Am I wasteing my time using my M6 hand held

R

Robert

Guest
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.
 
Erwin's test aren't the most user oriented tests, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any asa 20 film nowadays.

That said, why not put some iso800 film in your M6 and shoot at night?
Or iso100-iso400 film and shoot during the day?
Try it yourself.

A tripod is sometimes good but for street photography utterly impossible to use swiftly. A monpod would help. And many places don't allow tripods anyway.

If you want tack sharp results go medium format or larger, slap on some Zeiss lenses, use a heavy tripod and slow film. But if you want to do street photography and be able to respond to swiftly changing situations, load some fast 135 film, slap on a 35 or 50mm lens (any brand in M or LTM mount will do), and shoot shoot shoot.
 
Robert,

I think Johne is right to emphasize the low light performance. Handheld shots with HP5 (or TriX or any other ISO 400 film) will produce photos that have a sparkling clarity and contrast - much greater than your very eyes registered at the time. This is where M cameras and their lenses are unrivalled by any other camera and lensmaker.

For instance, the following photo was taken in so dark an environment that what you see in the photo is much more than what I was actually seeing at the time of taking it:
 

Attachments

  • Big cigar 1 RFF.jpg
    Big cigar 1 RFF.jpg
    293.6 KB · Views: 0
Oh, and it sure is NOT blasphemy to shoot colour in a Leica M6! :p
 
telenous said:
This is where M cameras and their lenses are unrivalled by any other camera and lensmaker.
Click to expand...

May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.

And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
 
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.

But in truth you are *not* throwing away qualities of your fine small equipment that you can *see* even with faster film, hand-held, at wide apertures. Further, with the Leica or other fine gear you have the responsiveness to capture spontaneous images and fluid situations where it's the gear of choice.
 
At first I wasn't going to reply, but what the heck: Use the camera any way you feel like it. If you like the results, you're not wasting your time.
Cheers,

Ed
 
RML said:
May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.

And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
Click to expand...

RML, the first bit is as you say. Voigtlanders and ZIs are as capable as M's, for low light. I was thinking of SLRs and medium format cameras, not other rangefinders, when I said the performance of the Ms was unrivalled for low light.

I am a little more opinionated when it comes to lenses and I have formed my preferences by using most of the lenses in question (including the superb Planar 50 ZM). For very low light I find f/1.4 practical - in fact, imperative - and that is what decided the fate of my Planar. And it is within the realm of f/1.4 and slow shutter speeds that I find the current lens offerings from Leica unrivalled, for edge to edge clarity and textural detail.
 
Hand held

Hand held

Hello:

A lens hood and a tripod are the two best investments in "sharpness" after your camera/lens. That said: hand held rf shooting is what Ms are made for and one finds images by serendipity that are different from the deliberate images taken from a tripod IMHO.

Someone will always suggest the deliberate

http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=11704 .

yours
Frank
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're correct, get a MF camera if you're going to be bound to a tripod. Any camera no matter what will give sharper results with a tripod, medium to slow film and a cable release but that's not what 35mm is about whether RF or SLR.

HP-5 is excellent for low light. I'm working on a new photo documentary with religious snake handlers in appalachian churches. Last night I started shooting in the churches. Lighting is terrible with bare tungsten bulgs on the ceiling with very harsh light and small spaces to work. Exposures were 1/60 at F2 to 2.8 on HP-5 pushed to 640 in Acufine. I'm shooting with 2 Leica MP's, M6 and ZI abd flast glass. To me this is what the 35mm is all about not being mounted on a tripod. This isn't to say I don't mount my 35's on a tripod from time to time but generally the tripod is reserved for MF and LF gear.
 
Robert said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure. If you are to take 'sharp pictures' you have to use a tripod. Regardless if you are using medium format or a Leica. If you are going to see the effect of the Most Expensive Optics; Leica optics, in the 135-format market - you have to use a tripod.

We had a discussion earlier here where I asked how often Leica users really used a tripod. Very seldom, was the most frequent answer. Well, then you don't need a Leica.

Medium format will, due to the size of the negative, be some 3,6 times sharper than any Leica negative simply because of the size. Regardless of tripod use or not.
 
RML said:
May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.

And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
Click to expand...

