Are Leica Ms a smart idea for shooting mostly slides??

Hi folks,

 

I'll go straight to the point (just check my photos and previous

posts in case you want to see what led me here..):

 

Questions: is a Leica M7 a good choice if one does a lot of travel

photography on slides rather than b/w negatives?? Does the M7's semi-

spot meter (6 degr??) more or less approximate a center-weighted

meter? Or should I consider it by all mean a spot meter like the (1 -

4 degr) Sekonik L-508 I use when shooting 6x6 slides, situation

which demands quite a lot of braketing on the shots I can't afford

to miss? In the latter case, perhaps I should wait for the

Photokina, where Cosina may launch a Bessa R with AE (a feature I

find rather useful)..

 

any thought? And, no, I couldn't find much information on this issue

from old posts. Thanks a lot

The M7 - and Leicas lenses - are ideal for exactly that kind of shooting (and so is also the MP, the M6TTL and the M6. The exposure meter is very easy to work with, and you will quickly make perfect shots.

Andrea,

 

You don't say whether you've used a rangefinder camera before, or not... just to let

you know, they are definitely different from a single lens reflex.

 

That said, I would say that the M cameras are great whether you shoot color or B&W.

It's all about your exposure techniques that determine whether the image comes out

or not.

 

As for the M7... I've not used one of these cameras before. But, I have used the Konica

equivalent (Konica Hexar RF) for the past several months, and would say that it is

more of a semi-spot meter. If you look for a brochure on the M7... it may have the

metering pattern in it.

 

The rumor is that Voigtlander-Cosina is going to come out with a new Bessa R with

AE. Certainly, if you're not in a huge rush for a camera... it might be worthwhile

waiting for Photokina to see what will be released. The Bessa cameras are also very

good and cost a fraction of what the M7 is worth. Also, their lenses are quite fine too.

 

Good luck in your decision.

 

Cheers

You've got a very nice portfolio, Andrea. A very complete mix of abstracts, documentary and landscapes, which you seem to be very fond of. So, by all means, get an X-pan! While the M6/7 are fine for center weighted slide exposure, the Hassy will complement your equipment better and provide you with real panos, not cropped ones. Check my write ups on the X-pan and the Noblex. Cheers, Lutz.

Hi again

 

H.C., yes I've used a rangefinder and love it. Actually, I've been playing with a friend's Bessa R for the last days and I wouldn't hesitate buying that camera if only it had AE capability. Odd as it may seem, I got so used to working in A mode on my Nikons that not having it really slows me down too much. But so does the use of spot light meter, as I shoot a lot of slides. That's why I would find a M7 ideal IF its meter could be used to properly expose slides more easily and quickly than a true spot can.

 

Lutz, thanks for checking my photos. You've got a really impressive biography and experience, insted, so I really appreciate that you took time for replying. The X-Pan: I totally agree that it is a fantastic tool for landscape photography and even reportage, maybe. That's why I've been thinking of it for a couple of years. But every time I grabbed one, I found it so bulky and heavy that it almost made me think "well, then I'd better get a wide lens for my Hasselblad and do with that..". Don't know, maybe one day..

 

But please keep writing if you'ge got ideas on my initial questions..

I have done many rolls of slides with m cameras and they are fine. The M7 shutter is the most accurate of all and the meter works as well as any reflective meter can work. You just need to be aware compensation must be made for light or dark subjects. It is calibrated for middle grey tones as are all reflective meters.

 

An incident meter avoids this problem and is my meter of choice if I can can place it in the same light as the subject. A spot meter handles the situation where I can`t. I think you need to learn to use your spot meter better. The easiest technique with them is to average the high and low reading asuming they are of appropiate tones, ie don`t average a grey and a black.

 

The other thing that must be learned is the frame lines are not totally accurate. Field size as marked is for close up, and somewhat more is includes at distance. Read your manual.

