Leica M6 faulty meter?
Alastair Anderson
characteristics:
1) If the ISO rating is high (ASA 3200 or 6400) then I can't get the centre
(round) LED to come on at low shutter speeds (half second or one second).
The exposure moves from under exposed straight to over exposed (or vice
versa, depending on direction) no matter how finely I turn the aperture
ring.
2)Something very strange! When I put my 90 mm summicron on the camera
(Number 2025271) the aperture LED seems to work in reverse! In other words
when there's too little light the right hand arrow comes on. And if there
is a need to stop down the left hand arrow comes on. The shutter speed
arrows seem to work correctly however and the mix up results in confusion.
I have several early lenses and although I haven't tested all of them yet
I'm under the impression that the 90 f2 is the only one with this problem.
But the first problem mentioned seems to be common to all the lenses.
Can anyone help?
Godfrey DiGiorgi
- he was trying to use the M6TTL meter beyond its sensitivity range;
- the 90mm lens he is using has an aperture ring which operates opposite
to most other Leica lenses.
The M6TTL meter is very reliable and very accurate in my experience. I
see no reason to dispense with it by leaving the battery out. If that
was what I wanted, I'd have bought an M4-P instead.
Godfrey
Adrian Tanovic wrote:
>
> This is pretty weird because the M6 meter doesn't 'know' what kind of lens
> is on the camera, just the amount of light striking the painted white spot
> on the shutter curtain. So if the meter works the 'right' way with one
> lens, it should work the right way with all lenses.
>
> I have had an M6 meter go funny and act in very unpredictable ways after
> servicing --- a connection was left slightly loose in the metering circuit.
> If problems persist you will probably have to take it in.
>
> IMHO, you'd be better off taking the battery out of the M6 meter system and
> shooting without one. Either use a hand-held spot meter or learn to
> estimate light levels; you will soon get the hang of it. In my experience,
> the averaging-type in-camera meter doesn't produce a higher proportion of
> properly-exposed photographs than your native intelligence would (possibly
> plus a hand-held meter reading to establish base light levels at the
> beginning of a shooting session). In addition, the blinking diodes are
> distracting.
>
> Best,
> A.
Adrian Tanovic
> (Number 2025271) the aperture LED seems to work in reverse! In other
words
> when there's too little light the right hand arrow comes on. And if
there
> is a need to stop down the left hand arrow comes on. The shutter speed
> arrows seem to work correctly however and the mix up results in confusion.
>
This is pretty weird because the M6 meter doesn't 'know' what kind of lens
Alastair Anderson
The M6 meter does seem extremely accurate (compares with my Pentax spot
meter)
I like having a meter in a camera because I'm really bad at estimating light
levels. I've had good results with an M3/M2 and the spot meter but it's a
bit cumbersome.
My only problem with the 0.85 M6 now is that the 35mm frame seems to be less
than 100%. Again this is probably somewhere in the manual but I don't have
access to it at the moment.
The 0.85 is a compromise between the M2 and the M3, but it would appear that
the 35mm frame doesn't quite fit. I really like using an M3 because I can
focus with both eyes open, and I much prefer the larger image. On the other
hand the M2 is really good for 35mm lenses. The O.85 M6 certainly gives the
best of both worlds in this regard, a pity though about the 35mm frame which
definitely appears to be smaller than the M2 35mm frame.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote in message <38E03648...@bayarea.net>...
>Alastair's difficulties were simple:
>
>- he was trying to use the M6TTL meter beyond its sensitivity range;
>- the 90mm lens he is using has an aperture ring which operates opposite
>to most other Leica lenses.
>
>The M6TTL meter is very reliable and very accurate in my experience. I
>see no reason to dispense with it by leaving the battery out. If that
>was what I wanted, I'd have bought an M4-P instead.
>
>Godfrey
>
>Adrian Tanovic wrote:
>>
Mark Bergman
"Alastair Anderson" <ala...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:38e09...@news1.mweb.co.za...
Dan
just that you aren't able to see them? Could it be that the entire finder
image represents the 35 mm frame? That wouldn't be so bad, if so.
I'm an eyeglass wearer and have some reservations about an M6 viewfinder,
but I don't think I'll let that stop me. I plan to shoot 35/1.4, 50/2, and
90/2.8 (or possibly the 90/2 APO) lenses. Since I tend to shoot more on the
long end than the wide, I was figuring I'd get the .85 finder as well. But
if it makes 35 mm and impossibility, then maybe I should reconsider....
Another option is to buy a Bessa-R as a second body. It comes standard with
a .7x finder. Buy having the .85 Leica, you can have the best of both
views. Wish the Bessa-R would hurry up and arrive in the states!
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
Mark Bergman
current is an M4) but the VF outer frame is equivalent to a 28, thus the
35mm framelines are shown inside a 28mm window. They are just a littler
hard to see with eyeglasses but not that difficult. I did find it nearly
impossible to see the 28 mm framelines in the M4-P and got a separate shoe
mounted VF and then got rid of the lens completely as too much hassle.
"Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote in message
news:Yt4E4.23430$E85.5...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Bud Cook
glasses, the .72 viewfinder will be better. It will be very difficult to
see the 35 mm frame with the high magnification finder if you wear glasses.
On the other hand, the .85 M6 is much better with the longer lenses.
The best solution is to have one of each:-) Think of Leicas as investments.
I went through four versions of the Nikon F and they are all gone but I
still have and use my M3 and SL/2.
Bud
Bud Cook
The so-called Classic M6 has the .72 viewfinder with the widest frame for
the 28 mm lens (it's actually closer to 30mm). The newer option is a .85
viewfinder with the widest frame for the 35mm lens.
In either camera, viewing the outer frame is difficult if you wear glasses.
Consequently, the Classic version works best for people who wear glasses
because the 35mm frame is easier for them to see.
The old Leica M3 has an image that's 92% of life-size but 50mm is the widest
frame available in the viewfinder.
Bud
"Lone Wolf" <lonew...@spam.sucks.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Uk7E4.43301$oD3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> BTW, what does .72 & .85 mean in relation to an M6? Is this the view as
> seen by the lens reduced to this amount, or is this the amount of the view
> seen by the lens that the viewfinder can show?
>
> What are the advantages / disadvantages of both?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> -----
> Lone Wolf
>
> All those who believe in telekinesis raise my hand.
>
>
>
Dan
news:38e10...@news1.prserv.net...
[snip]
> The best solution is to have one of each:-) Think of Leicas as
investments.
> I went through four versions of the Nikon F and they are all gone but I
> still have and use my M3 and SL/2.
Yes, this is precisely why I am considering getting the higher magnification
M6 along with a Bessa-R. Both will use those wonderful Leica glass (albeit
with a bayonet adapter for the Bessa), and I can keep wide angles on the
Bessa and the 90mm on the M6.
Dan
news:8bqrm0$e3f$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> I'm not sure what the M6 finder shows (my newest Leica was a M4-P and my
> current is an M4) but the VF outer frame is equivalent to a 28, thus the
> 35mm framelines are shown inside a 28mm window. They are just a littler
> hard to see with eyeglasses but not that difficult. I did find it nearly
> impossible to see the 28 mm framelines in the M4-P and got a separate shoe
> mounted VF and then got rid of the lens completely as too much hassle.
I'm glad to hear of another eyeglass wearer who is successfully using Leica
M's. I can't see the entire VF in _any_ camera, although the Nikon F3HP and
F100 are about the best I've looked through so far. The M6 is tough, but
I'm willing to put up with it for all the conveniences the rangefinder
affords me (I like to shoot candids and disdain flash).
John Bean
wrote:
>Yes, this is precisely why I am considering getting the higher magnification
>M6 along with a Bessa-R. Both will use those wonderful Leica glass (albeit
>with a bayonet adapter for the Bessa), and I can keep wide angles on the
>Bessa and the 90mm on the M6.
I'm afraid not. The adaptor will allow you to use a screw mount
lens on an M, not the other way around.
--
Regards
John Bean [my real address is spam-free]
Dan
that it would take M lenses (albeit with an adapter).
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"John Bean" <ne...@spam.jbean.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4j82essibbtj6gfat...@4ax.com...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
.85x model, about like the 28mm frame lines are in the .72x. I can't see
things that close to the edge terribly well, so I picked the .72x model
for use with 35-90mm lenses. For wider lenses, I use an auxiliary
finder, and I haven't found a need for longer lenses.
The problem with using a Bessa-R as a second body is that the Bessa-R is
a Leica Thread Mount (LTM) rather than M-Bayonet camera. M-Bayonet
lenses cannot be easily adapted to LTM where LTM lenses adapt to
M-Bayonet with a simple adapter.
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi
mounting flange and the film plane than M-Bayonet lenses. Thus you can
adapt LTM lenses to M-Bayonet easily but you cannot go the other way and
retain infinity focus.
The Bessa-R strength is that it will be able to use all existing Leica
Thread Mount lenses, and that the excellent Cosina/Voigtlander lens line
introduced for it can be used on Thread Mount Leicas as well as
M-Bayonet Leicas with a simple adapter.
