chris_chen4

I also prefer the 50mm focal length, perhaps because I started

out using the Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs, which only have the 50mm

view through the VF. Also, although I like to do street

photography & such, I just don't like the weird distortion &

exaggerated facial features introduced by wide-angles (28mm &

below) when they're used close-up (e.g., by every Winogrand

wannabe). Like HCB, I guess, I prefer to maintain a "certain

distance" from my subjects. I also like the short telephotos

(85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, etc.) for the same

reasons.

Try the browsing archives, there have been @ least 2 threads on this

issue in the past month.

The only reason to sell to a dealer is the convenience; pricewise,

it's usually a rip-off (for you, that is). I think most will only

give you around 60% of what your gear is worth on the open market

(i.e., what they would sell your stuff for).

In the U.S., @ least, $800 is on the high side for a double-stroke M3,

unless it's in very good condition. You should visit eBay & do a text

search of completed auctions of double-stroke M3's to get a rough idea

of the going rate. As to a comparison of the M6 & the M3 (& the other

M cameras), you might want to visit this <a

href="http://cameraquest.com/mguide.htm">section</a> on Stephen

Gandy's Cameraquest web site.

If you're using negative film, can't you also corrective for

perspective using the enlarger?

I always use hoods for both shade & protection. I had a similar

experience to Charles's--a $20 shade saved my 50/1.4 Nikkor

LTM.

Stephen Gandy has a discussion of foggin on this <a

href="http://cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm">page</a>.

If you're going to be using the M6 primarily for 50mm & longer, it

would make sense to go w/the 0.85 VF.

I use a variety of RFs, not just Leica M's, but I don't think the

brand makes much difference. About 75% of the time, I can

handhold down to around <a

href="http://not.contaxg.com/files/0017/0023_991222670.jpg">1/

5th</a>, <a

href="http://contaxg.com/files/0019/0119_990060103.jpg">1/8th<

/a>, or <a

href="http://not.contaxg.com/files/0017/24touchdancercrop_.jpg"

>1/15th</a> sec. for results that are 11x14-worthy (1st 2

examples were shot w/35mm lenses, the 3rd w/a 40mm).

Braced or leaning against something, I can go even slower. Of

course, if your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how steady

your hands are, you're still going to get motion blur (which some

people will mistake for focus problems); if it isn't moving, a

tripod/monopod should be an option (although I'm usually either

too lazy or encumbered to carry 1 around).

M3, any post-WWII Zeiss Sonnar or Nikon Sonnar copy (but if I

had to choose 1 it would be the f/1.5 50mm), & Agfa APX 100.

I've had a couple problems, but both could be blamed on the

sheer age of the bodies & incompetent repairpersons. My

c.1959 M3's shutter locked up soon after purchase & required a

CLA (paid by seller) & my c.1961 M2 had a weird light leak that

was recently fixed by DAG (he blames whoever did a previous

CLA for incorrectly installing/re-installing the light baffles).

Ken:

<p>

If you're serious about digital B&W prints, there's really no

substitute for having a dedicated B&W printer w/good

pigment-based inks (e.g., Cone Piezography, MIS quad or

hextones, etc.).

1st of all, not everyone buys Leicas just for the optics, excellent as

they are. The primary reason I own Leica Ms is that I think they have

the best viewfinders of any RF available in the market (better than

any other RF I've used, anyway); they are perfect for low-light

shooting, which is my favorite form of photography. If Cosina,

Konica, Kyocera or whoever could duplicate the M3's

viewfinder/rangefinder mechanism & match it w/the rest of a Bessa

R/R2, Hexar RF, or G2 body, I would probably have bought 1 instead of

a Leica. I care much less about the other benefits provided by the

Leica Ms, e.g., quiet shutter, high-quality construction, etc., many

of which were equalled or surpassed by other RF cameras starting back

in the 1930s.

<p>

2nd, different lenses provide different looks & those lens

"fingerprints" can't be easily duplicated using Photoshop, filters,

etc. So, in addition to the cost/benefit factors mentioned by others

here, the current Leica lenses, no matter how good they may be, may be

incapable of producing the look you want to achieve in a picture. For

similar reasons, I don't always shoot w/Tech Pan & a tripod.

