markwilkins

How do you use an M Leica as a split-image rangefinder?

-- Mark

Note that, adjusted for inflation, a $288 Leica M4 in 1967 would sell for $1640 today.

-- Mark

Do you feel like the Leica III offers you something critically valuable that the Canon doesn't? Are you willing to pay big money for a camera that works basically like the Leica III but has updated optics, somewhat better ergonomics, and optionally a built-in meter? If so, then maybe an M might be worth the cost.

I was going to say the "acceptance test" would be whether the charge will go through on your credit card, but someone else already covered that.

-- Mark

In defense of the original poster's (and my) reference to the 50mm f/2.8 "Elmarit," it's mistakenly listed that way on B&H's website. Reference to the Leica site confirms that it's an "Elmar."

-- Mark

I don't have personal experience with that particular lens, but I've heard the 50mm Elmarit is quite good.

However, your budget would definitely include a new 50mm f/2 Summicron, which is by all accounts one of the best 35mm format lenses ever made.

Honestly, speaking from the point of view of owning both, I doubt you'd see that huge an optical difference in practice between the Summicron and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, even though they are somewhat different lenses in design. What the Summicron-M gives you is compactness, much better mechanical feel, and rangefinder focusing, which I find very helpful in low light.

-- Mark

Actually, on thinking about it, it sounds like you're talking about the contrast of the lens,

not how smooth the tonal gradient is.

Newer, better-coated lenses are likely to be very contrasty, and I know from experience

that that contrast can be harder to manage in a darkroom. Some lenses are often more

prone to internal scattering (which is a type of flare but isn't necessarily a matter of having

a discernable flare highlight in the image) that brings the blacks up and narrows the

contrast range. That could explain what you're talking about.

If so, my guess would be that earlier Leica lenses had this quality a lot more than newer

ones do, and among today's lenses I'd assume (though I might be wrong) that cheap

lenses are more likely to do well by that standard than expensive ones.

-- Mark

Vivek:

My point is that if you're trying to select your materials and technique to achieve a certain

look, saying "just look at the pictures" isn't enough, you have to *understand* why it's

happening. Otherwise, you might spend your time chasing the perfect lens when maybe

it's the rinse water you use while printing that's causing the effect, or something like that.

-- Mark

I confess not being an expert on lens design, but I do have some relevant knowledge, and based on what I know of such systems I have difficulty visualizing how a lens could have a nonlinear response to light intensity except at the very high or very low end.

I wonder (and this is just speculation) whether some interaction of fine detail in the subject with the lens's MTF and the spatial response of the film or paper being exposed might cause that kind of effect?

Otherwise, you'd have to chalk such a thing up to induced fluorescence in the glass or something like that, and I'm sure lens manufacturers work pretty hard to make sure their lenses don't fluoresce. :)

I'm sure you're observing a real effect, but I'd be very suspicious of assuming it were just the lens by itself doing it.

-- Mark

Sorry, but lenses themselves do not alter an image's tonal range. That's the exclusive

domain of the exposure film and all the steps that come afterward in processing.

Some lenses may have crisper definition of highlights in out of focus areas, which a viewer

might mistake for differences in tonal range, but that's not really what's going on at all

when you see such a feature.

It makes sense to ask "What do you think of the bokeh for this lens" but not "what do you

think of the tonality from this lens", and even if you're just asking about the picture, not

the lens, it doesn't make much sense because all the steps between scanning and delivery

to our screens can screw that up anyway.

-- Mark

A couple more thoughts after reading this thread and thinking about it some more:

1) Unless you're going to shoot wide open frequently, the 35mm Summicron ASPH is just

as impressive as the Summilux ASPH and substantially less expensive. I went with the

Summilux because with the Summicron I just found I was struggling too hard in very

marginal light.

2) Asking "If you could only have one lens, what would it be?" is not the same question as

"What is your favorite lens?"

-- Mark

35mm f/1.4 ASPH, 35mm f/2.0 ASPH, 50mm f/2, in that order.

Personally, I prefer shooting with a 35mm lens rather than a 50, and I like shooting in low

light. For those purposes, the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH is an amazing lens. I owned a 35mm f/2

ASPH for a bit and that one was amazing too, but I love having the extra stop and at the

moment the 35/1.4 is my main Leica lens.

The 50mm Summicron is a beautiful lens too, and I have one for its compactness, but to

me it's not as versatile a focal length. I have not been particularly tempted by the 50/1.4

ASPH because its price is high and because I already have a 50/1.4 for my Nikon system

that was 1/10th the price. :)

-- Mark

I've shot at least 20 or 30 rolls in the last year with my M7 and as far as I can tell the batteries

are still going. Not sure if that helps.

