Why a M7

[Allen Herbert]

and i would get all my batteries mixed up.and someones mega-skyraker

zoom would not work...oops lost a customer.And someone would hit me

over the head with their free photo book thinking I,m taking the

p***,hope i dont have bad dreams tonight.

[michael_b.1]

... Considering that, in his first post two days ago, Allen was

asking about the suitability of the M vs. R for his shooting,

yesterday he had made the decision to go with an M, and today he's an

experienced M6 owner worried about Leica's glorious tradition, it

seems pretty obvious we're dealing with a pure-bred troll.

 

<p>

 

Very, very amusing ...

[michael_b.1]

Let's go to LOST SOUL ... bye here.

[michael_b.1]

I forgot ... with a little stop at M7 MISTAKE.

[Allen Herbert]

Enjoy, i am sure you will find them more interesting,and with a lot

more input than your usual discussions about the best lense cap for a

canon, Regards Allen

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Allen, can�t you be serious !

 

<p>

 

I�m sure you�re a passionate lover of your M� Something no one

having ever used a M body can honestly deny to have been. But please

face the facts. Your point of view is perfectly respectable but not

really practical anymore for the specific kind of photography a M is

dedicated to.

 

<p>

 

I have been �educated� in photography at a time the amateur world

hardly used any meter (Selenium and hand held of course). B&W was

pretty much the only kind of film used, color being a �deluxe�

feature hardly affordable by the average photog. They now say their

B&W films were never more tolerant in exposure than today. They may

be right when using test beds in their laboratories. But we all know

the other part of the process, I mean printing, is done on very poor

paper (of the plastic variety) by the average people and that even

the highest class of classical paper so called �archival� or �fine

art� is hardly the equivalent of a standard quality paper of the

60�s � It means that your negative can have better registered the

information than before but it will be impossible to print them

correctly if slightly off in exposure. Practically exposure should

be almost as accurate as with a slide to get a print I will describe

as �merely acceptable� with plastic paper and say rather good with

a �deluxe� classic paper (unless you are an expert printer

compensating with masks and other tricks the mediocre quality of the

paper). Not to mention the fact that you�ll have a hard time finding

a way to glaze your prints perfectly with what is left to do so on

the market today (and with a sky high price)�

 

<p>

 

I�m sure 90% of the work is now done with color film and serious

work, we all know that can�t be done but with slide films to be

exposed within 1/3 of a stop�

 

<p>

 

So to say a meter is now a must.

 

<p>

 

Thanks to Sparkie I know now a Weston is still available � So far so

good, but (I went to the site he indicated) it is far more limited

in metering range than my Sekonic which happens to be a flash-meter

too (yes SOMETIMES I need to change the batteries �). Now I must

confess I use my hand held meter more in the incident way than the

reflected mode and you know why ? Just because it is easier and

faster to measure in the reflective mode with a TTL meter and you

can chose your point of measure better by the way.

 

<p>

 

I have nothing against using a totally manual and mechanical camera

even devoid of any TTL measure though. And in fact before my

Hasselblad was stolen I did it more than often� But this way to take

pictures belongs to subjects that are not fleeting ones� Not the

ones I usually tackle with my old M5 and now with my Hexar RF� With

this kind of camera I want to record LIFE� Spontaneous, candid

shots.

 

<p>

 

Did you know the famous Cartier Bresson, using an M3 when shooting

the May 1968 events in Paris got completely overexposed films� His

images were saved only because he was Mr. Cartier Bresson by the

laboratory producing intermediate negatives (one could easily

imagine what would have been the outcome for an unknown freelance

photographer coming with such badly exposed negatives)? Here is the

truth behind the myth surrounding the great old times of fully

manual guesswork photography ! �

 

<p>

 

The real question is what kind of photography you practice with your

M� If you do the same work I did with my Hasselblad, then I

understand perfectly your point: true the manual way makes the

photographer think twice before shooting and I think it is the best

way. But is it really what the M (and before it all the other Leica

models) was conceived to do ? I don�t think so� They were made with

action and life in mind. And the M5 and the M6 were better suited

than a M4 to do so because of TTL metering, so is the M7 with the

option IF REQUIRED to use AE mode and a better M7 with matrix would

have been the ideal tool for today.

 

<p>

 

I agree with you when you imply �gadgetry� as found on most of the

35 mm SLR of today (including the AF unless you use a long fast tele-

lens for action photography) is useless and even makes the

photographer lazy, making him lose contact with what he does and

control (AF epitomizing the point because it generally precludes the

rational use of depth of field in the pictures for lack of proper

engraved indications on the lens barrel and proper resistance to

maintain the chosen focus position: a clear cased of �imposed

automatism�). But please, admit each time an automatism is ACTUALLY

fully optional, its use (or no use) is the result of the

photographer�s deliberate choice� So it does no harm at all, on the

contrary it just broadens the capabilities to register some kind of

image otherwise impossible to record (or only recorded by chance).

