Revisit: Things I Hate About Leica M

[max_wall]

In context with the previous post, most (if not all) recommended

the SLR over the M for certain work, i.e., extreme close up,

abstract, etc.. I agree that the SLR is more versatile than an M,

but if one already has an M, but no SLR, why invest in another

35mm format system with its concomitant expense to satisfy an

infrequent need? Would it not make more sense to go the

medium format route for those needs, and use the M for those

applications which has made it famous? I realize that the cost

may be a little more, but one would be getting a larger negative,

as well as some of the other benefits found in the 35 mm SLR.

[al_kaplan1]

Medium format does have advantages over 35mm, but there are major disadvantages also. If you're shooting color slides they won't fit your projecter. You may well have to equip your darkroom with new developing reels and perhaps tanks also. Maybe you'll have to get an entire new enlarger and lens. If you decide to shoot sports and nature you'll need a relatively hard to find and very bulky 1,000mm lens instead of a very inexpensive used 400mm pre-set from eBay. Have you compared the cost of 35mm macro lenses, tubes and bellows to medium format items? The cost would be a lot more! Lastly, you'd need to set up a seperate filing system to store your larger slides and or/ negatives.

[max_wall]

Thanks, Al, for a thoughtful answer. However, I rarely shoot

slides, and when I do it is travel only, so I would not be packing

MF gear. Second, I do not do my own darkroom work, so that is

not a consideration. Therefore, apart from learning a different

system, it seems that the major issue is cost of MF lenses.

Right/wrong? Thanks for all input.

[shambrick007]

��it seems that the major issue is cost of MF lenses��<p> That�s a major factor, but I stopped shooting a lot of medium format mainly due to a lack of quick and cheap processing (and sources of film on the fly). And even if you don�t do a lot of backpacking, it�s really a hassle carrying around a lot of large/heavy MF gear. A larger neg does not really do you a lot of good if you leave the camera at home.

[MTC Photography]

For infrequent macro work with rangefinder, it is not necessary to

go to MF<p> There are many alternatives:

 

<ol>

<li> Close up lens

<li> stack up close lenses

<li> Reverse mount M lens with reverse mount adapter

</ol>

[m_.]

Martin: Now you mentioned the reverse adapter. Do you know a good place to get those? I have been trying to tape the lens for this purpose but it is a serious pain to work that way.

[ben z]

Max it was a concidence you bring this up. I had been right on the verge of buying a Leica reflex one reason because I was thinking it would give me the best optics in 35mm. But after speaking with almost a dozen other guys only in my local area who had mostly negative things to say about them (including the only Leica dealer in town)I decided not to. One of the guys I spoke to said that for lenses 135mm and less I've already got the best Leica glass--the M--so unless I was thinking about really long telephotos (and my "mentor" Art Morris already has me convinced if I ever decide to take up serious nature photography to buy a Canon stabilizer) I should think about getting a Hasselblad for the same money. This guy has had a lot of gallery exhibits and won a bunch of juried shows so I'm thinking hard about what he said.

[MTC Photography]

Wentong, for details on SOOMKY SOOKY close up adapters for M, see

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002hn5">Close up adapters for LTM and M </a>

<p>

 

I recall Kiron made reverse adapter for many cameras<p>

 

You may also check out <a href="http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/">SRB Adapter Service </a>, they make off the shelf reverse adapters

for many cameras, they even custom made adapter.

[h._p.]

"There are many alternatives: "

 

If you don't want to get too close there's always the BOOWU or 'spider legs' which gives you fixed focus areas from A4 to A6 (about 6"x4". The Leica is surprisingly versatile...<div></div>

[godfrey]

I doubt I could generate enough passion about it to reach a state of "hate". The Leica M is

simply a limited use tool.

 

The potential accuracy in focusing and framing when using a mechanically coupled, optical

rangefinder camera is easily computed and far short of what can be achieved with a single

lens reflex camera. That has been well known for most of the past 60 years, and there's no

sense denying it. This is what defines the limits of the Leica M for use in close focus and

telephoto photographic needs.

 

Use the tool appropriate for what you want to do, that's all. No one tool can do everything

well.

 

Godfrey

[m_.]

Thanks, Martin. I will check them out.

