Another note on M size- and also a story.

I was adding this thought to the post below about Leica's relative

size and weight, and I realized this story should be a separate

post.

 

So I just came back from a shoot this afternoon, shooting a punk

band's album cover in the East Village in NYC. In planning what

gear to take this morning, I knew I would be using a 28 and 50

for most shots, but also wanted a tele for some shots- say a 135

or 180. I picked up my Nikon FM2 and 180 2.8 ED- IF (manual

focus, metal body version) and my '60s era Elmar f4 for the M

cameras. The Elmar takes up a good deal less than half the

weight and similarly less space in the bag, but as the 180 is a bit

longer and the SLR framing is more precise, I carried it.

 

Sure enough, half way into the afternoon, I wanted a tele shot, so

out came the Nikon. But I suddenly got really frustrated. The

wrong way focusing and so-much-less-precise focusing than my

M's snappy rangefinders really bugged me. I cursed myself for

not carrying the Elmar after all, and I put the Nikon down and

gave up the tele shot, going back to the wide to normal lenses

with the M's- I REALLY missed the rangefinder focusing, more

than ever before.

 

I have used Nikon manual focus cameras for 15 years, and

Leica M's for five. Today's shoot was the frirst time I really

wanted to chuck all the Nikon kit and go strictly to the Leica

rangefinder alone. And coming home to Brooklyn on the subway

carrying the heavy Nikon with it's motor drive and that big 180

and a back up 50 and 28 in one bag, and the slightly smaller bag

with M3, M6, 15, 21, 28 and 50 in the other, my shoulders ached.

I could have ditched the whole Nikon kit bag and just thrown the

135 Elmar in the Leica bag, and carried a bottle of water and

book and still had a lot less weight.

 

Really got me thinking. In the last thread someone made the

commment about Leica not being light for their size, but much

more compact than similar SLR kit- very true. So now for the first

time in my photographic life I am serioulsy thinking of dumping

the SLR altogether. Similar experiences? Thoughts? I know

you folks have loads of opinions on situations like this, so let me

hear 'em. And I'll post some pics of this shoot next week.

Andrew,

<P>I had been heading in that direction for quite awhile, and posted several questions about SLR's and the tactile equivilant to an M. I ended up getting rid of my Nikon gear, and picking up Leica R equipment, really only so I could shoot macro.

<P>Well, I didnt shoot any macro for over a year, and I just kept hanging on to SLR equipment "just in case..."--

<p>That is the logical thing to do, but I finally just got fed up with it sitting there unused. Somebody else could put it to use, so I got rid of all of it-- Traded it for another M6TTL body, (a .85), a noctilux (which Ive always wanted to try), a VC 12mm, a new motor M, and a few other things.

<P> The macro stuff I shot was always slow and careful, so I figure if I really miss it, I might try a visoflex system, or pick up a Nikon N80 and Macro lens-- The Metz 54mz3 i have can work on the Nikon with the proper module.

<P>It hasnt been long enough to tell yet, but at this point, I am happy with the decision. I like you, prefer the binary focus aspects of the RF.

<P> This has just been my experience, I dont know that it would be right for anyone else...

<P>Best,

As for the weight difference, sounds more like a problem with big lenses and motordrives than systems. Unless you're looking for an excuse, try carrying just the FM2, no drive, just a few lenses <= 105.

 

I did this recently (went from 2.8 zooms to a small handful of primes) and it's great! I find having an only just big enough bag helps - I got a Lowepro F+T accessory bag (? real name) - same size as the film bag, but padded, sold for light meters etc.

Quite so- for a long time my Nikon bag consisted of one or two

FE2/FM2's, three to five lenses, a small flash, film filters, etc.

The weight of this bag was not significantly different to that of my

Leica bag with two bodies and a few lenses (incidentally, the

primes I have and use for both systems are about the same

lengths and speeds)- but the Leica IS a bit lighter- it's the

smaller lenses. Then I got a motor drive for those times when I

need one, and the weight does pile up. Today my big problem

was really carrying the two systems at once.