For me FRAMING and the TIME you press the button are the main

decisions you take. Then come (but only then) the choice of the

exposure� Just because you must have time to do so� Which is

obviously not ever the case in real life photography.

 

<p>

 

That�s why I�m convinced the problem with the M7 is exactly the

opposite of what you describe, it is not too �automatic� (that would

have been the case if it was auto mode only, or AF equipped) but

insufficiently automatic when automatism use is required by the

subject.

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

[Allen Herbert]

Your thoughts are well put.and deserve an equally well thought out

answer,this i will post soon. Regards Allen

[Allen Herbert]

With practice exposure,speedsettings become a state of mind.No

exposure meter will ever be as accurate as the human mind.This is

only achieved with practice,and more practice.There is a satisfaction

on its own in achieving this skill.Many Leica users and others are

already there.A auto everthing or just a little bit of auto is a

barrier.By our nature we follow the easy option,hence the growth in

auto everthing, not just in cameras.We are always rushing to the next

moment.Most experienced non auto focus users will focus their camera

as quick as the auto man.Okay many people cannot be bothered with all

this,just want a picture,i really feel they are missing out on part

of the photographic experience.

 

<p>

 

This is my the first part of my answer,i will follow in parts to the

rest of your thoughts.

 

<p>

 

You really Know how to get people to put their thing caps on.Regards

Allen

[Allen Herbert]

Second part

Leica is only a small company in cannot compete in resources with the

nikon canon giants etc.It relies on its quality of product.which in

my opion is the very best.And yes, i do believe in that extra

something which is in a Leica photo.Yes i do believe that Leica

should produce a auto everything in conjuction with one of the

giants,who would love to use the name LEICA.I do not think they have

the money on their own.Hass did it with one of the giants.But i still

believe they should keep a fully manual camera as part of their

heritage and for people like me.There is a interest in manual cameras

and it is growing,giants do not waste money.The Leica is what they

are measured by,these new manuals.Have to have a rest know.

The next part will answer my critics this trolling thing,then i will

move to your ques Leica was designed as a action camera and has never

moved on.

[Allen Herbert]

to my critics

i am not sure what trolling is.If it means lively discussion on a new

M ,and more than one posting..i plead guilty.If it means we should

not be talking about the latest Leica product..guilty.If it means

only talking about what some boring no interest thing ...guilty.If it

means not answering geniune questions about hexor lenses..guilty.If

it means pleasing a small group of people trying to flog their

products...guilty.If it means not being a decent person not guilty.If

it means not answering back to a adult version of school boy bullies

on the web...Tough!If it is about looking at newsgroup pictures i

love them please MORE MORE AND MORE.Regards Allen

[Allen Herbert]

Yes you are right it was.,and guess what it still is.Okay it has not

got a big auto tele for sport, nothing is perfect use Nikon i

do..Street or scenic is still the same,as are family shots.The Leica

or any manual makes you move in close(sound like a Leica brochure)be

part of the action ,and you will be a part of it.People will forget

about you, then you will get shows shots that the auto zoom

boys/girls have wet dreams about.And you will enjoy yourself being

part of the party.The price is nowing your bus short cuts seldom

work.Bit like soaps chewy but empty.iam sure Mr c made mistakes still

did not stop him from being the man.

Next part Why should i bother with all that stuff,the picture is all

what matters who cares how i got there,whats wrong with photoshop

anyway its the results what count.

[Allen Herbert]

It does matter, to who,you.Really we can surf the web copy any

picture. Tell all our friends look what i took!they would think we

are a wondeful photo man/women.Or you could wander around New York

in the rain,be accosted by the local police. and lowlifes.Half your

exposures have not worked ,because you did not use a exposure meter

(you listened to that troll)But there was a couple of shots which

did,and they are not that bad ,even pretty good.Need i say more.

[Allen Herbert]

M7

Well,i must admit i have posted a few blood boiling statements about

this camera.

Why to have some fun!not really.

And what is ,should i buy a r or m when the r is half the price about.

Well i will post these anwers tommorow.to quote Mr Sparkie i have run

out of juice.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

 

Allen,

 

<p>

 

You write:

 

<p>

 

>> With practice exposure, speed settings become a state of mind.<<

 

<p>

 

My answer will be: it used to be so� And it is still the case for

speed as it is very easy to determine which one will avoid the

subject to be unintentionally blurred� As far as f stops are

concerned and taking into account what I wrote in my preceding post,

I have to disagree� We are no more exposing B&W films with an

effective printing tolerance of say 3 f stops. We are mostly

exposing slides with a 1/3 of an f-stop tolerance� The scale is not

the same and the consequences of a minor misevaluation can ruin all

the work.

