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

[pmu]

So you had close to 15 M bodies and got rid of them all? That seems pretty telling to me. It honestly appears as if you came here hoping to be encouraged to buy another M body, not to be talked out of it. I don’t have a problem with this — it’s your money after all. I’m simply noting the irony, especially given the other information that you’ve presented. Go with your gut, whatever it might be telling you to do. Good luck.

Yes it sounds insane that I had so many M modies and sold all of them. This happened during 10 year period, when they were cheap. I was a broke student, usually I changed camera every year, because it made economical sense (i.e. profit). Once, I bought a black M4 for 450€. Once I bought a M6 + 28mm Elmarit in mint condition for 900€. Etc. Of course I had to buy them with those prices, they were great investments.

It was actually M6 that felt too inaccurate with the framing. I don't remember having too much problems ever with M2 or M4.

 

[ptpdprinter]

It was actually M6 that felt too inaccurate with the framing. I don't remember having too much problems ever with M2 or M4.

It is pretty simple. If you want an Leica M camera, buy one. If you don't want a Leica M camera, buy something else. Ralph Gibson, in his film days, used a pair of M6s and generally printed full frame. Lots of other Leica photographers print full frame too. Maybe the framing problem does not lie with the camera. Most SLR viewfinders don't cover 100%, so it's is not like they are all that accurate either. Your OM1 viewfinder is one of the best in that regard, but only covers 97%, which still leaves room for error.

 

[shawn]

I complety agree with you about the "soul" thing.

I hope Leica would make the EVF M body. But the EVF would have to be really good. That could possibly be the perfect solution for me. Of course, it's not film, but digital is fine too. My GFX50R brings me the most pleasing results ever in any camera I have used, but it's far from a perfect camera. It's big, viewfinder is not the best, lenses are huge, menus are complicated etc.

Have you tried adapted lenses on the 50R? Put a Nikon 50 1.8 pancake on it and it changes the feel of the camera quite a bit. Or the Minolta 45mm if you want a 35mm equivalent.

Shawn

 

[pmu]

Have you tried adapted lenses on the 50R? Put a Nikon 50 1.8 pancake on it and it changes the feel of the camera quite a bit. Or the Minolta 45mm if you want a 35mm equivalent.

Shawn

Actually I bought 50/1.7 and 58/1.2 Minolta lenses today that I plan to use with the GFX.

 

[shawn]

Most compact SLRs are better than M3 for two eyes open. They are 1:1 VF view with 50 , while M3 50 is not.

Buying used M now means you have to pay premium for recently serviced (make sure seller provide real date, because for many recent it five years ago).
Or just be ready to spend $$$ and have next to none choice where to send it for CLA.

If you want "a feel" and crooked framing on close ups, I highly recommend Barnacks. They are made, build better than any M and clear SBOOI is superior to any M 50 frames.
And they are not overpriced.

A Barnack with the SBOOI is ridiculously fun to shoot and reduces parallax somewhat since it is centered over the lens. Two eyes works fantastic this way since there is no camera blocking the view at all and you have full peripheral vision with both eyes.

I don't know of a single SLR that has a 1:1 viewfinder magnification. The closest I know of is the Pentax MX with .97x magnification. Two eyes with a SLR never works for me due to the viewfinder position (body is blocking eyes somewhat) and my brain not being able to adapt to seeing the view from two positions vertically, not horizontally.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

Actually I bought 50/1.7 and 58/1.2 Minolta lenses today that I plan to use with the GFX.

The 58 1.2 will hard vignette on the 50R. Haven't tried my 50 1.7 yet but it is supposed to cover better. The 45 does too but smears a little in the corners, the Nikon 50 1.8 is better in the corners.

Shawn

 

[Rob-F]

It was actually M6 that felt too inaccurate with the framing. I don't remember having too much problems ever with M2 or M4.

This is what we have been telling you. The framing accuracy was never brought up before the M6 came out.

