hrryxgg
Established
hello all:
i have had an m6 for a few years. i have recently been playing with an m7 that is on loan to me. i am not sure i am 100% convinced that the AE is helpful, but it can make you faster, and i like the odd shutter speeds the m7 has when used in AE mode.
does the ikon have similar ones?
do people think this would be a nice addition to an m6 user?
any thoughts appreciated!
i have had an m6 for a few years. i have recently been playing with an m7 that is on loan to me. i am not sure i am 100% convinced that the AE is helpful, but it can make you faster, and i like the odd shutter speeds the m7 has when used in AE mode.
does the ikon have similar ones?
do people think this would be a nice addition to an m6 user?
any thoughts appreciated!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Short answer:
No.
Longer answer:
Why? Especially, why do you want fractional shutter speeds if you're shooting negative? And mostly, I find manual exposure faster and invariably more accurate. Practise!
Cheers,
R.
No.
Longer answer:
Why? Especially, why do you want fractional shutter speeds if you're shooting negative? And mostly, I find manual exposure faster and invariably more accurate. Practise!
Cheers,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
I started with an M6, moved later to the M7 (which I like) and then bought a Zeiss Ikon.
I am hooked on the Zeiss. Still own the M7 and M6 though I hardly ever use them any longer. The Zeiss (and a couple old Contax bodies) handle 90% of my rangefinder work.
To answer you question, the Zeiss does have stepless shutter speeds when on Auto Exposure similar to the M7.
As for whether you should buy one for yourself? Only you can answer that. As you can tell it has become my primary rangefinder but it is not an M7. It is very similar but there are many features that are subtly, or not so subtly, different. Some people love the Zeiss, but others find they must have the M7 and it is not possible for any of us to tell which camp you will fall into.
I am hooked on the Zeiss. Still own the M7 and M6 though I hardly ever use them any longer. The Zeiss (and a couple old Contax bodies) handle 90% of my rangefinder work.
To answer you question, the Zeiss does have stepless shutter speeds when on Auto Exposure similar to the M7.
As for whether you should buy one for yourself? Only you can answer that. As you can tell it has become my primary rangefinder but it is not an M7. It is very similar but there are many features that are subtly, or not so subtly, different. Some people love the Zeiss, but others find they must have the M7 and it is not possible for any of us to tell which camp you will fall into.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I only respond from the point of view of handling the Zeiss Ikon: it didn't appeal to me as much as any Leica M does. I prefer the softer contour of the Leica M body design. The Zeiss Ikon's viewfinder is very nice, however.
G
G
Pioneer
Veteran
While I do agree with Roger that working in manual is usually far better, auto exposure can be handy as well at times.
And to clarify, though the electronic shutter in the ZI is not completely stepless, it is choosing a true shutter speed that can vary by 1/12th between whole shutter speeds. However, what you see in the viewfinder will be a whole shutter speed since that is all the ZI can show.
My M7, on the other hand, seems to show the actual shutter speed in the viewfinder to the nearest half speed.
And to clarify, though the electronic shutter in the ZI is not completely stepless, it is choosing a true shutter speed that can vary by 1/12th between whole shutter speeds. However, what you see in the viewfinder will be a whole shutter speed since that is all the ZI can show.
My M7, on the other hand, seems to show the actual shutter speed in the viewfinder to the nearest half speed.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
How different are these two bodies in handling and ergonomics (say, direction you turn the focusing and aperture rings, shutterspeed dial, ease to advance the film)? If you can switch easily between both, then go ahead.
ramosa
B&W
If you're a film user, there's nothing better (IMO) than an M6. The size and ergonomics are unsurpassed. It has everything any film photographer would ever need. (I only gave mine up because I'm "digital-leaning.")
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Should you be itching for a new body, why don't give the M6TTL a try? Only thing: no AE, but otherwise, better than the M6 in ergonomics thanks to the nice, large shutterspeed selector dial.
hrryxgg
Established
thanks so far, folks.
pioneer: why is AE handy at times? i guess what i am asking is why do you prefer using it? or when do you prefer using it?
perhaps manual should be enough for me?
really curious!
thanks ever so much....
pioneer: why is AE handy at times? i guess what i am asking is why do you prefer using it? or when do you prefer using it?
perhaps manual should be enough for me?
really curious!
thanks ever so much....
Pioneer
Veteran
Ok. I know that everyone else on this forum shoots great artistic pictures all the time but I am a bit more plebian. I will actually snapshoot, sometimes a lot. In my humble opinion there is not a thing wrong with using auto exposure for a lot of photography.
First, when I am grabbing shots of the grandkids playing in the backyard, sledding down the hill, or opening Christmas presents, I use AE most of the time.
Second, when I am taking some time off with the wife and we are traveling I will often use AE when taking the everyday snapshots of the sights.
Third, though I am not really a street shooter I will occasionally go downtown and sit outside one of the casinos sipping a tall cool beer. A favorite past time while doing that is to grab shots of people walking up and down the streets.
To be completely truthful I often use manual exposure while doing this as well since the actual exposure doesn't usually change that much in normal light. But the auto exposure on the ZI is very good so I am rarely disappointed with what I get back.
Remember though, you are handing exposure control to your camera, you do need to understand what is going on and take back control when in a situation where manual may get you a better picture. To me, using auto exposure is not walking around with your brain shut off and mindlessly pressing the shutter. If a shutter speed pops up in your viewfinder that makes no sense, it probably doesn't make sense. Like Roger so succinctly put it earlier, you do need to know how to use manual exposure or you are at the mercy of your camera. But, if you understand what is going on, it is one more tool that is handy to have around.
gilgsn
Established
Why replace a 35mm film rangefinder by another 35mm film rangefinder that does exactly the same thing? AE isn't important enough in my opinion to warrant a change. I use an M4-P with no meter and simply measure the light every 15 mins or so when walking on the street. If I see small changes in the light it's easy to open up or close down one stop.. Want to be fast? Ignore the meter in the M6. You should have the light measured beforehand.. Get used to one film.. Outside, it's always the same during the day.. You get used to it very quickly. Looking at the shadow lines it's easy to estimate. Only when the sun goes down does it become trickier.
I would switch to the M7 from an M6 maybe, but not from an M6 to an Ikon...
Gil.
I would switch to the M7 from an M6 maybe, but not from an M6 to an Ikon...
Gil.
Faster is not helpful?
The Zeiss Ikon is an excellent camera. It has an excellent finder with a long base length, stepless shutter speeds up to 1/2000, and a metal shutter curtain you don't have to worry about burning a hole in. What's not to like? I'd take a Zeiss Ikon over an M7 any day (I sold my M7s and bought my Zeiss Ikon back!).
FYI one just popped up in the classifieds here for a very decent price.
umcelinho
Marcelo
the ZI shutter sound is considerably louder than a Leica's.
considering this, I suggest you take a look on the Hexar RF also. the shutter sound is more electronic, for a lack of a proper adjective, sounds like a camera to most people while a ZI or Leica would make an "odd" sound.
but it has a few advantages if you want to snapshoot: no advance lever needed, has continous mode, goes up to 1/4000... the finder is perfect for 35mm lenses, 50mm tops. accurate enough to focus a 50/1.5, even a 50/0.95 if you're careful (or, well, get a magnifier).
but i also would say "practice estimating exposure", because it is in fact the best method. you will learn how to feel the light and adjust aperture and speed accordingly without even looking at the camera. and consider an important factor: having autoexposure does not mean pictures will come out properly exposed or exposed as you want them to be exposed. not always you'll be quick to set a +1EV or -1EV while trying to get a shot.
considering this, I suggest you take a look on the Hexar RF also. the shutter sound is more electronic, for a lack of a proper adjective, sounds like a camera to most people while a ZI or Leica would make an "odd" sound.
but it has a few advantages if you want to snapshoot: no advance lever needed, has continous mode, goes up to 1/4000... the finder is perfect for 35mm lenses, 50mm tops. accurate enough to focus a 50/1.5, even a 50/0.95 if you're careful (or, well, get a magnifier).
but i also would say "practice estimating exposure", because it is in fact the best method. you will learn how to feel the light and adjust aperture and speed accordingly without even looking at the camera. and consider an important factor: having autoexposure does not mean pictures will come out properly exposed or exposed as you want them to be exposed. not always you'll be quick to set a +1EV or -1EV while trying to get a shot.
