Leica M3 musings

[r._k.2]

This will seem like a childish question to some of you.

How do you manage fast street shots with a Leica M3?

Yes, the Leica Ms are the ultimate deal in photojournalism. But how is it done?

I'm thinking of the hand-held light meter and manual focus/aperture/shutter speed.

It seems like a horrific combination to me, in terms of snatching a quick and

unexpected photo.

 

HOW?

 

PS. I yearn to understand the M3 because I'd love to own it one day.

[john_gleason1]

Well, lots of this kind of shooting is done with guessed exposure, typically the "Sunny 16" rule or some variant thereof. Good B&W films (say, Tri-X) have enough exposure latitude to make guessed exposures quite feasible across a wide variety of lighting situations. Basically, you soon get good enough at it to get away with it, and the film's latitude helps you.

 

Here's an enhanced version of the Sunny 16 rule, suitable for printing and mounting on a 3x5 index card (fit nicely in a shirt pocket).

 

http://www.aiusa.com/loesljrg/misc/exposuretable.pdf

[jkelly04]

Generally, I'll set my M3's aperture setting to suit the general lighting conditions and film speed, and then just adjust the shutter speed (if needed) and focus when a subject comes into view. It gets to be second nature. You don't need to use a light meter.

[summitar]

John G, thank you for posting the exposure info. When we visited the UK in April 1985, we discovered that my wife had left her electronic whiz-bang behind, and my ancient Retina IIa (no meter) became the primary and only camera. Using the rules printed on the film carton (Kodak 200, or whatever the equivalent was then), I achieved almost 100 percent decent exposure. In England in April, sunny-16 becomes cloudy-rainy-sunny-in-rapid-succession-16, but it all worked out. You have to plan ahead a little.

 

RK, the Leica M3 is arguably the best RF ever made, and priced to match. If you want to get the flavor of RF street shooting, I suggest you try a Konica auto S2 for about 1/30th of the cost of an M3. The lens, 45 mm f1.8, was supposedly modeled on the summicron and is excellent, the combined VF/RF is large and bright with parallax corrected brightlines, and a CdS meter mounted in the lens barrel provides either manual exposure or automated shutter priority control, even with filters mounted. It even has a built-in lens shade. It is not as elegant as a Leica (what is?) but is a very nice camera.

[h._p.]

"But how is it done?"

 

Three things: practice, practice and practice.

 

I took my M3 out for the first time in eighteen months, a couple of weeks ago and was shocked by how slow I'd become. Over a year using digital, almost exclusively, had slowed my reactions down to the point where I was missing shots that, previously, I would have made without any trouble.

 

It is worth it, though. Film images have a quality that digital just doesn't seem to match, yet.

[blowingsky]

In addition to pre-exposure as noted above, you can pre-focus by using a "hyperfocal" distance setting, a relatively small (high numbers) aperature and a 35mm or wider lens (more depth of field with that combo). Setting hyperfocal distance is as easy as placing the infinity symbol over the right side f stop mark on the lens barrel -- the mark for whatever f stop you are using. Notice the same left side f stop mark on the barrel. Your "acceptable focus" range is between the two f stops. If you know you are only going to be shooting from 5 feet to 25 feet, you can set up your lens as above, only with the infinity mark on 25 feet. That could give you more sharpness in your field of interest. I'm sure I am not explaining this as simply as it could be, sorry. Hope you can glean something from it anyway.

[alan c.]

actually if you want to shoot "hyperfocal" with preset focus, the way to go on a M3 is a 28mm or wider with external finder. the 35mm is best on M2 and M4+ cameras, since the M3's built-in frames only go from 50 up.

 

that being said, with a 28 or even a 50, rangefinder focusing is SO FAST once you're used to it that your intended subject seems to automatically "snap" into focus as your eyes and left hand are coordinated. you know instinctively the moment that happens, your right hand shoots, your right thumb cocks, and you shoot again. You can get just about 1 frame or even 1.5 frames per second once you're practiced -- the lever advance is that smooth, the shutter is that responsive. when i was using a M2 and M3 together i would often finish both rolls of film without even realizing it if i was in the middle of fast moving action.

 

if you REALLY want to be fast, DAG can modify your M2/M3 to take the modern Leicavit or Abrahmsson Rapidwinder, or the modern Motor M, and this way you're up to 3 fps. these days i use a M4-P and a M6 with a Leicavit on one and the Motor M on the other. believe me, you can run out of film so fast that all that's left is what's in a third camera (usually a nikon digital SLR or a Rolleiflex TLR).

 

and don't worry about metering. 250 f/5.6 or f/8.0 for shade, 500 f/8.0 or f/11 for sun, 30 f/2 for interior rooms (ASA 400), you'll be fine. if you really want to meter, do so once when you get into a situation and go with that.

 

go out with a few rolls of film and the M3. you'll be amazed how smooth, efficient, and easy it really is,

[astral]

How about this:

 

For exposure you start by carrying a meter for a few days or so (no camera needed), and you meter every situation as it arises, as if using 100/125 ISO film (or wahtever you normally use). You soon learn to estimate the deviation from the sunny 16 rule in different lighting conditions, as extra stops exposure required for veiling cloud, overcast cloud, half shadow, full shadow, etc, without recourse to a meter. You also learn to apply similar 'rules of estimation' for backlight compensation. (You will, of course, already know how to add or subtract stops for different film speeds). Finally, if in doubt you bracket exposures.

 

After a while you just start to 'think' exposure, so that when you look out of the windows (etc) you'll say "Hmm, it looks like a 125th @ f4 morning ...." If the meter confirms your estimate you can then largely dispense with it except in unfamiliar conditions (eg dusk, rainstorms, etc) or for periodic 'self-calibration'.

 

Add to this a few hours of practising the estimation of distances (and using hyperfocal distances) and you've developed a set of skills that largely remove the need to carry measuring devices.

 

This works for me, and my exposures are usually fine to within half or 2/3rds stop. I can also estimate distances quite reliably up to 100m (based on simple extrapolation). Similarly I can estimate the time of day (usually to withing 15mins) by looking at sun direction and angle (based on shadows for example). These are all "tricks of the trade" but they can fade away if you neglect using them. Good luck, AC

[jtdnyc]

R.K., since you asked specifically about street shots, I think you'd be better off "zone focusing" as opposed to "hyperfocusing."

 

Hyperfocusing would give you the greatest possible depth of field at a given aperture, but much of that d.o.f. would be wasted, since the important picture elements in most street shots are much closer than infinity. (Landscapes would be a different story.)

 

Better to set focus for the zone you actually want to be in focus in most street photographs -- say, 6 feet to 30 feet or so -- unless you know that it's important to have something much closer or much further away in acceptable focus.

 

The keys to using the M3 or any similar Leica are to preset as much as possible before raising the camera to the eye and to know the field of view of your favorite lenses so well that the viewfinder is used for aiming rather than framing. That way, you can shoot as soon as you've raised the camera, and the M3 becomes faster than an AE/AF wonder.

 

There's another element to be concerned with: your own reaction time. I'm not talking about the time it takes you to physically press the shutter, but rather the lag time between seeing a photo op and getting to work. I suspect that many photographers lose shots not because the camera is too slow, but becaues they themselves are. I know this has been true of me on more than one occasion.

 

Imagine if Eisenstaedt, when he saw the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square, mused, "How nice! What a pleasant scene! What a cute couple," before raising his camera and starting to shoot. The moment would have been lost no matter what type of camera he had. As it turned out, he was fast enough and so was his screw mount Leica.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Simple: pre-focus (or zone focus), and pre-set exposure settings

 

All that's left is to raise the camera to your eye, frame the shot, and press the button.

 

Seems imossible that a fully manual camera is faster to operate than an autofocus/autoexposure camera, but used this way, it is!

[User_502260]

Today someone shooting this kind of image would be using a DSLR with an AF zoom lens. The capture would be made in a RAW format with some kind of matrix or center weighted automatic exposure. Would the end result be better? For someone without the instincts to figure out a manual system quickly, the answer is yes. Last night I printed for the first time in a while. One of the prints is a Little League shot of my son a few months ago. He is swinging the bat with all of his might and the ball is so close to the bat it's almost touching it. The catcher has his mit up and is ready to catch the ball. From the photo you can see the ball would be hit. I shot this with a Canon F-1 and a 200mm f/2.8 Canon New FD (1st version) at 1/000 with HP5+. In a situation like this I find automatic exposure distracting. On a sunny day I usually meter off of the grass and leave the settings alone. With an automatic exposure camera the needle or diodes would be jumping all over the place each time I recomposed. Most photojournalism today is not done with old rangefinder cameras and that is certainly true in fast moving areas like sports photography. For subjects which can be approached at a slower pace older rangefinder and TLR cameras can still work well. Why do people use old rangefinder cameras in particular and old cameras in general? Because they enjoy using them.

[g-man1]

" ...How do you manage fast street shots with a Leica M3? ... how is it done? "

 

PREfocus, PREeset the exposure, PREvisualize the picture (especially easy with the M3 and 50mm lens and framelines)and then shoot: i.e. PREpare for the photograph -- and then toss out 99% of the crap. :-)

[john_brewton]

What Gary said. Any of the M's will do this, what makes the M3 special is when you put the viewfinder up to your eye.

[SCL]

BTW the "pre" advice works with almost any manual camera...not just the M3. Best thing is to take your camera out and practice, each step individually (estimate distances and then check against your rangefinder, estimate exposure and check against your lightmeter), then sequentially. In a short time you should have it down pat. I started shooting for a high school weekly magazine in the 1960s and everyone had to go thru this exercise before you got "press" passes. It is sort of like learning to hit a pitched baseball...you learn to do things by rote and timing.

[stuart_richardson]

If you are using a traditional black and white negative film like Tri-x, you have to be pretty

far off to get a unusuable neg. The best thing to do is meter once per area that you are

photographing. If it is a little brighter, close down a half stop or more, if it is in the shade,

open up a stop or two. You get a feel for it. Honestly, it is quite forgiving. The best way to

practice is to set what you think the exposure is, and then check the meter. If you are right,

great, if not, adjust. Soon you will be choosing the right settings as if by magic. It is very odd.

I did not do it on purpose, but now I try to guess the right exposure, and 80% of the time I

am dead on. It's just practice. Your eye is very sensitive and capable of being trained, you just

need to take the time.

[torben_daltoft]

R.K. you are right; I get alot better street shots with my 400D

[tom leoni]

R.K.,

 

The advice everyone else gave you is fantastic. Let me just add some things that, as a quasi-beginner, have helped me *get started* solving the same dilemmas you mention (I shoot a iiia and an M3).

 

1 - Forget the exposure meter--the Sunny 16 rule suffices more than amply.

 

2 - Mount a nice 50mm lens, so you won't need an accessory viewfinder.

 

3 - Start by shooting during the day, when the sun is up. And start with a film of 400 ASA; doing so allows you to keep your aperture set at f16, which makes it a lot less critical to focus sharply on the subject.

 

4 - As far as speed, if the sun is shining, use 1/500. If the sky is cloudy, or the hour a bit later, use 1/200. If the sky is cloudy, the hour a bit later and you're shooting in the shade, use 1/100. This should get you covered for most types of outdoor shooting this time of year between 11AM and 6PM. With different lighting conditions, memorize the Sunny 16 rule and learn to have an eye for light and camera settings--believe me, if I can have it down to plus or minus a couple f/stops after 2 years, anyone can.

 

5 - At this point, it's a matter of also developing an eye for subjects, action, composition, expressions, etc. The only thing to do is shoot, shoot and shoot some more--trust your settings and then forget about them, and just use the camera to look at the world through its magic viewfinder.

 

6 - When you get confident, try also using a shallower depth of field and pre-focusing on the subject you want to shoot, than waiting until he/she does something interesting and quicly take a snap. This is fun and can yield interesting results.

 

7 - As your confidence grows, start using slower film, which demands more accurate focusing since you are more likely to have to open up your lens.

 

This is just what has worked for me, but I'm pretty happy, and I've noticed that by doing this I don't obsess about settings, which helps me stay focused on what really matters in this kind of photography--the human element of your subjects.

 

Good luck, and I hope you get the M3--it's a swell camera and a truly cool toy.

[charles_stobbs3]

Read the "ultimate exposure computer" website.

[peter]

I frequently use a combination of metering and guess work. I have a hand held meter with me, and as I walk around I meter the light (usually using incident metering)and set my camera to that setting taking account of the f stop I want - usually this is most relevant as I am after depth of field in this kind of application. Then as I walk into especially bright or shadowy areas I meter again. After a short time its usually obvious how much to alter the shutter speed to compensate for the changing light and put the meter away. (Most times its only one stop anyway unless the daylight is very bright and the shadow very dark.) If I am in an area where I think I may get shots I often just then alter the cameras exposure settings more or less automatically as I pass from light to shade and back again so that I am ready.

 

Especially if I am using a 35mm lens with good depth of field (which I prefer for street work for this reason) I will even prefocus and then use zone focusing to snap the shot when it comes into the correct distance field . Easy really. You do lose a few but mostly you will get the shot. I find this kind of photography quite liberating as when the shot comes up you can focus on the subject rather thant the camera, and believe it or not its faster than most autofocussing program cameras which will take a moment to focus and shoot.

[blowingsky]

I've always felt that being adept at estimating exposure (for the type of shot you want to produce) has the huge additional benefit of bonding your eye to the characteristics of light and how you will use that luminance range to tell your one frame story. It's an immense benefit and one that may well become a lost art with automated picture taking computers.