 

<p>

 

>> No exposure meter will ever be as accurate as the human mind.<<

 

<p>

 

I beg to disagree as far as technical considerations are concerned.

What is true in what you wrote is that not a single automatic system

can replace the human mind in choosing what is to be measured

(knowing no film can register what our brain can perceive at the

same time in term of contrast). This is very different from the

accuracy of a measure and relies more on Ansel Adams theory� This is

linked to interpretative photography. Of course even the best matrix

system will never be able to equal the human brain and the human

sensitivity here. What such a system can do (and it does do it) is

to permit a technically correct exposure when you have no time to

practice an interpretation of the subject�

 

<p>

 

>> This is only achieved with practice, and more practice. There is

a satisfaction on its own in achieving this skill.<<

 

<p>

 

I was once able to do that quite well (not with a Leica as at that

time it was only a dream for me but with a Czech copy of the

Rolleiflex: a Meopta Flexaret IIIa) . But it was the time of B&W

only and with very few different films (I always used the Ilford HP

3 � low light situation � or the Kodak Verichrome Pan outdoor in

sunny days) so this skill was rather easy to master. Taking into

account the real tolerance of the film + paper combination of the

time� I think this is no more practical today (color + actually

intolerant B&W). Add to this a natural tendency to broaden the

choice of films used depending on the subject with all those slide

films with different dominant and contrast available on the market�

 

>> Many Leica users and others are already there. A auto everything

or just a little bit of auto is a barrier. <<

 

<p>

 

If someone has been courageous enough to learn the real way to take

pictures (a way which needs to use your brain) I doubt he will use

any auto device that would limit his control of the final result. I

don�t think Leica M�s or any similar cameras have ever attracted

lazy push button guys� So I don�t see them staying �auto-mode� if it

diminishes their capabilities to stay in control.

 

<p>

 

Read Putts test on the M7 when he speaks of how he used the A mode�

And the results he obtained.

 

<p>

 

>> By our nature we follow the easy option, hence the growth in auto

everything, not just in cameras. <<

 

<p>

 

Allen, I ever judge my work (and the work of my fellow

photographers) by the result: i.e. the image. Any camera I used (and

I used a lot in my life, mine and those friends were kind enough to

lend me) has been judged by their ability to deliver the image I

wanted them to deliver, the one I pre-conceived in my brain. I had

once an �auto all� Nikon F4S. From the beginning I NEVER used

the �program� setting. I wanted to control my depth of field and I

wanted to control the amount of blur I authorize on a moving

subject. I wanted to test the AF with tele-lenses in action

photography. I discovered two things: The AF was less than perfect

in many situations it would have been most helpful (they say the

newer AF are better in those situations, so be it and I won�t

comment further) and it was a real burden when it goes to shorter

focal lens and didn�t permit the use of the depth of field the way I

wanted to use it. So soon the AF lenses were gone and back to the

manual focusing ones and finally this cumbersome body was sold. The

only feature I regret is matrix metering. More than once when I had

no time to set the beast in spot mode, chose the right place to

meter and re-compose the image, it saved the day (I was a news

reporter at that time). Sometimes the value of a picture is carried

by the subject itself, and the right moment to click. Not by the

virtues of an artistic interpretation. And still these images are

powerful and moving. This is where AE is useful. AF is bad because

it has the side effect of depriving you of depth of field control

but I admit it is necessary to obtain the best result when you have

to capture a flying bird in close up with a long tele-lens or � for

the sport photog. I�m not � the crucial moment of a match. I hate AF

because �de facto� it can�t be fully disconnected, like I hated the

first AE cameras because you were unable to go manual if required. I

want and need the choice�

 

<p>

 

My practice with the Hexar RF (which is very similar to what is

described by Putts in his test) has simply teach me another way to

do the same I did with my manual M5� I use AE lock and recompose.

The effect is absolutely the same as to frame for exposure, set it

manually and recompose. It is only a tad faster (but not so). When I

need something more special I simply go manual. The same applies to

the M7 and � again I insist � unfortunately, just because manual or

AE lock modes are so close that the gain is thin when you need fast

operation. When I have to resort to an automatism I need it to

perform really faster than me, or I don�t NEED it. Though it may be

a tad more comfortable.

 

<p>

 

You have to dominate your camera and not to be dominated by it. It

is as simple as that.

 

<p>

 

>> We are always rushing to the next moment. Most experienced non

auto focus users will focus their camera as quick as the auto man. <<

 

<p>

 

100% agreed but this is due to the very nature of AF an IMPOSED and

IMPERFECT automatism (even when not in use it still interfere with

manual operation) and the fact any knowledgeable photog knows how to

use the DOF ring� But I�m not convinced a MF user can focus as fast

and accurately a 400 mm tele-lens as an AF can do on the other side�

 

<p>

 

>> Okay many people cannot be bothered with all this, just want a

picture, I really feel they are missing out on part of the

photographic experience. <<

 

<p>

 

The problem is what do you call a picture? I�ve nothing

against �souvenir hunters� but I think calling them photographers is

a term of abuse. I don�t think either they want any kind of

photographic experience at all. They want a souvenir and they are

the best candidates for the entry level (and so drastically

overpriced) auto-all digital cameras of today� Like they were

candidates for the awful 110 format or the Polaroïd some years ago�

IF (and that is the case of most Leica users) you have experienced

what quality means in term of image rendition and docility in doing

exactly what YOU (the man behind the camera) want to obtain you

won�t accept any stupid allegedly do it all automatism will impose

on you� When the world relied on horse riding for fast move there

were bad riders and good ones, the world now relies more on car

driving to do the same and there are still good and bad drivers� A

man behind the reins or behind the wheel � But in any case a man.

The same applies to cameras but if the camera doesn�t

authorize �manual override��

 

<p>

 

>> Second part Leica is only a small company in cannot compete in

resources with the nikon canon giants etc. <<

 

<p>

 

What a mistake! True �Leica cameras� is a small unit but it is

nevertheless part of a very rich and highly profitable optical group

doing in medical and military appliances to say but a few.

 

<p>

 

If the higher echelon of the group had decided a major investment in

camera RD there is more than adequate resources to do so.

 

>> It relies on its quality of product. which in my opinion is the

very best. <<

 

<p>

 

I agree on every part of your statement as far as lenses are

concerned. I am more sceptical when it goes to the camera bodies,

which is a pity as they WERE the world leaders not so long ago.

 

<p>

 

>> And yes, I do believe in that extra something which is in a Leica

photo.<<

 

<p>

 

Two things here:

 

<p>

 

The M concept is something which is impossible to beat as it gives

you a certain way to take pictures (exactly what you say below in

terms of being part of the action). But it doesn�t mean this concept

can�t be better served with new features.

 

<p>

 

The lenses are truly exceptional� Nothing in small format

photography has this special rendition. And � surprise � they work

exactly the same when attached to my �lowly� Konica Hexar body�

 

>> Yes I do believe that Leica should produce a auto everything in

conjunction with one of the giants, who would love to use the name

LEICA <<

 

<p>

 

I have to disagree here� Each time Leica (Leitz then) introduced

something new in its great old time, it was something perfect in the

sense it worked exactly as it was advertised and was ever highly

useful. Even the now so �cumbersome and slow� and

discontinued �Visoflex� was a masterpiece when produced at a time 35

mm SLR didn�t know about auto pre-set aperture and instant mirror�

Because at that time you could have both a RF camera AND a SLR

camera in one and it was not slower than the competitors when used

as a SLR.

 

We don�t need something with "Leica" put on it and full of useless

and bothering gadgetry. Particularly AF like the �infamous� Contax

G2. But YES we need a M (with the M SOUL) but which permits us to

face situations more than often encountered in today photography

with the same chance of success as people using modern SLR (in the

same range of focal length of course) PLUS what ever made the M a

superior machine for spontaneous candid shots� And we need it

without being unable to use it the old way should the old way might

be more efficient. My only concession being on battery dependence

which IMHO is no more a true liability. We need Leica to retake the

leadership there and we need Leica to produce a much more affordable

camera through the use of modern technology.

 

<p>

 

>> I do not think they have the money on their own. Hass did it with

one of the giants. But i still believe they should keep a fully

manual camera as part of their heritage and for people like me. <<

 

<p>

 

Of course I see no reason to discontinue the M6 TTL and it doesn�t

seem to be part of their project either� After all Nikon recently

issued a new version of the old FM (once one of my favourites)� But

if Leica wants to survive I think they MUST produce something more

convincing than the M7 as an everyday TOOL.

 

<p>

 

>> There is a interest in manual cameras and it is growing, giants

do not waste money.<<

 

<p>

 

Of course there is� As soon as you discover the simple notion of

DOF, you run fast from their auto all AF cameras� And who but a very

thin minority uses a 300 mm and more tele-lens everyday (where AF is

really efficient). But a medium solution is available nowhere. Even

the new Nikon with MF is devoid of the matrix metering� So you have

the choice between auto-all and shut up and something bringing you

back at least 20 years ago�

 

<p>

 

>> The Leica is what they are measured by, these new manuals.<<

 

<p>

 

Both economically and by concept I see nothing really comparable.