I virtually only shoot slide material and find Leica M's a perfectly

reasonable choice. Having said this, you are correct that the M6/

7 meter is more of a large spot than it is centre-weighted. This

does mean you have to think a bit about your exposures but it

doesn't take long to get a good understanding of how to get the

exposure you are looking for. If you want to just blaze away

without regard to exposure compensation and/or using the

exposure lock facility - i.e. you just want to focus, frame and

shoot - you may find the M7 a little bit unforgiving with slide film.

Hi Andrea,

 

I can't comment from experience about the suitability of an M7 for use with slides, but considering that the shutter's now more accurate than ever, and that the lenses are amongst the best in the world, I see no reason why you need to worry.

 

I too am looking to buy a new Leica M (my first) and want a system that I can travel with. I want convenience and portability. I still can't decide between the M7 and the MP. The two lens packages I've considered are the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar with the 90/4 macro Elmar (for size), and a three lens combo of 35/2 Summicron + 50/2.8 Elmar + 90/4 Elmar. Some equally sound advice (from what I read) may advise you to buy the 90/2.8 Elmarit instead of the 90/4, and I'm sure there's a school of thought that recommends the 50/2 Summicron over the 50/2.8.

 

My first system suggestion means that I will rarely change lenses, with 3-in-1 and the 90mm (and I get a usable 28mm), and the second gives me 2 collapsible lens and therefore a pocketable sized camera should I wish to take only one lens out.

 

Re the metering - I used to have a fantastic Canon T90 - it had C/W metering, spot metering (2% of the frame), and PARTIAL metering (13% of the frame). My belief is that the Leica meter is something similar to the Canon's partial meter, which I used 90% of the time, with near perfect metered results in all but the most demanding situations. For the other 10% I used the spot meter.

 

My hope is that the Leica M meter is like the T90's.

 

I hope that's helped you in some way. It certainly helps me to talk through my choices, and to get numerous critiques and suggestions.

 

ps. Here's a link to a Tri-Elmar review ...

 

http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/Leica/PRD_83471_3111crx.aspx

Hi Andrea

 

Yes, indeed your portfolio is impressive. I agree with Lutz regarding his remarks about Xpan - he should know, he is a champion with Xpan and has written a lot. Your style of photography, particularly looking at your ''Windows on the Arctic'' is very pano type and you would do well with Xpan. Honest !!!

Regards

Dave, I've read your post and share most of your thoughts. I removed the Tri-Elmar from my wishes list after I read posts saying that it protrudes (right??) into the viewfinder, which would surely annoy me a lot. In addition, unless one gets the later and by far more expensive version, it seems to be a bit tricky to understand and use the depth of field marks for the three focals on the lens barrel, but I've never seen it "life" so am not that sure. A collapsable 50mm from Leica doesn't cost that much even if bought new, and I'd complement it with the 28mm f3.5 Voightlaender, cheap and superb at once.

 

Still, my doubt remains. Someone said the Leica M's meters are fine enought for slides unless one thinks of simply focusing, composing and shooting. Alas, that is exactly what I'm thinking when considering a rangefinder. For slow and "meditated" stuff I've got and intend to keep my Hasselblad, that I use with external spot meter. Therefore I do know what to measure and how to average readings, the problem is that I see a rangefinder more as a fast and yet optically superb tool for discrete reportage, travel and so on.. Perhaps the Bessa's center-weighted meter is more suited to this, and perhaps the lack of AE will soon be overcome in the (realisticly??) expected Bessa "R3"?? time will tell...

Here are my experiences with slide film in Bessa T, Hexar AF, Leica M2

and a Minolta SLR. (I do not think it will not answer your question

though...)

 

Bessa T, useless for slide film. Remove the batteries and use an

external meter, much better. My Bessa T meter works fine by the way,

thank you. But in normal and relaxed shooting, it is unsuitable for

slide film.

 

Hexar AF. This one is amazingly good. The times when it fails it is

pretty predictable. I am not sure I really understand why it works so

well, but it does.

