Leica M6 vs Nikon F5
JMM Garza
Folks,
I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
the Hassy.
But I have one concern...I haven't used a Leica for 25 years. Will I like the
rangefinder? Will I miss my SLR? These are questions I am confronted with.
On the one hand the Leica is small, sharp and efficient. While the Nikon is
state of the art, easy to use but heavy.
Will I be happy with the focusing of a rangefinder. Will I miss wysiwyg?
Maybe I should just buy both?
Thanks,
--
Jesús M. Mena Garza
P H O T O G R A P H Y
1422 31st Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
http://www.sirius.com/~jmmgarza/
--
Motion Pictures & Video
Academy of Art College
180 New Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94105
http://www.academyart.edu
--
"Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time
that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught."
Oscar Wilde
gary gaugler
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 12:53:55 +0000, JMM Garza <jmmg...@sirius.com>
wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
> documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
>and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
>Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
>the Hassy.
>
>But I have one concern...I haven't used a Leica for 25 years. Will I like the
>rangefinder? Will I miss my SLR? These are questions I am confronted with.
>On the one hand the Leica is small, sharp and efficient. While the Nikon is
>state of the art, easy to use but heavy.
>
>Will I be happy with the focusing of a rangefinder. Will I miss wysiwyg?
>Maybe I should just buy both?
>
I use all three...Leica M6, Nikon F-5, Hasselblad 503CW and a Linhof
4x5. The Linhof is a bit slow for documentary work. The Blad is a
bit faster but still too slow and much more expensive per shot. so,
on to 35mm. The F-5 is marvelous and is the finest SLR I have ever
owned. It is everything and more of what the F-4 should have been.
But anyway, it is here now. With a 28-35/2.8 zoom or 35-70/2.8 zoom,
you can cover most anything. With a simple flash like the SB-23, low
light work can be done in full TTL.
The Leica is a simple camera. But that does not diminish its
capabilities or usefulness. As a rangefinder, focusing is a tad
slower for me over a SLR. Furthermore, straight screw-on filters are
all you can really use--green or yellow mostly with b/w. But for
documentary or street use, that is fine. And since you are really
doing near-field subjects, the 35mm/2.0 is the standard, if there is
such a thing as a standard lens. I find that it gives optimum
coverage while still retaining enough detail to make a 8x10 print.
For larger prints, I would use the Nikon and an appropriate zoom.
That would go up to 11x14 most of the time.
The Leica is fast to use, except for precise focusing, and it is
incredibly quiet and compact. It is also very well constructed. The
framing in the M6 1.0 is about as WYSIWYG as it comes. The new 0.85
departs from that by including more coverage than the lens actually
captures. I prefer the 1.0 viewfinder. The other factor is that the
Leica only uses batteries for the meter. Other than that, it is like
the Blad--being all mechanical. It is unusual for it to ever fail.
Just keep a spare set of cells in case the meter stops. It just drops
off like a cliff without much warning. But they do last a long time.
If I only had one 35mm it would be the F-5. If I could choose between
cameras, I would have the F-5 and the Leica, just like I do. But I
would never give up the Nikon...ever.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards....you can too at
E-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com
dannyg1
gary,
> The framing in the M6 1.0 is about as WYSIWYG as it comes. The new 0.85
> departs from that by including more coverage than the lens actually
> captures. I prefer the 1.0 viewfinder.
Given that the M6H 0.85x is a viewfinder magnification moniker, it would be more
accurate to call the original, plain M6 the 'M6 0.72x', rather than the 'M6 1.0', as you
have.
Not a big deal, just keeping the devil from the details.
Danny Gonzalez
gary gaugler
Yes...the difference is in the viewfinder only, not on the film.
Agreed.
Mark
How could anyone but you possibly know any of this.
Go the store, try the M6 and let us know what you think.
In article <35262D62...@sirius.com>, jmmg...@sirius.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
> documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
> and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
> Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
> the Hassy.
>
> But I have one concern...I haven't used a Leica for 25 years. Will I like the
> rangefinder? Will I miss my SLR? These are questions I am confronted with.
> On the one hand the Leica is small, sharp and efficient. While the Nikon is
> state of the art, easy to use but heavy.
>
> Will I be happy with the focusing of a rangefinder. Will I miss wysiwyg?
> Maybe I should just buy both?
>
Ed Eagleton
In article <35262D62...@sirius.com>, jmmg...@sirius.com wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
> documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
>and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
>Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
>the Hassy.
