Vics
Veteran
I think an FM and most lenses from 24 to 85 would be smaller and lighter than my M3/50 DR. If my "style" needed close focus, I'd go back to my Nikons in a second. They're sitting right there in their case. I use them on the rare occasion when I shoot with a long lens. If I were the OP, I'd go back. Leica isn't for everyone.
Vic
Roger Hicks
Veteran
^ Agreed. It's too hard to get an M to do this...
Shot with a Canon 1D Mark IIn, 50mm f/1.2L and 66mm worth of tubes w/AB800 strobes.
Viso makes it easy.
Cheers,
R.
A Viso makes it easy when compared to using an RF without through the lens viewing for close-up work. If I honestly thought a Viso was easier to use than a Nikon DSLR with a 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom, I would buy myself an M9 for work immediately. If I could even half-kid myself, enough to rationalize buying one, I would. It would be like getting a free M9, just for the price of lying to myself.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Lie to yourself!
It's a great combination: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/worst dslr.html
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
What about focusing on situations a bit beyond one's hand reach? Anyone tried it? 
Just joking... I admit I have macros and even the Nikon bellows...
Cheers,
Juan
Just joking... I admit I have macros and even the Nikon bellows...Cheers,
Juan
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Have you considered a used R4 and 35 Summicron?
cosmonaut
Well-known
I never from day one considered my M6 a macro camera. If you are into that I think an SLR and a nice set of macro lenses and tubes is your best bet. I use an SLR on rare times for macro. My M6 and EP-1 for the streets, they are small and less noticable.
ferider
Veteran
Funny, the OP never asked either about macro or about super teles.
He asked about "hands and face filling the frame". Is this really such an uncommon subject for us RF shooters ?
For me personally, there is something special & more intimate about using an RF for close portraits. I understand why others might prefer SLRs, but the requirements are not the same as, say, for close-up flower macros.
And no, Leica SLR lenses are not the same as RF lenses, in particular 35mm and wider; even if they carry a red dot. There might be something special about Leica RF bodies. But once you are back in SLR land, all brands are fair game. I personally prefer my OMs, since small, quiet and great viewfinder. If you want the Humvee of SLRs, the Leicaflex will fit.
He asked about "hands and face filling the frame". Is this really such an uncommon subject for us RF shooters ?
For me personally, there is something special & more intimate about using an RF for close portraits. I understand why others might prefer SLRs, but the requirements are not the same as, say, for close-up flower macros.
And no, Leica SLR lenses are not the same as RF lenses, in particular 35mm and wider; even if they carry a red dot. There might be something special about Leica RF bodies. But once you are back in SLR land, all brands are fair game. I personally prefer my OMs, since small, quiet and great viewfinder. If you want the Humvee of SLRs, the Leicaflex will fit.
Last edited:
cosmonaut
Well-known
Well maybe not macro maybe close ups.....cups/mugs/ashtrays, close ups. Outside what most M lenses will do and a pain to focus and set up. I do shots like that with my Oly E3 and it takes image stabilization for me too unless the light is great. I still think an SLR with the right lens is the best choice.
mooge
Well-known
remember Capa's famous words:
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."
(not really related: I once took apart a Leicaflex SL. took apart. yeah. they're stupid complex. dumbest repair I've ever attempted... :bang
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."
(not really related: I once took apart a Leicaflex SL. took apart. yeah. they're stupid complex. dumbest repair I've ever attempted... :bang
ampguy
Veteran
I'd keep the RF, but get a D40 or D90 and 12-24 zoom. That will give you 12" close focus and cover 85% of your focal length needs.
I just got back from a trip, that was a mix of landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture, street and travel, and missed some good opps by having a 15/21 on the RF, while approaching some wildlife, that the photogs with zooms got full frame images of, and I have very tiny images of the wildlife.
I just got back from a trip, that was a mix of landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture, street and travel, and missed some good opps by having a 15/21 on the RF, while approaching some wildlife, that the photogs with zooms got full frame images of, and I have very tiny images of the wildlife.
Sounds like the only thing to decide now is whether to shift the Leica and take the loss, or hang onto it. The good news is that going forward the Leica probably won't depreciate in value any more than it has, so is probably a safer "investment" than shares, bonds, etc.
Steve_F
Well-known
Of course having said all of this I can't take away the fact I love using my M. The feel, it's actions and it's compactness.
I want it to work! Reckon I need to spend the next few months working out how to get it to fit my style.
Steve.
I want it to work! Reckon I need to spend the next few months working out how to get it to fit my style.
Steve.
Steve_F
Well-known
Roger, I found this on your site and it sums it up perfectly.
"The point is that making you want to take pictures is the measure of any camera, whether the best or the worst. It makes you go and look for pictures to take."
Steve
"The point is that making you want to take pictures is the measure of any camera, whether the best or the worst. It makes you go and look for pictures to take."
Steve
I bought my first RF at age 11 and my first SLR at 13. I used mostly SLR's after that point until I was 40, after we had Nikki. I was getting too close with the 50mm lens on the SLR for her comfort, and the "moment was gone". I have portrait lenses for the SLR's, but wanted to see what was going on outside of the FOV of the lens. Back to the Nikon RF, and picked up an M3 not much later.
Try an 85/2 or a 90/2. Get the 1.25x magnifier if you need to, they are not expensive on EBay. Give it a try, if you do not like it you can always sell the gear.
Try an 85/2 or a 90/2. Get the 1.25x magnifier if you need to, they are not expensive on EBay. Give it a try, if you do not like it you can always sell the gear.
Steve_F
Well-known
Quite a few suggestions to try the '90mm' route. I shall look into it (No pun intended on a Rangefinder).
Steve.
Steve.
Frontman
Well-known
Unfortunately, the dual-range Summicron goggles will not fit on the M6, due to it's taller top cover. Wider angle lenses can focus closer, but that advantage is lost as subjects shrink in size in the wider field of view.
Rangefinders do have serious limitations, which is why the SLR was invented, and why it continues to be the professional's tool of choice in the majority of their work.
For my own photography rangefinders suit me quite well. But if I wanted a universal camera which could do everything well, I would have to choose an SLR camera.
Rangefinders do have serious limitations, which is why the SLR was invented, and why it continues to be the professional's tool of choice in the majority of their work.
For my own photography rangefinders suit me quite well. But if I wanted a universal camera which could do everything well, I would have to choose an SLR camera.
Joop van Heijgen
Established
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
OK, then, what's the equivalent R lens for the OP's 35/2 Summicron ASPH ? Does it perform more like an R-Elmarit 2,8/35, or more like a modern Canon or Nikon 35mm lens ?
Last edited: