nee_sung

<p>Leica has stated publicly (in Leica Fotografie magazine) that "round about 1961 we had the production of the M3 under control". Therefore I would suggest that you buy M3 produced in 1961 and later.<br>

Test the slow shutter speeds. Fire successively 1sec, 1/2..1/8. The 1/8 is interesting because it is exactly the speed of my pressing and releasing the shutter. So I use the 1/8 for this purpose, but other human beings may differ. Anyway the slow shutters are the vulnerable ones. Listen to the sound of the springs and you should be able to tell if it's good or not.<br>

Then test the 1/1000. Open the camera back, flip up the back cover, put your eye to the film frame, look at a bright source, fire the shutter and see if your eyes catch any dark streaks. If it does, the shutter is faulty.<br>

I tend to agree with the no CLA crowd. Buy one, use it, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It was perfect (or as close to perfect as humanly possible) when it left the factory. Try to keep it that way.</p>

<p>It's nowhere near a fisheye, that I remember quite clearly.<br>

It's about 32mm on 135 format, so not really that wide.</p>

<p>The so-called normal lens is one that gives a 45 degree angle of view. This is the same angle as that on the human eye. Our eyes are round, while film is flat. That is why we can see more than 120 degrees but still the angle of view is 45.<br>

OK, next complication, long side or short side of the film? (For calculating the angle.) The industry norm is to take the diagonal. For 45°, the focal length is equal to the diagonal.<br>

The diagonal of 36X24 (135 film format) is 43.27mm. So that's the REAL normal lens, provided you accept the diagonal as the reference length.<br>

So the only real standard lens I know is the Pentax 43mm limited.<br>

Second complication: why 50mm then? According to Leica history, it was far cheaper to make a 50mm lens than a 43mm lens. In fact it seems to be true even today.<br>

In the 1960's, when Japanese manufacturers made fixed range finder cameras, it was almost universally 40mm. It was in fact far closer to normal lens than the 50. But people didn't know it and actually thought that 50mm must be the best, because Leica used it. In the end, every manufacturer had to bow to market ignorance and make a 50.<br>

Third complication, why not make a 36mm then? It will subtend 45° on the long side of the film. Well you do, the 35mm.</p>

<p>For me it's the 90mm, but I can't use it all the time because of my hand-shake.<br>

Over the years, reading many forums, I was struck by the consistent popularity of the "normal" focal length, as being the most popular. The most useful posts are ones that were on an un-related topic and someone, somehow, mentioned that strangely most of his successes were with the normal lens.<br>

I well remember one poster over at the medium format forum who said that after 30 years, one day he suddenly realised that all the pictures he ever blew up and hanged on his walls were made with the 80mm lens (equivalent to 40mm on 135 format).<br>

However, maybe I should throw in a complication here: the normal lens is usually also the highest performing lens, of any manufacturer. Could it be due to image quality, rather than perspective?</p>

<p>I have used all formats of 120: 645, 66, 67, 69, well except maybe 612.<br>

I have settled on the Mamiya 7, which is 67. The reason is that if I need a rectangular frame, I can use 67, but I still retain the full 66 frame, if I crop. This will ensure a very large negative.<br>

Why not 69? Well, the 69's are much bulkier and they don't have meters. Also I found that I usually shortened the 69 a bit. So after cropping I'm back usually to 67, but only after additional work, which is avoided by using 67.<br>

But I still retain a Rolleiflex 3.5F. I just cannot part with the exquisite shutter.</p>

<p>I would just like to point out that most films can withstand a 2/3 stop push pretty well. I know you have to push the whole roll but most films can withstand a 2/3 over-exposure pretty well also.<br>

I also would imagine in most situations the impact of the story in the photo would more than compensate for the slight under-exposure. It really would be quite rare for a photo to depend so much on image quality to be "useful". It has to have very weak story content and yet tremendous image quality impact. In situations where image quality is of such importance one would usually use large format, 8X10 even.</p>

<p>No one seems to have yet mentioned the 1/focal length rule.<br>

For 135 format, the minimum shutter speed for hand-held without noticeable shake is 1/focal length of the lens.<br>

So for a 35mm lens, the minimum shutter speed is 1/35s (1/30s should do). For a 90mm lens, it's 1/90s (so use 1/125).<br>

This is what the x-stop advantage that shake-reduction lenses/cameras are about. For a camera with a shake reduction of say 3 stops, the minimum shutter speed of a 90mm lens becomes 90->45->22.5->11.25. So say 1/15s.<br>

For other formats, you have to convert it to 135 format. So for an aps-c camera, multiply the focal length by 1.5. For 120 film cameras, divide by 2.<br>