>
I gotta ask, since you are currently using Contax why not stay with that
system? It has some amazingly good optics available and the equipment is top
shelf. I can't imagine what the Leica M range is going to give you other than
a bit of sound reduction. I had the opprtunity to shoot the RTS III a while
back with an 85mm and the setup was a genuine pleasure to use with the images
far exceeding my ability. Perhaps the Contax you refer to is the older German
made Zeiss Contax if it is, I'd recommend checking out the new Kyocera stuff.
Ed Eagleton
ede...@worldnet.att.net
Donald Farra
Who my God, don't buy the M6!
Reasons not to buy a M6:
0) Nikon optics are equal to or better than Leica, in that no one can tell the
difference.
1) Limited selection of lenses compared to Nikon
2) Expensive lens cost compared to Nikon
3) Very slow loading and unloading of film
4) Slow flash sync compared to Nikon F5
5) No true motor drive or Autofocus
6) Primative light meter compared to Nikon F5
If you are going to buy a rangefinder for the small size and don't need the large
selection of lenses, get a Contax G2, the optics are second to none and you get a
lot of good attributes on the camera body at a much lower cost than an equivalent
M6 system.
If you are going to get a top of the line SLR flagship, get the Nikon F5. Once
you handle the F5 the choice between it and the M6 is very clear.
Comments from a X-Leica M6 owner,
Don
=======
JMM Garza wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
> documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
> and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
> Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
> the Hassy.
>
JMM Garza
Folks,
Thanks for the opinions. By the way the Contax system that I own the wife
won't give back. Though she is an aspiring art historian, she likes to take
her own pictures. Oh by the way, my freshman year at SJSU (BA, 1978
Journalism, Photojournalism Emphisis) I bought a Hasselblad and the next year
(1971/2?) a Nikon F2. My sophomore year we had many discussions about Leica
vs Nikon. The same one we are having today! I guess in the long run we
should take more pictures and talk less. So I will shut up!
Thanks,
--
Jesús M. Mena Garza
P H O T O G R A P H Y
SF, CA USA
A Z T L A N
http://www.sirius.com/~jmmgarza
Josef
Ed Eagleton <ede...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6g8lmm$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> In article <35262D62...@sirius.com>, jmmg...@sirius.com wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing
load of
> > documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28
years now
> >and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the
past and
> >Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite
from
> >the Hassy.
> >
>
> I gotta ask, since you are currently using Contax why not stay with that
> system? It has some amazingly good optics available and the equipment is
top
> shelf. I can't imagine what the Leica M range is going to give you other
than
> a bit of sound reduction. I had the opprtunity to shoot the RTS III a
while
> back with an 85mm and the setup was a genuine pleasure to use with the
images
> far exceeding my ability. Perhaps the Contax you refer to is the older
German
> made Zeiss Contax if it is, I'd recommend checking out the new Kyocera
stuff.
>
I totally agree! I have 3 Leica lenses 28 PC, 90 2.8, and recently the 100
APO macro.
They costs a ton but yield the most exciting quality money can buy.
However, I am also thinking of buying a couple wide angles from Contax.
They cost a little less but with similar quality.
Joe
Jacques Grilli
Donald Farra a écrit dans le message <352849CD...@thegrid.net>...
>If you are going to get a top of the line SLR flagship, get the Nikon F5.
Once
>you handle the F5 the choice between it and the M6 is very clear.
Well it is not that clear. I have both system and used the F5 for a very
diiiferent
situation. The bottom line is the F5 is of course the top SLR and the M6 the
top
rangefinder. I am happy that I can have both. If I had no choice and and
could
only keep one then I would keep the M6. (after a very intense debate)
Jacques H. Grilli
Yojimbo
Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net> wrote in article
<352849CD...@thegrid.net>...
> Reasons not to buy a M6:
> 0) Nikon optics are equal to or better than Leica, in that no one can
tell the
> difference.
DEBATABLE.
> 1) Limited selection of lenses compared to Nikon
TRUE.
> 2) Expensive lens cost compared to Nikon
TRUE.
> 3) Very slow loading and unloading of film
TRUE.
> 4) Slow flash sync compared to Nikon F5
TRUE.
> 5) No true motor drive or Autofocus
TRUE.
> 6) Primative light meter compared to Nikon F5
PRIMATIVE, YES, BUT EXCELLENT.