I fully agree. After neraly forty years of profesionall shooting with Leicas and Leitz glass I will say Leica had met it match in Zeiss glass and in some cases Zeiss exceeds Leicas best efforts. I shoot both the 35 Biogon and 25 Biogon and plan to replace my 90 Apo Asph Summicron shortly after the 85 F2 sonnar is available. I use a 90 at close range and the 90 AA is a disaster even compared to my old 90 Elmarit v1. I've been quite disappointed in the close performance of the 90 AA but do like it's distant performance. I still have a big stable of leica glass but Like my Zeiss better and even like my CV 28 Ultron better than any leica 28 that I've owned and find it so close to the 28 summicron that there's no practical difference. I also have a 50 Nokton and 35 Nokton that I feel are superb and selected the 35 Nokton over the 35 summilux asph. The 50 Nokton is very close in performance to my 50 asph summilux but has much better ergonomics than the asph summilux.

Weighing all factors of performance and ergonomics and disregarding price I would select the Zeiss lenses over the Leica glass today with the exception of the 50 asph summilux and 75 summilux (no Zeiss equivalent). CV lenses are so close in performance that figuring price / value / performance I would select some of the CV lenses over either Leica or Zeiss. When it really comes down to the final image on paper the differences are more in your head than on the paper. I even go back and look at my negs and prints and could not tell which images were shot with what if I hadn't shot the images myself.

In addition, if I were starting from scratch buying new RF lenses and bodies I would probably buy ZI bodies and ZM lenses without even considering price. I shoot under very poor lighting frequently and to date have not found a RF camera with aas good a RF / VF as the ZI. There's no question in my mind that it's the best opn the market in that regard.
 
The good thing about rangefinder photography and photography in general is that we have a choice. We can shoot using any type of film.
I use Adox CHS25, Ilford FP4, HP5 and XP2 and various colour films.
If I'm in the mood I shoot using a tripod with Adox 25asa but usually I use HP5 in winter and FP4 in summer.
I enjoy using my rangefinder cameras which are small and easy to carry. Sometimes I try to shoot with too slow a shutter speed wide open with reasonable results, sometimes poor results.
I'm happy with my photos and 35mm isn't that expensive to use.
 
Are you wasting your time - well, if your goal is to get every iota of possible sharpness out of your lenses. Maybe.

If your goal is to get the shot.

No.

And remember - a high quality, effective image doesn't have to be critically sharp. Just sharp enough for your intent and usage.
 
The Leica system is fabulously 'flexible' in its application and it's this that separates it from the rest. It's good in the hand and good on a tripod. There are no rules and it's one helluva camera to use any way you want.

Great fast lenses wide open with exceptional bokeh and with slow film provides fine detail. Use it on a Saturday for hand held wedding photography and then again before sunrise on Sunday with slow film and filters on a tripod for fine detail landscapes.

The limits are in the mind of the user. For each individual application there may be a more suitable format or other essential features, but on balance and within the restrictions of 35mm film stock you cab capture great images.

I used to shoot Agfa 25 at 12 iso as standard and then add a 2 stop orange filter taking the effective speed down to 3 iso. I regularly shoot portraits with Fuji 800.

I have MF and LF as well and when I want ultimate quality and portability is not an issue I'll use those. No limits.
 
I agree with what many of the others have said, especially Ed. If you're happy with your results, you're not wasting your time. Rangefinders are another type of tool and are better at some things, just as a medium format kit is superior in some situations.

The bottom line is that if you're happy with the results, it really doesn't matter what test results are. Your happiness is the result that matters! :)
 
These days when you can pick up complete MF kits for less than £400, I think you have to have pretty good reason not to have one, if you to shoot on a tripod. As to leicas, I equate the system to tuning a car, small advantages here and there add up. Lens quality, no mirror vibration, general stealthiness, and the RF focussing add up incrementally, just as tuning a car to give 5bhp here, 5bhp there, although seemingly insignificant in isolation it can add up to a decisive advantage. One thing to remember though, rangefinders, like medium format, are specialist tools that only really have advantages over SLR's in certain situations. If you don't to some extent adapt your shooting style and even possibly your chosen subject matter to a leica's strengths you won't gain anything over conventional systems.
 
Leica and tripod.

One obvious reason not to associate use of Leica M and SM equipment with a tripod is the odd positioning of the socket for the tripod. Just an observation.
Johne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom