Am I wasteing my time using my M6 hand held

[Avotius]

if you are going to use the camera on a tripod might I suggest a Hasselblad or Linhof?

 

[Rico]

Are we allowed to mention the fun factor? I have cameras to handle a range of situations, but the classic Leica M is pure joy to use. LF and MF win the resolution contest, and a Canon DSLR like the 5D can practically see in the dark (ASA 3200). The M takes the kind of picture we know, and that is the reward. 🙂

I do play games with flat surfaces to get the shutter speed down, so a bean bag is tempting. If tripods are part of the equation, I might as well haul out the Contax RTS III and a trunk of CZ glass.

 

[Xmas]

If you are making 2x3 foot enlargements to review with a loope then you will need Kchrome25 or microfilm, and a sturdy concret block as a 'tripod'.

Puttsy is merely trying to say the lens will be better than your technique.

You will need to think about holding steady if you have an asph and are wide open. Otherwise you may as well buy a CV lens. leicas (any 35mm cams) were about hand held instant shots, HCB and Capa masters of their art in this.

If you are taking weddings you may need a medium format/tripod for the formal shots and a M7 for the candids, dust and spots would be as critical on the medium, but there wont be any spontenuaty with the medium.

The M8 sensor wont be as 'good' as the microfilm or K25, even ignoring the purple blacks, but it is quicker if you have to e-mail a photo for press, K25 is slow turn around that is why it is extinct.

Noel

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Xmas]

Magus

You will recall Capa's D day landing shot, you can see the fingerprints on this?

Noel

 

[markinlondon]

I think the most distinctive fingerprint on those shots was from the drying cabinet 🙂

BTW, "Puttsy" 😀

 

[rolo]

leicas (any 35mm cams) were about hand held instant shots, HCB and Capa masters of their art in this.

Hope you're not making that up.

So, it doesn't matter whether the tripod socket is in the centre or not ?

Tell me then, a Leica doesn't need f11 onwards, can't use K25, isn't suitable for low light, doesn't need beyond 1/8th second ? Leica could reduce the price substantially with your philosophy.

All these considered images I've been taking for all these years ...... wasted. I've been using it for more than 'snaps', god knows why. Is that what a Leica is for, 'snaps'. Hand held only for me from now on.

Is there a setting on the speed dial for 'instant" ?

 

[Xmas]

rolo

There is no instant...

In early 30's the film was slower, the grain like confetti, the lenses uncoated, the glass low refractive index, if you wanted to enlarge big you had real problems, below f5.6 even the Zeiss lenses had edge problems.

The 35mm did have depth of field and HCB and Capa could use fast film, prefocus, set f11 & /250 and shoot instinctive point, like Capa's 'Death of a revolutionary', they could wind on PDQ, HCB was (reportedly) seen to use the index finger post technique, with his IIIC

35mm slowly buried roll film for reportage, for the speed/convenience.

The Hindenbury shots I've seen were still 5x4 speed graphic style, - I think.

Only one minature (ContaxII) was used by fleet street when HMS Sheffield limped back badly battle damaged Dec'39.

You can get 3rd party cradles for a central/end tripod mount.

The modern lens will need tripod/monopod (and k25 or microfilm) to show just how good they are. Sometimes I carry a monopod with my ContaxII/Kiev. You can tell the H25 is better even hand held, people use the fujichrome as it is faster turn around.

Dont know about the M8...

Noel

 

[RML]

Are we allowed to mention the fun factor? I have cameras to handle a range of situations, but the classic Leica M is pure joy to use.

I'll be hanged for this but... I'm selling my M2 because I hate the camera. It's a fine camera, no doubt, but when it comes to usability for me it sucks rotten eggs.

 

[kevin m]

Having said that, however, the fingerprints of the Leitz / Leica and the CV lenses are worlds apart...

You persist in using language like this, yet offer no evidence. If, as you say, the difference is so strong as "worlds apart" then anyone should be able to see it, right?
And if only YOU can see the difference, then what you say doesn't apply to other people, correct?

I own CV and Leica glass, and I worked in a camera rental house, manning the lens collimator, and I don't know what you mean by your choice of words.

 

[x-ray]

You persist in using language like this, yet offer no evidence. If, as you say, the difference is so strong as "worlds apart" then anyone should be able to see it, right?
And if only YOU can see the difference, then what you say doesn't apply to other people, correct?

I don't think those worlds are in this universe. The differences in modern CV, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and leica glass are very slight if any. Most differences are in the mind of the shooter not the lenses.

I look back at thousands of negatives (B&W) shot over 40 years with leica, Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Minolta lenses from vintage to new and can only tell in a few megatives which were shot with what. If I didn't know what equipment I was shooting at the time i would not know that they had been shot with different equipment.

 

[rolo]

rolo

There is no instant...

Dont know about the M8...

Noel

hey Noel,

I'm not suggesting that the M isn't ideal for wide aperture, fast film, hand held shooting, because I think the opposite. It is the best tool available for documentary work and in B&W the output is superb.

However, within the constraints of 35mm film enlargement it is also good for other applications - landscapes, formal portraits where a slower approach is needed. As a consequence, it is one fabulous all-round camera.

Are there better cameras for these applications - sure, but it's not always feasible to carry an LF kit about. My LF pack weighs 30 lbs and is stored in a LowePro Super Trekker; so I take the MP on biking trips in Europe and do what I can to max IQ.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Xmas]

Rolo

We agree with one another, but the original post was about should he use a MF/LF.