All your reasons are sound, but surely no fool who wants flashes and
autofocus should buy M6. Then again, some photographers like to work with
ambient light, stealth, not creating a Joe Paparazzi scene like your
typical F5 pro with bodies and gear swinging all around the place. The M6
is unsuitable for many applications, but those that it's useful for it is
absolutely stunning.
Ivan
I Agree with the comments made about Leica and the F-5. Would like to Add
Konica' Hexar. It was developed to fill the gap of the two camera before
Contax G2s were made!
It has great optics and excellent flash-matic ability as well as ultra
silent operations and with it's fix lens 35mm F2.0 it is lighter than the
G2 at a 1/3 of the price. In essence a AF and motorise M6 that Leica should
have made. Hope I've not confuse the issue at hand.
Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net> wrote in article
<352849CD...@thegrid.net>...
> Who my God, don't buy the M6!
>
> Reasons not to buy a M6:
> 0) Nikon optics are equal to or better than Leica, in that no one can
tell the
> difference.
> 1) Limited selection of lenses compared to Nikon
> 2) Expensive lens cost compared to Nikon
> 3) Very slow loading and unloading of film
> 4) Slow flash sync compared to Nikon F5
> 5) No true motor drive or Autofocus
> 6) Primative light meter compared to Nikon F5
>
> If you are going to buy a rangefinder for the small size and don't need
the large
> selection of lenses, get a Contax G2, the optics are second to none and
you get a
> lot of good attributes on the camera body at a much lower cost than an
equivalent
> M6 system.
>
> If you are going to get a top of the line SLR flagship, get the Nikon F5.
Once
> you handle the F5 the choice between it and the M6 is very clear.
>
> Comments from a X-Leica M6 owner,
>
> Don
>
>
> =======
>
> JMM Garza wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing
load of
> > documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28
years now
> > and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the
past and
> > Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite
from
> > the Hassy.
> >
> > But I have one concern...I haven't used a Leica for 25 years. Will I
like the
> > rangefinder? Will I miss my SLR? These are questions I am confronted
with.
> > On the one hand the Leica is small, sharp and efficient. While the
Nikon is
> > state of the art, easy to use but heavy.
> >
> > Will I be happy with the focusing of a rangefinder. Will I miss
wysiwyg?
> > Maybe I should just buy both?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Jesús M. Mena Garza
> > P H O T O G R A P H Y
W. Keith McManus
In article <352849CD...@thegrid.net>, Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net>
wrote:
> Who my God, don't buy the M6!
>
> Reasons not to buy a M6:
> 0) Nikon optics are equal to or better than Leica, in that no one can
tell the
> difference.
Well, may be some people can. But it seems to be a worthless argument this
day and age.
> 1) Limited selection of lenses compared to Nikon
May be the photographer doesn't need to drag around the whole universe of
lenses that Nikon makes. May be a couple or three lenses are all that is
needed.
> 2) Expensive lens cost compared to Nikon
True
> 3) Very slow loading and unloading of film
Leicas are slow loading?? I can laod one, except the screw mount models,
as fast as any Nikon or Canon, etc.
> 4) Slow flash sync compared to Nikon F5
Only important if flash is used.
> 5) No true motor drive or Autofocus
Only important if the photographer can't get along with these features
> 6) Primative light meter compared to Nikon F5
Not really important. Have used a hand-held meter for years and it hasn't
impaired my photography. In fact in most cases making a meter reading is
not required.
--
W. Keith McManus - Documentary Photography & Video
DVCPRO
==================================================
pell...@frontiernet.net
www.journale.com
==================================================
To reduce junk mail an "_" has been
placed in my E-mail reply address. Remove it to
reply to messages. Thank you
Donald Farra
Now I am not going to frame anyone in public, but I would like to comment on
what was written to my post.
0) I agree it is a worthless argument to claim one lens system is optically
so superior that there is a clear difference between the two in question.
1) Well the point is not that one goes out and buys every lens within the
system but that one company offers more choices and this is better in my
opinion since the photographer has greater flexibility. After all who want
to buy a camera that limits your imagination or creativity?
2) No contest here.
3) Well my personal experience with both cameras leads me to believe the F5
is fastest at loading film than the M6. Can anyone really say otherwise with
a straight face?