Godfrey
Dan wrote:
>
> Are you sure? I had thought one of the selling points of the Bessa-R was
> that it would take M lenses (albeit with an adapter).
>
Lone Wolf
Dan
The Hexar RF and Minolta CLE would serve as backup bodies for Leica M-mount
lenses, but the former cost nearly as much as an M6 TTL, and the latter
is--from what I understand (I really know nothing about the CLE)--no longer
in production.
In any event, your information has made my decision that much easier: I need
not wait for the Bessa-R. I'll go with the M6 TTL, and I'll get the .72x
finder. Even though I shoot more at 90 than 35, I have decided to go with
the smaller, lighter Elmarit-M 90/2.8 rather than the new Summicron-M 90/2
APO, and figure the .72 finder will focus well enough with the Elmarit, yet
will still allow me to see the framelines comfortably with a 35/2 ASPH.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Godfrey DiGiorgi" <rama...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:38E149E4...@apple.com...
Adrian Tanovic
substantially shorter rangefinder base length than the Leica Ms. The Leica
M6 has a rangefinder base length of 49.9mm. Just how effective rangefinder
base length is in determining focusing accuracy is somewhat a function of
viewfinder magnification. The .85x Leica M, at its higher magnification,
has focusing accuracy equivalent to that of a 'normal' .72x Leica M with a
base length of 59.1mm (i.e. the focusing accuracy would be the same as if
you were using a 'normal' Leica with a wider rangefinder base). This is
what Leica means when they say that the .85x Leica M has an "effective"
rangefinder base of 59.1mm.
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:38E14875...@apple.com...
> The 35mm frame lines are rather close to the edges of the finder in the
> .85x model, about like the 28mm frame lines are in the .72x. I can't see
> things that close to the edge terribly well, so I picked the .72x model
> for use with 35-90mm lenses. For wider lenses, I use an auxiliary
> finder, and I haven't found a need for longer lenses.
>
> The problem with using a Bessa-R as a second body is that the Bessa-R is
> a Leica Thread Mount (LTM) rather than M-Bayonet camera. M-Bayonet
> lenses cannot be easily adapted to LTM where LTM lenses adapt to
> M-Bayonet with a simple adapter.
>
> Godfrey
Heinz Richter
>mounting flange and the film plane than M-Bayonet lenses.
That would be about 1mm less.
Heinz
HRphotography
http://hometown.aol.com/hrphoto/myhomepage/business.html
FOTOgraphicART
http://www.choicemall.com/fotographicart
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://hometown.aol.com/gmbbwlab/myhomepage/business.html
Heinz Richter
>M6 has a rangefinder base length of 49.9mm. Just how effective rangefinder
>base length is in determining focusing accuracy is somewhat a function of
>viewfinder magnification. The .85x Leica M, at its higher magnification,
>has focusing accuracy equivalent to that of a 'normal' .72x Leica M with a
>base length of 59.1mm (i.e. the focusing accuracy would be the same as if
>you were using a 'normal' Leica with a wider rangefinder base).
>This is
>what Leica means when they say that the .85x Leica M has an "effective"
>rangefinder base of 59.1mm.
The actual base length of ALL the Leica rangefinder M cameras is 69.4mm. The
standard M6 has a viewfinder image decreased from 1:1 by a factor of .72x,
which results in an effective base length of 49.9mm. The M6 TTL .85 has a
viwfinder of .85x, resulting in an effective base length of 59.1mm.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
The lens flange to film plane distance on LTM bodies is about 1mm
greater than the lens flange to film plane distance on M-bayonet bodies.
This allows about 1mm for the adapter ring when fitting an LTM lens to
an M-bayonet body.
Godfrey
Heinz Richter
post about the lens flange having imm more distance, but was thinking camera
body. Sorry about that.
Paul Chefurka
<lonew...@spam.sucks.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>BTW, what does .72 & .85 mean in relation to an M6? Is this the view as
>seen by the lens reduced to this amount, or is this the amount of the view
>seen by the lens that the viewfinder can show?
This is the magnification ratio of the viewfinder. In the .72 finder,
the image you look at appears as .72x life-size. In the .85 finder
the image is .85x life size. It does not affect the view seen by the
lens.
>What are the advantages / disadvantages of both?
The .85 finder is better for longer lenses (50, 75, 90, 135) for two
reasons. One is that the higher magnification makes the image inside
the little frame lines easier to see. The other is that is gives the
rangefinder a longer baselength, making the focussing of long lenses
more accurate.
It's harder to see the 35mm frame line in a .85 finder though, and it
doesn't even have a 28mm frame. So if you use 28, 35 and 50 lenses
more often, the .72 finder is a better choice.
Paul Chefurka
Adrian Tanovic
effective base length of 49.9mm, the .85x an effective length of 59.1mm.
Sorry if my mail was confusing.
My point was that the Bessa-R's physical base length seems, from photos of
the camera, significantly shorter than that of the Leica M, but what effect
this has on focusing accuracy will depend on viewfinder magnification.
Neither the physical base length nor the viewfinder magnification of the
Bessa-R are known to me.
Best,
Adrian
Heinz Richter <hrp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000329082243...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >The Leica
> >M6 has a rangefinder base length of 49.9mm. Just how effective
rangefinder
> >base length is in determining focusing accuracy is somewhat a function of
> >viewfinder magnification. The .85x Leica M, at its higher magnification,
> >has focusing accuracy equivalent to that of a 'normal' .72x Leica M with
a
> >base length of 59.1mm (i.e. the focusing accuracy would be the same as if
> >you were using a 'normal' Leica with a wider rangefinder base).
> >This is
> >what Leica means when they say that the .85x Leica M has an "effective"
> >rangefinder base of 59.1mm.
>
> The actual base length of ALL the Leica rangefinder M cameras is 69.4mm.
The
> standard M6 has a viewfinder image decreased from 1:1 by a factor of .72x,
> which results in an effective base length of 49.9mm. The M6 TTL .85 has a
> viwfinder of .85x, resulting in an effective base length of 59.1mm.
Heinz Richter
>the camera, significantly shorter than that of the Leica M, but what effect
>this has on focusing accuracy will depend on viewfinder magnification.
You make a good point. I agree that the physical base length appears to be
shorter, and I suspect that the effective base length is shorter too. The
Leica rangefinder is one of the best ever put into a camera, and other
manufacturers seem to have difficulties equaling it. Even the new Konica,
which is much closer in phusical base length of the rangefinder to the Leica
has a significantly shorter effective base length.
Mark Bergman
(or 1). Thus the effective RF base length will always be shorter than real
base length.
"Heinz Richter" <hrp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000330082656...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Jim Williams
life-size
>(or 1). Thus the effective RF base length will always be shorter than
real
>base length.
There's no particular reason the viewfinder magnification couldn't be
anything you want. The Canon VI-T and Nikon S2 both had range/viewfinders
with full life-size (1:1) magnification, and the Canon's could be set to
1.5x magnification for precision focusing. The Kodak Ektra's zoom
viewfinder covered focal lengths all the way to 254mm! (although it didn't
include a combined rangefinder, of course.)
The only hangup with a high-magnification combined rf/vf is that if you
magnify the viewfinder image more, you also have to magnify the rangefinder
equally, which involves having to put a "telescope" into the rangefinder
optics to make it match the viewfinder magnification. The 135mm f/2.8
Elmarit for Leica Ms included exactly such a device, an external pair of
"goggles" that boosted the finder magnification enough to provide the
focusing accuracy needed for this lens.
>
>"Heinz Richter" <hrp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000330082656...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
>> >My point was that the Bessa-R's physical base length seems, from photos
>of
>> >the camera, significantly shorter than that of the Leica M, but what
>effect
>> >this has on focusing accuracy will depend on viewfinder magnification.
It does have a significantly shorter base length. The finder magnification
is listed in the specs on Cosina's website, and I measured the approximate
physical base length from a picture of the camera, using the scaling
function of my CAD software and the known overall length of the camera
(also on the specs.) I don't remember now exactly what value I found, but
it was considerably less than that of any Leica M model, the Canon 7s, or
the Nikon SP. I suspect this is part of the reason why Cosina's 75mm lens
has a maximum aperture of f/2.5, and the proposed 90mm has a max aperture
of f/2.8. Leica (and the others noted above) need longer effective base
lengths to be able to focus such lenses as the M series' 50mm f/1.0, 75mm
f/1.4 and 90mm f/2, not to mention such beasts as Nikon's 50mm f/1.1 and
85mm f/1.5, or Canon's 50mm f/0.95, 85/1.5, and 100/2.
This isn't to say the Bessa-R won't be able to focus accurately, only that
you'll have to keep its limitations in mind when using it. It was exactly
the same situation with the Leica CL, which is why its recommended 90mm
lens had an f/4 maximum aperture. You could use it with faster lenses, but
at close distances focusing accuracy became dodgy. I used mine successfully
with a 90mm f/2, but tried to stick to distances of 10 feet or farther when
shooting at full aperture. If I get a Bessa-R (a strong possibility) I'll
probably have to use similar precautions when shooting with my 85mm f/1.5
Canon screwmount.
Heinz Richter
>(or 1). Thus the effective RF base length will always be shorter than real
>base length.
Not at all. The 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit with its built in viewfinder actually
gives a magnified viewfinder image, greater than 1:1, especially with the M6
.85 or even more so an M3. All of the screw mount Leica rangefinders had a
substantially magnified rangefinder image. All of the above have an effective
base length greater than the physical base length.
Mark Bergman
magnification of .85 to give a 35 mm view) and multiplies the 90 mm VF
Lines by 1.5 to make the resulting image (frame lines) enlarge to about the
50 mm view. It doesn't change the VF magnification at all. And if you
increased the VF magnification above about 1 then you couldn't use a 50 mm
lens or anything shorter without an accessory VF in the shoe. This is what
Leica did by putting goggles on the 35 mm so it could be used the M3, very
inconvenient.
"Heinz Richter" <hrp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000331085857...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Heinz Richter
>magnification of .85 to give a 35 mm view) and multiplies the 90 mm VF
>Lines by 1.5 to make the resulting image (frame lines) enlarge to about the
>50 mm view. It doesn't change
>the VF magnification at all.
The M2/M4 has a viewfinder magnification of .72, only the M6 .85 has the .85
magnification. You are correct that the 135/2.8 Elmarit uses the 90mm frame.
However, in order to see the 135mm field of view, this image needs to magnified
by 1.5, as you correctly state. That, with the .72 viewfinder, gives you just
a bit more than 1:1 viewing (.72x1.5 = 1.08) with the .85 viewfinder this
increases to 1.28, definitely larger than life size, and with the M3
viewfinder, the magnification is even higher.
Jim Williams
.85
>magnification. You are correct that the 135/2.8 Elmarit uses the 90mm
frame.
>However, in order to see the 135mm field of view, this image needs to
magnified
>by 1.5, as you correctly state. That, with the .72 viewfinder, gives you
just
>a bit more than 1:1 viewing (.72x1.5 = 1.08) with the .85 viewfinder this
>increases to 1.28, definitely larger than life size, and with the M3
>viewfinder, the magnification is even higher.
Thanks to Heinz for clearing this up. Incidentally, you can get a *rough*
idea of the viewfinder magnification of any camera by viewing through it
while keeping your other eye open (you may have to turn the camera so the
body doesn't block your "free" eye.) Once you get used to the slightly
cross-eyed sensation, you can look at something with a well-defined size
and make a rough comparison of how big it looks to the "finder" eye and the
"free" eye.
If the view through the finder is the same size as what your "free" eye
sees, the finder has a 1:1 magnification. If the view through the finder
looks only 3/4 as big, it has roughly a .75x magnification, and if the
finder view looks *larger* than the "free" view (as when using a long lens
on an SLR) the finder image magnification is greater than 1:1.
If you've got a "midrange" zoom lens for your SLR and can turn it so the
lens is at about the same height as your other eye (try holding the camera
vertically) you can zoom the lens until the finder produces 1:1
magnification; the finder-eye and free-eye images will "merge" into a
stereoscopic image, with the camera's viewfinder junk seemingly projected
into space so it floats in front of you. Kind of a disorienting effect, but
fun to play with.
Dan
I am (finally!) getting ready to purchase the M6. I have decided on the
50/2 and the 90 as my first two lenses (and only two for the foreseeable
future!). That makes the viewfinder selection a bit easier: I will get the
.85 version.
The one decision I have left to make regards the choice of 90 mm lens: do I
get the new 90/2 APO Summicron, or the 90/2.8 Elmarit? The former gives me
more latitude with available light, while the latter is smaller and lighter,
thus easier to handle (also cheaper, but the price is the least important
factor). I plan to use the lens primarily for portraits (candid, not
posed), usually tightly cropped close-ups.
I'm leaning toward the Elmarit as it would be lighter, less conspicuous, and
perhaps just a tad softer for portrait work. On the other hand, I would
certainly welcome the extra stop afforded by the Summicron.
I know you have used both of these lenses. What's your opinion? I welcome
your advice, and that of anyone else who has experience with these two
lenses.
Thanks,
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Paul Chefurka" <chef...@home.com> wrote in message
news:6u85esocs9559a2rb...@4ax.com...
templar
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/voigrf.htm
Stephen Gandy claims the Bessa-R has and effective base length
(EBL) of "about 30mm." That's less than half of an M3 (62.33mm)
and almost twice that of a CL (18.9mm.)
Gandy also has a great chart listing the EBL's of classic RF's
here:
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/leica.htm
I was actually considering buying a Bessa-R and a cadre of LTM
lenses with adapters to use with the M3 or M6 that I am likewise
soon to purchase, but I already have a CL and a few lenses in M
mount. Given the Bessa-R is basically just an improved version
of the CL (I agree with Gandy's comment on this,) I think I'll
put the $700 otherwise spent on a Bessa toward better glass and
give up the faster synch and top speed (which is the best
selling point IMO) to not have to deal with mounting and
unmounting my lenses into adapters each time I switch bodies.
Carpe Lumen,
Michael E. Berube
http://www.goodphotos.com
-Is fearr sona na sailbhir.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John G. Silver
> (EBL) of "about 30mm." That's less than half of an M3 (62.33mm)
> and almost twice that of a CL (18.9mm.)
>
Pentax has patented a new rangefinder for a 35mm camera.
Do the older photographers among you have a sense of deja vu? I can clearly
recall the brouhaha that went on when the 35 SLR's first came out. Oh they
were much better than RF's and all sorts of reasons were given.
No doubt there are more social reasons than photographic reasons for the
resurgence in interest in 35mm RF's and if anyone has a few, I'd love to
hear them.
In the meantime, I'm waiting to hear more of Pentax's efforts. (don't own
any late model Pentax stuff but have used it extensively in the past. The
good stuff is outstanding, really it is)
JS
Bud Cook
interested in and that is color rendition, especially with color reversal
film. I realize you may not see it with prints but have there been
situations where you notice subtle color differences with the Summicron? I
have the first version of the Elmarit and want to upgrade to either the APO
Summicron, 75 Summilux or the 90 Elmarit. Color is my overriding interest
since I only care about slides.
TIA,
Budnews:q7qsesga88cj41oi1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:23:17 GMT, "Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
>
> Great decision, Dan. Your choice is similar to how I started out a
> few years ago - with an M3, a 50/2.0 and a 90/2.8 thin Tele-Elmarit.
> All of which worked fine until I absolutely had to have a 35...
>
> I now have the .85 M6 - it's a very fine camera, and I use it with my
> 35 as well as the 50 and 90 (I don't wear glasses however, so YMMV as
> far as the 35 goes).
>
> If you take money out of the equation, the choice of 90's is a
> difficult one (which is, of course, why you're asking the question :-)
>
> There were two factors which moved me toward the 90/2.0 APO. One was
> the extra stop. My niece is an actress, and I occasionally shoot
> theater during performances. I tried it with the Elmarit-M (which had
> replaced the thin T-E), and found the shutter speed (1/60 at 2.8 on
> ISO 800 film) a bit too low for certainty. The APO Summicron can be
> shot wide-open with noticeably better results than the Elmarit at 2.8
> (better sharpness, contrast and tonality), so that was a factor in its
> favour.
>
> The second factor was purely subjective - the idea of owning the very
> best 90mm lens in the world, bar none. "Hi, I'm Paul, and I'm a
> Leicaholic." On the serious side, this means that I will never look
> at a print again and wonder if it might have been better with a
> different piece of glass. Instead I can look at it and say "Chefurka,
> that was *you* that screwed up. As a photographer you'd make a good
> bricklayer."
>
> I feel that the Summicron is a significantly better lens than the
> Elmarit from wide open up to about f/4.0. From there on, they're
> about equal. Especially if you shoot handheld :-/
>
> The negative aspects of the 'cron are interrelated - weight and
> handling. The APO Summicron is not that much heavier than the
> Elmarit-M in absolute terms. The weight distribution of the two
> lenses is very different, however. The 'cron is much more
> front-heavy, and this changes the balance of the rig. I found that
> adding the M-grip to the camera helps a whole bunch in keeping things
> under control.
>
> The other handling issue is the shape of the lens. The Elmarit is a
> constant-diameter cylinder, with the aperture ring the same diameter
> as the focussing collar. It handles extremely well, especially for
> such a dense lens. The 'cron on the other hand has a larger front
> section (out in front of the focussing ring) to accommodate the front
> elements. The aperture ring is set on this larger section, and I find
> I'm a little prone to bump the ring and occasionally shift it by a
> half stop when I'm focussing. The aperture ring is also a bit looser
> than the one on my previous Elmarit, which doesn't help matters.
>
> So there you have it. The APO is a "better" lens than the Elmarit,
> all apertures considered, but is a bit heavier and a bit more awkward.
> I consider these to be niggling little issues, requiring nothing more
> than a slight adjustment in camera handling.
