this true or just one person's opinion?

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

I really don't know what you mean by "digital will outperform film." Digital and film are media with fundamentally different characteristics. Other than being a means of making images, they hardly stand comparison to one another. Now that digital has advanced to the point that renders images at a high enough resolution that they don't pixellate if you crop or blow them up a bit, I've bought myself a digital camera.

I don't think I'll ever be fond enough of the digital medium to spend more than a few hundred dollars on a digital camera that will be basically obsolete within a few years as the technology progresses. The fact is that shooting digital has made me miss film photography and substantial manual cameras with simple controls that are intuitive because they're where they have been for decades.

The other thing is that I'm growing to hate autfocus with a passion. It's fooled by low light, low contrast situations and is generally too problematic to be satisfactory except for the casual snapshooter. At least in my opinion. Autofocus has been a major factor in my going back to a simpler, more reliable technology; manual focus is basically foolproof.

Autofocus isn't the same on all cameras. Some are accurate and others not so accurate. Some are slow and some are lightning quick. The D200 is a great camera but there are better autofocus systems coming out now (D300, e-3). Even so, you can always manual focus if you need to. I don't see what the big deal is.

Also, a superzoom probably wasn't the best lens to test if you're used to shooting with fast primes on film cameras. It's not going to be as fast as what you're used to. You have to compare apples to apples.

I was all prepared to buy a Nikon D200 with an 18-200 zoom, but trying one rather extensively and learning my way around the controls made me want a camera with simpler functions placed where I'm used to them. I also really disliked the Nikon's autofocus. It's very quick and accurate in most situations, but I found it was fooled by several relatively simple situations and in a few instances inexplicably refused to work at all. I realize I could override it manually, but why not cut out the middleman?

Ultimately, I just couldn't bring myself to buy the Nikon. Instead, I ended up doubling my budget to buy a used Leica M6 rangefinder and one fixed focal length lens. I considered the decision very carefully and weighed the relative benefits of both over the course of a month. Finally, I decided that I like the tactile sensation of a film camera and the characteristics of various films as well as the aesthetic quality of film grain versus pixels. Having shot both, I find the experience of film and film cameras much more satisfying.

I am not trying to argue that one medium or the other is necessarily superior. They both have their pros and cons. I do think that both will be coexisting for quite a long time to come. One of my reasons for choosing the Leica over the Nikon is that I'll be able to use the same lenses to shoot digital with the M8 if I ever decide to go in that direction. Meanwhile, my Leica C-Lux 2 is perfectly adequate for my digital needs.

FWIW, I think we're at an inflexion point with dSLRs. High ISO performance in the latest models is exceptional across the board. They all shoot a minimum 5fps and have big buffers. They all have 10MP+ resolution, which is enough to print pretty big at 300dpi. The noise characterists of the cameras have also been improved across the board.

I've never used a Nikon but the controls on my Olympus are fantastic. This from a camera newbie... I read the 180pg manual in one night and went out shooting the next. The most important things are very accessible and by the end of the night I didn't even have to look at the controls to change most settings. They're even better on the pro-grade e-3 (which has a second control wheel) which i'll likely upgrade to next year when i have more cash. When I do get it, I plan on keeping it for several years since i expect ti will make me very happy. You don't have to upgrade every year, and the development cycle on the pro-level stuff is more like two years. Some people are just pure gear-heads though.

Also, since you meantion the tactile feel of it, some are built like tanks with mag-alloy bodies and comfortable rubberized grips. The e-3 is also weather and dust-sealed to the point where you can wash it off under running water or shoot in torrential rain and not worry. Throw-in all the other benefits of being able to take hundreds of photos without changing film (and being able to back those up before you get back from your trip), having instant access to higher ISO, being able to shoot in lower light handheld than with film, the ability to fix exposure problems by working on a raw file, in-body stabilization, etc. I think all of these things contribut to making it a higher performing medium imo. Of course, it will always come down to the individual system you choose (camera + lenses).

Like I said, I think film has certain properties that are worth preserving, but for most people, 95% of the time, digital is better imo.

Oh and LK's M3 is a beautiful object, but I think you guys are overly emotional about these things.