4) What can I say. If flash is not important to the photographer then "he"
is right, but if it is I am right. But then again why does the Leica M6 have
a hot shoe in the first place? Someone at Leica must have thought it was
important enough to put it on the camera. Given that fact, lets assume that
it is important, and that a hot shoe and thus flash can be of some service to
the photographer. Now any photographer who has shot outdoors with a flash
will tell you the F5 higher sync speed is better.
5) Well here we go again, the F5 can shoot in a single frame mode, equal to
the Leica in usage, but the Leica cannot shoot in a 8 fps mode like the F5.
Again it comes down to limitations, and if you shoot with a M6 "you have to
know your limitations".
6) Now I know the author believes what he writes is true, but for the most
part the majority of photographers cannot make the same statements. That,
"In fact in most cases making a meter reading is not required.", speaking for
myself, this is not true. Again why did Leica put a light meter inside the
M6 camera? Just for fun and waste of money? I don't think so. Light meters
are important especially through the lens metering, both Leica and Nikon and
almost every 35mm SLR photographer knows this to be true. But when comparing
the M6 vs F5 light meters the F5 is a clear winner.
Well that is my 2 cents,
Don
shooter dan
Why not buy the N90s? Lighter & still with the autofocus & quality and
ability to use longer lenses which the M6 will never give you. The Nikon
prime lenses are as good as anything made by Leica and the lens range with
the SLR is greater as well.
dan smith
Bernard
Don't you all get sick of yourself for comparing apples to oranges?
A big old diesel truck is a much better way of getting a load from A to
B, than a Porsche is, but there are a *few* things the Porsche is much
better at than the truck. And not just the prestige-edge!
An F5 is for shooting the hell out of some newsevent that needs some
utterly forgettable coverage. The M-Leicas are for something else
altogether.
I don't have an M6. I don't want an M6, although I can afford one. I
have three Leica SLR's and there is not a chance I'm even going near an
M. But what makes me nauseous, is the lasting stupidity of wanting to
compare the ultimate ambient-light candid camera with some huge
reporters' beast.
Bernard.
John G. Walter
I wouldn't relegate the F5 to just photojournalists. They HAVE chosen
them, and other Nikons over the years, because of their durability, not
because of their many, many features.
On the other hand, I have known many photojournalists, myself included,
that have used Leica M cameras for journalistic work. They excel at being
quiet and unobtrusive when that is important.
Although it has gotten to the point that my old M's are much too valuable
to be used in such a harsh environment.
Bernard <5521...@g23.relcom.ru> wrote in article
<352B8D4C...@g23.relcom.ru>...
Joe Berenbaum
Bernard <5521...@g23.relcom.ru> wrote:
<snip>
>But what makes me nauseous, is the lasting stupidity of wanting to
>compare the ultimate ambient-light candid camera with some huge
>reporters' beast.
>Bernard.
But someone always does, don't they?
Joe B. (Please remove the ".com" from my address for email)
Joe Berenbaum
Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Well that is my 2 cents,
>
>Don
Speaking as Leica user, I am most grateful to have the error of my
equipment choice pointed out to me in a way I can understand. Maybe if
I ask the man in the shop nicely, I can sell my Leica gear and buy
Nikon. Those creativity-limiting Leica lens options, feh... If only
I'd known about this earlier.
Joe Machado
It amazes me that when Leicas are compared against other cameras and lenses
it is always the M6 which gets the challenge.
It also amazes me that a 50 year old lens and design can still compete
against the state of the art offerings.
But, I wonder how the Leica R8 and the new R lenses would stack up. Or would
that be too much competition?( no flame intended!)
The Leica 70-210 2.8 APO and 100mm 2.8 APO macro would be interesting to
hear about.
?
Thanks,
Joe
JMM Garza wrote in message <35262D62...@sirius.com>...
James Chow
In article <6g8lmm$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
ede...@worldnet.att.net (Ed Eagleton) wrote:
> In article <35262D62...@sirius.com>, jmmg...@sirius.com wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing
load of
> > documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28
years now
> >and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
> >Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
> >the Hassy.
The M6 is not a lightweight camera. Compare it to the Contax G2. The Leica
image quality isn't going to be any better than that of zeiss, especially when
the price difference for a lens is an order of magnitude.
--Jim
Don Baccus
In article <6ghg2h$seo$1...@ionews.ionet.net>,
Joe Machado <jm...@ionet.net> wrote:
>It also amazes me that a 50 year old lens and design can still compete
>against the state of the art offerings.
Actually, these aren't the lenses that really can successfully compete.