Hexar RF is not a really mechanical camera and Bessas are not in the

same league at all. Nikon is a SLR and no more 100% mechanical (it

is an FA 3)�

 

<p>

 

>> Yes you are right it was, and guess what it still is. Okay it has

not got a big auto tele for sport, nothing is perfect use Nikon I

do.<<

 

<p>

 

Allen, I don�t compare the M (or any other RF cameras for that

matter) with SLR�s� This would be perfectly stupid� I know the

virtues of RF cameras and their limits too. As I�m not a wild life

or sports photographer, I don�t need a big AF tele-lens� Anytime I

need something good for a manual tele-lens or macro-photography I

use a medium format SLR (better surface, better image). And I won�t

hesitate to use a large format should the movements associated with

such cameras were necessary. But for me, wildlife or sports

photography taken aside, I see absolutely no need for a SLR in small

format photography� for the very reasons you expose thereafter�

 

<p>

 

>> Street or scenic is still the same, as are family shots. The

Leica or any manual makes you move in close (sound like a Leica

brochure) be part of the action, and you will be a part of it.<<

 

<p>

 

I don�t need to go manual in exposure to be near the action or be

part of it, I need a RF small format camera� This is the power of

the concept. Would it be mechanical and fully manual or fully

electronic (with the option to go manual at will) it doesn�t change

the basic concept. The second camera will simply permits you, should

the need arise, to get a very fleeting subject with much more chance

of success� Did you ever �steal� an image? I did. And this is the

way I proceed: I simply use a wide angle pre-set with the needed

depth of field and take the picture at waist level without framing

the scene� The exposure to use may be tricky to determine and even

if it is not so, to rely on a matrix here will guarantee you the

result technically speaking. The same applies when you put your

camera over a crowd your arms fully extended �

 

<p>

 

>> People will forget about you, then you will get shows shots that

the auto zoom boys/girls have wet dreams about. And you will enjoy

yourself being part of the party. The price is knowing your bus

short cuts seldom work. Bit like soaps chewy but empty. I am sure Mr

c made mistakes still did not stop him from being the man. <<

 

<p>

 

He was the man� And I am the man when I switch my Hexar RF to auto

mode too� I know where and when to switch it and why for� Where is

the difference ? Easy to know: should Mr. C have had simply an M5

instead of an M3 his negatives would have been correctly exposed�

And more than often a fleeting subject or a fleeting expression on

the face of someone, a play of light I have captured, because I was

on AE mode and fully concentrated on my subject bothering only to

the composition and the choice of the moment�

 

<p>

 

>> Next part Why should I bother with all that stuff, the picture is

all what matters who cares how I got there, what�s wrong with

photoshop anyway its the results what count. <<

 

<p>

 

Yes it is the result that counts, what it can convey to you and the

others looking at your picture.

 

<p>

 

>> It does matter, to who, you. Really we can surf the web copy any

picture. Tell all our friends look what i took! they would think we

are a wonderful photo man/women.<<

 

<p>

 

Are you really serious and what this deviation from the subject

exactly means ? My pics are mine the pics from other people are

theirs � MY result counts for me.

 

<p>

 

>> Or you could wander around New York in the rain, be accosted by

the local police. and lowlifes. Half your exposures have not

worked ,because you did not use a exposure meter (you listened to

that troll). <<

 

<p>

 

What troll at all� To be accosted with local Police (and even

clubbed when working) was something I practiced more than often when

I was a reporter. But I don�t see any advantage of having missed

some good pics for not using a meter�

 

<p>

 

>> But there was a couple of shots which did, and they are not that

bad , even pretty good. Need I say more. <<

 

<p>

 

What you seem to have some difficulty to admit is between the shots

you missed some might have been even more evocative and powerful

than the mere two you brought back and I see no reason to spoil such

work by a bad exposure. I would have simply brought back some more

interesting usable shots on the way. Of course if my composition was

poor and the moment I click was wrong the fact to have a well

exposed piece of s...t means absolutely nothing� But these

parameters are not influenced at all by using a meter or not� Nor if

this meter is hand held, TTL, manual or AE� But in some occasions AE

metering will probably have permitted me to get an interesting shot

I would have missed otherwise� It is entirely up to me to chose the

moment I have to use it.

 

<p>

 

>> M7 Well, I must admit I have posted a few blood boiling

statements about this camera. Why to have some fun! not really. And

what is , should I buy a r or m when the r is half the price about.

