tom_bryant

FWIW, my M3 is (in my eyes, at least) easier to focus than my M4.

It's much easier than my Canon F1 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens aboard in low

light (say at 1 footcandle, or 7 on the Gossen scale).

<p>

If everything is <b>pindrop</b> quiet, my M3 shutter can seem fairly

loud. In a room with a bunch of people attending a fairly formal

function, it's barely audible.

FWIW, when I use the Leitz table top and large ball head, I use it as

a chest pod, mostly. It's a bit more akward than regular hand

holding, but it buys you sharpness that is perhaps double that of what

you would get otherwise. Just hope that your subjects don't move!

<p>

There's more on my web site, if you're interested.

<p>

http://208.218.135.74/top/top.html

As I was looking at meter sensitivities on the B&H site, the most

sensitive meter was the Gossen Luna Pro S.

<p>

I also prefer it's operation to that of the Sekonics, but that's a

matter of taste.

How to take better pictures and get more keepers.

Hmmmm. Tough one.

<p>

I'll discuss phloisophy here. I asume that you already know about how

to set up your exposure and hold the camera steady.

<p>

1) If it looks good, shoot it. I try to expose mumbling the mantra

"Film is cheap... Film is cheap". Good shots can get away as you

stare through the viewfinder wondering if it's worth the shot.

<p>

2) Every scene has a best view. Look for it. Change lenses. Walk

around. Find the best angle and get a good shot. Remember to

bracket.

<p>

3) Practice. If you missed it this time, next time, when shooting

similar scenes, your sense of timing will be better honed. This is

especially true when shooting events, from soccer games to theater.

<p>

4) Practice. If your leica is not faster than a P&S, you need more

practice.

<p>

Practice. Practice. Practice.

<p>

Enjoy.

I have the later version, and it's perhaps my favorite M lens. I find

it sharp wide open, albeit with a bit of field curvature, and at f/5.6

it's downright superb. It's also one of the smallest 50 f/1.4s, which

makes it easily portable, and it's reversable, slotted hood is

elegant. See my

<A HREF=http://208.218.135.74/photography/photo35.html>photography

page</A> for more info.

Canon 50mm f/1.9 Serenar collapsible (a Sonnar copy). Now. What does

this have to do with improving our photographic technique?

<p>

"All lenses are sharp at f/5.6 to f/8."

<P>I went through a variety of SLRs (Exakta, Nikon, Canon FD, Alpa,

and Fuji) before settling on the M rangefinder.</P>

<P>Rangefinders can't focus as close as SLRs, or handle telephotos

very well, or let you see esactly what will be on the film plane prior

to exposure.</P>

<P>They are quieter, have better lenses (especially at 50mm and

shorter), focus accurately in very dim light, are much more compact,

let you see beyond a given lense's frame lines, and are very fast, as

the time lag between shutter release and exposure is 1/50th of a

second, as compared to 1/20 for a fast SLR, and about 1/2 for

autofocus.</P>

<P>Once you're learned the camera (It's not for beginners, but you're

not a beginner), you'll never want to go back. My Canon F1s gather

dust, waiting for jobs that require macro or telephoto capabilities,

and my Leicas are in daily use.</P>

Wow! Looks impressive, even if I don't care for built in meters,

automatic or otherwise. The ability to do daylight fill flash at

above 1/50th is enticing. Provided, of course, that the flash can

easily be used off camera!

I have a bit of the rocking (in the focus helicoil) in mine (#2749xxx)

but none of the play. The rocking does not seem to affect the lens

performance, it focuses accurately at 2 meters at f/1.

<p>

Hope this helps.

<P>None at all. Keep the body in one pocket, the lens in another

while the camera is not in use. A bit more descreet this way, and the

camera won't smash into things as it flops around as you scurry

about.</P><P> When using it, the assembled camera doesn't have any

straps to get in your way.</P>

Leica services is expensive, awesomely slow, usually good, but too

often terrible.

<p>

Sherry or DAG are the places to go.

<p>

John Collier's maintenance tips and M knowledge in general.

<p>

Many entertaining rants from a very euridite and cosmopolitan group of

people.

<p>

Ideas from the LUG, and other not yet ranted on here that I've

noticed:

<p>

Other things being equal, a faster shutter speed with a wider aperture

is better than vice versa, hand held.

-- Ted Grant

<p>

Photography is an athletic event, stay in shape!

-- Ted, again, and others on the LUG

<p>

You can't buy quality, you have to grow into it.

-- Stewart Brand, from "The Whole Earth Catalog"

<p>

Skill in photography is acquired by practice, not purchase.

-- Percy Harris

Todd,

<p>

I'm familiar with that test, and because of it, I bought a Canon

F1, with a 50mm f/1.4 FD lens (among others), instead of a Leica,

thinking that it was sharper than a Summilux wide open. It wasn't.

It was the sharpest 50mm f/1.4 lens I'd ever seen on an SLR (vs Nikon,

Pentax, Minolta) but it wasn't sharper than some older shots I'd done

with a Summilux.

<p>

It turns out that Pop Phot does their tests based on imaging

properties of a <b>flat</B> surface, not a more real world curved

surface. Canon knew this and designed their lenses to pass this test.

Leica knew that most photographers rarely shot flat walls at 5 meters

distance, so they allowed it to have a significantly curved image

plane, and corrected for other, uglier, abberations. The Summilux

also has the very real advantage that it can shove its rear element

back to within 3 cm of the film plane. An SLR lens, whose rear

element must clear the mirror, does not have this luxury. This

constraint cannot make for a sharper lens. These minor details

perhaps explain why the real world performance of Leica glass, at

least in focal lengths less than 60mm or so, have that marvelous

"glow" that the others can't match, wide open.

<p>

It took me two years to realise my error.

<p>

Now, here's no way I'd choose the Canon 50 over the Summilux,

except if I was photographing the night sky. And then, I'd use the

Noctilux! (Or better still, a Schmidt camera).

<p>

Beware of Pop Photo tests. While they do not lie, they do distort!

<p>

What is said here of the 50 is also true of the 35.

After having used several meters, including the Sekonic 308, Sekonic

318, a Gossen Luna Pro, a Gossen Luna Pro F, and the Leica MR meter,

I prefer the Luna Pro. Over the years I've memorized light according

to the Luna Pro 1-22 scale (each number represents twice as much light

as its predecessor). I'll look at a scene and think "That's about an

8, with highlights up to 10, and shadows down to 5." Then I translate

that into exposure. I didn't really plan to have it work out this

way, but after years of Luna Pro use, that's what happened.

<p>

I also rarely use reflected light meters any more, so the Leica MR

meter is long gone, and I ignore any in-camera meters I own. Incident

readings, coupled with a bit of experience, are more accurate, IMHO.

<p>

The Sekonics are OK, especially the 308, but their self check that

occurs every time you turn the meter on is annoying, and if you leave

it on, the battery is cooked. My 308 was stolen, but if you're

interested in the 318, it's new in the box. Make me an offer! B&H

retail on the 318 is $239 + shipping.

<p>

On it's plus side, the 318 has an attachment to allow it to accurately

measure luminance, the Gossen does not. It's silicon sensor reads

about 100 times faster than the old Luna Pro (not the F, however), and

the sensor swivels around atop the meterso you can point it at the

scene and simultaneously see the readout. They also use the common AA

battery, the Gossens do not. Read more about it at <A

href="http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-318.html">their website</A>

<p>

The Luna Pro is about 4 stops more sensitive, and I much prefer it's

ergonomics.

I've got a 35 f/2 Canon, which is a skosh smaller than my 35 Summilux,

and a 50 Summilux and a 50mm f/2 Canon Serenar (essentially a well

made Sonnar copy). At f/8 I can't tell them apart.

<p>

I've learned that when I shoot at under 1/30th second, unsharpness is

caused by camera shake. I therefore will shoot wide open whenever I

can get away with the narrow depth of field.

<p>

If you've never experienced f/1.4, its twice as sharp as f/2, in terms

of camera shake. I've even acquired a Noctilux, for yet more speed.

Optically, these lenses are fairly sharp wide open. You can see a bit

of vignetting, especially in the Noct, but I don't find it a problem.

<p>

If you're picky about optical quality, and regularly mount your camera

on a tripod, and tend to shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, then the

Summicrons are a bit better than their higher speed bretheran. Then

if you go to all this trouble, why not get 4x5 view camera, with it's

swings and tilts and sharpness that will blow the doors off any 35,

even Leica.

<p>

I use the f/2 50 for daytime trips (it collapses, making the M3

pocketable. The 50 Summilux is my favorite, it's ergonomics

(reversable hood, large lens mounting dot) and optics are superb, and

finally, the noctilux goes with me when I know I'll need that extra

stop and don't mind the bulk, such as a wedding or theater.

<p>

You'll have to find your own way here. I started with the cheaper f/2

lenses, and wound up with the faster ones, as that hand shake (or

subject shake, if you're photographing people, is very real).

<p>

BTW in the Washington DC metro stations, the light underground is

1/30th second at f/1 with ISO 200. You'll need all the speed you can

get.

When you're hand holding, and camera shake is magnified as the lens

reaches out, there's much to be said for speed here. My 135mm f/2.8

Elmarit with its eyes is a royal pain to carry around, the eyes mask

out all but the 135mm frame, but that extra half+ to whole stop (f/3.4

or f/4) makes for shots that are 50 to 100 percent sharper, as most

resolution problems with hand holding are due to camera shake.

I'm sure that the new apochromat blows the proverbial doors off of my

30 year old Elmarit, but that's on a tripod.

<p>

Once you're on a tripod, why not shoot at f/8 and get a bit more depth

of field as well? BTW, most lenses are very close to each other when

stopped down below f/5.6. Have a look at photodo.com and their MTF

tests.

<p>

Well. There's also something lovely with buying the very best in the

world. Even if you don't *really* need it.

<p>

A rant on 135s: As long as I can get close to my subject, I don't use

it. My 90 Summicron is used far more often, and my 50 and wide angles

most of the time. My 135 gathers lots of dust. Execpt for sports and

theater, it never gets used.

<p>

Whatever you buy, enjoy.

FWIW, I occasionally use Ektar 25, long discontinued, but it's aging

halted by my freezer. Usually in my Canon F1. On a tripod. Mirror

locked up. Lens stopped down. Shutter released with the self timer.

<p>

My Leicas are invariably used hand held, and why waste the sharpness

of that film hand held? It's great for macro work, and scenics, thus

the SLR.

Sure! Run with your Leica.

<p>

Photography is an athletic event, at least shooting an even with a

hand held camera trying to get "candids".

<p>

I have a Nikon photo vest, and don't run often, but I must be a sight,

bouncing along at a fast jog, keeping up with the action, with a

couple of bodies, more than a few lenses, film, a light meter, a table

top tripod, and other sundry equipment bouncing around in that vest!

<p>

I've found vests give mush faster access to equipment and somewhat

better theft protection than backpacks, but they can be hell on the

back after a long day compared to a backback.

I'd agree with much of what's said here, but for me, the 15 is the

tricky lens. If your horizon's off center, or the camera is just a

little tilted, the "Mercator projection" quality of the extreme wide

angle takes hold and ruins the shot. I find my 21 much more forgiving

(and faster! f/2.8 vs f/4.5). The 12 would just exacerbate the

problems I have with the 15, so I've never lusted for it.

<p>

I find, that for some shots (mainly interiors and sunsets) the 15

can't be beat. At f/8, it's superb, with minimal flare, and

extraordinary sharpness. It compares very favorably with my 21 asph

elmarit optically, but not in build quality.

2 eyes with the M3 when framing, 1 eye when focusing.

<p>

1 eye with the M4

Well, I was fixing to do a pro M3 rant, until I came to Andrew's post.

<p>

He's already done it for me. That more accurate focus-with-both-eyes

is a big plus IMHO. I've also got an M4, and it doesn't quite cut it

in terms of viewfinder use. A matter of opinion, no doubt!

<p>

I'd only add that using a 35 is no problem for me on the M3. Just use

the <big><b>entire</big></b> viewfinder, and you're pretty close. I

much prefer this method to using an auxiliary finder, or <I>gaaaak</I>

an older lens with "eyes".

<p>

As for the 135 question, I find that I hardly use my 135mm f/2.8

elmarit, while my 90 Summicron is often chosen. The Summicron's extra

speed is a plus, and it works very well for people. The 135 is a bit

longer, but somehow not long enough.

The Noctilux gets the picture when no other lens can.

<p>

It's big. It's heavy. It's not portable. On an optical bench, the

Summilux and Summicron are a tad better at f/5.6 (so what!). You loose

the lower right corner of your viewfinder when using it.

<p>

Never mind. A friend of mine, surveying a series of photos I had done

for him, said "It's as if the lens makes it's own light!"

<p>

The Noctilux is a special lens. It's size and weight make the camera

more steady as you hold it. It balances very nicely with my M3, and

with ISO 1600 film, you literally can get a decent shot in candelight.

No one will believe that you're taking a picture, if they see you at

all.

Letsee now,

<p>

1) A larger viewfinder, with more eye relief for the glasses wearers.

0.91 or greater, a la the M3. (If you've never used the M3 with both

eyes open, you're missing a real treat)

<p>

2) An indication in the viewfinder indicating if the camera is wound.

<p>

3) Loose the meter, and give me back the self timer.

<p>

4) A larger lens opening, so the next generation Noctilux doesn't

vignette.

<p>

5) A digital back, to clip in as a replacement to the film pressure

plate back, whenever digital photography is necessary. (This would

also give you back the meter. It's resolution should be at least

3600x2400 (About 26 Mega pixels, if it's a color back.)

<p>

6) A rewind knob like that found on an Alpa.

<p>

On the off chance that someone from Leica is actually reading this,

I will not buy an AE Leica. Or an AF Leica.