 

Leica M2, obviously with an external meter. Excellent! Apart from

perhaps the Hexar AF, I have not found a better solution. A bonus is

that if you can get by using an external meter (I have two, a small

and a big one), you can use the same meter for all your (manual)

cameras.

 

Minolta SLR, quite OK, but I do get fewer well exposed pictures

compared to the Leica. I even get better results from the Hexar AF.

My guess is that I turn my brain off when using this one, it is still

on a tiny bit for the Hexar and quite a lot when using the external

meter.

 

Bottom line? The more you use your brain instead of relying on

an automatic meter, the better it works.

The M6/7 is excellent to use with slide film. They both use the same very practical large centre spot (not centre weighted). If you shoot a reasonable amount of film - say 10 rolls a day on a project - you'll soon get used to it. Don't listen to all the nonsense about spot and incident meters.

I've been shooting color slides with Leica M for 45 years. I've been using a Nikon FE2 alongside the Leica, for 25 years. Lately, I added an XPAN.

 

I love the color and general quality I get with the Leicas, especially my M6's. I find no reason to prefer an SLR in the range from 21 to 90mm. For a closeup of a flower, I might use the 60mm or 100mm Macro-Elmar, instead. I'm thinking of adding a tri-Elmar to cut down on lens changing. The exposure system of the M6 is wonderful. I like the R6, becasue it uses the same system of 3 LED's. I never blow an exposure with it.

 

I carried the XPAN in my backpack as a companion to the M6 on a recent trip to Utah. I'm glad I did, as I got some very nice shots. But over-use of the widescreen format would mean foregoing many compositions that are better done in standard ratio. My M6 always goes, no matter what else goes or stays behind.

<i>is a Leica M7 a good choice if one does a lot of travel photography on slides rather than b/w negatives</i> <p>

Isn't this how David Alan Harvey (NG and Magnum photographer) made his name and reputation (shooting mainly Leica M and Velvia)?

<i>I carried the XPAN in my backpack as a companion to the M6 on a recent trip to Utah. I'm glad I did, as I got some very nice shots. But over-use of the widescreen format would mean foregoing many compositions that are better done in standard ratio.</i><p>Well, with the X-pan you just switch from one to the other, Rob. Try to do that with the Leica. ;-)

I spent the month of July in Australia with an M7, M6 0.85, 24mm, 35mm, and 75mm

lenses. I shot 45 rolls of Sensia 100 and Provia 100, as well as a few of Fuji NPZ 800 (the

Rainforest is very dark). I had no problems with exposure, although I do use the AE lock

on the M7 constantly to adjust exposure. I find the M7 to be an ideal travel camera, and

on this trip we hiked quite a bit as the goal was to visit the outback, and the National

Parks outside Darwin and Cairns. I actually have problems with the meter when shooitng

slides on my Hexar RF, and left it home.

Plus, Andrea, when talking about "bulk" and weight: to compare the X-pan with a Leica M7 you have to add the weight and bulk of a motor drive, a 24/2.8 (or 28/2.0) for coverage of angle. And that makes the two contenders come quite close. But you will never get the 24x65 resolution from a 24x36 neg. As far as ergonomics are concerned (much more important, IMHO, than weight and bulk) the X-pan is perfect. The rangefinder is crisp and uncluttered, the AE is right on. You can even let it bracket for you, if you really want to. And, as mentioned above, you can choose among formats any time within(!) a roll. It is no way to be compared with a MF Hassy. It's a RF on steroids. If only there was ONE FAST LENS for it... But then again, who needs 1.4 for landscapes?

Andrea, you have a lot of very nice shots in your portfolio. It doesn't really matter much which camera you use (so long as your are comfortible using it), but if you want that "extra something" in your slides, be sure to use LEICA lenses. They have an apparent sharpness and 3D plasticity that is almost unique. (They also have prices that would choke a horse).

Regarding cost vs. use, unless you need the AE feature, you might do get a better deal with a used M6. The nice thing about the Leica M6 is that the owners tend to take better care of them compared with lower-cost 35mm SLRs. Of course, they cost more, which is a factor, and in general they cater to a different market.

 

But a Leica is a fine choice for slide film (or any film, for that matter).

 

Best of luck to you.

Andrea wrote: "Someone said the Leica M's meters are fine enought for slides unless one thinks of simply focusing, composing and shooting. Alas, that is exactly what I'm thinking when considering a rangefinder/ I see a rangefinder more as a fast and yet optically superb tool for discrete reportage, travel and so on"

 

Only because of these statements I would have to say that you probably already know that the kind of metering that will give you the best chance of getting more "keepers" on slide film doing quick shooting in the most kinds of lighting situations in fast-changing light would be one of the matrix/evaluative types which are AFAIK only available on SLRs and some digital point-and-shoots. Not that those meters are 100% infallible, just that even though they can't think better than us, they can think faster.

 

That said, I've been shooting slides since high school (a long time ago!)mostly with a full averaging Pentax Spotmatic but for the last few years with a Leica and handheld and recently an MP, and exposure has always been the least of my problems. I'll gladly trade you for some of your compositional skills!

Andrea:

 

I am going to say the otherwise opinion from the most postings above. With all due respect, Leica M meter is more than capable for slides. However, the framing of an M is troublesome for slides as slides require full frame composition in order to make them stand.

 

Unless you are going against the current to say that you can always crop. For me, slides are not made for cropping.

 

You do learn over time to frame better with an M, but still I find it a bit more work with an M than an SLR.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

WenTong

Hi Andrea,<p>

I think one downside with using a Leica for travel photos is that you've got to get used to the manual focus and sharpen your skills in that area.

<p>

There's no problem whatsoever if it's landscape or anything not moving fast. But, if you're shooting people, kids or impromptu street shots, you have to learn how to pre-focus or, at least, move the focus to your best estimate while you're composing it in your head.

<p>

I am a total believer that no other lenses in this world can produce images that has the same footprint as Leica lenses. Feel free to check out my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=419313">Leica Samples</a> folder. No other lenses (including Zeiss and Schneider lenses) can produce the "soothing sharpness" I see in Leica lenses.

<p>

Hope this helps.

Only you can decide if f 4.0 is fast enough. For outside pictures it certainly is. The 90 4.0 will allow some minimal close up work which I find more valuable than 2.8 speed.

 

I really like not having to change lenses so much, although the 3E does have some disadvantages.

 

The CV 75 2.5 might be nice, but then again its more to carry. Same with a fast 35. The CV 90 3.5 is a big cost savings over the Leica 90.

"Or should I consider it by all mean a spot meter like the (1 - 4 degr) Sekonik L-508 I use when shooting 6x6 slides, situation which demands quite a lot of braketing on the shots I can't afford to miss?"

 

In a lot of cases I've found that it's not the exposure that "messes" things up in a lot of pictures with the M7, it's the framing. If you absolutely need "perfect" framing then consider not using the M7 and stick with the Hasselblad or use a Nikon SLR because you're not going to get perfect framing with the rangefinder window on the Leica. I mean, there are ways to compensate, (for instance, a lot of practice) but to a large extent you're going to have to accept a certain amount of inaccuracy framingwise. A lot of times with exposure the camera is pretty accurate, depending on what you meter from, but framingwise, sometimes it's a crapshoot.

 

Of course, I'm exaggerating, but that's just to get the point across. If you're worried about price:

 

"In the latter case, perhaps I should wait for the Photokina, where Cosina may launch a Bessa R with AE (a feature I find rather useful).. "

 

Then maybe waiting for a Bessa with Automatic Aperture Priority exposure is probably a better deal overall, but although the Cosina Voigtlander lenses are very good the main reason to get an M-Mount camera like the Bessa is to be able to use Leitz's lenses. I mean, that's kind of the whole point of of getting a M-mount body in the first place. I mean, if you're going to "cheap-out" somewhere it should be the body, not the lens. The body after all is basically a mounting platform for the lens.<div></div>

No Text<div></div>