Well I will post these answers tomorrow to quote Mr Sparkie I have

run out of juice. <<

 

<p>

 

To compare the R to the M is something I�ll never do (unless you

want to compare the lenses of similar focal length). I really don�t

care about the R being half the price of the M. it is not the same

philosophy, nor the same use. But to compare the M7 to the Hexar RF

seems to me very relevant. Unfortunately for Leica, I think the M7

few advantages are not worth the increase in price (more than

twice). Should the M7 had brought really significant new features,

my opinion should have been different (it should have implied

serious financial problems for me and a lot of frustration waiting

to have the necessary money to buy it). I still admire the M6 but

I�m not ready to spend so much for an all manual camera body using

the same old shutter that was used 50 years ago. So to say for

something which had been fully amortized since decades� I don�t want

to add any commentary to that statement regarding the honesty of

Leica practicing such a price for it. Enough said

 

<p>

 

Best regards

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

[ray_moth]

Allen, you said: "My understanding of leica Ms is that you take the

photo not the camera,that is the whole idea of the camera. Correct me

if I am wrong."

 

<p>

 

You're not wrong but neither are you completely right, because your

statement is too limiting. The same philosophy applies equally to

Leica R. Many successful R users would be justifiably offended if

they were told that the camera had taken the picture, not them.

[Allen Herbert]

Anand held will help you train yoursef to think correct

exposure.Before you use thik what the exposures will be right,the use

the meter as a check.Soon you will not need it. The best meters on a

camera is the simple one,if that is the way you want to go..Why,you

know it will be wrong in certain situations.,backlite etc,therefor

you can easly correct it.When we go to the 3D MATRIX WE ARE NEVER

SURE IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.how can we know when ti compensate.No

metering system yet devised gets it right all the time.,by the time

they do you wont need it anyway.Auto focus,good for sport,good for

nothing else.

I was reading a advert,this top photographer was showing how he had

improved a landscape by enhancing the sky etc by using grands, warm

ups.To my mind ,what he was saying was

that he did not like the photo he was seeing,so he has changed it to

what he wants to see.Should have used photo shop easer.

Which leads me on to the thought to what is a photograph..

1.A photograph is what is in front of the camera,love it or leave it.

2.A photograph ,or anything else which has been changed from the

original should be called a Pictoral Image,not to get confused with a

photograph.I am sure those Pictoral image makers would be get more

satisfaction ftom a brush and canvas.

And can some one tell me what the sklight filter is all about.Better

still how have they fooled a lot of photographers into putting a

piece of cheap glass in front of a expensive lense,seems to defeat

the whole objectExcuse me can i use your window i would like to take

a photo through it.Yet again another example of a gizzo to feed to

the unthinking crowd.No wonder why we a have barking made nutters

followed by people without a thought.

Regard Allen

[nesrani]

"Excuse me can i use your window i would like to take a photo through

it.Yet again another example of a gizzo to feed to the unthinking

crowd.No wonder why we a have barking made nutters followed by people

without a thought"

 

<p>

 

Yes, no wonder!

 

<p>

 

Come to think of it, I think I preferred it all uppercase...

[Allen Herbert]

Some one has upset him,was it me!

Just for you..I saw a man who was not there,he was not there again

today.I do wish that man would go away.

Lots of love Allen

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Allen,

 

<p>

 

Sincerly, I tried to make you understand SIMPLE things and you are

more and more answering aside of the question.

 

<p>

 

It is PHYSIOLOGICALLY impossible for ANY people even the best

trained individual to get an exact numerical measure of light with

the accuracy a meter have. And this is scientifically proven.

 

<p>

 

The human brain is sensitive to contrast and light level but can't

give you a direct precise numerical reading like an instrument...

You can "approach" a numerical value with training but you can't

beat the precision of the instrument. This is sheer non-sense to

pretend the opposite... All, even the best, of the production in

photography before the meters came in general use are the product of

the BROAD tolerances the film and paper combination once permitted

in B&W. If some where exposed perfectly (say + or - 1/3rd of an f

stop), it was only by chance. This "margin of error" does not extend

to the 1/3rd of an f stop required by modern color slide films.

Besides, not so long ago, when orthocromatic films were still in

current use as day to day films, they were developped under the same

kind of dark red light we still use in dark rooms for papers. So

mistakes in original exposure were compensated for in the

developper. That's why old days photography was a viable technic.

These are things of the past.

 

<p>

 

Now I said (I don't know how I can make you understand that) the

time you "guess" the right exposure (admitting you can do so taking

into account the actual margin of error tolerated by modern films

and papers in B&W) and then control the accuracy of your measure

through a meter and set your camera accordingly, any fleeting

subject justifiying the use of something automatic will be long gone.

 

<p>

 

They even will be long gone if you don't verify your guess and just

set your camera to what you think is the right combination of speed

and aperture. This is where you NEED automatism... The question is

not to get the subject correctly exposed each time but that without

it you get it 1 time in a 100 and with it say 50% of the time with a

classical AE and 90% of the time with a matrix (I know it because I

used it).

 

<p>

 

A simple meter (and I'm sure YOU KNOW that) is set to have a

directly usable measure when the surface which is measured has a

reflectance of 33% - the so-called neutral gray. Hence, if you want

a TECHNICALLY correct exposure, you must measure on something akin

to neutral gray which refers to a significant part of your subject.

