paul_chefurka

Yeah, it's not as if they haven't a couple of decades to think up a

solution to the problem. OTOH, look at the R8 motor fiasco - you

have to wonder what it is about motors that seems to cause Leica such

grief.

<p>

To address some or the original questions that haven't been answered

yet:

<p>

The Motor-M is about $650 USD (I paid $1000 CAD) and they're too new

for any reliability estimates to be made yet.

<p>

Leica M film-advance mechanisms work by replacing the bottom plate of

the camera with a lump full of gizmos of one sort or another.

<p>

The motors are tripped by a plunger that is attached to the

mechanical shutter button, and there's no real way of synchronizing

the start of the motor cycle with the closing of the shutter, as far

as I know.

There are four film-advance solutions for M-mount cameras (not

counting the regular thumb advance).

<p>

The Hexar RF has a fairly modern, quiet, built-in motor drive that

works in single-shot or continuous mode (around 2.5 or 3 fps, IIRC).

The motor adds little to the bulk of the camera, but you have to use

it - there's no manual advance.

<p>

For M cameras there are:

<p>

The original Winder-M (in two versions for different bodies) -

available only second-hand, it's bulky and cantankerous.

<p>

The new Motor-M. Reasonably light, two-speed motor. No rewind, and

a bit louder than the Hexar. The battery compartment is in a post

that comes up the right front of the camera body, providing a grip.

<p>

The Abrahamsson RapidWinder. Not a motor per se, but a remake of the

old Leicavit trigger winder. It replaces the baseplate and allows

you to wind with your left hand without jostling the camera too much.

<p>

I've used all except the Winder-M. Everyone will have their won

favourites - mine are the Motor-M (especially with long lenses on

a .85 body) and the Hexar RF.

Wrotn question. The right question is, what's a good B&W negative

for YOU?

<p>

I like Tri-X and HP5+, but that's just because I shoot what I do.

I've seen good results from all of them - Delta, Tmax, XP2, Neopan

etc. etc. etc. What do you want to do with it?

I say an image is an image and don't sweat it. Does a wet darkroom

printer state that a photo has been burned, dodged, masked for

contrast, bleached and reduced etc. etc.? If not, why should we

digital printers take on the Burden Of Truth? They're just pictures,

and unless they're being used as evidence there is no need to get

hung up on veracity.

<p>

Crop them, hit 'em with curves, clone out the power lines - what you

do in the darkroom or PS is just as much a part of the whole process

as what you do with the camera. The interpretive and creative

process does not end at the Sacred Negative - with the film in your

hand you're only halfway there.

<p>

Here's a paranoid, seditious thought for you:

<p>

Maybe this insistence on "no manipulation, full frame only please" is

an attempt by those who shoot and project slides to force the rest of

us to share their burden. I say, lay your burden down and get that

mouse clicking.

<p>

The final image is the only important thing in this hobby, and we

should do everything we can to make sure it's a good one. I don't

think a viewer is ever going to say "I sure am glad you left that

phone pole sticking out of Cindy Crawford's head - it really

demonstrates you commitment to the truth."

It had better become a collector's item - it's never going to be much

of a photographer's item...

<p>

I've handled two of them, and while I love the body size, there just

ain't enough nostalgia in the world to make me consider putting up

with the rest of it.

I've never used a Noctilux, but I have no problems using my 75 on

a .72 body. According to Erwin Puts there shouldn't be a focussing

problem with this combination. I do prefer the .85 body with the 90

and 135, because the contents of the image is a bit easier to see.

<p>

Check out http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html

The trick is to buy about 8 or 10 bags, then you'll always have one

on hand that suits your mood of the moment.

<p>

My favorites are a Domke J2 for getting the whole kit from here to

there, an F6 as a general-purpose bag, and a LowePro F&S Reporter 100

for going really light. A vest is also good for making that "I'm a

hard-core photo geek" statement. Then again, there's no bag like no

bag - a camera and lens on the shoulder, film in a pocket, and away

you go.

<p>

"YMMV" has never been as appropriate as when talking about bags.

Agreed. I've bought both an M6 body and a 90 APO from Rich, and I

also sold him an M3. He was good to deal with.

<p>

The only reason I don't any more is that I'm giving all my business

to my local dealer instead of going mail-order across a border - this

is better in the long run from both the goodwill and warrantee points

of view. If you're an American who has no local Leica dealer, I'd

recommend Rich with no hesitation.

You're right that there is a peculiar synergy between the Leica M and

the 35. The reason for me is that the 35 does best what I think the

Leica itself does best - showing people in action within a context.