 

[Rob-F]

I think what may be going on here is something we mental health professionals call the "Zeigarnik effect." Bluma Zeigarnik was a Russian Psychologist and Psychiatrist who made the observation that things that are interrupted or incomplete in our minds tend to keep re-occurring to us until they are completed. This seems to happen with gear that we have sold before we were really done with it! I have this issue with certain pieces of gear myself, so I can identify with what I think is going on, here. For example, I used to own a 120mm Makro-Planar for my Hasselblad. Not having much desire to shoot close-ups with the Hasselblad, and finding it a bit too soft at distance, I sold it. A few years later I bought another, and sold it. In another few years, I did it all over again. I have the same issue with the Hasselblad SWC and XPAN. I think the incompleteness is that I took a few shots I really liked with each of these, and really enjoyed using them at the time, and have pleasant memories of it; so I may be looking to recapture those experiences.

Try doing a little self-analysis a see what happens!

 

[oldwino]

I think what may be going on here is something we mental health professionals call the "Zeigarnik effect." Bluma Zeigarnik was a Russian Psychologist and Psychiatrist who made the observation that things that are interrupted or incomplete in our minds tend to keep re-occurring to us until they are completed. This seems to happen with gear that we have sold before we were really done with it! I have this issue with certain pieces of gear myself, so I can identify with what I think is going on, here. For example, I used to own a 120mm Makro-Planar for my Hasselblad. Not having much desire to shoot close-ups with the Hasselblad, and finding it a bit too soft at distance, I sold it. A few years later I bought another, and sold it. In another few years, I did it all over again. I have the same issue with the Hasselblad SWC and XPAN. I think the incompleteness is that I took a few shots I really liked with each of these, and really enjoyed using them at the time, and have pleasant memories of it; so I may be looking to recapture those experiences.

Try doing a little self-analysis a see what happens!

Hasselblad SWC and Plaubel Makina 67 for me. I've owned 3 SWCs, sold them all, can't afford one anymore! I've owned the Makina 67 four times (!)...I love the idea of it, I guess, but not actually using it. Never got any pictures with it that inspired me to continue.
It's why my head thinks I should sell my M2 (I prefer shooting my Barnack II), but my heart knows I'll probably never be able to afford one again, at least not as nice as the one I have now.

 

[jsrockit]

I think what may be going on here is something we mental health professionals call the "Zeigarnik effect." Bluma Zeigarnik was a Russian Psychologist and Psychiatrist who made the observation that things that are interrupted or incomplete in our minds tend to keep re-occurring to us until they are completed. !

This completely happens with gear. I always feel it is better just to buy it and get it out of your system if you can afford to do so.

 

[pmu]

I think what may be going on here is something we mental health professionals call the "Zeigarnik effect." Bluma Zeigarnik was a Russian Psychologist and Psychiatrist who made the observation that things that are interrupted or incomplete in our minds tend to keep re-occurring to us until they are completed. This seems to happen with gear that we have sold before we were really done with it! I have this issue with certain pieces of gear myself, so I can identify with what I think is going on, here. For example, I used to own a 120mm Makro-Planar for my Hasselblad. Not having much desire to shoot close-ups with the Hasselblad, and finding it a bit too soft at distance, I sold it. A few years later I bought another, and sold it. In another few years, I did it all over again. I have the same issue with the Hasselblad SWC and XPAN. I think the incompleteness is that I took a few shots I really liked with each of these, and really enjoyed using them at the time, and have pleasant memories of it; so I may be looking to recapture those experiences.

Try doing a little self-analysis a see what happens!

I agree 100%. The Leica M thing is "incomplete" for me. I loved to use them, I have very strong positive memories of them. Years ago, I was a very different person than now. I worked as a pro for some years, then realized that going pro destroyed my great passion and hobby. I started to hate the idea of taking photos and I took over 4 year break from photography. When I started again, I noticed that I took 95% vertical pictures, when previously 95% were horizontal. Also, I used to be obsessed with taking photos of people. Nowadays I am interested in shooting whatever branches, bushes, curtains etc 😀 That lead me to think that maybe this time the film M and I get along just perfectly!

I was offered that fantastic condition M4-P. That would have the better viewfinder accuracy...