Obviously there are limits to this rule, such as excessive enlargements, very slow shutter speeds, very shaky hands, etc.</p>

<p>I don't think Leica made any F1.4 lenses in 1946. If I remember correctly the first attempt was made with a Summarit F1.5 in the 1950's (I've used this lens). I'm not even sure HCB used Leica's in the 1940's.<br>

I'm not disputing that he hand-held 1/4s at F1.4; I just don't think he could have done it in 1946.</p>

<p>If you want to get the maximum out of your 6X7 you have to use a drum scanner.<br>

I don't think you can exhaust the limit of your negative at any "normal" enlargement because a single 6X9 can be enlarged to cover a whole wall with excellent result.<br>

I take all important event photographs with a Mamiya 7. No digitals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How important is speed when choosing a lens for a rangefinder? How much easier is it to handhold as compared to DSLR with, say, two stops of anti-shake reduction?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not really sure I understood the question about speed of the lens. Since you're using the view finder, the speed of the lens is not important in focussing. But if mean ability to choose a higher shutter speed when a speedier lens is used, then the answer is that it's not different from a DSLR.<br>

As to handholding, as an engineer once said "nothing is simple!". I did not find the M any easier to hand hold than an SLR or a DSLR. Many people have said that the bulk of the DSLR contributes to stability and I've found it to be true, up to a certain weight. When you have a monster telephoto attached, then of course there is no comparison.<br>

What can be said is that you tire more quickly with a DSLR.<br>

As for anti-shake, they really work and therefore purely in terms of hand shake, a Leica M is disadvantaged.<br>

I'm not sure if you're aware of the 1/focal length rule. The maximum shutter speed without handshake is equal to 1/focal length of the lens. So for a 50mm lens, the maximum shutter speed is 1/50s, for a 35mm it's 1/35 (1/30 should do). I have found this to be a good rule. However, the rule assumes a certain enlargement, beyond which the shake will become visible.<br>

There is always vibration, it's just whether it's discernible.<br>

I remember when Leica came out with the 280/2.8, it was so sharp that Leica recommended very heavy tripods. They also said that if you want to realise its maximum potential you'll have to embed the camera+lens in concrete! In other words even a heavy tripod can't damp out all the shake (mirror shake is one of them, because the lens was for the R system).<br>

By the way, that was many years ago and I imagine the sharpness of that lens would have been surpassed by other Leica lenses by now, I myself have not used it.</p>

<p>Sorry for complicating things, but we seem to have a bit in common: I also have a Rolleiflex (an F/3.5), and I have the Kx. I have an a la carte M7, so that there is no Leica logo.<br>

What I want to say is that, from your original post, you seem to want to avoid duplicating focal lengths. So I want to point out to you that the lens on your Rolleifex is actually equivalent to a 40mm or 37.5mm lens on 135 format (this is simply 80/75 divided by 2). This is too close to a 35mm lens for any discernible difference in practice.<br>

On the 90mm, there is a reason why Leica stopped at 135mm for the M series, and also why it made the Visoflex. At telephoto range the rangefinder is inadequate. So you are correct in choosing the M for wide angle photography, but that means for a 90mm, it is probably best that you use a single lens reflex. This recommendation is straight from Leica's own literature. If you keep the Kx you can attach a Leica 90mm M lens on it with a K-mount adapter. If you want a film body a Leicaflex SL2 can be had cheaply. If you don't need the meter go for the original Leicaflex, cheaper still but brightest viewfinder (because no light is diverted to the meter).</p>

<p>A soft release ensures that the right index finger does not press down on the camera when releasing the shutter, thus avoiding turning the camera clockwise during exposure.<br>

Another thing I want to say is that: at the point of releasing the shutter, you should stop breathing, NOT hold your breath. It is wrong to take a deep breath and hold. Doing so makes your body shake. Try it and you'll see. Stop breathing means precisely that: if you're inhaling, stop; if you're exhaling, stop. This is so often mis-understood that more people are doing it wrongly than correctly.<br>

It is better to stop while exhaling, doing so makes you relax and thereby reduces shake, but if you're trying to grab a shot you won't have the choice.<br>

As in doing so many things, the key is that you should be relaxed but focussed.</p>

<p>Well you know what they say: the youngest baby is the oldest human being on earth. So it makes sense.<br>

From a totally different angle (literally), I found the height of people affects what they see a lot. My wife and daughter are all photographers (I used to joke that when we take photos there's no one in front of the camera) and I found that our different heights radically affects how we see a scene.<br>