Not really. I was standing right next to a friend in downtown Athens, Greece as we both took photos through a barber shop window. Me with my Zeiss Ikon and him with his Leica M4 (I think). He had previously owned a Zeiss Ikon and sold it because he thought the shutter was loud. When he heard my Zeiss Ikon fire he commented that it was nowhere near as loud as he remembered, and certainly not intrusive or obvious.
When holding a Zeiss Ikon to your eye and firing the shutter, yeah its louder. But holding the camera at hands length and firing the shutter, hardly any difference at all.
Pioneer
Veteran
Since I have never shot a camera inside a courtroom, or in church during mass, shutter noise is not that big of a thing. My M7 and M6TTL are certainly very soft but my Ansco Super Memar is almost silent, as is my Ansco Super Regent. And my Fuji GF670 can hardly be heard at all, even when you are listening for it in a very quiet room. I have any number of very old folding cameras that will make your Leica shutter sound like a thunderclap in comparison.
I think if a quiet shutter was truly important on a 35mm camera then I would use my Super Memar before I used any of my Leicas. And it has the obvious advantage of synching with flash at all shutter speeds allowing me to implement flash fill the way it was actually intended.
I think if a quiet shutter was truly important on a 35mm camera then I would use my Super Memar before I used any of my Leicas. And it has the obvious advantage of synching with flash at all shutter speeds allowing me to implement flash fill the way it was actually intended.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
got both M4-P and ZI - finding myself not to use the ZI any more. but that's only me, the ZI is a wonderful camera by itself. hey, i should praise it more, since i might want to sell it
sebastian
sebastian
aizan
Veteran
instead of adding a zi to your m6, i would sell the m6 and buy an m7. you'd spend less money and keep the clutter from proliferating.
mfogiel
Veteran
OK, here we come again.
First question- what do you want to shoot really? Roger claims AE is redundant, because he can shoot faster without it - it is both false and true - false, because there is no way you can adjust the exposure as fast as an electronic circuit does, true, because if you shoot in the same light, and expose ON THE BASIS OF THE LIGHT, it will be more tonally accurate, than adjusting the exposure to the brightness of your subject, BUT, it will be the same, if you shoot with a meterless camera and use a hand held incident meter, which is what I prefer to do when NOT using an AE camera.
If you want to shoot in a not so fast changing light of medium to good intensity, I do not see any major advantage in using ZI over an M6.
ZI wins hands down however IF:
- you use predominantly a fast 35mm lens in medium to dim light
- you shoot a lot in narrow streets with harsh lighting, where bright and dim surroundings change briskly as you follow your subjects
- you often use 28mm FL
- you like to shoot with the Noctilux ( it has a more accurate RF)
If you want to see what can change when you have in hand a very responsive camera, get a Nikon F100 with a 35 or 50mm lens, and go out in the street shooting on autofocus and AE - this is the fastest game in town short of zone shooting from the hip with an AE rangefinger - I like to do that with Bessa R4A and Zeiss 25/2.8:
20137703 by mfogiel, on Flickr
First question- what do you want to shoot really? Roger claims AE is redundant, because he can shoot faster without it - it is both false and true - false, because there is no way you can adjust the exposure as fast as an electronic circuit does, true, because if you shoot in the same light, and expose ON THE BASIS OF THE LIGHT, it will be more tonally accurate, than adjusting the exposure to the brightness of your subject, BUT, it will be the same, if you shoot with a meterless camera and use a hand held incident meter, which is what I prefer to do when NOT using an AE camera.
If you want to shoot in a not so fast changing light of medium to good intensity, I do not see any major advantage in using ZI over an M6.