>But, I wonder how the Leica R8 and the new R lenses would stack up. Or would
>that be too much competition?( no flame intended!)
Only from the mind of Minolta!
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
W. Keith McManus
In article <352AEBA9...@thegrid.net>, Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net>
wrote:
> 3) Well my personal experience with both cameras leads me to believe the F5
> is fastest at loading film than the M6. Can anyone really say otherwise with
> a straight face?
I guess I should say that I don't use an M6. I use an M2,M3, M4 and I can
load all of them pretty fast. Only my M4 has drop in loading, a feature
that doesn't seem to offer any increased speed of loading.
> 4) What can I say. If flash is not important to the photographer then "he"
> is right, but if it is I am right. But then again why does the Leica M6 have
> a hot shoe in the first place? Someone at Leica must have thought it was
> important enough to put it on the camera. Given that fact, lets assume that
> it is important, and that a hot shoe and thus flash can be of some service to
> the photographer. Now any photographer who has shot outdoors with a flash
> will tell you the F5 higher sync speed is better.
Well, it might be shortsighted not to include a flash sync feature, but
that doesn't mean that the addition of one and a slow flash sync speed is
a reason to choose a F5 or similar camera. Since I don't use flash very
often I have no interest in that fact the Leicas M series camera don't
allow for convenient sychro-sun flash. When that has been something I
needed to do, I chose a Hasselblad or used my Crown Graphic [4x5].
> 5) Well here we go again, the F5 can shoot in a single frame mode, equal to
> the Leica in usage, but the Leica cannot shoot in a 8 fps mode like the F5.
> Again it comes down to limitations, and if you shoot with a M6 "you have to
> know your limitations".
In my work a motor drive just doesn't have any purpose or need. I could
care less about 8fps...
> 6) Now I know the author believes what he writes is true, but for the most
> part the majority of photographers cannot make the same statements. That,
> "In fact in most cases making a meter reading is not required.", speaking for
> myself, this is not true. Again why did Leica put a light meter inside the
> M6 camera? Just for fun and waste of money? I don't think so. Light meters
> are important especially through the lens metering, both Leica and Nikon and
> almost every 35mm SLR photographer knows this to be true. But when comparing
> the M6 vs F5 light meters the F5 is a clear winner.
Well, I sorry you can't make an exposure without the aid of a meter. One
of the first skills I learned was to be able in most cases to do this with
accuracy. I do carry a meter for those situations where the quality of the
light makes it hard to make those judgments, but in the overwhelming
number shooting situations I have been in, it is not necessary. I wasn't
camparing the two camera's lightmeters, only commenting on the technique.
Don Farra
Sorry for stepping on some toes,
Some photographers can live within the Leica M6 system boundaries. And
there is nothing wrong or right about that choice. They are comfortable
with lenses they own. As seen in past posts concerning this sensitive
subject, they are not nearly concerned with having a greater selection
of lenses, or improvement of camera attributes since in my mind they
would not use them if they were present. For them the M6 camera system
meets all their current and future needs for the style of photography
they have chosen.
Now I am not calling M6 owners closed minded, or wrong, for their choice
of camera system, nor am I stating that one cannot create great
photographs using such a system. Heck, I used to own an Leica M6 camera
for years and took some great shots with the camera. Nor am I trying to
convert any of them over to any other camera system.
Before I continue I want to list my assumptions: I am assuming that
everyone knows it is not the camera which makes the photograph great but
the person behind the camera. That owning a camera that is used by
someone who creates great photographs will somehow make you a great
photographer is not true. But that owning a high quality camera system
that has greater flexibility for less money is always better, provided
the photographer is comfortable with the camera system and finds the
results of which are acceptable.
Now for some fun.
Lets assume that someone asks you for a recommendation between two
cameras, lets say for example a Nikon F5 and a Leica M6. But they leave
open what types of photography they are into, or likely to expand to in
the future, but from the camera choices given, it appears to be wide
open. What can you tell them? Only the differences and in some cases
the lack of differences between the two camera systems, maybe more,
maybe less.
If you are an Leica M6 owner, you cannot assume that the person asking
the question will only take pictures like you take. This is easy to see
since they did include the Nikon F5 in the choice list, which is the
opposite end of the spectrum. And the reverse is true you cannot
exclude the M6 attributes if you did not own an M6. At the very most
all you can do is list the facts to make the comparison a little easier
for the person making the choice. And maybe some good alternates they
did not list.