Not portraits, not landscapes, not bugs'n'flowers - people in their

environment. For this the 35mm is just about perfect. It's wide

enough to show the setting, but it's just long enough that you don't

have to stand on top of people to get them to dominate the frame.

<p>

Obviously the Leica M with a 35 can be used for landscapes. It can

also be used for portaits - of a particular type. It's really not so

hot for bugs :-) But for all these things there are other lenses

and/or cameras that do that stuff as well or better.

<p>

I too found that I used a 28 in preference to a 35mm on my SLRs, but

that my vision seemed to change when I switched to Leicas. I still

love the 28mm on the Leica for the extra "push" it can give a scene,

but if I want to grab one focal length for the day it will be the 35.

<p>

I almost feel guilty about not preferring the 50 - after all, that's

the ultimate purist's lens. But the 50 just isn't as good at

that "close to the action with context visible" thing as the 35.

<p>

Of course we all know what one lens deals with all these issues with

a single click of the ring ;-)

If it's for travel, the 35 Summilux ASPH gets my vote, hands down.

Mostly because of the weight, but also because the 35 is much more

versatile in low-light situations. When I travel I like to include

some context in my photos, and the narrower angle plus the lower DOF

of the Nocti would make that more difficult.

<p>

While you can hand-hold one stop slower with the Summilux, remember

that you'll also have less action-stopping power as a result - the

camera moves less, but the subject moves more, so to speak. I've

always felt the trade-off was worth it, and with 400 speed films so

good, I've rarely found anything I can't shoot at 1.4 and 1/8.

<p>

For travel, light weight is the name of the game. When I went south

recently I took 6 lenses, including the 75 :-/ Next trip it will be

the 35/1.4 ASPH, the 3E, and either a 90 or 135 with a Hexar RF and

a .72 M6.

<p>

The 35/1.4 ASPH isn't just a lens, it's a photographic paradigm all

unto itself :-)

I haven't seen any sign of problems with mine, but I can't remember

if I've tried it in the configuration that's causing you grief. I'll

try slow speed/vertical tonight and post my results.

I find the ASPH lenses to be have better macro contrast ("snap" , if

you will) and higher colour saturation than the 50. This isn't based

on any formal comparison, but my feeling is that the 50 Summicron-M

has been left behind by the newer lenses, especially at larger

apertures. As a result the 50 stays in the bag a lot more these

days. The new lenses may or may not be sharper (i.e. have higher

resolution) than the 50, but they certainly give a greater subjective

impression of sharpness to me.

<p>

I haven't tried the 21 (I'm not a superwide shooter) and the only

other ASPH lens that I didn't like as much as the 50 was the 24.

With that lens I got the occasional odd "look" to things like bare

tree branches against hazy skies. My refusal to come to terms with

it probably says more about me than the lens itself, though.

<p>

Nowadays I usually use the 50 setting on my 3E rather than the

Summicron.

New optics - now there's a good thought. Leica knows no-one will

bitch if they produce new lenses. A 75/2.0 would be fine with me,

along with a recomputed 50/1.4. And how about a 24/2.0? Leave the

bodies along and give us More Glass!

A modular M7 with a hybrid manual/AE shutter? Sounds like the

perfect project for a company with limited R&D resources :-)

Actually, Jeff, I wouldn't be surprised if Leica did very little for

a while, and waited to see the marketing fallout from the Cosina and

Konica initiatives. They have a very well-defined niche in the

market right now, and as far as I can tell the M camera is fully

realized to address that niche.

<p>

The kind of camera I'm talking about (motorized AE) is fundamentally

not how people think of Leica, and they'd need to be pretty sure of

the market response before they threw resources into a camera that is

even more of a departure from their traditional paradigm than the M5

was. And we all know how _that_ turned out.

<p>

I like the fact that the Leica M is such a uncompromised purist

camera, and really don't want to see them change it. But then I pick

up the Hexar and shoot with it...

I haven't heard anything about future M models. Doubtless there will

be one, but Leica tends to keep its cards pretty close to its chest

until the product launch is a few months away.

<p>

If you're asking what my "perfect Leica" would look like, I'd have to

say it would be a Hexar RF with a slightly better viewfinder and a

traditional thumb film wind lever so you could turn the motor off for

complete silence.

<p>

What would my "ideal" vf look like? It would have the clarity,

contrast and lack of distortion found in both the Leica and Bessa

finders, and it would have single frame lines instead of sets. OK,

while I'm dreaming, it would also have variable magnification so that

each single frame line occupies the same visual angle as the 35mm

frame in the current .58 finder.

<p>

Failing that, a set of three cameras each consisting of a Leica

finder (.58, .72 and .85) in a Hexar RF body would suit me just fine.

Given the problems Leica had producing the R8 motor, I'm glad they

decided to keep this one simple. Otherwise we'd have had it about

mid-2005.

Sorry, the truncated line above should read "Though not as much as

the original Winder-M".

<p>

Two other positive things about the Motor&M6 compared to the Hexar

are that you can use the motor on .72 and .85 bodies, and you can

turn it off and use your thumb if you want. It's certainly the best

winding gizmo Leica has ever come out with for the M.

I just got my Motor-M last Saturday. Anyone who has used an MD-12 on

a Nikon FM2 will have some feel for the size and ergonomics of this

drive. I like it a lot better than the Rapidwinder/Rapidgrip combo I

just sold. As an M-Grip devotee I like the feel of the battery-

compartment/grip on the new motor.

<p>

I've got one quibble with the operation of the thing, and I don't

think Leica can do anything about it. The shutter release backlash

is very noticeable after each shot, but what's worse is that if I

mash the shutter button and hold it down, the motor will not advance

the film. This means that for continuous shooting you need to keep

light pressure on the button and let it bounce up and down.

<p>

It does make the sleek M6 a bit unwieldy, though not as much

<p>

I also agree with Jay's comments - the motor on the Hexar RF is

lighter, faster, a bit quieter, not as quirky and rewinds the film as

well as winding it. When you compare the cost of the RF to the cost

of a .58 M6TTL with the motor, and then factor in the better

electronics, more flexible shutter and lighter weight of the RF, it's

a bit of a no-brainer.

Andrew, ultimately nobody knows why Konica is saying that. You're

right that the patent expired on the M mount and that Leica is

unlikely to sue them for anything else. On the other hand, if they

would rather you bought Hexanons instead of Summicrons, why did they

put an M mount on the durn camera in the first place?

<p>

Actually, I think the Hexar has benefitted both companies. I bought

a Hexar bercause I wanted a motorized AE body for my existing lenses,

and then I bought a Tri-Elmar because I suspected it would be

especially tasty on the Hexar (and boy was I right :-)

<p>

Maybe the back-focus disclaimer is just a dodge to try and keep the

warrantee repair rates down...

The impression I'm getting is that the "back-focus discrepancy"

disclaimer that Konica is using is nothing more than a bit of

legalese designed to protect them from the possibility of a Leica

lawauit. In practise I believe the difference (if it exists) is so

small as to not be an issue. I've heard the distance is some very

small fraction of a millimeter - a distance only of interest to

lawyers :-) The only real focussing problem with Hexars seems to be

a QC issue with the RF adjustment.

<p>

Mine shows no problems at all, and I have successfully used it with a

75/1.4 wide open at around 2 meters.

All this goes to show that Leica photographers use the same sorts of

film as everyone else - at least one of us will use any film on the

market.

<p>

I'm currently using Provia 100F, Supra 400 and Supra 800.

<p>

I'm going to be trying Astia as an alternative to the Provia (I want

to see if it really has more neutral skin tones), and maybe some

E100S. I'm still waiting eagerly for a chance to try Provia 400F.

I'm going to look at the Fuji alternatives to Supra 800 (like Press

800 and NHGII) to see if the grain is a any better. Along with

those, I'd like to shoot some chromogenic B&W and maybe some Scala.

My recommendation is the 35/1.4 ASPH you're already considering (it's

a lens you will probably own for your whole life), along with a used

50 Summicron - either the current version with the retractable shade

or the previous version with the detachable hood and focussing tab.

They're optically identical, and I like the ergonomics of the earlier

model.

I'm a big fan of both the 35 Summilux ASPH and the 75. For fast

lenses they can't be beaten. I stewed long and hard over the choice

between the 50/1.0 and the 75. I decided the 75 would be a more

useful general-purpose lens, and I haven't second-guessed myself

yet. The 35 and the 75 are both fabulous, but I think the 35 is more

of a true low-light lens than the 75, just because I can get an easy

3 extra speeds of handjoldability out of it. I really need to shoot

the 75 at 1/125 for sharp images, and I can handhold the 35 at 1/15

without any problem (and 1/8 if I remember to do it right).

<p>

The 28/2.0 is continuing to amaze me as well, but you'd have to

decide if one extra stop over your Elmarit is worth it to you.