Answer yes if he can. Leicia M7 good for fast changing action e.g. at weddings but M8 cheaper and even more convenient, although lower quality.

35mm has always been about fast changing action, only today the lenses will need tripod and microfilm/K25 to see their limitatons.

Technology has moved on from 30s, and K25 is a thing of the past...

Noel

 

[rolo]

Rolo

We agree with one another, but the original post was about should he use a MF/LF.

Answer yes if he can. Leicia M7 good for fast changing action e.g. at weddings but M8 cheaper and even more convenient, although lower quality.

35mm has always been about fast changing action, only today the lenses will need tripod and microfilm/K25 to see their limitatons.

Technology has moved on from 30s, and K25 is a thing of the past...

Noel

That's good.

I read some of the threads and get the impression that some would restrict the M's to hand held if they could.

I use the MP & M3 for weddings and shoot say 12 rolls of film at each, perhaps 4x a month. So I know what it's like to gently exhale whilst shooting 800 asa film at 1/8 second with my Summilux wide open.

Equally, I use the MP for landscapes with slow film, sometimes after dusk. For small prints, the M's do a great job. My Mamiya 7 will do a better job, it just needs to be on the tripod earlier in the day.

 

[sf]

I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.

Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.

I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.

To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.

Ha ha. The soul of RF photography has nothing to do with tripods. Of course they help control camera shake, but if you are going in that direction, you might as well buy into medium format. 35mm RF is about small, inconspicuous shooting tools.

Buy the Mamiya 7 series for sure. Actually, if I was going to do only landscapes and only on tripods, I would go back to 4x5.

 

[Xmas]

Rolo

I've a third party crate (central tripod mount) and always try and carry monopod, alas frequently i have to brace against a wall or hang on to a lamp post. I'll go down to 1/8 sec but subject movement is normally too extreme, e.g. ten out of ten rejects.

The RB67 or TLR just too too heavy other than in a car (auto) boot (trunk).

None of my leitz lenses are modern high performance asphs, youngest is '77. Putsy's comments and graphs are not good for my optics, his views are resonable, I wont go larger than f4 unless the speed blur is going to mask the softness off axis.

Noel

 

[sf]

Rolo

[...]

Putsy's comments and graphs are not good for my optics, his views are resonable, I wont go larger than f4 unless the speed blur is going to mask the softness off axis.

Noel

very unusual use of words there. Just a very unique use of English.

 

[sf]

hey Noel,

I'm not suggesting that the M isn't ideal for wide aperture, fast film, hand held shooting, because I think the opposite. It is the best tool available for documentary work and in B&W the output is superb.

However, within the constraints of 35mm film enlargement it is also good for other applications - landscapes, formal portraits where a slower approach is needed. As a consequence, it is one fabulous all-round camera.

Are there better cameras for these applications - sure, but it's not always feasible to carry an LF kit about. My LF pack weighs 30 lbs and is stored in a LowePro Super Trekker; so I take the MP on biking trips in Europe and do what I can to max IQ.

Just wanted to clear that up.

I have never found an instance where 6x4.5 format negs have produced less than adequate detail. Of course, I've never once enlarged beyond 13x19. I have owned two 4x5 cameras in the past, and really I wouldn't go back to 4x5 again. I might buy a Fuji 6x9 camera before I would go back to large format.

As far as the best tool for journalistic photography, for hand helds, and all that, I would also say that going with something like a Mamiya 6 or Bronica RF645 or Plaubel Makina would be a fine choice. The RF645 is only marginally larger than a Leica, but the format offers a great deal of useful square centimeters - and having aperture priority is a great thing.

 

[Photog9001]

i didn't read the whole thread, so maybe what i'm about to add is already here,..
here goes anyway..

I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.

magazines and the internet aren't excactly the most reliable sources, for anything, really. especially something that one has to figure out for him/herself.

Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.

i can't comment on this, gave up reading his site years ago. namely because of what i just said above.

I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.

which puts you in the same position as probably 99% of leica owners, you need to be one seriously talented, experienced etc. photographer to "need" a leica, quality wise. otoh, and this i understand quite well, it is a true joy to work with.

To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.

of course. and give you much "better" photos too,... ehh, at least as far as sharpness, resolution and smooth tonality go. then, my excellent results, and your excellent results might consist of many very different things. for example, i can't stand barrel distortion in certain kinds of shots, which should take me to the mamyia 7 system, you might not give a damn. otoh i don't mind a bit of grain every now and then, and you might hate it... so, why should you listen to me ,-) which is my point, no one can tell you, internet publications or magazines, net forums, me, the guy/girl who replied before me.... (but i'd find it strange, to - on the quest for the ultimate photographic quality - begin to use a tripod, .... with a 35mm camera. leica or not)

 

[tkluck]

Sharpness is only *one* element in the quality "look" of a photo, yet somehow we keep coming back to it as the only element. Indeed if sharpness is the primary concern, then slow film + tripod + optimal aperture = greatness and you might as well shoot 4x5.

/QUOTE]

An awful lot of "street photography" was done with 4x5. Big negative and fast film. That's where the "speed" in Speed Graphic came from.
A great deal of "street imaging" was and is done with charcoal for that matter. (here we get into the charcoal vs. pencil argument)
Street photography means you go out of the cave with a skin and a burnt stick and capture a moment. (alright, "trail photography" since streets weren't invented for another 10,000 years)
Perhaps not the same as candid photography in a smoky saloon?