rolfe
Well-known
With regard to viewfinders, I suspect almost anything is possible.
Some years ago, I picked up an MDa which I thought I'd use exclusively with a Voigtlander 15mm. I didn't really use it that way, and it sat in the shelf. So I asked Sherry if she could combine it with an M3 if I found an appropriate donor camera -- which I did. So she took my MDa, the viewfinder from a basket-case M3, and an M4 shell which she had on hand and made me a new Franken-Leica. This is now basically an M4 with an M3 finder (with the MDa innards), which is one of my favorite cameras.
To this I would only add that about five years ago I had my M6 classic "upgraded" by DAG with the MP finder "upgrade" and, to be honest, I don't see any difference. I've used M cameras for close to 40 years and I have never had the "finder flaring" that only seems to have come to light in the Internet era. I have two M6TTL cameras that have not been "upgraded" with the MP mod and I can't see any difference between them and the M6 that has had the "upgrade".
As always, YMMV, but I think the whole MP finder upgrade finder thing is vastly overblown.
Some years ago, I picked up an MDa which I thought I'd use exclusively with a Voigtlander 15mm. I didn't really use it that way, and it sat in the shelf. So I asked Sherry if she could combine it with an M3 if I found an appropriate donor camera -- which I did. So she took my MDa, the viewfinder from a basket-case M3, and an M4 shell which she had on hand and made me a new Franken-Leica. This is now basically an M4 with an M3 finder (with the MDa innards), which is one of my favorite cameras.
To this I would only add that about five years ago I had my M6 classic "upgraded" by DAG with the MP finder "upgrade" and, to be honest, I don't see any difference. I've used M cameras for close to 40 years and I have never had the "finder flaring" that only seems to have come to light in the Internet era. I have two M6TTL cameras that have not been "upgraded" with the MP mod and I can't see any difference between them and the M6 that has had the "upgrade".
As always, YMMV, but I think the whole MP finder upgrade finder thing is vastly overblown.
Livesteamer
Well-known
The only M body I bought new is an M6 .85 which did flare badly at times. Some years ago Sherry upgraded it for me and it made a big difference. I have two early M6 .72 bodies and have never felt a need to upgrade those finders. I think it is just the early .85 finders that need the MP upgrade. Joe
mfogiel
Veteran
If the scope of the gear threads is to understand the pros and cons of various pieces of equipment, then I do not find it strange, that one would express an opinion relative to what is better than something else for a given purpose. People are splitting hairs among various 35mm or 50mm lenses, but at times they forget, that other factors can make a bigger difference to the end result.
Therefore, I do not hesitate to express my opinions, based on extensive use of various cameras for various purposes.
Among these opinions, there is one regarding use of the rangefinders with lenses longer than 50mm - it can certainly be done, and I have shot 135mm lenses as well, but it is obvious to anyone caring about seeing the subject, that an SLR is better suited for the task.
Similarly, people have shot the street with various cameras, beginning with Atget, who had to expose his wooden boxes for sevaral minutes on a tripod. I dare say, that an AE rangefinder fits much better the bill, and (heresy) for certain types of street shooting, I even find an autofocus SLR more efficient, although it has some drawbacks relating to the ease of framing the subject.
HCB has made some of the most beautiful photos with meterless bodies, but if he started today, he would have most likely used AE as well.
I find the non AE metered cameras to be the worst possible tool for fast photography, because they make you fiddle with the exposure too long - if you shoot meterless, you know you have no choice, but hope that you guess it right, and if you shoot AE, you hope your camera gets it right: in both cases you concentrate on the subject and not on twisting f stop and shutter speed rings.
It is true, that you can win a war with arches and swords, but modern aviation will do it more efficiently.
Therefore, I do not hesitate to express my opinions, based on extensive use of various cameras for various purposes.
Among these opinions, there is one regarding use of the rangefinders with lenses longer than 50mm - it can certainly be done, and I have shot 135mm lenses as well, but it is obvious to anyone caring about seeing the subject, that an SLR is better suited for the task.
Similarly, people have shot the street with various cameras, beginning with Atget, who had to expose his wooden boxes for sevaral minutes on a tripod. I dare say, that an AE rangefinder fits much better the bill, and (heresy) for certain types of street shooting, I even find an autofocus SLR more efficient, although it has some drawbacks relating to the ease of framing the subject.
HCB has made some of the most beautiful photos with meterless bodies, but if he started today, he would have most likely used AE as well.
I find the non AE metered cameras to be the worst possible tool for fast photography, because they make you fiddle with the exposure too long - if you shoot meterless, you know you have no choice, but hope that you guess it right, and if you shoot AE, you hope your camera gets it right: in both cases you concentrate on the subject and not on twisting f stop and shutter speed rings.
It is true, that you can win a war with arches and swords, but modern aviation will do it more efficiently.
leicapixie
Well-known
i agree with mfolgel.
my favorite SLR, yes! i have those also, are the ones with AE.
makes life easier, as good as or better than matrix.
way less expensive, two SLR's were free.
add a prescription lens seems easy.
when i shoot meterless, i find i better appreciate the nuances of light and have better exposures...
my favorite SLR, yes! i have those also, are the ones with AE.
makes life easier, as good as or better than matrix.
way less expensive, two SLR's were free.
add a prescription lens seems easy.
when i shoot meterless, i find i better appreciate the nuances of light and have better exposures...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Para 1 highlight: Very true
Para 2: Others have come to different conclusions, also based on extensive use of various cameras for various purposes.
Para 3 highlight: No, not obvious, and not to everyone. You are stating a highly disputable opinion as if it were fact. Accept that it isn't.
Remainder: At the risk of appearing as cocksure as your good self, I'd say that for those who know how to focus and expose, manual settings are quicker and more predictable than abdicating responsibility to the camera. Yes, you'll lose some pictures whichever approach you use. You are firmly convinced that you lose fewer doing it your way. I am firmly convinced that I lose fewer doing it my way. The big difference between us is that I don't pretend that I am the only one who is right. Nor do I pretend that anyone who disagrees with me is unable to think clearly.
Cheers,
R.
Joakim Målare
Established
I beg to differ - it depends on more than the viewfinder when you wear glasses. The ZI has a great viewfinder, that's why I bought it, but I'm comfortable only in the 50 mm frames. The 35 mm frames are functional for me when I keep my eye in the center, otherwise I can't see all the edges at once. Even when centered there is no space outside the frame.
So seeing the 28 mm frame wearing glasses is impossible for me. This is because my glasses are rigid - they don't allow my eye to be pushed closer to the eyepiece. And, my eyes are fairly deep into my skull (neanderthal-style) which adds more to the distance.
I should add that this is not related to my eyeglass prescription (slightly myopic at -1.5D) and that I have no problem seeing all the frames when glasses are off.
So, again, for me, wearing my glasses, with my specific anatomy, the ZI is the optimal choice for a 50 mm. It is absolutely wonderful with just the right amount of space around the frame.
My M3 is now perfect for a 90 mm lens for the exact same reason.
So what may be true for one person isn't always so for the other.
Have a nice day!
D.J.
-
Joakim Målare
Established
If I was to do street photography, I would shoot for EV12 on a sunny day at an aperture that wouldn't require focusing, with the appropriate shutter speed for the chosen film. That leaves only framing and the shutter to be released at the critical time. Oh, and not standing on the wrong side of the street.
Likely, you don't even need a viewfinder.
Disclaimer: Everything in this post might be wrong.
Likely, you don't even need a viewfinder.
Disclaimer: Everything in this post might be wrong.
gdi
Veteran
Don't confuse disagreeing with your opinion as attempting to silence your opinion. But when your opinion is framed as irrefutable fact, and is in conflict with others' extensive experience, expect a challenge.
Or, perhaps he would have contradicted your opinion; that is just as likely.
It really doesn't take much practice to quickly shoot a non-AE RF if you are simply aware of the lighting conditions prior to swinging the camera to your eye and jabbing the shutter. But it appears much more difficult for some than I had supposed. Also, I wasn't aware that the M7 AE relieved the photographer from "twisting the f stop"; I should read up...
bugmenot
Well-known
Since everybody else is arguing pointless semantics, I shall have to disagree with this statement.
The Leica M1 and MDa are clearly inferior to other Leica M cameras.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, but this is nothing like pointless and quibbling enough. What about the MD (not MDa)? Or fixed-focus Post cameras? Some with 24x27mm format...Since everybody else is arguing pointless semantics, I shall have to disagree with this statement.
The Leica M1 and MDa are clearly inferior to other Leica M cameras.
Cheers,
R.
mfogiel
Veteran
"Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
With all due respect to you, I don't think I'd agree with even half of your diatribe."
I think things have become serious here, and I see no other way of solving the dispute, than over a good bottle of Chianti in my preferred restaurant in Monte Carlo Roger.
This is a standing invitation for Frances and you, if you happen to pass by this part of France... ;-)
With all due respect to you, I don't think I'd agree with even half of your diatribe."
I think things have become serious here, and I see no other way of solving the dispute, than over a good bottle of Chianti in my preferred restaurant in Monte Carlo Roger.
This is a standing invitation for Frances and you, if you happen to pass by this part of France... ;-)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thank'ee kindly. Not been there for years, but...
Then again, Arles is no great distance for you...
Cheers,
R.