 

But really my issue with the two cameras has been the focus

issue. It's been creeping up on me lately, and today it jumped

out at me with a vengance.

"The wrong way focusing and so-much-less-precise focusing than my M's snappy rangefinders really bugged me." What do you mean wrong way? Perhaps it is just different from Leica. About "so-much-less-precise focusing", that does not really mean anything. First, we can not even shoot M with 180mm (foget about VISOFLEX). Second, try to shoot 135mm on M and see how difficult framing and focusing can be. I own both systems. I really hate to see people bragging about how M is better than others. Bragging how smooth the M advance lever. Try Nikon F3, M's advance lever is no way as smooth as F3. The other one is how quiet M is. It no where near the quietness of Mamiya 7 or Fuji rangefinder. It is true that M is a well made camera and it has its place. But stop thinking it is the best camera. Personally, I use M for normal, wide angle and travel; use SLR for macro and telephoto.

I still use Hasselblad for landscape and EOS for wildlife, but for almost everything else the M does it for me. My old Nikons are in a glass case, and the R's are gone.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what a Canon Rebel 2000 and 50/1.8 combo weighs?

Mani,

 

yup i do - held one such combo before. EXTREMELY light weight and compact package ;)

 

and even better, it does AF, so no need to worry about "wrong way focusing". And it has AE like that of the M7 :)

 

and u can slap a 200mm prime lens on it and shoot further than any M, and yet still weights little...

 

oh yes, it does macro as well....which my M6 TTL can't...

 

and the price of that body....oh the price...

 

wait, this is a Leica forum? sorry :)

Rendy- did you read my original post? I'm sure not bragging

about how wonderful the M camera is. What I'm saying is that I

find I get more acurate and consistent focus faster with a

rangefinder than with an SLR, and this issue was made more

concrete for me today in my shoot than ever before.

 

As for tele shooting, have you ever used a 135 on an M3? It's a

joy and a piece of cake- not unlike using a 90 on an M6. Much

larger and quite acurate framing, especially for middle

distances- and it has wonderful full frame markings. With f4 as a

maximum aperture, it's very acurate.

Funny, I was just thinking of ditching my Leica and getting more lenses for my

Nikon. Reading your question, it looks like you were setting up a strawman.

What are you doing taking a 180/2.8 to photograph a punk band?

 

Then when you get into the rest, an M3, an M6 and five M lenses weigh a lot

more than a Nikon SLR system with similar focal lengths (leaving off the 180).

I've just been to the Dobhi Ghats in Bombay today (where all the city's laundry is done) and spent some time photographing the Dobhiwallers. I was using my M6 with both a 35 and a 90 and although perfectly manageable it is not at all easy to quickly focus on a fast moving face thrashing a bunch of saris overhead.(possibly like a pogoing punk band?). I did not have the Pentax with me, but I am sure the focus-anywhere ground-glass screen would have made focusing much faster and easier.

 

Accuracy is sometimes a real blessing, but the little central rangefinder patch, when it must be trained on fast moving things can be a curse. For a 35, ground-glass is contiguous with all that you see, faster, easier and perfectly adequate.

Boon Hee, thanks v. much. Apparently (and FWIW)

 

Canon Rebel 2000+50/1.8=507 grams or 17.9 oz

 

Canon Rebel 2000+35/2 = 567 grams or 20.0 oz

Robert, I'd love to see your dhobiwala snaps, as you know, I've spent photographed the Dharavi dhobighat extensively myself. Apart from anything else, the spray and humidity are pretty challenging!

 

http://www.robertappleby.com/portfolio/dhobi.pdf

 

I believe there was quite a problem with the traditional dhobis being ousted by organised crime at the Mahalaxmi dhobighat a few years ago, with the ghats being used for other purposes, or maybe being forced to pay hefty protection money - do you know anything about that? I've forgotten the details.

<i>"What I'm saying is that I find I get more acurate and consistent focus faster with a rangefinder than with an SLR, and this issue was made more concrete for me today in my shoot than ever before." - Andrew Dailinger</i>

 

<p>Then I'd say you either don't have much experience shooting, or lack basic photographic common sense. An SLR with a 180 is an SLR with a 180. Try a rangefinder with a 135 (cutting you some slack there) with anything that's less than perfectly stationary and then come back and tell us your "story".

 

<p>Horses for courses, apples and oranges, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, etc., etc., etc..........

Al - I can't speak for Andrew (although I can't imagine why anyone would asume him to be inexperienced or incompetent) , but I have plenty of experience photographing myself, and I eventually changed from SLR to RF because of the far more accurate and reliable focussing. That really was the number one issue for me, using lenses up to 50. With the RF, assuming it to be accurately calibrated, focus is not a matter of judgement, whereas with an SLR it always is.

Punk Is Dead!

Hmmm. Thanks for some interesting thoughts. I am curious as

to why so many folks felt threatened enough by this post to attack

as they did. Is it just because punk is dead?

 

My main point was that I find the binary action of RF focusing

more positive than the subjective act of ground glass focusing

for fast work. If this isn't the way you work, fine- tell me about it,

and maye we can both learn something about technique. If you'd

rather just insult me, well, sorry your life is so sad. As for the

weight issue, all I mean is that I felt foolish carrying two systems

instead of one. Surely y'all can see how that makes the kit

heavier.

 

BTW- the 180 was for some portraits of individuals with flatened

backgrounds out of focus- they wanted this, a la my

fashion/beauty work. Vanity.

Andrew:

 

You're not alone in preferring the binary RF method of focusing (& indeed, many SLR owners prefer using the split-image screen), although most folks probably find it easier to quickly focus SLRs for the reasons mentioned by Robert Clark. I must admit it's easy to get snippy about stupid things like camera focus preferences. A couple months ago, after Daniel Taylor mocked my admitted inability to quickly focus SLRs by suggesting I simply "look through viewfinder, turn focusing ring till sharp," I responded:

 

No duh! I obviously know how to focus an SLR, it's just that w/an SLR there are so many variations between sharp, sharper, & sharpest that I tend to waste my time tweaking the focus (& *then* checking DoF w/the preview, that being 1 of the main advantages of SLRs, after all). With RFs, focus is binary--the split image either matches up or it doesn't, & I can do that a lot faster.

There is no doubt that the Leica M is quick to focus...but so is Nikon auto focus! Also, if the shot was for a CD cover, why didn't you shoot it in 21/4 square so there wouldn't have to be a crop from a 35mm frame?

Andrew - thanks for the story. It crystallized a decision I was in the process of making anyway - to return a 180 Nikkor ED (very nice lens, BTW), quit spending money on the SLRs, put the Leicaflex and teles in ths closet for a while, and push the M's to their limits.

 

If I absolutely, positively have to get a shot with something longer than the 135 I can 'go to the closet'. I'm betting it won't happen very often.

 

I haven't had the M-135 long enough to shoot much in the way of action shots - but here's one with the 90. The day I took this I was also shooting with the L'flex and 180 - the focusing was such a pain I took the film out halfway through the roll and reloaded it in the M4-2 to shoot the other 20 frames. A dream by comparison....!

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/683071

Hi from Malaysia

 

To each its own. You are the photographer, you chose your equipments, you take the shots, you are the one in control. For me I find focusing easier on an slr even in dim light. The reason why I use RF is I can handhold to 1/8 of a second by bracing myself against something solid which a slr cannot provide me. But if the situation does allow me to use a tripod or fast shutter speeds, middle apetures, mirror lock up and not too much weight difference then I will take the slr. The winding mechanism of a nikon F3 is smoother even in the company of the M3.

Todd, 6x6 cm cameras made a lot of sense for shooting covers for 12 inch vinyl records. With the wrap-over you ended up with about a 13 inch square printed image. But a CD cover? I doubt ANYBODY could tell whether it was shot on 120 or 35mm film, Leica or Hasselblad or most point-and-shoots. One cover I shot showed the group against the sun rising over the ocean with a 400mm lens. I would have needed 1000mm on 6x6 cm.