Thinking of purchasing film M body. Talk me out of it, please.

[pmu]

I used to shoot years with film M bodies, I had maybe 10-15 of them when they were cheap. All gone now, too bad. I used to shoot classic "street photography" and documentary stuff. They were great fro that.

I find myself wanting to shoot 35mm film again. I remember how great they were, but I remember also how I disliked how the framing was not so accurate. Close focusing was also missing.

Nowadays I shoot more artsy stuff, more precise compositions and framing. I would propably love to have M again, but I guess the limitation would start to bug me pretty quickly. I think it's easy to see from my photos what I'm talking about.

I'm wondering how is Ralph Gibson able to do what he does! To me it seems rangefinder is the worst viewfinder for that kind of work...

Should I get R series instead? I have never used those. Or should I just shoot i with my OM-1 + 50/1.8 if I feel the need to use film?

www.puutela.wixsite.com/mysite
www.instagram.com/puutela

 

[punkzter]

I think you've come to the wrong place to be "talked out of" purchasing a film M body.

In the end, if you get an M body to try, you can always sell it for about what you paid.

 

[aizan]

After looking at your photos, yes, you're right. An SLR is the better type of camera for you.

I would suggest sticking to your OM-1, and think about a medium format SLR.

 

[das]

R bodies are cheap, but the cinematography crowd has significantly driven up the price of all prime R lenses to just astronomical heights, while modding them pretty much irreversibly to ever going back to film camera use. You will not get any argument from me about getting an M body. As a much, much cheaper alternative to Leica M, think about getting a Contax SLR. The lenses are great, getting more expensive all the time, and the latest Contaxes are a joy to use. Contax VFs are generally better than any film SLR made by Olympus.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have an M2 and a M8u. There's magic holding and using these wondcerful bodies whether you're into film again or digi. Lots of fine gear out there, I have lots in my cabinet, but there is nothing like an M IMO. Can't help you brother.

 

[Evergreen States]

I've heard from many M users that the .72x finder in the M6, M7 and MP has frame lines that are accurate for 0.7m close focus so for most rangefinder shooting you will end up with more on the negative than indicated. And yet still the 50mm frame lines are undersized and more like 60mm frame lines in practice. I've heard that the .58x and .85x finders have much more accurate frame lines. Earlier Leica M rangefinders show their most accurate framing either at 1m, 1.5m or 2m. I don't know which. So maybe if you do get another Leica, get one that frames accurately at the distance you'll be shooting.

When Gibson first started shooting Leica he used an M2 and 50mm Summicron, I think a v2. For a while he used the M2 with the 50mm DR Summicron. Quadrants, for example, was shot this way, focused at 1m and printed life size for exhibition. Gibson has also used an M6 and now shoots with the M10 and M10 Monochrom.

 

[Godfrey]

If you want the most precise framing, a film SLR with a 100% coverage viewfinder (Nikon F series, some Canon F, some Contax, others...) makes much more sense than a film M.

None of the bodies in the Leica R system have a 100% coverage viewfinder ... But that said, they're very good cameras and, of course, the lenses are super. I have a Leicaflex SL and a Leica R6.2 at present, and a brace of R lenses. I use the lenses quite a lot, adapted to CL and other mirrorless bodies, but haven't done any 35mm film in the SLRs for a while.

I do a lot of artsy stuff, however, and have learned how the viewfinder on my RF and scale focus cameras maps to what the lens sees. So I don't ordinarily find the lack of precision in the viewfinder all that big a deal. I tend to shoot a little loose anyway, that accommodates any framing errors easily. But I find for the sake of handy-ness, the lovely old Kodak Retina IIc and IIIc cameras that I have acquired recently are more often my pick for a 35mm film camera than my Leica M4-2 ... they're a little differently shaped and more compact when folded than an M with a 50mm lens, so they carry very well. And their Schneider 50mm f/2.8 and f/2 lenses are on par with my Summicron-M 50mm f/2. A clean Retina IIc with a CLA together is rarely more than $200-250, so if the occasional use of a 35mm film RF is what you're after, to me these pose significant savings to get into the game.

Good Luck! It's hard to escape the jones of wanting a Leica M...

G

 

[Tom R]

I regularly use two Leica M4-P camera bodies and a variety of Leitz lenses, from 28 to 90mm. The only reason that I keep those bodies is for the particular characteristics of the lenses. Sure, I suppose that I could put those lenses on some other mechanical body, but because I've had these (and others, M2s and M3s) since the 1970's, I'm comfortable with them and I have at least two places where I can have them CLA'd and repaired (should that need arise). I also could replace those lenses with more "modern" versions of the same focal lengths, but, again, I see no reason to do so. (I think of camera bodies as safe places to keep lenses... .)