 

[jsrockit]

I was offered that fantastic condition M4-P. That would have the better viewfinder accuracy...

Just buy it and get it over with... and resell it if it doesn't work out.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A Barnack with the SBOOI is ridiculously fun to shoot and reduces parallax somewhat since it is centered over the lens. Two eyes works fantastic this way since there is no camera blocking the view at all and you have full peripheral vision with both eyes.

I don't know of a single SLR that has a 1:1 viewfinder magnification. The closest I know of is the Pentax MX with .97x magnification. Two eyes with a SLR never works for me due to the viewfinder position (body is blocking eyes somewhat) and my brain not being able to adapt to seeing the view from two positions vertically, not horizontally.

Shawn

I have tried cheapo Nikon mechanical SLRs like FG-20 and I forgot how is it called, it was old world sexism, designated for woman camera. They were better than M3 with 50mm lens. Even Nikkormat with old 50 1.4 is great for both eyes open.

 

[shawn]

I have tried cheapo Nikon mechanical SLRs like FG-20 and I forgot how is it called, it was old world sexism, designated for woman camera. They were better than M3 with 50mm lens. Even Nikkormat with old 50 1.4 is great for both eyes open.

The FG20s viewfinder magnification is lower than the M3. 0.86 vs 0.91. The Nikon covers 92% of the captured FoV. Don't know the specs for the Nikkormat. For 100% FOV coverage you would need one of the F series which had lower magnification still. About 0.80 for the F,F2 and F3 and about 0.75x for the F3HP. With them it I have both eyes open my brain is only using one eye, not blending both as it does with the M3, Konica IIIa, Kontur or SBOOI.

Shawn

 

[Doug A]

With an SLR the viewfinder coverage and the viewfinder magnification are completely independent. The viewfinder coverage is just how much of the image captured by the negative (or sensor) is visible in the viewfinder. The viewfinder magnification is the ratio of the size of the subject seen through the viewfinder with the size of the same subject seen with the naked eye. With my Nikon F the viewfinder magnification is somewhat less than 1:1 with a 50mm lens, somewhat more than 1:1 with a 58mm lens, and roughly 2:1 with a 105mm lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The FG20s viewfinder magnification is lower than the M3. 0.86 vs 0.91. The Nikon covers 92% of the captured FoV. Don't know the specs for the Nikkormat. For 100% FOV coverage you would need one of the F series which had lower magnification still. About 0.80 for the F,F2 and F3 and about 0.75x for the F3HP. With them it I have both eyes open my brain is only using one eye, not blending both as it does with the M3, Konica IIIa, Kontur or SBOOI.

Shawn

Every eyes and brains are different. I have consistent, more pleasing experience with SLRs and 50 than with M3.
But SBOOI is the best.

 

[K3N]

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?

the Leica M or rangefinder experience is still the best in my opinion to enjoy the craft of photography using manual setting of focus, aperture, shutter values and manual film advance,

If you compose through an SLR viewfinder and with a 50mm/F1.8, you can only ever compose after focussing as you are seeing the shallow depth of field of the 50mm f1.8 on the ground glass, it is also much easier to manual focus an RF patch instead of split microprism, if you use a slower lens or stop down the viewfinder in an SLR gets dim

The M framelines move slightly for parallax correction, any other slight inaccuracy in framing is not so important now that film images get scanned and can be cropped

 

[shawn]

Happened to be using a Nikon 85mm f1.4d on the 50R today and if you want to shoot with both eyes on the GFX the 85mm is basically the perfect focal length for it. The EVF was just about exactly life size.

Shawn

 

[oldwino]

it is also much easier to manual focus an RF patch instead of split microprism, if you use a slower lens or stop down the viewfinder in an SLR gets dim

Um, they fixed that stopping down problem in the 1970s.

 

[raydm6]

Agree on the SBOOI. I own two later versions with the mount mount/unmount side serrations. They are going for ridiculous money now on the bay. ~$250 and higher for mint examples although deals can be found. Crazy! But they are nice 🙂