ZI wins hands down however IF:
- you use predominantly a fast 35mm lens in medium to dim light
- you shoot a lot in narrow streets with harsh lighting, where bright and dim surroundings change briskly as you follow your subjects
- you often use 28mm FL
- you like to shoot with the Noctilux ( it has a more accurate RF)
If you want to see what can change when you have in hand a very responsive camera, get a Nikon F100 with a 35 or 50mm lens, and go out in the street shooting on autofocus and AE - this is the fastest game in town short of zone shooting from the hip with an AE rangefinger - I like to do that with Bessa R4A and Zeiss 25/2.8:
20137703 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Perhaps I should clarify what I wrote earlier. First I said, "mostly, I find manual exposure faster and invariably more accurate". Obviously, it's only "invariably more accurate" if you have time to use it.
Second, I was referring to negative film: "if you're shooting negative". Slide film is different. You need more precision, and exposures are keyed to the highlights, not the shadows as they are with negative.
With negative film, exposure is very much a matter of opinion. Over-exposure changes the tonality (generally in a way that people prefer) and reduces sharpness while increasing grain size (with conventional B+W). Very slight underexposure will give higher sharpness, at the expense of tonality, but any more than slight underexposure will cause image quality to fall off a cliff. That's how negative film speeds are determined, after all: by the minimum you can give.
For a hand-held shot the loss of sharpness from over-exposure will normally be far less than the loss from camera shake and not using the optimum aperture. Normally you'll have plenty of time for metering if you're using a tripod.
With grain and sharpness, therefore, the penalties for even a stop of over-exposure are normally trivial, and 1/2 stop really is negligible. With 1/2 stop rests, you can never be further than 1/4 stop from optimum exposure, if you know what exposure you want and how to meter for it. There is absolutely no point in reducing this to 1/6 stop difference (achieved via 1/3 stop rests) with negative film: the variations in exposure are within experimental error, given any normal metering technique and through-lens metering. With auto-exposure, variations are well within experimental error: if you get the ideal exposure within 1/2 stop you'll be doing well.
In other words, shooting intermediate shutter speeds, when shooting negative [film] is presupposing more precision than exists or is needed in the system -- especially on auto exposure.
Finally, most (I believe, all) M-series Leicas will in any case give you intermediate speeds if you set the shutter speed dial between numbers.
At this point, the main distinguishing technical points of a ZI (disregarding "feel", noise, ergonomics, meter readouts and durability) are AE and battery dependency. The choice is then one of priorities.
Cheers,
R.
Second, I was referring to negative film: "if you're shooting negative". Slide film is different. You need more precision, and exposures are keyed to the highlights, not the shadows as they are with negative.
With negative film, exposure is very much a matter of opinion. Over-exposure changes the tonality (generally in a way that people prefer) and reduces sharpness while increasing grain size (with conventional B+W). Very slight underexposure will give higher sharpness, at the expense of tonality, but any more than slight underexposure will cause image quality to fall off a cliff. That's how negative film speeds are determined, after all: by the minimum you can give.
For a hand-held shot the loss of sharpness from over-exposure will normally be far less than the loss from camera shake and not using the optimum aperture. Normally you'll have plenty of time for metering if you're using a tripod.
With grain and sharpness, therefore, the penalties for even a stop of over-exposure are normally trivial, and 1/2 stop really is negligible. With 1/2 stop rests, you can never be further than 1/4 stop from optimum exposure, if you know what exposure you want and how to meter for it. There is absolutely no point in reducing this to 1/6 stop difference (achieved via 1/3 stop rests) with negative film: the variations in exposure are within experimental error, given any normal metering technique and through-lens metering. With auto-exposure, variations are well within experimental error: if you get the ideal exposure within 1/2 stop you'll be doing well.
In other words, shooting intermediate shutter speeds, when shooting negative [film] is presupposing more precision than exists or is needed in the system -- especially on auto exposure.
Finally, most (I believe, all) M-series Leicas will in any case give you intermediate speeds if you set the shutter speed dial between numbers.
At this point, the main distinguishing technical points of a ZI (disregarding "feel", noise, ergonomics, meter readouts and durability) are AE and battery dependency. The choice is then one of priorities.
Cheers,
R.
elshaneo
Panographer
Just go for it, Life is too short, enjoy yourself whenever you can. At worst, if you don't like it, you can sell it back and lose very little in the process!