Vicky, great write up. You got the idea behind the basic M. A box that will hold film, with a shutter that controls "speed" and a finder to judge distance. This is of course fundamental to all cameras - but with the Leica's it is done with "feeling".
The more I use the leica the more I absolutely agree with the feeling part, I do feel very much connected to the subject in a way that sometimes the EOS 3 lacks a little of at times. That said seeing as I develop and print myself I do feel pretty much connected at every point of the journey from conception to the printed end result.
That said I'm sure I'll delve into the intangible element at some point on my blog but I made a very conscious decision to remain very factual (and even by my own standards -- avoid being gushy) and really spell out why a Leica M could work for you as someone who hasn't ever owned one but aspires to but criticially -- has always believed they could never afford it. I was of the latter group of people, I earn well enough but I had to save to buy any new camera, M or not.
I am a great fan of M2's - simple, unassuming and no extra's. It just works!
I think that is the beauty of them, they are very simple and to most people they are not much more than a slightly elongated, old fashioned looking compact, albeit a extremely well made sturdy one
🙂
Your choice of lens is perfect for the M2 - the 35 soon becomes instinctive in use. Prior to lifting the camera to your eye, you know what it will cover. I suspect that one could survive with just the 35, but adding a 90 is great for longer views (landscape/portraits). Check out the Apo Lanthar 90f3.5 for a reasonably priced short tele. Very sharp - and a true apochromat in spite of its modest price.
Looking forward to your shots on the blog.
35mm is my favourite focal length by a country mile. 35mm was love at first sight, 50mm was always a length I learnt to love over time. I guess the 35mm is how I see the world, wide eyed and with fantastical gaze perhaps. I could very easily survive on the 35mm lens, especially with its relative close focussing ability at about 2.5ft I have found it very good for portraits on location.
As such the 90mm is going to happen but for now the 35mm is exactly what I needed. In fact my Flickr profile (
www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity) shows that by and large 35mm is dominant, with 50mm second (I often get asked how I get my 50mm angles looking 'wide' -- that's the learning to love part I find coming through) and longer lengths a distant third. For me 35mm is sight with peripheral vision.
The only time I dare to use wider is in urban settings where 20-24mm can be incredibly effective at the kerbside or under a motorway/freeway flyover.