It's close, but not the equal IMHO. The M2 doesn't have a big, fat

35mm frame like the 50mm frame in the M3. Also, for some unknown (to

me) reason, the M2 eyepiece has a smaller rear opening (the metal

frame just beneath the glass next to your eye) than the M3 (or the

M6), which can make the 35mm frame hard to see if you wear glasses (I

recently had my M2's eyepiece opening enlarged by DAG). As others

have posted, however, the build quality is basically equivalent.

Please take a look @ the archives. There are @ least 3 or 4

threads bearing on your question.

What "foreign country" do you live in? I'm not in a predominantly

Chinese/Asian part of the U.S., so I guess I'm in pretty much the same

physical predicament you're in. Nevertheless, I think being

"inconspicuous" depends not just on your physical appearance or

ethnicity, but also on your personality, attitude, body language, etc.

It may be impossible for you to be literally inconspicuous,

especially w/a 50mm lens, but successful street photography (& I

assume that's what you're writing about) doesn't require that your

subjects be completely unaware of your existence, only that your

presence doesn't overwhelm & distract them from whatever they're

doing. Sneaking around & trying too hard to be inconspicuous usually

makes someone *more* conspicuous. There are no easy answers,

particularly since no one knows your shooting style better than you,

but legwork always helps. A cop once told me that there were only 3

things he needed to know to do his job right: (1) who the people are

on his beat; (2) what they do; & (3) when they do them. IMHO, knowing

those 3 things are also invaluable for street photography.

<p>

As to your technical question, if the light doesn't change too much,

you should @ least be able to set your aperture & shutter speed ahead

of time, & focusing quickly will come w/practice (you can also rely on

the greater DoF of smaller apertures to zone focus).

<p>

----------

<p>

"One of my problems is I live in a foreign country, meaning that

anyone can spot me a mile away, so many of my subjects end up being

too far away with a 50mm. If I am inconspicuous enough, by the time I

get the focus, ap and shutter speed set accurately, I have been

discovered. Any tips on this?"

I've used TechPan for a variety of subjects, shot @ ASA 25, &

developed in Technidol per Kodak instructions, & the negatives,

incl. informal portraits, came out fine. The contrast isn't too high,

& the look isn't too sharp (in fact, like Agfa's APX 25, TechPan's

ultra-fine grain makes it look *less* sharp than faster, grainier

emulsions).

Obviously, only you can say whether something's overpriced for

your needs/wants, but IMHO, the M7 is definitely overpriced (by @

least $500). Like you, I have a G2 for when I need/want AE &

autofocus, but switch to my M2, M3, or other manual RFs when I

need fast glass. Also, like you, I'm not a huge wide angle guy &

I'd much rather have a high-magnification Hexar RF, but that's

not likely to happen. My bottom line is that I just don't need the

combination of AE, TTL metering, & Leica-compatibility so badly

that I feel a great desire to fork out $2350 on yet another camera

body. Heck, I can easily live without spending another $1300 or

so on a nice used 0.85 M6 TTL--it would be nice to have an

on-board meter, but it ain't no big thing (now if Cosina made a

high mag Bessa R2 . . .). Like Paul Chefurka, I'd rather spend

the $$ on film, processing, digital printing supplies, lenses, etc.

(or non-photographic stuff).

I shoot about 90% in B&W, no matter what camera body I'm using, for

reasons that have little to do w/what brand lens I have on the camera.

I guess I simply like B&W (& also find it easier to develop, scan,

print, etc.). In my experience, any lens that gives you a good color

photo should be able to give you a good B&W photo, so I don't see why

you would "need/want" another Leica/Leica-compatible body just to

shoot B&W. If you prefer the Leica glass for color, you might prefer

it for B&W, too. Why not just put some B&W in your Hexar?

Oliver:

<p>

Here's an old <a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v04/msg03176.html">post</a>

from the LUG by Zeiss expert Marc James Small. It looks like I was

wrong, maybe Leica didn't get to Everest until '82!