Having a simple AE will forbid you to do that so I agree with you

here. Simple AE is a stupid device.

 

<p>

 

Now let's go to manual with TTL reflective measure. The sequence is

as follows: frame for exposure following the rule exposed earlier,

then set the camera manually (admitiing you have already chosen one

of the settings following the old rule moving subject = speed rules,

still subjects = DOF rules) then re-frame for composition then click.

 

<p>

 

This process take a time I will call T1. With an AE lock you just

set the aperture in advance (hardly a problem to guess the minimal

aperture compatible with the speed required for the subject as it is

well within what a trained photograph will be able to... this is not

a 1/3rd of an f stop business). Then you frame for exposure and lock

the measure at the same time, then reframe and click... Precision is

equivalent to manual mode and certainly faster and more precise than

guesswork... So it takes you a duration I call T2. My experience has

made me learn T2 is inferior to T1 but not so much for a trained

individual. Conclusion AE lock may be a more comfortable mode than

manual but not such a gain as to be a decisive advantage over manual

operation with a TTL meter WITH A FLEETING SUBJECT.

 

<p>

 

Matrix metering is an entirely different process which is no more a

metering process strictly speaking but an analysis of the image by a

computer which also compares the results to built-in examples in its

memory and much faster than your brain will do. Your evocation of a

backlit situation proves you know NOTHING of the capabilities of

these engineer's marvel. It DOES recognize a backlit situation and

auto corrects it from the very moment your main subject occupates a

certain surface of your composition and auto corrects it

accordingly. In practice the result is TECHNICALLY good in 90% of

the cases. So you can just frame and click with 90% chance to obtain

a technically well exposed picture. So it is 10% LESS effcient than

manual or AE lock + spot meter used by a good photographer... But

its advantage over the two other technics is clear when you take

into account the time you have to capture the subject. It would be

utterly stupid to use a matrix metering when you have time to

operate a way a careful thinking will be permitted to get a 100%

correct exposure (moreover when you want to apply the Zone System

and so go to interpetative photography - but remember it was devised

for use with a large format camera in landscape phtography in mind,

hardly the usual way to use an small format RF)but to do that you

NEED TIME... For a really fleeting subject, YOU HAVE NO TIME...

Trying the old way will lead you to no image at all in MUCH MORE

than 10% of the time (the margin of error of the matrix metering)...

Hence when you are forced into automatism, better to have one 10%

wrong than to get nothing usable 90% of the time...

 

<p>

 

Matrix is a much better answer than AE lock in those situations and

than manual operation with classical meter and of course much better

than guesswork not because it is perfect but because it permits you

to get the image you want with a tremendously increased probability.

 

<p>

 

Yes PROBABILITY as no system is perfect and certainly not the "human

system"...

 

<p>

 

Now when you have situation that permits you to masterize the

exposure yourself (by whatever mean you consider appropriate) it is

better to go manual... My experience tells me a spotmeter directed

by a good photographer brain being the safest way than to guess but

if you want to guess I have no objection excepts, once more, the

laws of probabilities will be against you even if you're trained. No

human being is a lightmeter or has one incorporated in his brain

(even Mr Caertier-Bresson, remember my example?).

 

<p>

 

What you (apparently) CAN'T understand is I don't care with very

fleeting subjects if my matrix will not be 100% accurate when I know

any other method - even much more accurate on the paper - will end

up with missing the subject at all 90% of the time because it fails

to satisfy the necessary speed to react and you can't rely on

tolerance for an approximate pre-setting.

 

<p>

 

It doesn't create any barrier between me and the subject, and

certainly NO BARRIER in my personal choice because I (and I ONLY)

will decide when to use it or not, according to the situation and

not any kind of lazyness...

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[Allen Herbert]

It would seem to me the cusp of your argument is for those fleeting

shots full 3D matrix is the only answer.If this is not used good

shots will be lost.The human mind will never be able to compete,which

has been proven beyond doubt, am i correct in this assumption.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Allen,

 

<p>

 

In a certain way YES... At least the better answer we have in the

present state of the art to get the maximum probability of success.

 

<p>

 

Same applies whenever you have to steal an image through a technic

which excludes actual framing through the finder.

 

<p>

 

May I add, once more, I consider matrix metering absolutely useless

and worst than manual setting of the exposure in any other case?

 

<p>

 

My "philosophy" is ever use the most appropriate and safe technology

to get the picture you have in your mind... It is THAT simple.

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[douglas k.]

Two random thoughts:

1) Has anybody here ever really been left "stranded" by a dead

battery? If not, then why is everyone so concerned about the battery

dependency of the M7?