In my response I tried to do this, but pointing out the Nikon F5 can do
everything the Leica M6 can do and much more. I went further to show
some but not all the short comings of the M6 relative to the F5, from my
personal experiences with the M6, to support my point. This was done to
make the buyer aware of the facts, so the buyer could make an informed
decision.
As you already know, no one has successfully disputed the facts that I
have presented. Outside of objecting with immaterial personal opinions
and bruised egos, which is fine so long as they do not equate them to
the facts.
Now I did not bring up the Leica's note worthy attributes of being quiet
and small relative to the Nikon F5, since the person asking the question
already knew this fact, and I assumed from the fact he included the F5,
in the comparison set, that those attributes were not as important to
him.
Again sorry for stepping on any toes,
Don
======================================
JMM Garza
Folks,
Thanks for all the feedback. This summer I will be hiking into the Desolation
Wilderness near Lake Tahoe for a couple of days. And these 46 year old (by
June) legs will appreciate a small camera. So I will probably rent a Leica
M6 w/a 35 mm lens. That should make my trek easier. At least in this
situation the Leica seems to be a great choice. No way will I hike at 10,000
feet with a 4x5 or a Hasselblad without a burro or llama. In retrospect, you
have to give Ansel Adams credit for not only his great images but amazing
stamina. Did he have a donkey?
Thanks,
--
Jesús M. Mena Garza
P H O T O G R A P H Y
Derek Zeanah
This thread has gone on long enough that most people are
probably ignoring it, so now's as good a time as any to jump
in here. <g>
My take: you cannot compare the two cameras. They are
designed for completely different jobs, and the closest you
can come is to decide which camera might be best for the
kind of photography _you_ want to do.
IMHO, the Leica seems to be the _best_ camera on the market
for available-light people photography, period*. It's
small. It's silent. It has extremely fast lenses that are
of the highest quality. It's easy to focus in low light.
It doesn't have a mirror, so less shake when you fire the
camera (read: two stops less if your experience is typical).
The Leica is _extremely_ good at what it does, and it
carries this even further. It's well-built in the sense of
overbuilt-and-understressed. It's well-built in the sense
that it'll take a fair amount of abuse (refer to the
passport warranty). It's small enough to be wonderful on
trips _without_ breaking your back.** The price seems to be
about the only thing that sucks.
That said, there are areas where even a cheapish SLR does
much better: flash sync at higher than 1/50s; any macro
work; offering a wysiwyg viewfinder; any sort of automation
including autofocus, film winding, auto exposure modes, and
multiple metering patterns; lenses longer than 135mm;
automated fill-flash. Some cameras, like the F5, do some or
all of these jobs better than the M6 ever will.
So which is better? That depends -- I'd rank the F5 as
better if you're looking for a general-purpose,
do-anything-well sort of camera. Especially if you need its
automation to accomplish the things you're trying to
accomplish. I'd call the M6 better if you're doing
available light people photography, and you're comfortable
with the lack of automation. It's a toss-up if you're
looking for a travel camera -- I would choose the M6 (see
**) but everyone has to make their own choice.
Now, which is better: a gallon of water or BMW M3? Kind of
depends on your circumstances, doesn't it?
Oh yeah -- I'm sold on the Leicas, but my business partner
and shoot together and I'd prefer that she shoot with an F5
(though she seems to prefer the N90s to to the interface).
IMHO it suits her shooting style better. There is no _one_
right camera system, just the right system for a particular
user to accomplish a specific task. As always, IMHO.
* I've spent 3 weeks trying to talk myself out of this -- I
simply _don't_ want to have to pay that kind of money for a
tool, but it's still the best option for my needs. My
circumstances only, mind you.
** Eurpoe last summer. 1 bag, 1 35mm outfit (2 slr's,
lenses, accessories), 1 MF outfit (2 bodies, lenses,
accessories), film. 45lbs on my back for two weeks
according to the airline scale, with the fiance carrying my
clothes. _Not_ worth repeating the experience. Besides --
the M6 + 50 f1 would have been a better outfit for shooting
in Notre Dame, and isn't that what a travel camera is
for?!?!?!!
-----------------------------------------
Derek Zeanah, Photographer
The DK Gallery
http://www.thedkgallery.com
Atlanta, GA 404.233.1230
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Koenig
A long time ago, I read an article about two professional photographers,
one of whom always used Leica equipment, and the other of whom always
used Nikon equipment. For the purpose of the article, they agreed to
swap cameras for a month, using the `other' gear on all assignments,
and then write about their experiences.
What both of them found was that the change in equipment dramatically
changed their photographic styles. The photographer who found himself
using the Leica started doing much more street and candid photography,
and the photographer who started using the Nikon did many more closeups
and pictures that relied on the interplay between in- and out-of-focus
areas.
The new Nikon user said that the camera caused him one embarrassing moment:
He was photographying Eugene Ormandy during a concert and had the bad
taste to take a picture during a quiet passage. Ka-CHUNK! The conductor
glared at him, and chewed him out after the concert. He was able to
save his hide, though, by explaining that he was using an unfamiliar
camera, he hadn't realized it would be so loud, and anyway, ``It was
really your fault, Maestro, because you had such a look of beatific
innocence on your face that I couldn't contain myself!''
Both photographers said that they came away with a new appreciation of
the possibilities of each others' equipment.
--
--Andrew Koenig
a...@research.att.com
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Yojimbo
Don Farra <dfa...@radar-sci.jpl.nasa.gov>
> As you already know, no one has successfully disputed the facts that I
> have presented.
Dispute these questions please Don: Which camera is lighter? Which camera
is smaller? Which camera is quieter? Which camera is easier to focus in low
light?
Donald Farra
You never can tell....
How many photographers agree with Mr. McManus, that you really don't need to use
a light meter, either in the camera or hand held, that you can accurately judge
the lighting enough determine the exposure most of the time?
Also how many of you actually do this, shoot without the use of the light
meter? Using only your experience and eye sight?
I have to ask since I assumed almost everybody did use a light meter and nearly
all the time.
Let me use myself for an example, when I use fill flash at a wedding I always
use the light meter to determine the ambient lighting and flash output to
determine the proper shutter speed and aperture. When I shoot on location at
the customer's home I always meter the window light vs the reflector bare bulb
fill flash to set the proper lighting ratio. And even then I use the Polaroid
back to verify. When I shoot stock slide work, I always use the light meter to
nail down the highlights and to determine the exposure range. Even in the
studio I use the light meter to determine the exposure but lighting ratios and
backlight contributions. I have to admit, I even used the M6 light meter 100%
of the time when shooting candids.
Yes, I know the exposure rules of thumb and I use those rules only when I forget
my light meter or it malfunctions, but to guess at the exposure (when I hand a
light meter at my side or built-in) when it means my reputation is on the line,
I don't know if I feel that brave or stupid. And of course I know the
limitations of the light meter and use my experience to bias the exposure when
the situation calls for it, which is luckily for me rare.
Let me know if you use your light meter, and what percentage of the time.
Please post.
Thanks in advance,
Don
Peter Leyenaar
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:38:22 -0700, Donald Farra <d...@thegrid.net>
wrote:
Yes I always use my light meter but I always try to guess the exposure
before I look at it, b.t.w. what is your exposure rule of thumb, mine
is for a sunny day f 8 and the ISO of the film as shutter speed or
combinations there of and adjustments for less light, however I have
used this only once.
Peter Leyenaar
>
>
>
W. Keith McManus
In article <352ff484...@news.direct.ca>, pley...@direct.ca (Peter
Leyenaar) wrote:
> >
> Yes I always use my light meter but I always try to guess the exposure
> before I look at it, b.t.w. what is your exposure rule of thumb, mine
> is for a sunny day f 8 and the ISO of the film as shutter speed or
> combinations there of and adjustments for less light, however I have
> used this only once.
>
> Peter Leyenaar
Peter, I believe the "sunny 16 rule" uses the f/16 f-stop with a shutter
speed as close to the ISO/ASA as possible, hence the name.
Best,
Keith
Don Norris
I find that the sunny f11 rule works better with Ektachrome.
--
post reply to group,or remove ??? from address.
W. Keith McManus wrote in message ...
Don Norris
I don't use a meter when shooting negative film, in situations where I am
fairly certain of the light - put side with full sun, in my livingroom with
full sun or at night, our office area's are fairly uniform, etc., and when
it is inconvenient to use the meter (the kids will notice, or I forgot it,
or there just isn't time). This happens maybe 10% of the time.
--
post reply to group,or remove ??? from address.
Donald Farra wrote in message <352FC6AC...@thegrid.net>...