Many a times we were standing on the same spot and looking at the same scene, they would tell me to take a beautiful scene and I couldn't see anything special, but when I gave them the camera and let them take it, I saw a beautiful picture.<br>

They can't be too young though; once a 5 year old showed great interest in my Minilux. So I gave it to him and showed him how to handle it, but he couldn't even put the view finder to his eye.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once you color balance the first shot to be accurate, you can apply it to all subsequent shots using the same lighting. This is another reason you want good strobes with consistent output shot-to-shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is where I fell down, I didn't buy a good strobe. Believe me, it's not a luxury, it's a MUST.</p>

<p>Lighting is the only real issue here. Quite honestly any high-end medium format digital will do, but you really need to study and then experiment with the lighting.<br>

I would suggest buying 4 soft light boxes and then place them at different positions to see the different results.<br>

Colour temperature may irritate you no end. A possible solution is to bracket colour temperatures as well as exposure.<br>

Try putting it in a tent and shoot from the slit. That way, the colour of your shirt, face, camera and your side of the room generally will not spoil the colour temperature. But the contrast may be too flat for your purpose.<br>

You don't need an exposure meter. Just bracket your shots from +6 to -6 and choose the one you like. Delete the rest.<br>

You said you have an old Gitzo but I don't know if it's heavy enough. Also what head will you be using? A wobbly head will spoil everything. Buy a really good tripod + head. You go over to the accessories forum, under "tripods/camera support", the recurrent theme is that people pay a lot more for their tripods because they kept on buying cheap, inferior tripods, and then kept on upgrading. By the time they bought what they need, the total cost of all the tripods far exceeds the single, final, good tripod.<br>

Having written thus far I realised that you may need tilt and shift. That would mean another camera, or a tilt and shift lens. You really need tilt and shift to do your subject justice, because the human eye is a sphere and so our view of an object is not affected by the angle of view, but a film/sensor is a flat surface. The only way to properly compensate for this is tilt and shift.<br>

Too many things, see if any one else has anything to add. Go over to the Lighting forum.</p>

<p>The Canon QL has a far more inferior range finder. I used one when it was brand new. I was so disappointed with range finder that I bought SLR's when I could afford to.<br>

After many years with SLR's I went to a photography class and a classmate had an M3. I handled it and it was literally an eye openner! I bought an M4 the moment I could afford to and had been using Leica ever since.<br>

If you handle a Canon QL to get the range finder experience you might be put off just like I did.</p>

<p>I bought the full set, but work and career took up so much of my time that I never read them completely. I don't know it I still have them.<br>

Just a small anecdote, in 1989 my business was failing and I was nervous and anxious all the time. I couldn't sleep nights and I usually wake up at around 3:00pm every night. One particularly bad night I couldn't sleep, got up, went into the living room, saw the whole set in the cupboard, took out one and started reading. For the next 1 1/2 hour I was completely immersed in it and I forgot all my troubles and worries.<br>

For this I'm eternally grateful to the series.</p>

<p>As a painter, I can tell you brushes matter a great deal, and so does the canvass (or paper), so does the paint.<br>

As an example, I was not able to conquer a painting I was working on until I bought Winsor & Newton's Series 7 brushes. And I struggle for 6 months on another painting and gave it up in the end because I just couldn't get the right acrylics.<br>

There is less talk of these things on the internet than photography, maybe because artists, as a group, are slower adopters of the internet.<br>

Unlike photography, it could be a matter of life and death. Many painters are poisoned by their paint. It now looks increasingly likely that van Gogh committed suicide because the brand new pigments he was using poisoned his neurotic system.</p>

<p>I used it when it was brand new, in 1970, it was no good at F1.7, but stopping down a little bit, even to F2, got satisfactory results. I didn't own it, one of my richer fellow students had it, and I borrowed it several times.<br>

Your shot at F1.7 is better than what I remembered, possibly due to pp.<br>

None of the Japanese fixed lens range finders were highly regarded in those days. I think improvements in film and pp might account for the modern praises.</p>

<p>Jobs himself trained as a product designer, which is perhaps why designers loved his products so much. His whole aura eekes "designer".<br>

Note he said "old" Leica.</p>

<p>Alex, choice of film is very important. In fact if you search photo.net you'll see tons of materials on this. Bottom line: film is more important than the lens.<br>

When Agfa was around it was the best overall brand for Leica lenses (to me) on account of its low saturation which married perfectly to the very saturated colours of Leica lense. Sadly that can't be had any more.<br>

I don't really know which current film is best for modern Leica lenses, but I use Kodacolor myself. Maybe a low contrast/saturation Fujifilm.</p>