I..

[zora_suleman]

.. was fascinated to see in recent posts Steve's comment that the

Leica (M) is 'not suited for.. action shots' and also Peter A's that

'The Leica's strength as an image making device has NOTHING

to do with the viewfinder'.

 

My own experience using a 90mm on an M4-P is that it works

well for taking pictures of people on the move at close range. I

find the brightline frame on the M4-P easier to see than on an M6

(they are thicker I believe?), the much talked of rangefinder patch

flare doesn't appear to exist as a problem, there is a lot of room

outside the frame, which gives you a great sense of what is

happening in the scene, and what is likely to happen, and the

focussing patch covers a large proportion of the 90mm frame,

which makes it easy to focus on moving objects before quickly

composing the image. Sometimes it is possible to just let the

moving elements drift to the point in the frame that you want. It

surprised me when working in Rome that at 125th f11 with the

90mm, I could catch people moving across a scene at about ten

to fifteen feet, in focus. There is usually some slight blur in the

image, but I think that looks quite natural, as long as it is only a

fraction. A bit of movement never seemed to bother Robert Capa

or Henri Cartier-Bresson much, it would appear.

 

Also for close focus work, the 90mm lens at f11 at one metre

range gets me close enough to photograph small objects (ie

cigarette butts on the pavement - don't ask why), while still

showing something of the wider scene, which I like. I did borrow

a 90mm macro lens on an SLR to get closer, but soon got bored

with giant pictures of small things.

 

So for that bloke who asked what to take to Rome, try just the

90mm, get close to your subjects and see what happens. And

anyway, the Romans are so frighteningly stylish that I'd hate to

think of you standing there, wearing your Khaki photo vest with

lots of pockets and a bloody great bag over your shoulder,

cameras rattling away.

 

The time difference between the UK and the US, sometimes

make it difficult to participate in discussions, so this is a sort of

response to about three different threads, so sorry if it is a bit

long and rambly. I hope the 90mm thing is helpful, although I

don't think I have conveyed just how fluid (is that the word?) it is

to use, but I do think that it creates a very different impression of

a street scene than using a 28mm or 35mm lens at close range.

Of course Ralph Gibson was doing this in the sixties, so nothing

new really.

 

Was there anything else? Oh yes, the stripey Magnum book that

Rene talked about. I have that. I got it free when visiting the

printer. The usefulness of a contents page or index seem to

have been forgotten by the designer, so you'll have to identify the

pictures carefully. But yes if you want to discuss any images from

that, and don't mind delayed responses, by all means.

 

Best wishes

 

Zora

[brambor]

I think we will identify the picture by a page number and start with the first one move to the second one and so on...

[rab_l]

I also seem to come across these threads after they have run their course, but

wanted to contribute to the Stephen Persky thread. I photograph about 50

weddings a year, and shoot about 500-600 images at each, I bought a Leica

initially to use for low light situations but have been so impressed with the

results that I bought another, and now shoot about 50- 60% on the Leicas,

What I did have to overcome though, was dithering with the focus, because of

the Leicas accuracy of focus, it is very easy to keep readjusting on moving

subjects, instead of trusting that an approximate focus will be good 95% of the

time, once I got my head around this, I found photographing moving subjects

no problem, and if anything sometimes easier than with my slr [ although I

might add that these are also manual focus.] Regards.

[zora_suleman]

Thanks Peter, I like your work. I will try the two eyes open thing, if

mine will let me. I once picked up a Leica Model A (?) with the

viewfinder perched on top. It was great. You could see so much

around the frame.

 

And I find when working at full aperture in low light, the ability to

see through the viewfinder into the far background really helps

make me aware of distracting elements. I find with an SLR that

my eye is drawn much more to the main subject in focus, rather

than the whole scene.

 

Interesting - the different ways of working.

 

Cheers

 

Z

[zora_suleman]

And Robert, yes, I understand what you mean about needing to

have confidence that you are in focus. Sometimes we have to

just press the shutter, and if we have time, focus properly and

take another one. Sometimes we dither and see the whole

scene escape, for ever.

 

One reason that I tend to steer clear of automatic or autofocus

cameras is because I never know what the blinking things are

up to. Even my lovely Ricoh GR1v has a date information setting

which can accidentally get switched on, imprinting pointless

numbers on the negative.

 

Zx

[mattalofs]

Robert, a little OT, but I have to say that you have some particularly beautiful wedding shots.

[rab_l]

Thank's Matt

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Zora,

 

I'm totally with you on this one. I can't understand why an M should not be ideal for action and children -- pre-focus and there's zero focus lag (unlike autofocus) and pre-set the exposure and there's no exposure delay. From memory the delay between pressing the picture and taking the pic with an M is 1/60 second. No SLR, digi or film, can come close.

 

But then I've been using Leicas for over 30 years.

 

As for Capa, C-B and others, I'm with you again. A 35mm camera is not an 8x10, suited only to sterile pseudo-wilderness shots in the derivative Ansel Adams school. Without the crutch of technical excellence (easy with big formats) you have to take good pictures instead -- which is a LOT more difficult. I may nick some of these ideas for my AP column!

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[don_qi_kong]

Before there was many people have made very good pictures with all kind of range finder cameras Contax Nikon Leica Canon more. Lately maybe something more easier like auto focus and programme exposure but still photographer has to look into finder and also decide which moment to take snap. Some Leica buyers don't use Leica for nothing but pretty thing in glass box then think everybody must listen to them like expert.

[markci]

I think your claims for doing action photography with an M and a 90mm would carry more weight if you would actually post the photos instead of talking about them. Although I guess I'm not completely surprised that it can be done at f/11, that's within one stop of full noon sun at ISO 100, so it sounds sort of limiting.

[zora_suleman]

I have read your column on occasion Roger, and it is always

interesting. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your comments

about 'sterile pseudo-wilderness shots in the derivative Ansel

Adams school', as I think that it must in some ways be very

difficult indeed to bring something real and beautiful out of a

natural landscape. With people, infinitely strange and beautiful, I

find the possibilities almost endless.

 

That said, I love John Blakemore's large format studies of

Derbyshire and Wales. So beautiful. But of work by Ansel Adams,

it would be his 35mm pictures of people (Georgia O'Keefe and

Orville Cox for instance) that I am most drawn to.

 

Anyway, take care now

 

Zx