-- Mark

<i>Autofocus kills any rangefinder manual focusssing hocus pocus BS you are going to hear.</i><P>

Sorry, can't let this one go by. My focusing is 100% accurate in low light with wide-aperture lenses on my M7, while AF often misses the mark on my Nikon F100, D1x, and D70, both of which have pretty good AF systems.<P>

I don't claim to know why this is, but people other than myself looking at my photos without knowledge of what camera took them have commented on it too.<P>

-- Mark

On the Leica vs. other cameras front, I've shot extensively with a Leica M7, a Nikon FM-2n,

a bunch of AF Nikons, and a Pentax 67. (Sorry, I do not have the experience with the R

system that the original poster would find most informative, but maybe my thoughts can

be helpful anyway.)

Qualitatively, there IS something about the images from the Leica that's different, and

striking. I'm not precisely sure why, but I have some thoughts:

* I almost always use the Leica in low light because it seems to produce the best results

there. I haven't ever noticed a significant qualitative difference between the Leica and the

Nikons in fully illuminated conditions, when I'm stopped down a couple of stops.

* The Leica is much, much easier to focus accurately in low light than any of the other

cameras, including the AF cameras. This is entirely a handling issue (and the Rs may not

share it because they don't use the same kind of rangefinder focusing as the M series, but

maybe theirs is as good too. I don't know.)

* The Leica lenses I use, a 35mm f/1.4 ASPH, a 50mm f/2, and a 75mm f/1.4, seem to

render out of focus images in a very neutral way, without introducing any unusual

angularity in highlights. Some (not all) of my Nikon lenses seem to have that tendency.

(The Nikkor 50mm lenses do not, though.)

* The Leica lenses do seem to exhibit color differences from the Nikon lenses. Shadows

seem to go slightly blue and highlights seem to go slightly yellow. This could be a matter

of the coating performing differently at different wavelengths, and since I do a lot of

shooting in low light (where illumination is mostly yellow) I could imagine it being more

obvious there. I'm not saying this difference is a plus, it's just a difference I've noticed...

and honestly, if there were a quality of the Leica lenses that I'd be happier to have go

away, this might just be it.

Generally, though, the entire Leica M system (again, can't speak to the R system) is optimal

for shooting in low light, and I have a feeling that the better results I've had with Leica

under those conditions are probably due to better ergonomics in focusing and optical

performance that's slightly better optimized for wide-open use, which has to be a design

priority for the engineer to really happen, as it's the result of a bunch of cost and

manufacturability tradeoffs.

None of this is magic, and again, stopped down two stops and in brighter light I really

can't tell the difference between Nikon and Leica images side-by-side.

-- Mark

I have the 1.2 50mm AIS and I use it when I feel that manual focus will help what I'm doing (usually wide-open, where picking the focus point is very important.)

However, for general photography, I much prefer the 50mm 1.4 AF-D. My sense is that the image quality is better.

-- Mark

holy crap, when I was a kid I would have killed to have a microscope like that.

-- Mark

Humps for 3/4 mile...<P>

<IMG SRC=http://www.markrwilkins.com/humps.jpg><P>

-- Mark

Ok, fine.<P>

<IMG SRC=http://www.markrwilkins.com/albert.jpg><P>

-- Mark

<i>My friend's agent called me: "how do you get such sharp images and rich detail - can you do my other clients' shots please?"</i><P>

I assumed he meant "photo agent" not "real estate agent."<P>

-- Mark

The film/digital issue is different in cinematography than it is in still photography.

The dynamic range and behavior with hot highlights of digital is much more analogous to shooting transparency film than shooting color negative film -- and while shooting (and lighting for) transparency film has been a mainstay of still photography work for many years, film cinematography is almost entirely on negative film.

Cinematographers who shoot digital have to struggle with getting the white balance and exposure more accurate, as less dynamic range means less latitude to adjust white balance and exposure in post. Because paying the crew for the time taken setting up lighting is the majority of the cost in live-action motion picture production, demanding extra precision in lighting is a direct hit to the bottom line.

Still photographers, meanwhile, tend to find digital at least comparable to the transparency films they'd been shooting before, and photojournalists (who had been the major still-photo market for color neg films) find the quick turnaround liberating.

Ultimately, what will drive high-end cinematography fully digital will be truly high-dynamic range sensors that deal gracefully with highlights and have unobtrusive noise characteristics at the dark end. Until then, my take is that even forward-thinking cinematographers will wait. I've heard at least a few old-guard cinematographers state that they'd love to move to digital IF they can do it without compromising their workflow, so conservatism is not the whole story here.

-- Mark

I could imagine big fingers being a problem but I have no trouble just grabbing the film spool and pulling gently.

-- Mark

OK, so it's not a "film" gate but it's in the same location and serves the same purpose. I'd love to know what the engineers call it.

-- Mark

Yeah, I posted here with the same problem about a week ago.

As I was getting on the airplane to London when it happened, meaning that I would not be

able to get the camera serviced in time for what I'd bought it for, I tried locking up the

shutter and noticed that one of the shutter parts (a hinge between two of the shutter

blades) had gotten caught on the film gate. I dislodged it with my fingertip and the

camera served us well through the rest of the trip (about 250 exposures.)

However, I'm about to send the camera in for service.

-- Mark