[d._p.1]

what i was going to add in the other thread, but didnt because this is the leica forum :), for close up work and economics, imo nothing beats a mamiya c330 tlr with 80mm/2.8 and paramender. The camera IS a macro bellows itself. It also is bulky but not more than a hasselblad, and it has a lovely little leaf shutter, so no houwitser-like mirror slap. Lenses are fantastic. Maybe a few lpmm less than Zeiss glass but you won't notice that untill 15ft x 15ft enlargements from the finest grained film (o.k. maybe i'm exaggerating)<br><br>cheers, d.p.<div></div>

[patricks]

it depends a bit on what type of macro work you want to do, doesn't it? if you want a really slow and exact process, but the ability to make really large prints, a MF system would be wonderful.

 

Otherwise, simply get a Canon Elan 7 and schlap a 100/2.8 macro on there and you have one of the best/most affordable macro systems out there, all for under $6-700.

 

Personally I think it is about the output/print, so I went medium format with a Contax 645. Horrible expensive, much they 120/4 macro is suppose to be second to none, even though I haven't bought it yet (will do as some as I can).

 

cheers,

[MTC Photography]

Wentong, the easiest way is to get hold a 39mm thread +4 close up lens

(250mm), attach it to Summicron -M 50, focus the camera at infinity,

then move the camera close to the object such that the front of the

close up lens is 25 cm from the object. You will be able to get

good quality close up pictures.

[johnmarkpainter]

Max,

 

I wanted Macro capabilities. Got a Nikon F2 for $250, a 105 AIS micro for $200. Great Rig

and cheap.

 

jmp

[al_kaplan1]

Most of my close-ups are shot with an M body on my Visoflex II with a 65mm Elmar. The same Elmar focussing mount also accepts the lens heads of the old "long" 90mm Elmarit and the 135mm Tele-Elmar. Think of the Visoflex as your SLR for close-ups and your M bodies as interchangeable backs for the Visoflex. It's really easier than trying to keep track of "orphaned" rolls of film that were used for only a few shots. This way those shots end up in the middle of a roll that you're shooting and processing anyway.

[steve_chan5]

<p>

The other major problem with using MF gear for macro is that adequate depth of field becomes an enormous problem with macro. A MF camera is going to give you much less DOF, which means much longer exposures because you need to stop down so much. The smaller format of the 35mm SLR becomes really handy, and being able to see where exactly you are focusing is great - macro photography with a rangefinder is mostly a theoretical exercise (imo).

 

<p> For macro, prosumer digicams are great: the tiny sensor means very short focal lengths and enormous DOF, and you can look on the LCD display to see what you're shooting. DSLR's with their APS sized sensors help with DOF, but they still aren't as handy as the higher end Coolpixes.

 

<br>

<center>

<img src=http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1550573&size=md><br>Very, very small fly sitting on rose blossom. Nikon D100 with Kiron 105/2.8 and 2x macro teleconverter, around F8</center>

[paul_neuthaler]

I admit I am not well: I have too much time on my hands (as I told Al Kaplan at our recent lunch in February).

 

I have bought lots of cameras & I have sold lots of cameras -- too many transactions; not enough photo-taking. But I am obsessed with Leicas (I don't dream at all about my Nikon F3 outfit). Right now I have a gorgeous M4 with 35 Summicron asph. and classic 90 Elmarit & complete Viso. III w/Bellows II. I just got a late (1974) Mint Leicaflex SL (am waiting for a "like New Minus" 90 Summicron R from KEH). I have even purchased an Elpro 3 before the lens has arrived!

 

I don't cheat on my wife, I don't gamble, I drink moderately.

 

I hate Leicas because they are the most quintessential photographic machines ever made. (If the Leicaflex feels as good as it looks, maybe I'll at least sell the 90 Elmarit & Viso. equipment -- maybe even the M4 & 35 Summicron asph. -- maybe not!)

[john_boyle3]

As one who had a pretty good M system with 2 bodies and several lenses as well as some budget constraints I found that the Visoflex III and Bellows II (both in excellent used condition) along with the lens head from my 135 Tele Elmar provided a fine outfit for nature closeups at a very reasonable cost. A new 65 Elmar made this a superb set up for flower photography. Calculating the diaphragm correction was no problem since the lens extension could be read off the scale on the Bellows II. I was still able to use the Bellows and Elmar when I later added a Leicaflex SL. For anyone who wants to build a system of excellent lenses that can be adapted to just about any photographic situation the Leica system is hard to beat. While the use of the Visoflex and Bellows may seem somewhat awkward, it's really not very difficult. Some of us are quite satisfied with the results we get from 35mm and cannot justify the cost of larger format equipment as well as the increased cost of film and development.

[peter_white2]

Macro work is slow going anyway. So the slightly slower working pace with a Visoflex on an M body with or without bellows compared with an all-auto Canon or Nikon is really not an issue.