>
> IMO, the 90 APO Summicron-ASPH stands with the 24 Elmarit-ASPH and the
> 35 Summilux-ASPH as Leica's definitive expression of the
> state-of-the-art in 35mm lenses. They are members of the finest
> family of consumer-oriented miniature-format lenses on the face of the
> planet.
>
> I've had the "thin" 90 Elmarit, the current 90 Elmarit-M and the APO
> Summicron. I now have only the APO, and I don't regret it for a
> second. After all, how many times in life to you get to own something
> which is absolutely "ne plus ultra" for so little money? And if you
> get the APO you will never ever wonder "Gee, maybe I should have got
> the big one."
>
> Paul Chefurka
>
Dave
that after you make your choice and have some experience with whatever
you've bought, that you jot a note to summarize your evaluation of
your purchase and your experiences using the combination you've
selected. I currently shoot my 35mm stuff (mostly) with a Contax G1.
I love the camera, but crave to own an M6. If I study this long
enough, I may eventually cave to the temptation to buy one! (I've
also considered the Konica Hexar RF. After playing with it in a
camera store here in the Chicago area, I'm very impressed with the way
it feels.) -Dave
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:23:17 GMT, "Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>I am (finally!) getting ready to purchase the M6. I have decided on the
>50/2 and the 90 as my first two lenses (and only two for the foreseeable
>future!). That makes the viewfinder selection a bit easier: I will get the
>.85 version.
>
>The one decision I have left to make regards the choice of 90 mm lens: do I
>get the new 90/2 APO Summicron, or the 90/2.8 Elmarit? The former gives me
>more latitude with available light, while the latter is smaller and lighter,
>thus easier to handle (also cheaper, but the price is the least important
>factor). I plan to use the lens primarily for portraits (candid, not
>posed), usually tightly cropped close-ups.
>
>I'm leaning toward the Elmarit as it would be lighter, less conspicuous, and
>perhaps just a tad softer for portrait work. On the other hand, I would
>certainly welcome the extra stop afforded by the Summicron.
>
>I know you have used both of these lenses. What's your opinion? I welcome
>your advice, and that of anyone else who has experience with these two
>lenses.
>
>Thanks,
>_____________________________
>Dan
>(remove xspamx to send email replies)
>
>"Paul Chefurka" <chef...@home.com> wrote in message
Paul Chefurka
>Hi Paul,
>
>I am (finally!) getting ready to purchase the M6. I have decided on the
>50/2 and the 90 as my first two lenses (and only two for the foreseeable
>future!). That makes the viewfinder selection a bit easier: I will get the
>.85 version.
>
>The one decision I have left to make regards the choice of 90 mm lens: do I
>get the new 90/2 APO Summicron, or the 90/2.8 Elmarit? The former gives me
>more latitude with available light, while the latter is smaller and lighter,
>thus easier to handle (also cheaper, but the price is the least important
>factor). I plan to use the lens primarily for portraits (candid, not
>posed), usually tightly cropped close-ups.
>
>I'm leaning toward the Elmarit as it would be lighter, less conspicuous, and
>perhaps just a tad softer for portrait work. On the other hand, I would
>certainly welcome the extra stop afforded by the Summicron.
>
>I know you have used both of these lenses. What's your opinion? I welcome
>your advice, and that of anyone else who has experience with these two
>lenses.
>
>Thanks,
>_____________________________
>Dan
Great decision, Dan. Your choice is similar to how I started out a
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
>Paul, there is one other facet of the APO Summicron that I would be
>interested in and that is color rendition, especially with color reversal
>film. I realize you may not see it with prints but have there been
>situations where you notice subtle color differences with the Summicron? I
>have the first version of the Elmarit and want to upgrade to either the APO
>Summicron, 75 Summilux or the 90 Elmarit. Color is my overriding interest
>since I only care about slides.
>TIA,
>Bud
I'm afraid that's one area I can't help with, Bud. I only shoot print
film, and these days mostly B&W - haven't shot a roll of chrome in
more years than I care to admit.
Why not subscribe to the Leica Users Group mailing list and ask there?
For instructions on subscribing take a look at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5799/lug.htm
Paul
Bud Cook
the same few people doing all the posting I go away for a while:-)
Budnews:ga4ueso4o8l22qnmk...@4ax.com...
Rimbaud
"John G. Silver" <jon...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>
> No doubt there are more social reasons than photographic reasons for
the
> resurgence in interest in 35mm RF's and if anyone has a few, I'd love
to
> hear them.
This really isn't true. The main reason is the phenomenal success of
the Mamiya 6/7, despite a very high cost (at least here in the US) and
a limited number of lenses. Many people have found (or re-found)
rangefinder shooting to be a very different experience from SLR
shooting.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dan
I will be more than happy to post my experiences with the Leica M6 body
along with the 50/2 Summicron and 90/2 APO Summicron lenses. I decided to
go with the latter over the 90/2.8 Emarit based on Paul Chefurka's
experiences (he and Godfrey DiGiorgi are two wonderful sources (among
others) of information on the M6; I suggest you search for their messages on
deja.com; also read Erwin Put's reviews:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html ; also see Paul Butzi's
fine page: http://www.asymptote.com/butzi/articles/reviews/leicam6.htm ).
I have decided to go with the .72x M6 TTL (thanks to some follow-up comments
by Paul, which I am posting below (hope you don't mind, Paul!)) in
anticipation of buying the 35/1.4 Summilux at some point in the future (and
Paul assures me the .72 finder is more than adequate for focusing the 90/2
APO--see remarks below). By the way (if it matters to you), I've decided to
get the chrome body, the chrome 50/2, and the black 90/2 (don't believe they
offer a chrome version of this lens, but it would be awfully weighty if they
did!). I like chrome. :)
It will likely take me awhile to obtain the 90 as it is back-ordered
everywhere. I should be able to report on the M6 with the 50 within the
next few weeks.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
Here's the recent e-mail exchange between Paul and I (not published yet on
this NG):
>Paul,
>
>Thanks so much for your thoughts here. You've persuaded me towards the
APO.
>You've also left me wondering if I shouldn't reconsider the .85x viewer.
>I'm really torn here, as I suspect that I will probably wind up getting the
>35 Summilux at some point (it really _is_ the lens the M6 was made for!),
>and, as an eyeglass wearer, I will not be able to see the full frame with
>this lens in the higher mag. viewfinder. On the other hand, I've read that
>the 90 APO is much better served by the .85x finder, and I intend to use
>that lens a lot.
>
>Of course the best solution is to buy _both_ Leica bodies, but that's out
of
>the question for now (and I'd rather spend that money on the 35 than on a
>second body). Given the fact that there will be a compromise either way
(35
>mm framelines vs. focusing accuracy with the 90 APO), which in your opinion
>is the lesser sacrifice--the .72 or the .85? (I realize you may not be
able
>to answer this since you don't wear glasses, but I thought I'd run it by
you
>anyway.)
>
>Thanks again,
>Dan
Hi Dan,
I don't actually feel that the .85 is "a lot" better than the .72 for
90mm lenses. The image size isn't all that different (for framing
accuracy), and I think the .72's focussing accuracy is plenty good
enough for a 90/2.0. In fact, I think the rangefinder patch on my .85
flares out a bit more easily than the one on the .72. The extra
effective baselength will be a bit of an advantage when shooting
closer than two meters at f/2.0. Other than that? All I can say is
that people used 90 Summicrons wide open on M2's and M4's for years
with no problems.
Since you wear glasses and might want to get that amazing 35 Summilux
ASPH (which IMO is Leica's single greatest lens triumph), I would
definitely recommend that you get a .72. After all, people use the
.72 finder with the Noctilux, which is even more of a focussing
challenge than the 90.
As far as I'm concerned, a 35 Summilux ASPH, a 50 Summicron and the 90
APO with a .72 M6 is about as good as photography (equipment) ever
gets.
Always glad to help other people buy Leicas :-)
All the best,
Paul
Dave
Thank you very much for your reply. Your choice is just about what I
had in mind for a purchase for myself. I was initially attracted to
the .83 (was it .83?) magnification finder, but the .72 seems to be a
better choice for me overall. I'd probably go with a black camera
just for the (supposed) advantage in unobtrusiveness. (I have a
Contax G1 now. When I pull this camera out in a restaurant, I may as
well be lighting a road flare while I'm sitting at the table! A
pretty camera, to be sure, the G1 does NOT have an understated
finish!)
One of my other reasons for desiring a Leica is the ultra quiet
operation it offers. The Contax I have is not too terribly noisy for
most of what I do, but it's certainly not as quiet as my old, Kodak
Retina IIa with it's Synchro-Compur shutter and manual film advance.
I'd also taken a look at Konica's Hexar RF. I like the way the camera
feels in my hands, its features seem great, and I was surprised at how
quietly it operated for a motorized film advance camera. Overall,
though, I haven't handled a 35mm rangefinder camera that has the
combination of what I want (or is that *need*, I can never decide)
except for the Leica. Thanks again! -Dave
JETman
>
> "Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
>
> (but was quoting Paul)
>
> >After all, people use the
> >.72 finder with the Noctilux, which is even more of a focussing
> >challenge than the 90.
>
> extremely shallow depth of field?
That's it! No room for error, you hafta pay attention to the
rangefinder image.
--
Regards,
JT, residing in Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
and, Other Things Weird!
Just a few of my favorite things. . .
‘31 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Coupe
‘55 Studebaker State Sedan
‘56 Studebaker Power Hawk
‘63 Studebaker Lark Sedan
‘64 Studebaker T-Cab T-6
‘65 Honda 305 Dream
Leica M2 Range Finders
Dan
news:bH3yOM4HhDtico7Vk5B6BG4if=N...@4ax.com...
> "Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
>
> (but was quoting Paul)
>
> >After all, people use the
> >.72 finder with the Noctilux, which is even more of a focussing
> >challenge than the 90.
>
> Why is the Noctilux a focusing challenge? Or just that wide open it has
an
> extremely shallow depth of field?
Precisely. When shot wide open, it is the extremely shallow depth of field
that makes focusing this lens a challenge. The longer the effective base
length of the rangefinder, the easier it is to focus accurately.
Dan
Dan
I can easily sympathize with your indecision. The Leica costs a premium,
but for candid photography, there may well be no better tool.
My biggest reservation regarding the Konica Hexar RF is the shorter
effective base length compared to the M6 (even the .72x). While the M6 .72
rangefinder has a shorter (effective) base length than the .85, I'm
convinced (relying upon the accounts of several others, not to mention the
photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson and David Alan Harvey) that the .72x
finder is plenty accurate enough.
I understand your choice of black over chrome for candid work. If I were
less of a sucker for the beauty of the camera itself, I'd choose black as
well. Alas, I am enamored with the chrome model and can't seem to convince
myself to choose function over aesthetics in this case. That may cost me
some notice, but I'll chance it. And if it turns out my choice makes the
camera _too_ conspicuous, I'll have a ready excuse to buy a second body in
black. :)
Regards,
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Dave" <Da...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:38f2865f$0$19...@news.execpc.com...
Mark Bergman
more than adequate with the 35 mm F2. Leica was concerned with long fast
lenses in designing the M series.
"Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote in message
news:G7xI4.40079$E85.7...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Dan
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Mark Bergman" <mb5...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:8cupqj$sff$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Ishanon101
>along with the 50/2 Summicron and 90/2 APO Summicron lenses. I decided to
>go with the latter over the 90/2.8 Emarit based on Paul Chefurka's
>experiences (he and Godfrey DiGiorgi are two wonderful sources (among
>others) of information on the M6
As one who made the move to Leica M about 6 months ago, I can tell you you're
in for a fantastic experience. I had a bunch of Nikon gear (F5, FE2, F4s etc.)
Sold everything except the F4s and a couple of top notch lenses, and went hog
wild Leica. (Haven't used my Nikon gear since, but I'm sure I will sooner or
later for telephoto stuff). I started with the M6 ttl and 35 f2 asph. Then
got a used 90 f2.8 Elmarit, and a used 50mm f2 Summicron. I recently got a
brand new 24mm F2.8 Elmarit, which yields fantastic results. Now with all this
investment in lenses, I decided to get a used M2 on ebay as a second body.
Picked up the new Voigtlander little meter that goes into the accessory shoe,
which works great. The transition from heavy auto-body and big zooms to small
rangefinder and fantastic primes has been wonderful, especially because of the
results. I'm an amateur but shoot a lot, and I noticed that people have
remarked a lot more about how great my photographs are since I've been shooting
with Leica.
Ilan Shanon
Mark Bergman
have Leica equipment and also the fixed lens Hexar and have always been very
impressed by it.news:7hCI4.40529$E85.7...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Dan
intelligent participants on this NG, and I always read your posts with
interest.
It's good to hear that the fixed lens Hexar can keep company with the Leica
RF's.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Mark Bergman" <mb5...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:8d001j$8bg$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Dan
Yes, I remember reading (in fact, have stored off) some of your thoughtful
remarks on the M6. After researching which camera to buy for several months
now, I finally settled on the Leica rangefinder as the best tool for my
purposes. In the SLR world, I'll be interested in checking out the EOS 1v
when I can get my hands on one; in medium format, I like the Mamiya 6 and 7
rangefinders (along with the Fuji RF's). But for candid street shots, the
M6 is the champ.
How do you like the new 35/2 ASPH Summicron? My next decision concerns the
35 mm: 1.4 Summilux vs. the Summicron. I'm leaning towards the former, as I
anticipate a lot of available light work and I disdain the use of both flash
and tripods (neither work well for candids). But I keep reading great press
on the new 35/2 ASPH, and it's considerably less expensive.
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Ishanon101" <ishan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000411073754...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Dave
rationalizations. I was working my way up to an excuse -- 'er,
reason, I mean -- to own *one* Leica. Two Leicas. Yes, I can hear
myself telling my wife, "Honey, it's not a bad idea to own *at least*
one Leica. Look at all the people who've bought both the chrome and
the black versions of the M6!" This is good stuff! Thanks!
I'd have to agree, too, that nobody seems to make a rangefinder camera
these days that satisfies all my specifications. I'd be so delighted
it Leica would come out with a version of the M-series cameras that
still advances the film manually but has the electronic shutter
control of the Hexar RF... or something of that sort. (Oh, but then
there'd be, undoubtedly two more things to choose between... the
"classic" all mechanical body or the electronic version. Come to
think of it, maybe it'd be better if they don't come out with an
electronic version right now. Besides, they *would* undoubtedly come
out with one the day after I purchased an M6 TTL!) -Dave
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:39:18 GMT, "Dan" <d...@xspamxhome.com> wrote:
>Dave,
>
>I can easily sympathize with your indecision. The Leica costs a premium,
>but for candid photography, there may well be no better tool.
>
>My biggest reservation regarding the Konica Hexar RF is the shorter
>effective base length compared to the M6 (even the .72x). While the M6 .72
>rangefinder has a shorter (effective) base length than the .85, I'm
>convinced (relying upon the accounts of several others, not to mention the
>photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson and David Alan Harvey) that the .72x
>finder is plenty accurate enough.
>
>I understand your choice of black over chrome for candid work. If I were
>less of a sucker for the beauty of the camera itself, I'd choose black as
>well. Alas, I am enamored with the chrome model and can't seem to convince
>myself to choose function over aesthetics in this case. That may cost me
>some notice, but I'll chance it. And if it turns out my choice makes the
>camera _too_ conspicuous, I'll have a ready excuse to buy a second body in
>black. :)
>
>Regards,
>_____________________________
>Dan
>(remove xspamx to send email replies)
>
Dan
M7 come out a month later (just after the return period expires). Oh, well.
There are rumors floating that Leica will be coming out with an "M6e" in
September with your wish--an electronic shutter--but there are _always_
rumors about new models floating, and to wait on a rumor is to squander
photo opportunities _now_ using a tool that has proven plenty good enough by
photographers more knowledgeable than I'll ever be.
Regarding the expense, I justify it this way: it's much cheaper than buying
that 5 series BMW I lust for. So I'll stick with my v6 Camry and buy
another Summicron. :)
_____________________________
Dan
(remove xspamx to send email replies)
"Dave" <Da...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:38f3ddb7$0$19...@news.execpc.com...
Ishanon101
>35 mm: 1.4 Summilux vs. the Summicron
I love my 35mm f2 Summicron. Absolutely stunning results. Shoot 70% or more
of my photos with that one lens. Can't give you a comparison versus the 1.4
Summilux. Obviously, the faster speed means more flexibility for available
light. But, at 1.4, you've got pretty narrow depth of field, so it would be a
balance between depth of field versus shutter speed anyhow. I'm not sure, but
isn't the 1.4 quite a bit bigger and heavier? The fastest lenses I have are
the 35 and 50 f2's, and I've used them indoors (e.g. museums, lower lit
restaurants, etc.) with ASA 400, shooting around 1/30th of a second, with great
results.
Good Luck,
Ilan.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>35 mm: 1.4 Summilux vs. the Summicron
I picked the Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH instead of the Summilux-M 35/1.4
ASPH; the price differential allowed enough slack in the budget to
acquire the 90/2.8 as well. I couldn't be happier with it. The extra
stop of light gathering power would always be nice but I can shoot in as
low a light as I ever need to, hand held, with the f/2 lens. It's
compact and light, makes the camera very handy and easy to carry.
Negatives are incredibly sharp, have a beautiful signature, and tonal
gradation is just the best there is, wide open to fully stopped down.
Others swear by the Summilux with equal vociferousness, so it really
comes down to what suits your needs and finances the best.
Godfrey
<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/>
George
Asph and I have been stunned with the resuling images. The
sharpness and contrast is incredible. It was expensive, but it
was worth it for the image quality. Now when I take a shot, it
looks exactly as I remember it. Especially the quality of light.
I don't know what it is, but there is something special about
that Leica gear.
Best,
George
JETman
>
> I agree. Several weeks ago I got a Leica M6 TTL and the 35 F2
> Asph and I have been stunned with the resuling images. The
> sharpness and contrast is incredible. It was expensive, but it
> was worth it for the image quality. Now when I take a shot, it
> looks exactly as I remember it. Especially the quality of light.
>
> I don't know what it is, but there is something special about
> that Leica gear.
>
> Best,
> George
>
>
Welcome to the "Club."
Wayne Harrison
>
>I'm generally hearing two viewpoints. "The images are incredible and worth
>it." "You can't tell the difference." Are there any Leica *owners* who
>fall into the latter camp?
>
>
i own a minilux, a minilux zoom, and a m6/50 summicron,
together with nike, olympus, and old konica hexanon systems. with
regard to color print film, the images are virtually
indistinguishable, with the exception of the minilux shots, which are
uniformly of high saturation and contrast. but the *nature* of b&w
images with the summicron, and the fixed lens minilux, is simply
breathtaking. it is not a question of "sharpness", or objective
resolution. i think it has to do with contrast: a wonderful clarity
that separates images within the image. i am aware of the subjective
nature of these assesments, but they exist in reality. i would have
no hesitation to dump my leica gear in a flash if the nikkors would
behave in the same fashion; after all, i prefer shooting slr's to
rangefinders. but when i want black and white images, my leica's are
in my hands.
wayne harrison
McEowen
>different, but I can't quite figure out what it is.
Oh, please! Don't start that . . . When people start talking "Bokeh" I look for
my barn boots . . .
li...@ork.net
I find the Bokeh on my Canon 100-300 5.6 L to be absolutely superb. Anyone
else noticed this?
Chrisminh
can beat this thing... It is not a "plastiky" thing like Canon, the "L"
(professional) makes me laugh as it still look like the quality of a "point
and shoot"...
Minh
<li...@ork.net> a écrit dans le message :
5tYL4.783$lL2....@news.shore.net...
McEowen
M4-P, M3, 24 Elmarit, 35 Summicron, 50mm Summicron, 90mm Summicron, 135
Elmarit.
John G. Silver
> indistinguishable, with the exception of the minilux shots, which are
> uniformly of high saturation and contrast. but the *nature* of b&w
> images with the summicron, and the fixed lens minilux, is simply
> breathtaking. it is not a question of "sharpness", or objective
> resolution. i think it has to do with contrast: a wonderful clarity
> that separates images within the image. i am aware of the subjective
> nature of these assesments, but they exist in reality.
I appreciate your observations but you are comparing apples to oranges. Has
anyone owned both a Contax rangefinder and a Leica rangefinder and noted any
differences. Differences as to final image I mean, not emotions at handling
fine equipment.
JS
GP Hickey
Summicron for picture quality. And you can buy about six of them for the
price of Leica gear. The Hexar controls are a little quirky, but you can get
used to them-set the autofocus lens on infinity, step into the street and
you're in business. If you don't believe me check out Photo Techniques
magazine's top 25 cameras issues in the past two years.
As for Leica, there is no denying it's a great camera, but a poor value. I'm
looking at the new Konica RF system.
George
--
Please remove "nospam" to reply by e-mail.
McEowen wrote in message <20000421185257...@ng-cp1.aol.com>...
Mel
Mel
"McEowen" <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000421090052...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Peter Leyenaar
minilux,in addition to this I shoot with a contax G2 45f2 and 90 f2.8 (my
travel set).
I have this equipment simply of its incredible image rendition (provided I
do it right) and the superb quality of the equipment
I have shot in the past with; Asahi Pentax,Nikon, MF Rolleiflex,35mm
Rollieflex,Leica M6,
and I enjoyed all of this equipment while I had it.
I don,t justify having this equipment nor its cost ,I simply enjoy it ,
similar to a person who
has a $20,000 golf club membership or an expensive car while you can make do
with something less expensive,so there is my justification, no
justification.
2)Bokeh!, What is Bokeh,I have learned that the literal translation is "old
fool"or "senile person", however I don't think that is what is ment here.
A few years ago one of the leica magazines devoted a whole section to out of
focus
photography, I probably missed the artistic quality ,I thought it was rather
silly and I couldn't see every one starting to do this,especially not me.
Could someone give me a plain explanation of Bokeh and tell me what I should
be looking for ?
Thanks and happy shooting Peter
Herb and Lee Kanner
>mce...@aol.com (McEowen) wrote:
>
>>M4-P, M3, 24 Elmarit, 35 Summicron, 50mm Summicron, 90mm Summicron, 135
>>Elmarit.
>
>So why do you use them? What do you like about them? If you can't tell any
>difference in the end product, why not use something much cheaper?
>
>I hope you don't think I'm badgering you. I'm trying to understand where
>you're coming from.
>
>
>"GP Hickey" <gphi...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
>
>>As for Leica, there is no denying it's a great camera, but a poor value.
>
>I'd tend to agree in a strictly economic sense. :)
I'll try to give you a clue to this. In the '70's I was living in England
and was active in a camera club. I got the urge to look into the prices
of used Leicas and found that I could afford a used M2 or M3 and even an
extra used lens. But there didn't seem to be much of a market in other
accessories, so I checked on some list prices. When I got to the price of
an auxiliary finder, I stopped looking. Forget the price of the finder
itself. The price of the leather case for the finder was sixty pounds!
What inspired this search was my being told that the owner of a nearby
hardware store, a former member of the camera club, was the owner of an
M3. I dropped in on him, asking if I could just see the camera, and he
brought it to the store the next day. All that I had to do was look
through the finder, work the film advance and click the shutter a couple
of times, and I was absolutely hypnotized. It took me weeks to get over
the feeling that I MUST own one.
Herb
--
Herb and/or Lee Kanner
For e-mail reply, replace "acmd" by "acm"
Nathan Wong
> The autofocus Konica Hexar Silver with a fixed 35mm F2 is comparable to a
> Summicron for picture quality. And you can buy about six of them for the
> price of Leica gear. The Hexar controls are a little quirky, but you can get
But they'll all be 35mm f/2!
I would never part with my Hexar (black). I love the thing and will never
sell it. I think my Hasselblads and Nikons will go before I sell the
Hexar. The camera is just so silent, especially compared with even a
Leica M6! I was at a camera show and I was comparing the two (this was
before I knew anything about either camera) and the Leica might as well
have been an Nikon F2 going off. It was THAT LOUD vs the Hexar in silent
mode.
Speaking of silent mode, I do wish that Konica would have just paid
whoever owned the patent on the silent mode and made all their cameras
that way. Geez.
By the way, if you're looking at a Hexar RF it's all a little loud.
Fred Whitlock
Mercedes when a cheap Saturn will get him to his destination and probably in
the same amount of time?
Fred
Maplewood Photographer
Bud Cook
while the Mercedes will do it for thirty.
People who do not understand the value of quality are destined to spend
their lives driving Saturns and using Konicas. It's not what it costs to
buy that's important, it's what it costs to own. It's a lesson my wife and
I learned a long, long time ago.
Bud
"Fred Whitlock" <a...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:z_yM4.1966$JN3....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Wayne Harrison
wrote:
>The difference is that the Saturn will get him there for about three years
>while the Mercedes will do it for thirty.
>
>People who do not understand the value of quality are destined to spend
>their lives driving Saturns and using Konicas. It's not what it costs to
>buy that's important, it's what it costs to own. It's a lesson my wife and
>I learned a long, long time ago.
>Bud
>
i will agree completely with the general concept; however,
your choice of specific examples is erroneous. i have several konica
hexanons of 70's vintage, and the images they produce will match any
of my nikkors for contrast and clarity. and except for that
unbelievable leica "footprint" in black and white, they are not far
short of the german glass.
wayne harrison
grilla
is extremely valid. the equivalent camera to a saturn would be a kiev.
Mikal Fisher
Your point is well taken but overstated. Remember when the Lexus autos
hit the market? Mercedes pooh poohed the line, but the public realized
that the Japanese cars were better engineered, they performed better,
were more reliable and a much better value then the Mercedes line.
Moreover, the Lexus dealers were friendly ad helpful compared to the
haughty Mercedes dealers. Mercedes finally got the message and followed
the example set by Lexus. I'm back to Mercedes now, and wondering when
Leica will follow its example. Mikal Fisher
Bud Cook
I disagree that Lexus were or are better than Mercedes. Toyota/Lexus stole
much of their engineering features from Mercedes. Almost every serious
automotive advancement over decades has come from Mercedes.
Lexus designed their cars to appeal to Cadillac/Lincoln buyers and were
subsidized to undersell Mercedes. When Lexus first came into the U.S. they
were advertised to be about $35K. Look at them now! The early Lexus had
such poor handling and brakes, Toyota had to do a major re-engineering job
on them.
Also, Lexus dealers aren't what they used to be. They don't know their
products, they mislead their customers and they don't provide the support to
do-it-yourselfers that Mercedes does.
I agree that Toyota/Lexus woke up Mercedes. Among the things Mercedes did
was cut back on dealer profit and eliminate many of their inspectors. They
made their assemblers responsible for quality. I have a '91 300 and an '84
190D and both cars arrived looking like they had a disease from all the
inspection stickers.
Now a E430 is a better buy than Lexus (not to mention the E320). Still, I
miss the old days when Mercedes engineers designed the cars on a
cost-no-object basis, applied the price afterwards and told the sales force
to sell it. Like my M3 and SL/2, I ain't selling my 300E either:-)
Bud
"Mikal Fisher" <Ani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8801-390...@storefull-125.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Mikal Fisher
You make some excellent points and I agree with most of them,
particularly the one about the Japanese copying M-B engineering.
But for a time the Lexus was a better value then a Mercedes, and it
didn't cost near as much to maintain; no U.S. $3000.00 for a new exhaust
system at 75000 kms. I wish Leica follow M-B's example and deliver a bit
more value for the buck. Mikal Fisher
Gene Windell
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:49:40 -0500, "Bud Cook" <bud...@ibmnospam.net>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>People who do not understand the value of quality are destined to spend
>>their lives driving Saturns and using Konicas. It's not what it costs to
>>buy that's important, it's what it costs to own. It's a lesson my wife and
>>I learned a long, long time ago.
>>Bud
>>
> i will agree completely with the general concept; however,
>your choice of specific examples is erroneous. i have several konica
>hexanons of 70's vintage, and the images they produce will match any
>of my nikkors for contrast and clarity. and except for that
>unbelievable leica "footprint" in black and white, they are not far
>short of the german glass.
I agree with Wayne. I use Konica Hexanon lenses side-by-side with my
Nikkors on a daily basis, and consider the Hexanons to be as good or
better. If I had to choose one over the other, I would say the
Hexanons are better. I can think of many fates much worse than being
condemned to use Konica equipment.
Gene Windell
GP Hickey
the innovation that their price calls for? Forget Mercedes and Lexus when
you are looking for a motor vehicle metaphor for the Leica. A Harley
Davidson with it's WW2 engine is a more accurate metaphor. Again, like the
Leica, it is a great one of a kind piece of engineering; but there are
plenty of other motorcycles that do just as good a job for a lot less money.
And Bud, as the owner of an 1983 Mazda pickup, who gets to sleep in every
morning because I don't have to have a job to make car payments, lets have a
race across the country. Me in my Mazda,and you in your Mercedes. Whoever
gets a speeding ticket automatically loses the race.
George
--
Please remove "nospam" to reply by e-mail.
Bud Cook wrote in message <39033...@news1.prserv.net>...
McEowen
difference in the end product, why not use something much cheaper?
I hope you don't think I'm badgering you. I'm trying to understand where
you're coming from. >>
Before I answer, let me clarify something. I never said I could or couldn't see
a difference with Leica glass. I merely cast dispersions on the whole "bokeh"
phenomenon. I'm much more concerned about how things look IN FOCUS rather than
out of focus.
So why use Leica? Because it is the most practical/versatle RANGEFINDER camera
available. I also use 35mm SLR equipment (Nikon) and 120 SLR equipment
(Bronica) and am quite pleased with the optics for both of those systems. I see
absolutely no reason to buy a Leica 35mm SLR system for the lenses -- the
quality difference is simply not that significant for my uses -- magazine
publishing.
So why a rangefinder? Accurate low-light focusing, especially with wide angle
lenses -- quiet, descrete operation -- the uncluttered viewfinder image which
seems to lend itself to a "watching and waiting" style of documentary
photography.
So, bottom line for me is I use a Leica because it's the best rangefinder out
there. I like it for the bodies. The lenses just go with the bodies. Yes,
they're great lenses but I'm happy with my Nikon and Bronica stuff too.
Heinz Richter
>the innovation that their price calls for? Forget Mercedes and Lexus when
>you are looking for a motor vehicle metaphor for the Leica. A Harley
>Davidson with it's WW2 engine is a more accurate metaphor. Again, like the
>Leica, it is a great one of a kind piece of engineering; but there are
>plenty of other motorcycles that do just as good a job for a lot less money.
Leica has always maintained a line of lenses on the cutting edge of
performance. Argue as you might, but there is not a single line of lenses
which is capable of outperforming the Leica lenses. To continue to do so, year
after year, is only possible with the latest types of glass and the latest lens
technology. If that isn't improvement, I don't know what is. And as far as
the automobile metaphore goes, while automatic features may sell, are they
really necessary? Take the best performing version of the new Porsche Turbo:
No automatic transmission, no ABS brakes, no little knobs to push to get
directions or to find out about snakes in the desert. But a performance level,
almost unmatched. Now one might argue that the McLaren F1 will outperform the
Porsche. Okay, but again, where are the automatic "advancements?" Ferrari
F50, automation? What automation? ABS brakes, what is that? So I guess what
this boils down to is what we are looking for in a camera (or car). If "I
don't want to think" automation is what one is looking for, then a Leica
certainly is the wrong camera. But, knowing how to use that camera properly
will enable the user to stay ahead in the ultimate performace game. This, of
course, is in the hands of a good photographer. All the automatic features, so
heralded, certainly help an unskilled person to take better photographs. If
only they could make a camera with automatic composition, that would easily be
the greatest sales success ever. Then even a monkey could take great
photographs. I prefer to make my own decisions rather than leaving this up to
some non-thinking piece of technology.
Heinz
HRphotography
http://hometown.aol.com/hrphoto/myhomepage/business.html
FOTOgraphicART
http://www.choicemall.com/fotographicart
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://hometown.aol.com/gmbbwlab/myhomepage/business.html
John Emmons
"improved"? I guess they could make em cheaper but that wouldn't be an
improvement would it?
I have never understood this anti Leica nonsense, is someone putting a
gun to your head forcing you to purchase an M6 or something? If you
don't like em, don't buy em...seems pretty simple to me.
And as for your car analogy, maybe it's me but bragging about not
having a job doesn't seem to really reinforce your point.
John
GP Hickey wrote in message ...
>What has Leica done, besides TTL and HMV, to improve their product?
Where is
>the innovation that their price calls for? Forget Mercedes and Lexus
when
>you are looking for a motor vehicle metaphor for the Leica. A Harley
>Davidson with it's WW2 engine is a more accurate metaphor. Again,
like the
>Leica, it is a great one of a kind piece of engineering; but there
are
>plenty of other motorcycles that do just as good a job for a lot less
money.
>
Q.G. de Bakker
"John Emmons" wrote:
> [...] I guess they could make em cheaper but that wouldn't be an
> improvement would it? [...]
Wouldn't it?
JETman
>
> >What has Leica done, besides TTL and HMV, to improve their product? Where is
> >the innovation that their price calls for? Forget Mercedes and Lexus when
> >you are looking for a motor vehicle metaphor for the Leica. A Harley
> >Davidson with it's WW2 engine is a more accurate metaphor. Again, like the
> >Leica, it is a great one of a kind piece of engineering; but there are
> >plenty of other motorcycles that do just as good a job for a lot less money.
>
> performance. Argue as you might, but there is not a single line of lenses
> which is capable of outperforming the Leica lenses. To continue to do so, year
> after year, is only possible with the latest types of glass and the latest lens
> technology. If that isn't improvement, I don't know what is. And as far as
> the automobile metaphore goes, while automatic features may sell, are they
> really necessary? Take the best performing version of the new Porsche Turbo:
> No automatic transmission, no ABS brakes, no little knobs to push to get
> directions or to find out about snakes in the desert. But a performance level,
> almost unmatched. Now one might argue that the McLaren F1 will outperform the
> Porsche. Okay, but again, where are the automatic "advancements?" Ferrari
> F50, automation? What automation? ABS brakes, what is that? So I guess what
> this boils down to is what we are looking for in a camera (or car). If "I
> don't want to think" automation is what one is looking for, then a Leica
> certainly is the wrong camera. But, knowing how to use that camera properly
> will enable the user to stay ahead in the ultimate performace game. This, of
> course, is in the hands of a good photographer. All the automatic features, so
> heralded, certainly help an unskilled person to take better photographs. If
> only they could make a camera with automatic composition, that would easily be
> the greatest sales success ever. Then even a monkey could take great
> photographs. I prefer to make my own decisions rather than leaving this up to
> some non-thinking piece of technology.
>
> Heinz
> HRphotography
>
And all them thar' automatic features.... Just something else to break!
Great photographs ussually reflect individual decision and technique.
Heinz Richter
>> improvement would it? [...]
>
>Wouldn't it?
What is meant here, I assume, is less expensive. But to make them less
expensive, they would have to make them cheaper, and that wouldn't be an
improvement.
McEowen
>expensive, they would have to make them cheaper, and that wouldn't be an
>improvement.
I can go along with the sentiment that it would be a shame for Leica to lower
their standards significantly. On the other hand I really believe the world
needs an affordable alternative. The Konica RF appears to be a good attempt
although it's not that much cheaper than a Leica and the lack of TTL flash
metering is a serious ommission. I, for one, would welcome a Leica-M mount
compatable alternative from Minolta or ??? that offered aperture priority
metering and TTL flash. If someone could offer such a body for $1,000 or so the
world would be that much closer to being a perfect place . . .
li...@ork.net
> "John Emmons" wrote:
>> [...] I guess they could make em cheaper but that wouldn't be an
>> improvement would it? [...]
> Wouldn't it?
Of course not. If Leica began to price its cameras in the Contax, or even
lower, range, it would lose much of the prestige and vanity associated
with it. It's one of those products for which overall demand does not much
increase when the price goes down.
McEowen
>lower, range, it would lose much of the prestige and vanity associated
>with it. It's one of those products for which overall demand does not much
>increase when the price goes down.
If that's true then it's probably a situation analogous to the fact that demand
for 4x5 view cameras or 120 SLRs would not go up much if the price went down.
I'm speaking ONLY of Leica rangefinders mind you but the Leica is something
that not everyone can appreciate or utilize. Much more than quality lenses the
Leica M camera offers photographers a valuable tool for documenting people's
lives. For the watch-and-wait style of documentary photography there is NO
BETTER instrument available. But that kind of photography is a subtle craft not
practiced by many shooters today. So, yes, there is a limited market. I wish
there were a greater market because I believe increased production would reduce
the price of Leica equipment considerably. And yes, the pricing of the AF
Contax camera and lenses is attractive but from what I've read (I've never
actually used the Contax) it is NOT the same thing as a Leica nor is it (again,
apparently) as useful or practical of a tool as the Leica for documentary
photojournalism.
Q.G. de Bakker
<li...@ork.net> wrote:
> [...] If Leica began to price its cameras in the Contax, or even
> lower, range, it would lose much of the prestige and vanity associated
And you wouldn't call THAT an improvement? I certainly would!
Photonut
than you on how to price its product. They have been around for
75 plus years. If I am not mistaken only Kodak has been there
longer. Asfor its quality as far as I am coencerned it far
exceeds and other camera that I have used. The quality of the
lens is unsurpassed. I have been reading these forums for the
last year. Each time the LEica quality comes up it amazes me that
no other camera has the same issue to deal with. So to me that
means there must be someting to the Leica quality. As for the
selction of lens I defy you to come. up with a complete selction
of lens that match Leica.
Jerry
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
li...@ork.net
> <li...@ork.net> wrote:
I'd call that an improvement. And, in fact, for a certain group of people
who value well-built cameras (and there's no denying that it is
well-built) demand would certainly go up. However, for a whole other
segment that the demand curve currently consists of, demand would go down.
Ishanon101
>world would be that much closer to being a perfect place . . .
When you think about it, the cost difference of the Leica M body becomes
relatively minor compared to the lenses that are expensive. I've spent about
$5000 for 2 new and 2 used M lenses, so the extra $700 for the body isn't
really that much of a difference. And frankly, for the pleasure and quality
that I get with my Leica M system, I don't mind the expense. Some people spend
thousands of dollars on fishing equipment, motorcycle equipment, cars, etc.
Its all a choice of which of our passions we decide to spend money on in order
to get the best of breed. And for those who don't want to spend an enormous
amount of money yet get Leica quality, there are many less expensive choices in
the used marketplace, even for screwmount bodies and lenses which yield
fantastic results. That's one of the great things about Leica gear - it lasts
forever.
Ilan Shanon
McEowen
who don't want to spend an enormous
>amount of money yet get Leica quality, there are many less expensive choices
>in
>the used marketplace, even for screwmount bodies and lenses which yield
>fantastic results. That's one of the great things about Leica gear - it
>lasts
>forever.
I buy my Leica gear used. The most I've paid for a body was $650. And yes the
lenses are high but again, with one exception I've never paid over $650 for a
lens. The one exception is the 24mm Elmarit which cost $1,500 with the finder.
Now THAT was a bite in the you know what! It's a wonderful lens but there is NO
WAY other than limited market and production that lens should cost that much.
Still, if you need it, you need it. The 24mm is my "normal" lens so not getting
it was not really an option . . .
GP Hickey
--
Please remove "nospam" to reply by e-mail.
Photonut wrote in message <048acc92...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>...
bachch...@my-deja.com
<rosenfel...@ameritech.net.invalid> wrote:
>Don't get bent out of shape LEica knows a hell of alot better
>than you on how to price its product. They have been around for
>75 plus years. If I am not mistaken only Kodak has been there
>longer.
Carl Zeiss started his business in 1846. Ernst Leitz took over the
Wetzlar "Optical Institute" in 1869.
Andrew.
Asfor its quality as far as I am coencerned it far
>exceeds and other camera that I have used. The quality of the
>lens is unsurpassed. I have been reading these forums for the
>last year. Each time the LEica quality comes up it amazes me that
>no other camera has the same issue to deal with. So to me that
>means there must be someting to the Leica quality. As for the
>selction of lens I defy you to come. up with a complete selction
>of lens that match Leica.
>
>Jerry
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
(To reply, remove "bach" from address)
McEowen
it's important to remember that it's up to the photographer to find something
worthwhile to put in front of the camera and then use his own vision, timing
and knowledge of photographic technique to transform the subject or situation
into a photograph effectively that communicates or evokes a reaction. Given the
photographer doing his or her part almost any camera and lens will suffice --
though clearly some equipment is better suited for certain tasks than others.
Bottom line for me is that I would rather see a wonderful moment preserved
effectively on film with an average "quality" lens and camera than a
boring/meaningless/nothing picture shot with the best glass . . .
Mark Bergman
<bachch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3905c696...@news.vol.net...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:32:39 -0700, Photonut
> <rosenfel...@ameritech.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Don't get bent out of shape LEica knows a hell of alot better
> >than you on how to price its product. They have been around for
> >75 plus years. If I am not mistaken only Kodak has been there
> >longer.
>
> Carl Zeiss started his business in 1846. Ernst Leitz took over the
> Wetzlar "Optical Institute" in 1869.
>
maybe?
Mikal Fisher
better specs and is much more reliable then any M6 and dealers sell it
for less then U.S. $500.00. Even if you add $500.00 to replace the SLR
viewfinder with a rangefinder, there is still a $1000.00 difference,
which is an insult to thinking people. Value is one thing and old world
arrogance is another completely different one. Leica should be ashamed
as should those who let themselves be victimized by it. Mikal Fisher
Mark Bergman
I have never been very impressed by the FM line (they feel only slightly
more substantial than the old EM) but I do understand that many people can't
afford the F series (F2, F3, F4, F100, F5). However the F series is
certainly more reliable and better built than the FM2N (better shutter,
better prism, better sealing against moisture, heavy duty drive train,
beefier frame, etc). That said I think my M cameras are as substantial as
any of my F cameras. Witness I'm still using my M4 Leica built around 1970
while the meters died in my F2A and was no longer repairable by Nikon. Not
to get into "which offers more" argument both the current M6 and F5 sell for
a little less than $2000. Of course a nice M4 is now going for around $1500
and a nice F2 or F3 only fetches $500 on a good day.
Mark "a Leica Victim"
"Mikal Fisher" <Ani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24223-39...@storefull-127.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
ShadCat11
May I ask the basis of this assertion? While I have a great respect for the
FM2n and have used one 15 years with no problems (other than abuse), I still
have the sense it is not as robust as an M6. Leica has an excellent track
record in regards to its durability in use, according to published reports and
the opinions of several repair technicians who discussed it with me. Do you
know of repair data or anything to support your estimate of its reliability
compared to the Nikon?
Thanks,
Allen Zak
JETman
>
> Nikon makes its FM2n, a totally manual and mechanical camera which has
> for less then U.S. $500.00. Even if you add $500.00 to replace the SLR
> viewfinder with a rangefinder, there is still a $1000.00 difference,
> which is an insult to thinking people. Value is one thing and old world
> arrogance is another completely different one. Leica should be ashamed
> as should those who let themselves be victimized by it. Mikal Fisher
Balderdash!!!!!
Gene Windell
Fisher) wrote:
>Nikon makes its FM2n, a totally manual and mechanical camera which has
>better specs and is much more reliable then any M6 and dealers sell it
>for less then U.S. $500.00. Even if you add $500.00 to replace the SLR
>viewfinder with a rangefinder, there is still a $1000.00 difference,
>which is an insult to thinking people. Value is one thing and old world
>arrogance is another completely different one. Leica should be ashamed
>as should those who let themselves be victimized by it. Mikal Fisher
My suspicion is that the FM2n is built largely by robots, while Leicas
are built by human beings. People need to buy groceries, pay
mortgages, and send their kids through school. Robots don't. I also
suspect that Nikon remains a more profitable company than Leica by
over-pricing their products, so perhaps it is Nikon who should be
ashamed.
If one prefers camera equipment produced at the level of robot wages,
they should have no objection to the Voigtlander and Konica
rangefinder equipment.
For what it's worth, I'm a Nikon user who has never owned a Leica and
would be very happy to have a new Hexar RF.
Gene Windell