JMM Garza
Folks,
I carry a meter in my briefcase to work. You never know when a student needs
to calibrate their meter, camera meter or just needs help. An accurate meter
is vital! Now if I only could afford (or could rationalize) a good color meter.
JMM Garza
Folks,
Three months ago I bought a new tripod while on vacation in Santa Barbara.
Haven't used it yet! Why is it that some people know the value of a tripod
but still hate to lug the sticks around? I purchased a relatively light model
that is capable of holding a Hasselblad or a folding 4x5. But when the day
comes to shoot...I leave it home under the desk. By the way I have three
tripods. One antique that has an even older 4x5 mounted on top for display in
the living room. Another smaller tripod to display a small antique movie
camera on the mantel. And now this one. Maybe I should put the Hassy on
display in the interim! My goal in the upcoming months is to lug the tripod
to my next shoot like it or not.
I'll shut up now,
--
Jesús M. Mena Garza
Instructor, Academy of Art College
Don Baccus
In article <Er74D...@research.att.com>,
Andrew Koenig <a...@research.att.com> wrote:
>The new Nikon user said that the camera caused him one embarrassing moment:
>He was photographying Eugene Ormandy during a concert and had the bad
>taste to take a picture during a quiet passage. Ka-CHUNK!
And this demonstrates one of the two great advantages of rangefinder
cameras over SLRs (the other being compact size).
It's too bad Leica's the only choice in current production in 35mm.
Though perhaps it's a blessing in disguise - I decided I wanted a
rangefinder in part because of the quiet operation, but just got
a nice big 'ole Mamiya 7. Not compact, but the lenses are fantastic
and the 6x7 chrome blows away *any* 35mm system, even my beloved
Canon system.
stans...@mailexcite.com
In article <3534e...@news.pacifier.com>,
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> It's too bad Leica's the only choice in current production in 35mm.
Yes, it is too bad. The current crop of auto-everything, 35mm p&S cameras are
a big dissapointment when compared to a true rangefinder with manual override
ability. However, one doesn't have to spend thousands on the Big Mamiya. You
can purchase a used Cannonet or Minolta rangefinder camera with manual
override for under $100.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Don Baccus
In article <6h3lkv$hl3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<stans...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>However, one doesn't have to spend thousands on the Big Mamiya.
Or the little Leica :) Actually, I sorta fibbed as to why I bought the
Mamiya, I wanted a lightweight 6x7 that I can take when I'm humping
my 600/4, big tripod, etc etc. I do like rangefinders, though.
>You can purchase a used Cannonet
I have a friend who used to be an AP shooter (shot Bill four times, but
never Monica, so he still has to work). He's quit to go into field
work as a biologist, but picked up a Cannonet for personal shooting
and it's a sweet little thing, I agree.
lou albert
It seems that every body wants the equipment they have and is the best!
I sold my FTn and lenses for a the "original" Olympus Stylus
http://lek.net/~byron/lou/
Ed Eagleton wrote:
> In article <35262D62...@sirius.com>, jmmg...@sirius.com wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >I am planning on purchasing a new camera this summer for my increasing load of
> > documentary work. I have been lugging around my Hassleblads for 28 years now
> >and I'm looking for to a lighter option. I have owned Nikons in the past and
> >Contax's currently. I feel that a Leica would be an excellent respite from
> >the Hassy.
> >
>
> I gotta ask, since you are currently using Contax why not stay with that
> system? It has some amazingly good optics available and the equipment is top
> shelf. I can't imagine what the Leica M range is going to give you other than
> a bit of sound reduction. I had the opprtunity to shoot the RTS III a while
> back with an 85mm and the setup was a genuine pleasure to use with the images
> far exceeding my ability. Perhaps the Contax you refer to is the older German
> made Zeiss Contax if it is, I'd recommend checking out the new Kyocera stuff.
>
> Ed Eagleton
> ede...@worldnet.att.net
--
Lou Albert (WA8PHD), Voice - 330-864-0650
Donald Farra
It that really true?
What is best for one may not be best for another. I just like the fact that we have
such a wide choice to choose from and that some of us have enough common sense to
cut past the myths and self imposed limitations. Further, I like the fact we can
argue the objective merits of one camera over another, while realizing it doesn't
make all that much difference in the end, since the procurement is a personal choice
to meet our personal needs (either real or imaginary). But sometimes we get carried
away in the defense of our ownership and descision making process (of lack of one),
to the point of becoming a zealot and that is a sad point to reach indeed.
Don