Still sitting on the darn fence?

[robert_meyers]

Ok. Still sitting on the darn fence? but getting ready to jump. I

just have a couple more questions, to help edge myself along.

 

First I found a new (with Passport) M6TTL for $1500. It is a

chrome .85. I would be looking at the following lenses: 35/1.2

Voightlander, 50/2 Planar and 90/2 Summicron (and the 21mm Biogon,

but I have my G Biogon?s viewfinder... so irrelevant). Problem, I

wear glasses, though I can barely see the 35mm markings, so would

this possibly be an issue in the long run for me? Also, is this the

magnification you would suggest for these lenses? As an FYI, I

prefer shooting with two eyes open.

 

Now comes the weird question: in harsh weather, will this camera be

something to put in a pouch, or use? Rain and cold. High humidity

and high heat. My planned travel for next year is going to run the

gamut. This is a big issue for me.

 

Comments? Suggestions? Issues?

 

So far from feedback for me or others, I seem to keep killing off

choices (CL and R3A for example). Hopefully, I finally have a good

choice.

 

Thanks!

[george_conboy1]

Robert, I have used M6s in high heat and humidity (and below-freezing weather) for the last 15 years with no problem. I don't recall ever having one out in a soaking rain, though they have been rained on a bit from time to time. Never have had any weather related problems.

 

Don't drop one on your driveway, though. That was cause for a CLA.

[johns1]

Why the 35 Voigtlander if you're going to travel a lot? It's a weighty hunk of glass. A nice, older 35mm Summicron, though slower, might make a better traveling companion due to its handy size and low weight.

 

Same goes for the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (thin) vice the 90/Summicron.

 

If you're planning to shoot reversal film, then I understand the need for lens speed. But with the incredible quality these days from either Fuji or Kodak 400 speed color print, weight might be a factor in your decisions, yes?

 

I just finished a week's trip to Baltimore taking only my new 75/2.0 Summicron and fifty year old, tiny Canon 28/2.8 and never felt the need for more lenses other that an occasional pang of desire for my 21/Elmarit.

[pensacolaphoto]

I agree with Jack. Choose lighter lenses whenever possible. On my last trip, I used mainly the 25/4 Voightlaender and a Canon 35mm/1.8 for their light weight. The 85/1.9 stayed home in the bag bacause of the weight. Another issue that faced me what excessive X-raying due to having metal lenses with me. I suspect that the X-ray people were not used to seeing people with metal lenses.

[peter_evans4]

<p>Both eyes open? CV 35/2.5 (not the latest version), CV 35/1.7, or Canon 35/2 (newer version if possible); CV 50/1.5, CV 50/2.5, Canon 50/1.8 (black), Nikon 50/2 (unless it focuses in the opposite direction) or whatever; Canon 100/3.5; Canon P. You'll have to use your imagination for those 35mm framelines, though. (They do exist, but you won't see them.)</p>

[Troll]

You'll be Sorrrry!

[spider_.]

If you like to shoot with both eyes open, then the .85 is your viewfinder. You won't see the

framelines using the 35 with glasses, however, having both eyes open will be helpful in

framing your shots. Each time you use the 50 and the 90 you will congratulate yourself on

having purchased the .85 finder.

 

As to the lenses, keep them small and light for travel. In fact, just take one lens on your

trips. Make it a 35. That's enough.

[peter_evans4]

Perhaps I might remind readers that the Canon P has a 1.0 viewfinder.

[robert_meyers]

Ok, it sounds like I need to explain the lens choices I had listed:)

 

My main carry I was thinking would be a 50/2 Planar (I love my 45 Planar) and a 21/2.8 Biogon (which is often the lens I match with my 45/2).

 

Now the weird ones. The 35/1.2 was simply for low light, and would only be carried on demand. Otherwise it would not be around. The 90/2 was simply for portraits. I love tight DoF portraits, and they are incredibly hard to get my preferred look off of digital? so it is one of my self justifications:)

 

Now I had not known the P had a 1.0 magnification. That is incredibly interesting.

 

Does anyone know how the M6TTL will behave in rain? I like shooting during fires and storms, so, it would really be nice if it would work there as well? but it is a major point of interest.