Now your needs may be very different and you might need Leica camera bodies. From what I'm hearing and seeing, I would be reluctant to drop loads of cash on used bodies and maybe purchase an M-A?

 

[Range-rover]

No sorry, I won't talk you out of getting one I just purchased an Leica M8 and I love it. It's only 10 megapixel and who cares, it's just the feel
of it and the film M is the best you can get go enjoy young one!

 

[pmu]

I would absolutely love to have the feel and function of a M body, they are my all time favorite cameras to use, but I am sure I would get a ton on images that would be composed / framed wrong. If you check those insta links, for that Leica photo it would be perfect, but it would be impossible to take more symmetrical photos (the second link).

I started these more accurate compositions with Mamiya 6&7 years ago and while I loved those cameras, the viewfinders were not accurate enough. Particularily Mamiya 6.

SLR would be best, but I don't like the the mirror slap. Also it does not feel nice that the viewfinder is in the middle of the camera. Now I shoot with Fuji GFX50R.

Newer photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CWm7tALK...dium=copy_link

M6 photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CWfy-tZK...dium=copy_link

 

[oldwino]

Film Ms aren't getting any cheaper...now is the time.

 

[KoNickon]

You said you like to do close up photography -- to me that means an SLR with a true macro lens (which also serves as an excellent, though slow, normal lens). The OM-1 is a fine choice for this. You might also want to look at the Pentax MX, if it's a small body you're interested in. (The 40/2.8 is a nice pancake lens, though not a macro.) I love the Leicaflexes but they aren't small or lightweight.

 

[pmu]

I don't need macro level close focus, but less than what normal M 50m lenses give. 40cm is close enough with 50mm lens.

I was offered almost mint R4s, R5 and R7 bodies. Also almost mint 50 Cron. Good prices. And actually also 60mm Macro elmarit-R.

Would these give anything "extra" compared to my OM-1's (I have two of them)?

I was thinking I could use the 50 Cron-R with my GFX too.

 

[bluesun267]

The Leica IIIg in my opinion has the best 50mm viewfinder of any camera. It is for me the most conducive to pure compositional practice given the lack of distracting rangefinder patch (and the depth-of-field second-guessing of an SLR). Plus having closed-corner framelines! I use the IIIg a lot with a Nikkor 5cm LTM which focuses down to 18". I've found it very easy to extrapolate where the frame lines will fall when you go past the camera's inherent parallax correction/close focus limit. This synergy I feel with the IIIg is all down to personal quirkyness perhaps. But you did ask to be talked out of an M...

 

[Coldkennels]

The Leica IIIg in my opinion has the best 50mm viewfinder of any camera.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with this one. Considering how small the IIIg is, that viewfinder is an absolute joy. I'm not sure what the coverage is of the framelines, but the fact that they're a (nearly) solid rectangle and fully parallax-corrected makes it a fantastic 50mm shooter. Of course, it also has the huge benefit of being substantially cheaper than any M.

Also, you could use an ADVOO with a IIIg and an LTM Summicron or f/2.8 Elmar and get down to 50cm with full parallax compensation.

(Personally, I prefer the IIIf and SOOKY combination for close-up work, but the IIIf viewfinder is nothing like as nice as the IIIg's is.)

 

[JeffS7444]

I shot with Leica M for decades (up to, and including M9) Leica R, somewhat less. I really enjoyed them when I had them. But at today's typical eBay selling prices, I'd be selling, not buying!

Part of the fun has been exploring the sorts of gear that I was too proud to consider back in my film Leica days, and among other things have discovered that the Canon Rebel G + modern 40/2.8 Canon lens is a likeable combo which happens to be cheap. But if you already got an OM1, why not use that; it's got a great viewfinder.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Film EOS with huge selection of EF lenses will do it better and for much more less with accurate exposures.
Much far more from become broken than OM and R. And cost without hipsta add on.

 

[pmu]

Thanks everyone. I will look for other options. No Leica for me anymore (not even R).

 

[jsrockit]

The R is not going to cut it if you want an M. I feel the same as you. I do not think the inaccurate viewfinder is going to be to my liking anymore. Especially a digital M10 at like $5000 used like i would want. I use digital Fuji x and GFX now, but I have a Voigtlander R2 if I feel like using a rangefinder.

 

[pmu]

The R is not going to cut it if you want an M. I feel the same as you. I do not think the inaccurate viewfinder is going to be to my liking anymore. Especially a digital M10 at like $5000 used like i would want. I use digital Fuji x and GFX now, but I have a Voigtlander R2 if I feel like using a rangefinder.

I would of course get M4 or M6 if the prices would not be insane, like they nowadays are... With current prices, the camera would have to fit perfectly to my current shooting style.