2) How can Erwin Puts, in one article, praise the M6 for its manual

operation (for the way it keeps photographer in touch with the

subject, etc.) and now praise the M7 for its automation which allows

photographer to concentrate on the scene before him/her?

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Right on the spot Douglas!

 

<p>

 

You write (and ask):

 

<p>

 

>> 1) Has anybody here ever really been left "stranded" by a dead

battery? If not, then why is everyone so concerned about the battery

dependency of the M7? <<

 

<p>

 

Yes it happened to me with a voracious Nikon F4S but I say "guilty

Your Honor"... It was entirely my fault I should have had spares.

That's why I don't think to have to rely on spare batteries is more

a liability than to rely in spare film... What photographer will

pretend not to have run out of film in the midst of a scession ? If

one let us know... I think we will have a winner in the Liar of the

Year contest ...

 

<p>

 

But, despite the mechanical perfection and alleged durability of a

Leica M my M5 quit me without warning last year with a broken

shutter. And if it happens you have no recourse. Mechanical things

ALSO break sometimes...

 

<p>

 

So from where did come the myth of the superior reliability of

mechanical cameras ?

 

<p>

 

Easy to explain: the first all electronic cameras were unreliable

because they were not well protected against the hardships of

professional photography. Then a mechanical camera was really much

more reliable. Nowadays it is no more than a legend referring to a

time long past. Sometimes legends are hard to die in the

photographic world (sigh).

 

<p>

 

>> 2) How can Erwin Puts, in one article, praise the M6 for its

manual operation (for the way it keeps photographer in touch with

the subject, etc.) and now praise the M7 for its automation which

allows photographer to concentrate on the scene before him/her? <<

 

<p>

 

In the Leica legend is mixed a lot of truth and many mythes.

 

<p>

 

Manual operation has NOTHING to do with contact with the subject but

rangefinder small format camera has (no big tele-lens, few use of

flash because of the ability to focus perfectly at wide aperture,

small size of the camera). With ANY small format range finder camera

(Note: Contax G2 IS NOT in this category and no AF camera is) you

muist be near to your subject and part of the action. But this truth

was lost as for years the Leica M was the only range finder camera

with interchangeable lens in production. And as it was ALSO a

mechanical camera, there was an identification between small format

RF and manual camera.

 

<p>

 

The same applies (but we are going farther from your question) to

the famous "special thing" in Leica phtography. One thing is true,

the rendition and quality of Leica lenses is unmatched. The other

part is a myth, the way a Leica M user takes pictures does influence

the final rendition but not because the body is a Leica: ANY small

format RF camera using the same lens will produce the same kind of

work. I do that everytime I take pictures with a Leica Lens on my

Hexar RF (so most of the time). It has to do with the limits imposed

in focal length by RF concept.

 

<p>

 

What Mr. Putts has discovered through the M7 is something I

discovered when I switched to the Hexar RF about a year ago: AE-lock

mode gives you comfort and slightly faster operation and a tad more

concentration. Hence, manual operation has NOTHING to do with the

proverbial Leica style. But he has not yet fully analyzed the

consequences of this discovery. So goes his traditional plea for the

Manual M6 which is - in fact - sheer non-sense.

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[christoph-erdmann pfeiler]

To be honest, I've got a lot of bad experience with different,

completely battery operated camera. If the camera must be stored in a

sort of damp environment (in Europe much more common than in the US),

the electrical contacts can corrode nastily. The corrosion is

sometimes even invisible, so You have to know it, that something like

this awful phenomenon is possible. After cleaning the contacts with a

match (the clean wooden part) everything worked well and there was no

scratch at the contacts. So keep a cleaning tool with You, if You go

out! Wooden matches and toothspicks are quite well. If there are

security concerns, just shorten the toothpicks to 1/3 inch (1 cm).

That's long enought to hold them tight without touching the surface of

the electrical contacts.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello Christoph,

 

<p>

 

I'm also living in Europe, France to be precise. The question you

raise about contacts is a real one but any system should be

treated "a the book says" don't they?

 

<p>

 

In case of prolonged storing of a battery operated "something" you

have to remove the batteries from the device. Otherwise contact

corrosion will ensue... Since years it is clearly indicated on each

booklet accompayning cmaeras with batteries...

 

<p>

 

As dampness has also a potential extremly preoccupating effects on

lenses in the way fungus may develop on the lens coating, it is also

advisable in such conditions to use silica gel bags to avoid any

problem. Remember a lens having fungus problem is definitively

destroyed. You may clean the glass but the coating will remain

destroyed where the fungus had set in.

 

<p>

 

Considering this problem has no remedy and concerns any camera,

mechanical or electronic, I don't think the obligation to remove the

battery set during prolonged storage is really a very considerable

liability...

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL