End of the affair with Leica M

[johann_fuller]

Well not quite - I'm keeping an M6 and 40mm summiocron-C. However for

my picture taking needs I'm now back to SLR's. To be precise I'm

using a couple of EOS 300's and a 24mm 2.8 and an 85mm 1.8.I just

couldn't get along with the way the dynamic perspective is not

represented in the M finder with my 28 (and I always liked 24mm

lenses) and similarly when trying to isolate a subject from it's

background with a 90 I just could not get used to the M VF way of

seeing everything in focus. I realy like the M as an object in

itself - it's mechanical excellence and feel - but any camera is a

means to an end and I just find I'm concentrating more on the

subject/picture with my EOS than I do with an M. Cheap and plasticy

though the EOS 300 is - it does the job of focusing and exposing

correctly with minimum fuss (there is even a descent selective meter

mode). The focusing screen is not that bad and I can quite

comfortably use either lens in manual mode. The EOS lenses are no

slouches either - not quite up to the quality of my 50mm summicron -

but then again what lenses are? The 24mm 2.8EF is a match for my VC28

1.9 and although the 85 may not have quite the overall performance of

my VC 90 3.5 - it's 2 stops faster and has very nice 'Bokeh'. No

regrets about my experiment with the M - it's just not the right tool

for me.

[jay_.]

So why keep $1500 tied up in M gear, especially a lens that has improper camming for the M6's rangefinder and no frameline for it?

[m_.]

Jay: Take it easy. It's okay people decide to move on. Don't make people feel bad. :-)

[m_.]

and bye Johann. but since you still keep that m6 with 40mm lens, still please come back and visit us.

[peter_white2]

The 35mm frameline in the M6 is a better fit with the 40mm lens than with a 35, since it shows so little of the total frame. Unfortunately you have to manually select the 35mm frame.

 

As for the EOS, I can't stand the thought of a cheap piece of plastic deciding what should and should not be in focus in my photographs, thank you very much just the same.

 

How long before Canon comes out with a camera that frames the shot for you? You could let the camera out in the morning, sort of like letting out the cat. It would go around on its own for a few hours taking pictures. When it ran out of film it would come home and wait outside the door for you to let it in.

 

And think of all the potential upgrades!

 

For only $299.99 more, it would ring the doorbell when it comes home.

 

For an additional $399.99, it would go into the darkroom and spit the film out into a developing tank.

 

And then there's the SUPER DELUXE model for only $699.99 more. It looks at the finished pictures itself, so you don't have to. And since it's so superior at appreciating fine works of art than you are, the fabulous images it creates won't go to waste.

 

PJW

[gerald_widen]

I've been using rangefinder cameras mainly the M2 for street shooting for years. But a few weeks ago I tried my N80 with a 28/2.8 just for the hell of it in NYC and was surprised how comfortable it was specially with the auto-focus and auto exposure when I really needed it. I'll still use my M for the street but will also on occasion take the SLR.

[johann_fuller]

I think Jay has his tongue firmly in his cheek!

Yes the EOS is a terribly plastic affair and has automation - however it also has very usable manual overrides which I can select as needed. The point is that I can choose and I have control - if an object is moving I choose to let the AF do the job as it can do it better than me. If I want to select the focus point I can still do it - if I want to meter off a particular area I can still do it. Other times I set it to auto and concentrate on framing and timing knowing that 99% of the time focus and exposure will be spot on - what is more important to me is the picture at the end - not the procces of getting it.

[douglas k.]

"As for the EOS, I can't stand the thought of a cheap piece of plastic deciding what should and should not be in focus in my photographs."

 

Spoken like someone who's never used, nor even read about, AF cameras. With such cameras, you still choose the focus point. If you don't then you're simply using the camera lazily.

[xavier_dalfort]

Well Johann, you could have upseted Jay even more by saying you took a SLR by Leica....

 

Just joking of course, some of you know I'm the owner of a R7 with a 24mm Elmarit. Lathough despised, it gives pretty good results.

 

Back to the Summicron C 40mm: using a file you could remove alittle of one cam to make it compatible with the 35mm frame selection on your M6.

A common modification offered by folks here working on Leica M stuff.

 

Just my 0.02 euros (which are .024 USD...).

[chris_henry1]

Johann,

 

No apologies needed. There are plenty of photographers here who don't

shoot Leica but have made contributions that have definitely made this board

better. As much as I enjoy Leica, it is a tool, and best used when it is the right

tool for the job.

[Allen Herbert]

As much as I enjoy Leica, it is a tool, and best used when it is the right tool for the job.

 

A sensible thought.

[peter_white2]

I use one quite a bit. My Nikon Coolpix is autofocus. And it drives me nuts. But it's still the easiest way to get product shots onto my website. And my wife used an EOS, until it went for a swim in the Atlantic. Now it auto-focuses with the fishes.

 

And by the way. If you have to take the time to tell the camera where to focus, why the hell not just focus the damned thing and be done with it? Same with auto-exposure.

 

I know a few folks with impaired vision for whom auto-focus is a big help, but for the rest of us, how hard can it be to focus? This ain't rocket science guys.

 

PJW

[akochanowski]

The more I read responses like the one above deriding the Canon for feeling plasticky and having AF, the more I suspect that a number of Leicaphiles have either lost all touch with reality or, more probably, don't have a clue about how to actually take a photo.

