Leica limitations

Double Negative said:
RFs have their advantages and disadvantages... Unfortunately, the macro/close and tele end aren't among the advantages. For things like that, an SLR really does shine. Part of its versatility, but you pay for it with size/weight.
Click to expand...

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
 
Double Negative said:
^ Agreed. It's too hard to get an M to do this... 😀

_1D_2413.jpg


Shot with a Canon 1D Mark IIn, 50mm f/1.2L and 66mm worth of tubes w/AB800 strobes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

Lie to yourself!

It's a great combination: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/worst dslr.html

Cheers,

R.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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🙂
 
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.
 
Steve_F said:
I think the only that will stop me shifting the Leica is the fact I bought it and the lenses from Leica dealers as it was my first venture into the 'M' system. I might as well keep hold of them for a while and with things like VAT increase in the UK at least I won't make such a loss.
Something else that bugged me is the minor character 'quirks':
Rangefinder vertical alignment - out. Get it sorted
Batteries draining down - Self fix - Still cost me £18.00 in batteries before I had the answer. (Dodgy pins self drain)
Sticking framelines - Repair.
Since September '09 and about thirty five rolls of film.

In 13 years of owning Nikon's my F5 finder went back as one digit for the frame counter 'vanished'. Thats it - period/full stop. All weathers, temperatures they never missed a beat. No idea how many rolls of film. Sold my F5 last year to fund the M6 TTL. So tempted to get back in touch with the buyer to see if they want to sell it back to me!

Guess I'm feeling a little let down.

I'm not an advertising man but my favourite saying I've made up about my Nikon's is:

"It lets me get the shot I want, when I want"

Steve.
Click to expand...

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. 🙄
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
ferider said:
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.

I doubt if you can compare the differences between a Summicron R 2,0/50 and and a Summicron M 2,0/50 ...
And the difference between the Elmarit R 2,8/90 and the Elmarit M-2,8/90...
And the difference between the R-Elmarit 2,8/35 and the M Summicron 2,0/35 etc...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom