Jouvet
Member
I am new with rangefinders and Leica. But I have used M3 and M7. I think with the M7 it kinda makes me lazy.
Is an M7 signifcantly faster than an M6
- Thread starter haziz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 3K
Harry Lime
Practitioner
It depends.
I have traditional bodies like the M2/M4, but also a M6ttl and the M7. Here is my experience and it really depends on the situation on hand.
If the light is changing and the action is moving quickly the AE is faster.
If you are trying to take an unexpected grab shot and only have time to frame and focus, the AE is faster.
The AE is very accurate, if you know how to use it properly.
If you are walking about and the light is fairly constant, you are better off taking the occasional incident reading with a meter (or following the Sunny-16 rule), setting the camera and just shooting. It's faster and you'll get better, more consistent exposures.
The most annoying feature about the M7 AE is that it only locks the meter reading for ONE shot. Here is an example. Lets say you are shooting someone who is illuminated by a shaft of light in an otherwise rather dark room.
1) You place the RF patch on the subjects face, get the reading and hold the shutter halfway down to lock the exposure speed.
2) Then you reframe.
3) Now you wait and release the shutter at the decisive moment.
4) You may have just created a masterpiece, but you also just lost the locked AE reading.
5) You advance the film.
1) You take a new reading off of the subjects face by hold the shutter halfway down.
2) Reframe.
3) Wait, shoot.
4) Advance film, go back to step one.
This is very, very annoying. It's not too bad if the action is slow. But if you are trying to take consecutive shots in quick succession you will miss opportunities, because are constantly forced to retake the reading. Unless your subject is center in frame, you're going to be bouncing around like you're sitting in a paint mixer.
In this sort of situation I take the M7 out of AE mode and operate it like an M6/TTL/MP.
So, on one hand the AE has some real advantages, but Leica's implementation is a little screwy. There should be a separate AE lock button on the back of the camera for your thumb, so you don't have to take a new reading every time you make a shot in AE mode. The saving grace is that you can obviously run the M7 like a traditional M or in the AE mode.
In any case the M7 has become my workhorse. In conjunction with a Leicavit and fast 35mm the M7 pretty hard to beat.
HL
I have traditional bodies like the M2/M4, but also a M6ttl and the M7. Here is my experience and it really depends on the situation on hand.
If the light is changing and the action is moving quickly the AE is faster.
If you are trying to take an unexpected grab shot and only have time to frame and focus, the AE is faster.
The AE is very accurate, if you know how to use it properly.
If you are walking about and the light is fairly constant, you are better off taking the occasional incident reading with a meter (or following the Sunny-16 rule), setting the camera and just shooting. It's faster and you'll get better, more consistent exposures.
The most annoying feature about the M7 AE is that it only locks the meter reading for ONE shot. Here is an example. Lets say you are shooting someone who is illuminated by a shaft of light in an otherwise rather dark room.
1) You place the RF patch on the subjects face, get the reading and hold the shutter halfway down to lock the exposure speed.
2) Then you reframe.
3) Now you wait and release the shutter at the decisive moment.
4) You may have just created a masterpiece, but you also just lost the locked AE reading.
5) You advance the film.
1) You take a new reading off of the subjects face by hold the shutter halfway down.
2) Reframe.
3) Wait, shoot.
4) Advance film, go back to step one.
This is very, very annoying. It's not too bad if the action is slow. But if you are trying to take consecutive shots in quick succession you will miss opportunities, because are constantly forced to retake the reading. Unless your subject is center in frame, you're going to be bouncing around like you're sitting in a paint mixer.
In this sort of situation I take the M7 out of AE mode and operate it like an M6/TTL/MP.
So, on one hand the AE has some real advantages, but Leica's implementation is a little screwy. There should be a separate AE lock button on the back of the camera for your thumb, so you don't have to take a new reading every time you make a shot in AE mode. The saving grace is that you can obviously run the M7 like a traditional M or in the AE mode.
In any case the M7 has become my workhorse. In conjunction with a Leicavit and fast 35mm the M7 pretty hard to beat.
HL
Last edited:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I'm not averse to manual operation, even carrying a non-metered camera without an accessory meter. But I do prefer the availability of AE even if I then use that camera on manual for the reason Harry Lime mentioned.
There was an event in the late 1960's that made me appreciate the difficulty of estimating sudden changes in illumination, and the desirability of AE. There was a political protest on the corner at Seattle's Pike Place Market, and I was shooting the speakers and crowd with an M2 with 35 'cron plus a Pentax with 85mm. Tri-X. Anyway one speaker and a heckler got into a fist-fight and the action moved quickly into the dim cover of the Market. I cranked open 3 or 4 stops and kept shooting, but I should have opened up another couple stops. AE is good in such situations.
That M2 is still my only Leica, but I use my CLE more. I could see myself with an M7... Mmmm, classy! 🙂
There was an event in the late 1960's that made me appreciate the difficulty of estimating sudden changes in illumination, and the desirability of AE. There was a political protest on the corner at Seattle's Pike Place Market, and I was shooting the speakers and crowd with an M2 with 35 'cron plus a Pentax with 85mm. Tri-X. Anyway one speaker and a heckler got into a fist-fight and the action moved quickly into the dim cover of the Market. I cranked open 3 or 4 stops and kept shooting, but I should have opened up another couple stops. AE is good in such situations.
That M2 is still my only Leica, but I use my CLE more. I could see myself with an M7... Mmmm, classy! 🙂
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Bike Tourist said:
Set the camera for the light and take photos.
The light does not change every microsecond.
Xmas
Veteran
Jon
Push the button first, then set the camera, you get two chances that way.
The guy with the plate cam who got the Hindenburg had a real bad day but a good shot.
noel
Push the button first, then set the camera, you get two chances that way.
The guy with the plate cam who got the Hindenburg had a real bad day but a good shot.
noel
richard_l
Well-known
Where does one draw the line in the quest for speed?
1. AE is faster than manual exposure.
2. AF is faster than manual focus.
3. It is faster to change focal lengths with a zoom than to change lenses.
4. A camera with autoload is faster at loading film than a manual load camera.
At what point does one just revert to an auto-everything SLR?
Richard
-----------------------------
Very happy with my all-manual, mechanical Leicas, Rolleis, and Nikons.
1. AE is faster than manual exposure.
2. AF is faster than manual focus.
3. It is faster to change focal lengths with a zoom than to change lenses.
4. A camera with autoload is faster at loading film than a manual load camera.
At what point does one just revert to an auto-everything SLR?
Richard
-----------------------------
Very happy with my all-manual, mechanical Leicas, Rolleis, and Nikons.
Xmas
Veteran
Richard
AF is slower than any M. Shoot instinctive point. Shoot like Mr W. Bonney if it is a fire exit, you have 36.
Noel
AF is slower than any M. Shoot instinctive point. Shoot like Mr W. Bonney if it is a fire exit, you have 36.
Noel
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
PHOTOEIL
Established
When working with the M5 (I can't speek for the M6/M7), it feels like driving home , in town, witch I am doing regularly and by taking the same way. Once in the wile, I am surprised that I was not aware of stopping for the traffic lights, cars coming from the right, etc., etc...
But I came home with no problems, like on automatic pilot.
I have the same feeling, now after all these years, that I my self became the automatic exposure device.
Unconsciously, I am matching the needles and changing the settings and I am not aware how fast this works, but it seems fast enough to me when I see the results.
So, do not bother, do it your self and have fun.
Good luck,
But I came home with no problems, like on automatic pilot.
I have the same feeling, now after all these years, that I my self became the automatic exposure device.
Unconsciously, I am matching the needles and changing the settings and I am not aware how fast this works, but it seems fast enough to me when I see the results.
So, do not bother, do it your self and have fun.