[robert_meyers]

I was not trying to throw out the lens suggestions, just wanted to point out why they were, what they were.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>The 90/2 was simply for portraits. I love tight DoF portraits, and they are incredibly hard to get my preferred look off of digital? so it is one of my self justifications:)</em></p><p>I like them too. While I haven't tried 90/2 with a RF, I find that approaches to this (e.g. 75/2.5) have an odd habit of being wrongly focused. Whereas the combination of F-1 and 85/1.2 gets a fairly high percentage of successes. (NB while this lens is already quite heavy enough for me, the later equivalent in EOS mount weighs about half as much again.) For me, this is SLR territory.</p><p><em>Now I had not known the P had a 1.0 magnification. That is incredibly interesting.</em></p><p>If you have questions about the <a href="http://www.vermontel.net/~wsalati/CasualCollector/canonp.htm">Canon P</a>, do ask.</p>

[kevin k]

When I used to subscribe to National Geographic, I always looked up the photog bios. I noted that the assignments in arctic type climes were often shot with Leica gear or Leica gear was taken as backup for the known ability to perform in harsh conditions. You'll probably be fine regarding this issue.

 

I have had both M-6 bodies and found them to be among the finest cameras I have ever owned (and I am currently using the vaunted M3; no current dog in the fight). I have owned and used a large quantity of different camera/film types and still feel this way.

 

I am lucky in that while I need eyeglasses, my right eye is in reasonable shape. I can take off my glasses to shoot. I do not find much difference between shooting SLR or rangefinder cameras when it comes to focusing. I would always prefer to take off the glasses while shooting, but I can leave them on in either case.

 

I simply can't imagine a single case where I would have a better view through any camera body while wearing glasses, as opposed to removing them. I feel this is an overrated problem directed at rangefinders. My glasses would still bunch up against the rear viewfinder of any SLR or rangefinder I have ever owned, causing me to have an incomplete perspective of what can be seen within the viewfinder without them. You will probably spend a lot more on replacement eyeglass lenses if you shoot with your face jammed up against any viewfinder (i.e. scratches).

 

PLease don't toy with LF. You will only multiply your concerns. Try focusing with your face nearly right up against the film plane.

 

Instead, you can learn to scale focus. This will solve your dilemna and make you a very fast photog. I would buy a rangefinder if I were going to become a respectable scale focuser.

 

Kevin

[robert_meyers]

Just for clarification here. I am not new to photography. I also, always have done my photography with glasses on. I also do quite a bit of scale focusing.

 

But what does LF mean?

[robert_meyers]

If you have questions about the Canon P, do ask.

 

Here are a few questions for you:

 

1. How does the shutter sound compare to the M6TTL?

2. How well does this camera hold up is very poor weather?

3. How bright is the viewfinder, once again compared to an M6TTL?

4. Does the wrinkling of the shutter effect performance of the camera?

 

Thanks!

[john_newell2]

A reasonably functioning Canon P sounds, well, a lot like a Leica M, but a little more metallic, hence a little bit more noticeable. Not much, but a little.

 

The Canon P isn't waterproof, or even water-resistant, but neither is a Leica M. If the camera gets wet, you are likely to get water in the viewfinder (visible) and elsewhere in the body through the varous holes in the top deck (not visible).

 

Except in extreme cases, wrinkled shutters do not seem to have any effect on the Canon RF cameras.

 

If you haven't seen it, you might want to read Dante Stella's take on the P here: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canonp.html (By the way, he thinks the Canon SS shutters are at the same noise level as Leica M shutters.) Steven Gandy also has a series of articles on the Canon RFs.

[john_newell2]

On the rain issue, you should do a search in the archives here. It turns out this issue has come up quite a few times, with a variety of answers, though most users don't seem to worry about it and have not had bad experiences.

[peter_evans4]

I don't have a Leica, but the finder of the Canon P is not celebrated as being particularly bright. Whatever else you may think of it, the Bessa R3A (like the R2A) is said to be particularly bright; with this at the back of my mind, I took my P along with me when I recently went on other business to the Voigtlaender showroom/repair place here, and compared the P and R3A directly. Well, the R3A is brighter, but not by so much. Where the P falls down is that the finder is prone to flare: now that 46 years have gone by, there are good examples and poor examples, and mine is rather poor -- fine in most circumstances, rather awful in others. A Nikonos it ain't, but I don't see any reason why it would be less waterproof than a Leica. With a straightforward hinged back, it's easier to load than a Leica, so it might be less vulnerable to dust (etc.) when being loaded, and easier to clean once dust had got inside. $1500 would get you half a dozen examples of the P where I happen to live, so you might get one, see how you liked it, and then, if you decided you did like it, get a spare. NB it doesn't take bayonet-mount lenses, there's no built-in meter, and I'd guess that most examples of the optional more-or-less-coupled meter are pretty dodgy by now.