Filters - DOF preview

I'm considering buying a M6 TTL but I can't quite get the SLR paradigm out of my head. I've seen the kludge for using polarizing filters and it looks really weird but I guess it might work. What I don't understand is how to use other filters , 81X or graduated neutral density types. How do you know what you're going to get on film?

<p>

Also, I see a lot of really nice photos using the excellent focusing power of the lenses but how do you know ( guess?) the DOF? Do you just know from experience or DOF tables or do you use the range figures on the lens itself?

Dan, a rangefinder like the M6 has a whole different set of strengths

and shortcomings than an SLR. At first, many people want to make the

M cameras do all the things they are used to doing with an SLR, and

get frustrated and end up selling the cameras. Forget polarizers, ND

grads, depth of field previews, long teles, macro. Think quiet,

simple, un-obtrusive, no finder black out, no mirror slap, seeing

beyond the frame, very slow speed hand holdable, etc. Sure, an M6

can fudge some of the SLR stuff like using a polarizer, but that

isn't why a person would want to own a rangefinder in my opinion.

Re: DOF

<p>

The short answer: You know from experience and paying attention. It's

more accurate that using DOF preview.

<p>

The long answer (recent thread on photo.net about controlling DOF):

<p>

http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001W2H

With rangefinders you can't really use filters (like graduated) that

vary across the picture - well, you can, but you're guessing at the

results (some might call it 'using experience'). That's why the SLR

was invented. Polarizer is just a mild form of graduated filter.

<p>

On the other hand, you can shoot very dark filters (ND or strongly

colored as for infrared or in-camera color-separating) and still

easily see to focus, since the filter doesn't darken the viewfinder as

it does with an SLR. 8^)

<p>

As to depth of field, I just assume that everything will be mostly

sharp with a 28 or wider, and nothing will be sharp EXCEPT what I

focused on with a 75 or longer, or with a 50 or 35 close up. For the

35 and 50 at middle distances I don't worry about it. I'm

occasionally surprised but rarely disappointed.

<p>

RF's are the Forrest Gump camera - "My Mama said, 'Shootin'

rangefinders is like a box of chocklits - you never know exactly what

you're going to get.' "

'Shootin' rangefinders is like a box of chocklits - you never know

exactly what you're going to get.'

<p>

I disagree. I have a much better idea what I'll get. Because

everything in the viewfinder is in sharp focus, I notice background

clutter/strong lines and angles/distracting colors/etc. more readily

than with an SLR where things not in the plane of focus are blurry.

I think I'm with Mike on this one. In general, I've noticed my

compositions and timing are better on my rangefinder images than on

my SLR's because I can actually see what I'm photographing right down

to the exact instant the shutter is tripped. Sure, if you are at f2.0

& 50mm, it all isn't going to be sharp like in the finder, but I do

get less shots with trees growing out of people's heads because you

can see the backround. It does takes a little while to get a feel

for what will be in focus. It also took me a while to stop shooting

every image with the subject in the center of the picture exactly

where the double image happens to be!

Dan, you probably need to rent one for a wile and spend some rolls on

it and guess if it is going to be a camera for your photography.

On my experience, I begun with a SLR, (well before that with a 110

instamatic) after seven years a Leica M3 came to my hands, and begun

to use it, after a wile it was my favourite camera because of the

size, and I guess the feel of it, but still returned to my Canon SLR

and nikon, little by little the M Leica begun to gain space in my

photography, it demanded me knoledge about the lenses I was using,

about ligth, about DOF, in return it ofered me a clear and brigth

direct finder, a solid body as none, a compact and discret body, a

camera you can hold the entire day, an instrument that is a joy to

use, finest optics and the oportunity to be in charge of my

photography.

Now my SLR´s are all lended to friends, and only use them for copy

work, now my entire photography runs through some M bodies.

But I understand it´s limits, no macro, no super telephoto, no closer

than .70 mts or .40 mts with my 21/3.4, after all those are limits

that can live well in my photography, M leicas are made to photograph

people, landscapes, arquitecture, sports, up close and even

atmospheres.

If you need depth of field read it from the lens scale. Early on, I

tried to keep everything in focus, trying to keep my 35 lens to F8 or

F5.6.

<p>

I now think that one of the main strengths of Leica lenses is that

they can deliver great photographs with both excellent in-focus and

out-of-focus areas, and this differential-focus quality is really

outstanding. I choose not to use the mythicial (mystical?)"B" word

to describe this effect.

<p>

It takes a bit of nerve/confidence to shoot at F2 or F1.4, but the

results can be spectacular. They can also be out of focus

sometimes. So what? Go for it.

I haven't been using mine for very long, but I do notice some

differences in the way I'm seeing.

<p>

People talk a lot about how you see outside the frame of your image in

an RF. This really seems to make a lot of difference. By viewing the

image in its context, and then viewing what you 'propose' to make as an

image, I think you have a much better handle on your composition. It

makes explicit what you're cropping out of the image, which I think

gives you more compositional control than the 'tunnel vision' of SLRs.

<p>

Also, with SLRs in longer than normal FL's, it can feel a bit

voyeuristic with your subjects. You can be 10 feet away but in their

face, which is a bit wierd.

<p>

I think what's so nice about the RF is that you really see in the

camera what you see with your eye/brain system. So it's not WYSIWYG,

but it's more like, how you see through the camera is how you normally

see, which can make you more an intimate participant of the scene.

<p>

I do notice that I look at scenes differently, esp. at the way light

works on a subject- I seem to be much more sensitive to low, PM or AM

light, illuminated leaves in a tree, light falling obliquely on a

subject. And I try to imagine the framelines hovering in front of me

as I contemplate a scene. I don't know why, but with my SLRs I never

saw this way.

<p>

Maybe this is why it seems many Leica M shooters use the 50mm

('normal') as their longest focal length- b/c is goes just to the limit

of normal human vision. Anything beyond that is arguably artificial- I

mean, it's not really normal to be 50 yards away from a model and

filling your frame with him or her using a 300mm/2.8.

<p>

I used to think I would be distracted by all the other stuff in the

viewfinder in RFs, but I've gotten used to it and see its many

advantages. Also, it has been said that since everything appears in

focus in the RF viewfinder, you are more likely to be careful about

cluttery compositions- you don't have the illusion provided narrow DOF,

as is the case with SLRs, of little clutter b/c many elements appear

out of focus. So you do so by good composition. In a sense you're

forced to be cleaner and more deliberate in your composition. A good

thing.

"People talk a lot about how you see outside the frame of your image

in an RF. This really seems to make a lot of difference. By viewing

the image in its context, and then viewing what you 'propose' to make

as an image, I think you have a much better handle on your

composition. It makes explicit what you're cropping out of the image"

<p>

This is one of the things I like best about the RF viewing

experience. It reminds me a bit of Michaelangelo's comment about

chipping away the marble to find the statue within. It's as though

the whole frame is the block of marble, and you can hunt around

inside it to find the best statue. It's a lot easier to see what part

of that marble block to throw away.

The 2 types of cameras each have their advantages and disadvantages.

When you're at home with the luxury of two or more camera systems to

choose from you can mix and match. On the road, it's another story,

especially if you carry backups as I do. I've learned to mentally

visualize shallow DOF with the M, and I use the DOF preview on my

SLR's about 5:1 to the shutter release (frustrating often because

Leica R DOF preview mechanisms are *junk* and love to stick shut). I

use screw-type ND grads with the M, taking advantage of various

apertures to change the gradation positioning according to a set of

slides I made through which I preview the scene (landscape

photography can be slow and methodical usually). I've also learned

how to very precisely compose through the M framelines at various

distances, what I'll really get on film compared to what the finder

frame shows. I don't like handholding any SLR at any shutter speed,

while with the M I can get by with a little bracing (leaning against

something solid). I make my choice depending on the preponderance of

subject type I expect to encounter, and how much bulk and weight I am

prepared to carry. Getting around the various fortes and

shortcomings of the camera types is secondary to me.

When I shoot with SLRs, I usually have a bag full of gear -

lenses, filters of all different types, finder attachments, etc. When

I shoot with RFs, I find I have just the camera and one or two

lenses.

<p>

In recent years, that bag of gear did nothing but get in my way. I

wasn't getting any photos with it I enjoyed. I sold off all my SLR

gear and replaced it with a small Leica M kit. Now my pictures

are the interesting part, not the bag of gear.

<p>

It's a different aesthetic, a different way of seeing. I often set my

focus just by the scale on the lens, using the DoF marks to

determine a focus zone. I never use filters anymore, or only very

rarely. And those filters I do use are generally just a simple

Orange or Green.

<p>

It takes some experience, some getting used to, but ultimately

the pictures are what matter and I'm very happy with the pictures.

<p>

Godfrey

Hi, Dan:

You have already been told most of the most important issues.

Just one more clue: get in RF photo only if you have the time and the

will to experience and learn the hard way: wasting some film and

loosing some good opportunities at first.

Here is where the two opposite ends meet: hi-tech cameras are said to

do everything much easier if you don't know much about photography

and are not willing to devote time to learning. My own experience

with them tought me that in order to get out of hi-tech cameras what

they are actually able to do you must know a lot about photography.

Otherwise you will be shooting in Program all the time and, in

reality, an inexpensive P&S with a decent lens would be the same as

useful for you as your multi thousand dollar marvel. So you'd better

take your time to learn or forget about it.

Right the same thing here, only that with far fewer toys to play

with: just light and DOF.

You can use filters for sure. Provided you have time to do it the RF

style. With SLRs the only filters I usually use are polarizers. In

fact I have a polarizer always on on each SLR lens I own though

everybody else has told me that I shouldn't. But I like what I do

with them.

And I have made good images with polarizers in my M3s (slides only)

but I need to have the time available to do it. Which most of the

times is the case, anyhow. With a M6 it should be easier because of

in-camera light metering.

For the other filters, you need to have time and film available to

learn, too.

You can do excellently concerning DOF too. Provided you take your

time and film to experiment and learn. By the way: if you start by

believing what the DOF scale on the lens says, you will go much

faster. It really helps. Later on you will guesstimate surprisingly

on the spot most of the time.

Certainly I have a fairly long experience in photography (taking

pictures, to be true) but now I'm considering like real experience

only the time I have been using my M3s. And that is much shorter. And

I still have lots left to learn and have fun. I only ask for time for

it.

I hope you will have it. Plenty of it.

<p>

-Iván

I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughtful and thorough

responses. I'm still not sure which way to jump just yet but you've

all given me a lot to think about. Thanks again. -- Dan

An awful lot of SLRs don't have an aperture preview feature. I learned

DOF using the lens scale, so switching to a rangefinder wasn't much of

a paradigm shift for me in that respect. I'll second the motion,

though, that modern SLRs with zoom lens, AF, and program AE have

diminished basic photography skills over the last decade. I enjoy the

process of making a photograph. Using a camera that exercises that

process and those skills, more than anything about the viewfinder, is

what I enjoy the most about the Leica M.

<p>

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the big smile on my face when I

see my results is really the result of being able to see around the

framelines, or being able to see a sharp background. I'm still willing

to believe that there's magic at work because these cameras are made

by elves in the Black Forest.