[peter_white2]

Ah, a kochanowski? There is a Canon list (two in fact) on Photo.net.

 

It's where all the real photographers hang out.

 

Knock yourself out. ;-)

 

PJW

[johann_fuller]

I'm not new to AF SLR's either - mind you my first Nikon's were quicker to focus manualy! The Canon AF ( even on the EOS300) with USM lenses is lightening quick - near instant. Using only the center sensor ( permenantly selectable even on the EOS 300) is exactly the same as with an M except it's faster. The realy odd thing has been using the EOS in manual mode like an M - set to manual focus I use the focusing with one finger like a tabbed lens!

[johann_fuller]

Call it my 'bit on the side'

[h._p.]

I like my M3 and it's the camera I take out most often (apart from the Ricoh GR1V and Caplio I keep in my jacket pockets <grin>).

 

But when I absolutely have to get the shot, I grab the bag with a pair of Eoses. They make life so easy - perfect focus, perfect exposure. As Alan said, horses for courses.<div></div>

[lmishkar]

I was pleased to see Johann refer to his camera as a "tool." For many of us, including myself, these boxes with a chunk of glass on the front are just that, tools. My father, who does carpentry for a living, still owns maybe a dozen different hammers. Each was made differently, for a different task. He didn't have a love affair with any particular one, he just used the proper one for the task. In fact, he use to install shingles with a hammer and keep a stack of nails between his teeth. Nowadays? He wouldn't dream of using a hammer, and instead plugs in an air powered gun and shoots away. But only for shingles and jobs where this tool is most applicable. He still uses a hammer for making furniture and other fine applications.

 

Johann, have an affair with making photographs. It will be perhaps the best use of your time and energy.

 

Cheers.

 

Larry

[douglas k.]

"If you have to take the time to tell the camera where to focus, why the hell not just focus the damned thing and be done with it?"

 

I use my AF SLR in manual focus (and manual exposure) mode almost exclusively; in fact, I mostly use it with old manual focus lenses. But my Hexar AF has extremely fast AF and pretty reliable AE which I appreciate. The answer to your question is "Because AF can be much faster than a Leica M in many circumstances." And I say that after owning a Leica and being constantly frustrated that the camera, which supposedly is fast to focus, was actually much slower than anything else I've used.

[jay_.]

No, I was being serious. If "No regrets about my experiment with the M - it's just not the right tool for me." why are you keeping an M6 you could get $1000-1200 for and a lens you could get $200-300 for? You could buy a new EOS 3 or a used 1V and/or some great Canon glass for the proceeds. BTW I wasn't the one who badmouthed Canon AF SLR's. I own them and think they're fine for what they are, in fact my little Rebel 2000 and 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are a much lighter outfit than a similar M, and very nice to use in manual focus/manual metering. The Leica's are more compact though, which is why I continue to use them. I don't mind the viewfinder issues, I've been using them for so many years all the workarounds are second-nature by now.

[m_.]

to be all fair on both sides, I think manual focus has its own merit. it does give you a more secure feeling that you won't miss a shot just because, for whatever reasons @ AF mode, the camera decided that it is not focused yet, sliped or whatever, and not letting you take that shot at the moment. By the time you try again, the moment is gone. With manual focus, your shutter is separate from the focusing, so at worst, you can still shoot it. And my experience tells me that even without that PERFECT, dead-on focus, the shots will most likely come out just fine as long as it's close enough.

 

For this reason (I know, it hardly happened to me but just the thought), I still use my manual focus most of the time even with my Nikon N80 (in this case, I prefer AIS manual focus lenses instead of newer AF lenses). I use AF only when I am absolutely in no hurry getting the shot or am lazy. Sounds odd but works for me.

[akochanowski]

I like hanging out here just to run across people like Peter W. to remind me just how lucky I am: capable of reasoning, able to comprehend two sentences strung together, and rational about inanimate objects. Repeat after me, Peter: cameras are tools, not a religion. Savages worshipped trees and rocks-- most of us know better by now.

[steve_barnett2]

'why are you keeping an M6 you could get $1000-1200 for and a lens you could get $200-300 for?'

 

As a 'guru' Jay, surely you should recognise that you can't use all your cameras at all times. Why, we even hear (often) you have a 'collection' of Nikon F's. Now be honest, how often do they get used? Strict rotation, or depending on how your work (photographic work) is going? I used my M7 for two photographs last weekend, the first time in ages, because with winter here the 'people' events I use my Leica's for have dried up. I am out as often as possible with my MF camera though, and know the M7 will be used extensively for eight months next year. It does people good to try something new, take stock and re-assess what they need over time. I would guess Johann may make a return to his M6 as soon as he needs a simpler approach to photography. Money isn't everything.

[Allen Herbert]

Sorry I�ve got to pick you up on that one. What's your defination of a Savage? Folk who are close to nature? What are so called civilised folk close too, their pockets?

[johann_fuller]

Jay - I'm keeping 1 M6 and a 40 because as a specialist tool it has it's uses - it's the best body/lens combo I had and it's small enough to take virtualy anywhere. I'm also keeping my Hassleblad system and my 5x4 outfit - also tools with specialist uses.