Good luck,
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ghost
Well-known
it's faster, but only when you need it. it's the same the rest of the time.
richard_l
Well-known
It may be faster sometimes, but is it as accurate as manually setting exposure? Of course, I mean intelligently setting exposure. It seems as if most people use a built-in meter by framing the subject, matching the lights/needles in the viewfinder, and shooting. This is effectively identical to AF but slower and equally inaccurate. Only the wide latitude of modern film saves the day.ghost said:
The sophisticated matrix metering of some of the Nikon SLRs, for example, provides an exception to the above comments.
Richard
sleepyhead
Well-known
My 2 cents: I've used cameras like the M4-p with no meter in them, the M6 and Leitz CL with a match light/needle meter, and a Minolta CLE with AE exposure.
In the end I settled on the M4-p with a hand held incident meter and the CLE. In other words, for me having a built-in meter but no AE (M6) just didn't work because you HAVE TO PUT THE CAMERA TO YOUR EYE and DO WORK. With the M4-p and CLE the camera never has to go to my eye, and when it does there's either no distracting lights at all (M4-p), or the shutter speed (CLE), which I usually ignore. I found with the M6 that I JUST HAD TO KEEP checking that that little center light was lit and that i wasn't under/over exposing - TOO distracting!
Speaking of the CLE, it has the most consistently accurate AE of any camera I've ever used, especially in dimly-lit situations - I wonder if this is because it measures the light during the exposure.
Does anyone know, doe the M7 meter do that?
In the end I settled on the M4-p with a hand held incident meter and the CLE. In other words, for me having a built-in meter but no AE (M6) just didn't work because you HAVE TO PUT THE CAMERA TO YOUR EYE and DO WORK. With the M4-p and CLE the camera never has to go to my eye, and when it does there's either no distracting lights at all (M4-p), or the shutter speed (CLE), which I usually ignore. I found with the M6 that I JUST HAD TO KEEP checking that that little center light was lit and that i wasn't under/over exposing - TOO distracting!
Speaking of the CLE, it has the most consistently accurate AE of any camera I've ever used, especially in dimly-lit situations - I wonder if this is because it measures the light during the exposure.
Does anyone know, doe the M7 meter do that?
ghost
Well-known
richard_l said:
i don't really see people as unskilled as that buying an expensive piece of equipment.
just use ae lock well.
PHOTOEIL
Established
sleepyhead said:
No, it is not like the Pentax LX , this was/is a verry good system! I have 3 of them and I like to use them in verry difficult (dark) lightening situations on a tripod.
The Leica's are for in poor lightening situations when handheld and full open lens is the only option.
The right tools for the job.
richard_l
Well-known
Wanna bet?ghost said:
ampguy
Veteran
exactly
exactly
If you are a professional, you need 1/3rd stop accuracy. The M6 cannot give you that period, unless you play with in-between ASA or f-stops. The M7 and Hexar RF's are for pros only.
exactly
If you are a professional, you need 1/3rd stop accuracy. The M6 cannot give you that period, unless you play with in-between ASA or f-stops. The M7 and Hexar RF's are for pros only.
peter_n said:
ghost
Well-known
first time i've ever heard that argument...
Dougg
Seasoned Member
This is my view as well, I agree! The best reason for a built-in meter is for AE, otherwise I prefer incident readings. I like the M2 and CLE and Bronica RF, and prefer the Pentax LX to the MX, the P67II over the 67... And a Gossen SuperPilot or LunaStar for the meterless rigs.sleepyhead said:
Normally I think it is not... As the OTF metering has a chance to affect the exposure time (as I understand it) only for exposures longer than the synch speed. IOW, for speeds when the shutter uncovers the entire film frame... once the second curtain starts to move, no adjustment of expsure time is possible. A flash may be quenched, but of course that's at synch speed or slower too, and neither curtain is moving.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
ampguy said:
I don't know about that. Certainly the M7 shutter is more accurate, than the mechanical version, but professionals did shoot slidefilm with M cameras for decades without a problem.
Maybe its an issue for product shots, but then again pros shot plenty of that type of work with the good old mechanical Hassy.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
