maddoc
... likes film again.
1) shutter jammed (stuck open), sent to Leica NJ (warranty)
2) camera came back with uneven frame-spacing after trip no1 (before it was OK) -> second trip to Leica NJ and from there to Leica Germany to fix this problem
3) camera came back with uneven frame spacing & stiff ISO dial (can only be turned using a rubber [eraser]) BUT with a certificate from Leica Germany that camera fulfilled requirements of Leica QC.
4) brough to Leica Japan to get the ISO dial fixed (took two days because of Sunday in between)
So actually my M7 had one real fault and two "factory-induced faults".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have both metered and unmetered Leicas, and prefer the metered. Most of the time I treat the meter as an exposure confirmation device -- I've already set aperture and speed -- and if the meter and I disagree I can usually decide very quickly which of us is to be believed.
Only my digi-Ms have AE. I almost never use it, and if I do, it's in a slightly unusual way. It will be for a series of pictures of more or less similar subjects under slightly varying lighting. The most recent example was in a gymnasium at the University of Magdeburg, shooting the capoeira club.
I take manual readings; shoot 'Polaroids' (test exposures) to confirm the maximum and minimum exposures; and then switch to AE. I keep an eye on the exposure in the VF to make sure that it agrees with the previously determined limits, using the AE lock to override if I disagree with it.
Quite honestly, I think that all the stuff about getting better pictures with unmetered cameras comes down to increasing familiarity with the camera and with photography in general, i.e. it would happen regardless of what camera you used, and how. If, on the other hand, you keep using different cameras and are more concerned with trying something new than with taking pictures, it's a lot harder to learn. I really cannot see the argument that somehow you get better at composition by refusing to meter.
You're going to miss some exposures no matter what you do, unless you have time to meter carefully and to set the camera accordingly. When you don't have time for that, it's just a question of what will give you the fewest bad exposures. For me, that's rarely AE. To clarify the repeated negatives (see posts below), I mean that I normally get the FEWEST bad exposures from relying on manual metering and experience, and the MOST bad exposures from AE.
Cheers,
R.
Only my digi-Ms have AE. I almost never use it, and if I do, it's in a slightly unusual way. It will be for a series of pictures of more or less similar subjects under slightly varying lighting. The most recent example was in a gymnasium at the University of Magdeburg, shooting the capoeira club.
I take manual readings; shoot 'Polaroids' (test exposures) to confirm the maximum and minimum exposures; and then switch to AE. I keep an eye on the exposure in the VF to make sure that it agrees with the previously determined limits, using the AE lock to override if I disagree with it.
Quite honestly, I think that all the stuff about getting better pictures with unmetered cameras comes down to increasing familiarity with the camera and with photography in general, i.e. it would happen regardless of what camera you used, and how. If, on the other hand, you keep using different cameras and are more concerned with trying something new than with taking pictures, it's a lot harder to learn. I really cannot see the argument that somehow you get better at composition by refusing to meter.
You're going to miss some exposures no matter what you do, unless you have time to meter carefully and to set the camera accordingly. When you don't have time for that, it's just a question of what will give you the fewest bad exposures. For me, that's rarely AE. To clarify the repeated negatives (see posts below), I mean that I normally get the FEWEST bad exposures from relying on manual metering and experience, and the MOST bad exposures from AE.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
DamenS
Well-known
You may just need to clarify your last statement Roger - as it stands the wording is a little ambiguous due to a double negative (how appropriate !) ... ie. "It's just a question of what will give you the fewest bad exposures. For me, that's rarely the AE" literally means that the AE rarely gives you the fewest bad exposures (ie it often gives you the most bad exposures). I believe you probably meant the opposite of this (That the AE always gives you the fewest bad exposures), but thought I should clarify whether this is indeed the case or not.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think he meant exactly what he said ... that AE will rarely give him his fewest amount of bad exposures.
Well ... that's the way I understood it.
Roger?
Well ... that's the way I understood it.
Roger?
DamenS
Well-known
LOL - that's whay I was asking ... I thought he meant that AE gives him the fewest bad exposures, but I am unsure whether his double negative was intentional or not - you're right, he could have meant that the AE gives him more bad exposures than the Manual mode.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Good point, and as you say, a double negative is curiously appropriate. I apologize for the lack of clarity, but your interpretation was, in fact correct, i.e. I did not mean the opposite. EDIT: Keith was right.
To clarify, I normally get the FEWEST bad exposures from relying on manual metering and experience, and the MOST bad exposures from AE.
It's not a huge number in either case, but if pressed to quantify it, I'd say I get about half as many when I use manual metering and experience as I get if I use AE. Obviously that's for hastily grabbed shots.
Of course, with negative films, it's quite difficult to get unusable exposures if you just set half the ISO speed on the meter. The main problem is going to be with very long brightness ranges, where the important part of the subject is quite small and differs greatly from the predominant area of the picture, i.e. a small dark object against a large light area (e.g. snow) or a small well-lit subject against a large dark area (e.g. night with small pools of light).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
DamenS
Well-known
Cool - that makes perfect sense ... it is usually only "Double E-6's" which put me in a real quandry ... 
(Oh is there no beginning to my wit ?)
(Oh is there no beginning to my wit ?)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Cool - that makes perfect sense ... it is usually only "Double E-6's" which put me in a real quandry ...
Are you positive?
Cheers,
R.
DamenS
Well-known
LOL !! Very clever - it's all now clarified with the utmost transparency ... ahem ...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well ... I think I may just have to let that last effort slide.
DamenS
Well-known
I was wondering if anyone was willing to go there Still it was better than the other option I dreaded of someone trying to work "mounting" into polite conversation !
Still it was better than the other option I dreaded of someone trying to work "mounting" into polite conversation !
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was thinking about it ... then I thought better of projecting my thoughts in that direction.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This thread is sliding down a characteristic curve...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
malcD
Well-known
LESS would have been better than FEWEST
awslee
Well-known
You will regret it!!
peter_n
Veteran
As others have said if you're missing the AE and you think AE improves your photography then you should get the M7. I went in the opposite direction; traded two M7s for two MPs and haven't regretted it. My problem was that I relied on the AE too much and my exposures weren't great at all. I just bought an M2 and got my first test roll back and looking at the negs on the light box they're all pretty well exposed and the roll was all sunny 16. The M7 is fast and quiet, but the results for me weren't that good. I seem to do better without AE.
MCTuomey
Veteran
As Tim Gray said earlier, you can shoot the M7 manually or in AE mode. AE's there if you need it, unlike the MP. I think you have to balance the availability of AE in the M7 with the intangibles of shooting with an MP. What's more important to you?
Frontman
Well-known
I haven't carried a camera with AE for some time, but that's not because I don't think AE is bad, it's just that I like old, manually-operated cameras.
I don't think I get any fewer poorly exposed shots shooting by eye than I did when I used a camera with a meter. I am a little more careful when I judge the light, but I doubt that I can judge the light better than a modern light meter.
There are many types of built-in systems, some are TTL types that read the light which comes through the lens, and then there are those which actually read off the film itself. The latter tends to be the most accurate type. My hundred dollar Nikon FE has a far better meter than my much more expensive M6.
On the other hand, the old clunker Yashica Electros don't even read through the lens, the meter is mounted above the lens, yet these cameras are excellent at taking pictures in various light conditions, particularly low light.
And, not all meters read the same. I compared three different cameras the other day, all the same make and model, all set to the same ASA, film speed, and aperture, and yet all three built-in meters gave different readings. I don't even trust hand-held meters, I have two different Sekonic light meters, yet both read differently. To check the accuracy of meters and metered cameras, I simply go outside on a sunny day, and set the ASA to 400 (I always shoot Trix). If the meter reads 1/500th at f/11, then I know it's in the ballpark.
I'm developing film in my kitchen as I write, I'll get too see how well I guessed exposure this week as I was shooting with an F and an S3, while carrying no meter.
I don't think I get any fewer poorly exposed shots shooting by eye than I did when I used a camera with a meter. I am a little more careful when I judge the light, but I doubt that I can judge the light better than a modern light meter.
There are many types of built-in systems, some are TTL types that read the light which comes through the lens, and then there are those which actually read off the film itself. The latter tends to be the most accurate type. My hundred dollar Nikon FE has a far better meter than my much more expensive M6.
On the other hand, the old clunker Yashica Electros don't even read through the lens, the meter is mounted above the lens, yet these cameras are excellent at taking pictures in various light conditions, particularly low light.
And, not all meters read the same. I compared three different cameras the other day, all the same make and model, all set to the same ASA, film speed, and aperture, and yet all three built-in meters gave different readings. I don't even trust hand-held meters, I have two different Sekonic light meters, yet both read differently. To check the accuracy of meters and metered cameras, I simply go outside on a sunny day, and set the ASA to 400 (I always shoot Trix). If the meter reads 1/500th at f/11, then I know it's in the ballpark.
I'm developing film in my kitchen as I write, I'll get too see how well I guessed exposure this week as I was shooting with an F and an S3, while carrying no meter.
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Shooting without a built in meter is IMHO, the ultimate in photography. That being said I cannot deny using aperture preferred on my NEX. But no meter on a Nikon F or an M3? Oh Mama!
DamenS
Well-known
I find not using a meter to be fine outdoors (Sunny 16 is very easy over a 5 stop range). What I find difficult is trying to "guestimate" light outside of those "varieties of daylight" timeframe. Night shots and artificial lighting are very hard for me (especially given fluorescent lighting which appears at the same level as tungsten but which is actually a lower exposure) - don't even get me started on trying to assess "mixed" lighting at night without some form of metered starting point !