Chris Bail
Regular Guy
Go for it. Get yourself an M and don't look back. Maybe stay clear of the temptingly low-priced CL as a first Leica M-Mount...it's a nice camera, and I like mine just fine, but it's not nearly as lovely as a proper M for just having a great time shooting pictures.
aoresteen
Well-known
For the 50mm or the 90mm lens I much preferb the Leica M3. For wide angles I use my M4-P.
Here's my M3-MOT with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens:
I had my M3 serviced by Don Goldberg and the RF patch is great.
Here's my M3-MOT with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens:
I had my M3 serviced by Don Goldberg and the RF patch is great.
mfogiel
Veteran
If you are a portrait guy, then your best choice would be a Leica M3 or a 0.85x Leica M6/MP/M7. Given that it is normally not necessary to shoot portraits in a hurry, the M3 with a hand held meter like the tiny Digisix, would be ideal.
Then, there are some legendary portrait lenses in the M mount you should explore, that are not available for SLR cameras:
- the 50mm Canon and Nikon Sonnar clones, Canon 1.2 ( you can buy two of the best ones here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=41910)
- Leica 50mm Summarit (old 1.5 version), Summilux pre ASPH and ASPH, rigid and DR Summicron, old Summitar, Noctilux (any version) and even the Elmar M 50/2.8
But above all, there are the real Sonnars - some of the old versions in LTM, and finally, the best 50mm portraiture lens ever made: C Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM. Before you buy one, read this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51742&highlight=comparative+sonnars
Moreover, there are very good 75mm and 90mm lenses to consider - in 75mm the 2.5 Color Heliar is incredible value, and the Summilux is a legend, although it is VERY difficult to focus with. In the 90mm range, I would wholeheartedly recommend the silver Elmar M 90/4, which you can pick up for peanuts, and most other 85/90/105 lenses available are fantastic.
C Sonnar 50
20090322 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Then, there are some legendary portrait lenses in the M mount you should explore, that are not available for SLR cameras:
- the 50mm Canon and Nikon Sonnar clones, Canon 1.2 ( you can buy two of the best ones here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=41910)
- Leica 50mm Summarit (old 1.5 version), Summilux pre ASPH and ASPH, rigid and DR Summicron, old Summitar, Noctilux (any version) and even the Elmar M 50/2.8
But above all, there are the real Sonnars - some of the old versions in LTM, and finally, the best 50mm portraiture lens ever made: C Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM. Before you buy one, read this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51742&highlight=comparative+sonnars
Moreover, there are very good 75mm and 90mm lenses to consider - in 75mm the 2.5 Color Heliar is incredible value, and the Summilux is a legend, although it is VERY difficult to focus with. In the 90mm range, I would wholeheartedly recommend the silver Elmar M 90/4, which you can pick up for peanuts, and most other 85/90/105 lenses available are fantastic.
C Sonnar 50
20090322 by mfogiel, on Flickr
MCTuomey
Veteran
OT: Beautiful portrait - lovely tones and grain. Would like to see it in print. Heartily agree re the ZM Sonnar and why I've just picked up a film M to pair with mine. The camera choices are secondary - for me it really is about the lenses.
@Tony - nice rig!!
Peter_S
Peter_S
+1.
I have an M6 for the ZM Sonnar C 1.5/50mm, not the other way around. I use that combination for reportage/documentary work, and there mostly portrait work.
I have owned M6, M7 and ZI. I stuck with the M6 with the improved finder - but really because it is more robust, easier to fix and maintain than the ZI or the M7...but the easier-to-fix part may vary upon where you live.
From a pure technical, price-performance and user point of view, and if you do not bang around your camera all the time - I'd say Zeiss Ikon, also because of the long RF base, which is most handy for portraits. I was also fond of the G2 + Planar 2/45mm for portraits, but not everybody will agree here.
Now just a completely other thought - if shooting mostly portrait, I would also consider MF. If anything is nicer - of course that is individual - than the Sonnar C, it is the Rolleiflex or the Zeiss/Hasselblad. I like my M, but the negatives seem awfully small once you start using MF.
I have an M6 for the ZM Sonnar C 1.5/50mm, not the other way around. I use that combination for reportage/documentary work, and there mostly portrait work.
I have owned M6, M7 and ZI. I stuck with the M6 with the improved finder - but really because it is more robust, easier to fix and maintain than the ZI or the M7...but the easier-to-fix part may vary upon where you live.
From a pure technical, price-performance and user point of view, and if you do not bang around your camera all the time - I'd say Zeiss Ikon, also because of the long RF base, which is most handy for portraits. I was also fond of the G2 + Planar 2/45mm for portraits, but not everybody will agree here.
Now just a completely other thought - if shooting mostly portrait, I would also consider MF. If anything is nicer - of course that is individual - than the Sonnar C, it is the Rolleiflex or the Zeiss/Hasselblad. I like my M, but the negatives seem awfully small once you start using MF.
jakobfoto
Member
Thanks Peter. But what about the focus shift issue everyone is talking about. Not sure I want to deal with that. Either way, my Nokton 50 is really nice. Steve Huff wrote a glowing review about it not so long ago with some good samples.
Peter_S
Peter_S
The focus shift is reality, but less so on film...nevertheless, it is there. I used mine for a long time optimized for f/2.8. That is a good solution if you like the lens as allrounder, since f-stop f/2.8 and up (f/11) will be tack-sharp, and often I like the softer rendering at f/2.8... f/1.5 can be harsh and busy at times.
Now I have it optimized for f/1.5 nevertheless...I do use it frequently at f/1.5, and mitigating focus shift at f/2.8 is much easier than at f/1.5. Above that, well, DOF takes care of things. I use cameras and lenses for sharpeness and microcontrast, but the Sonnar is a portrait lens with multiple characters. Which one do you like? Try and see, then choose your shift optimum.
If you have the Nokton - the Sonnar makes an excellent addition I suppose. That said, the Nokton may be a fine lens by itself, and a good pairing with the ZI (and again, particularly if you have a Nokton, consider MF for portrait work instead of another 50mm lens).
Now I have it optimized for f/1.5 nevertheless...I do use it frequently at f/1.5, and mitigating focus shift at f/2.8 is much easier than at f/1.5. Above that, well, DOF takes care of things. I use cameras and lenses for sharpeness and microcontrast, but the Sonnar is a portrait lens with multiple characters. Which one do you like? Try and see, then choose your shift optimum.
If you have the Nokton - the Sonnar makes an excellent addition I suppose. That said, the Nokton may be a fine lens by itself, and a good pairing with the ZI (and again, particularly if you have a Nokton, consider MF for portrait work instead of another 50mm lens).
jakobfoto
Member
Peter, I'm with you on MF. I use a Mamiya 645 for my professional portrait stuff. This one will be more used for family and travel.
mfogiel
Veteran
The C Sonnar in the f 2.8-4.0 range is so good, that it would justify the purchase, even if you were limited to that aperture range only. But this is obviously a personal opinion.
From what I have seen, the Nokton 50/1.5 is a very competent lens across apertures. Another such lens, which I find very nice for portraiture, and it has no focus shift problems , is the pre ASPH Summilux. I believe, that the sharpness factor can be mitigated by the choice of film - for example a C41 film will tend to tone down excessive sharpness, and films like Tmax or Delta will enhance it . What is however very difficult to change, is the abruptness of in to out of focus passage, and the shape of background highlights. This is where the good portrait lenses really stand out.
C Sonnar, f 4.0
DOG FOR SALE, SARLAT by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 3.2
2008080312 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 2.8
07111504 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 2.0
201211618 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 1.5
201212824 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Summilux 50/1.4 pre ASPH, F 1.4
20131702 by mfogiel, on Flickr
From what I have seen, the Nokton 50/1.5 is a very competent lens across apertures. Another such lens, which I find very nice for portraiture, and it has no focus shift problems , is the pre ASPH Summilux. I believe, that the sharpness factor can be mitigated by the choice of film - for example a C41 film will tend to tone down excessive sharpness, and films like Tmax or Delta will enhance it . What is however very difficult to change, is the abruptness of in to out of focus passage, and the shape of background highlights. This is where the good portrait lenses really stand out.
C Sonnar, f 4.0
DOG FOR SALE, SARLAT by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 3.2
2008080312 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 2.8
07111504 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 2.0
201211618 by mfogiel, on Flickr
C Sonnar, f 1.5
201212824 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Summilux 50/1.4 pre ASPH, F 1.4
20131702 by mfogiel, on Flickr
jakobfoto
Member
Just out of curiousity, why is a longer base length more beneficial to portrait photography?
Pioneer
Veteran
The longer base length allows more focus accuracy. If you are using a narrow depth of field to blur out a background in your portraits then the additional accuracy helps ensure you are actually focused on the eyes, and not the ears or nose.
jakobfoto
Member
Mfogiel, those are some great and very sharp images. Wow. Thanks for sharing.
jakobfoto
Member
Pioneer...but why is that? Why does it become more precise? Sorry, I am totally new to this.
Pioneer
Veteran
I am sure there are others here who can explain it better, but here goes. There are two windows on your rangefinder. The large window in-line with the viewfinder shows the primary image. The second, smaller window, on the far side from the viewfinder shows a secondary image over the top of the primary one. The distance between these two windows is considered the "base length" of your triangle. The subject you are trying to focus on is at the apex of your triangle. As you turn the lens to adjust the secondary image until it coincides with the primary image you are also turning a mirror or prism behind the secondary window. Obviously, the greater the distance between the primary and secondary windows, the more accurately you can focus a rangefinder camera.
Most Bessa cameras have a relatively short base length. Leicas and Zeiss Ikons have longer base lengths. The older Contax IIa had an even longer base length and the Contax II had one of the longest that I am aware of.
I don't know how good I described this but I am pretty sure there are others who can put it more clearly than I.
Most Bessa cameras have a relatively short base length. Leicas and Zeiss Ikons have longer base lengths. The older Contax IIa had an even longer base length and the Contax II had one of the longest that I am aware of.
I don't know how good I described this but I am pretty sure there are others who can put it more clearly than I.
Pioneer
Veteran
I forgot to mention that the magnification in the primary window also has an effect on the calculation. If the magnification is 1:1, like that in a Bessa R3A or M then the base length is the actual measure distance. If that magnification is 0.72, such as that normally found in the Leica M6, this means the calculated base length is actually only 0.72 of the measured distance. The most accurate Leica M is considered the M3 which had a magnification of 0.92 or 0.94, can't remember exactly which it is off hand. The later models of the Barnack LTM Leica had magnifications of 1.5, so although they had shorter measured distances between the two windows, the magnification helped make up for it. But remember, the Barnack Leicas had two windows to look through in the back, one for the rangefinder and one for the viewfinder. When Leica moved to the M3 design they no longer had those two windows so they had to make some compromises.
The Contax II had a humongous measured distance between the primary and secondary windows of about 90mm. When combined with the magnification of about 0.75 (compare to the Zeiss Ikon 0.74 magnification) you ended with an actual base length of about 68mm. But there were problems here as well because the secondary window was so far to the right side of the camera it was easy to get a finger in front of it, which of course interrupted the focus because you could not see the secondary image over the top of the primary one. Photographers holding a Contax II will often lift their middle finger over the top of the secondary rangefinder window. With the index finger on the shutter and the last two fingers holding the camera, it gives them a hooked finger look.
The Contax II had a humongous measured distance between the primary and secondary windows of about 90mm. When combined with the magnification of about 0.75 (compare to the Zeiss Ikon 0.74 magnification) you ended with an actual base length of about 68mm. But there were problems here as well because the secondary window was so far to the right side of the camera it was easy to get a finger in front of it, which of course interrupted the focus because you could not see the secondary image over the top of the primary one. Photographers holding a Contax II will often lift their middle finger over the top of the secondary rangefinder window. With the index finger on the shutter and the last two fingers holding the camera, it gives them a hooked finger look.
Robert Lai
Well-known
RF base length and focusing accuracy
RF base length and focusing accuracy
What Pioneer says is effectively correct. When you use a rangefinder you are using a method called triangulation to determine a distance. The distance between your rangefinder windows forms the base of the triangle. Your subject is at the apex of the triangle. The wider the rangefinder baselength, the greater the accuracy of the distance measurement. If you visit a battleship, you'll see that the optical rangefinders have arms that are several meters apart. They need to determine target distances in thousands of yards (or kilometers). BTW - Nippon Kogaku (now Nikon) used to make rangefinders for battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. You know now why they make killer optics
Your eyesight, the effective magnification of the rangefinder system, and the baselength of the rangefinder all play a role. There is a reason why the Bessa cameras don't offer the 135mm frameline - they can't focus that lens with accuracy.
With my M7 0.85x, I can accurately focus a 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt, but that's about the limit of accuracy for that system.
Erwin Puts has a particularly detailed discussion which involves the mathematics of this, and shows the baselength needed to focus a particular focal length with a given maximum aperture. You may have to Google about to find it.
Andrew Nemeng has a simpler summary here: http://nemeng.com/leica/031b.shtml
RF base length and focusing accuracy
What Pioneer says is effectively correct. When you use a rangefinder you are using a method called triangulation to determine a distance. The distance between your rangefinder windows forms the base of the triangle. Your subject is at the apex of the triangle. The wider the rangefinder baselength, the greater the accuracy of the distance measurement. If you visit a battleship, you'll see that the optical rangefinders have arms that are several meters apart. They need to determine target distances in thousands of yards (or kilometers). BTW - Nippon Kogaku (now Nikon) used to make rangefinders for battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. You know now why they make killer optics
Your eyesight, the effective magnification of the rangefinder system, and the baselength of the rangefinder all play a role. There is a reason why the Bessa cameras don't offer the 135mm frameline - they can't focus that lens with accuracy.
With my M7 0.85x, I can accurately focus a 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt, but that's about the limit of accuracy for that system.
Erwin Puts has a particularly detailed discussion which involves the mathematics of this, and shows the baselength needed to focus a particular focal length with a given maximum aperture. You may have to Google about to find it.
Andrew Nemeng has a simpler summary here: http://nemeng.com/leica/031b.shtml
Robert Lai
Well-known
Erwin Puts on RF accuracy
Erwin Puts on RF accuracy
Erwin Puts has moved his site. However, I've found an archive of his discussion here: http://leica-users.org/v04/msg07362.html
The same discussion also appears in his Leica Compendium book.
Looking at the Bessa R base length of 24mm, we find that it is just sufficient to focus properly a 50mm f/1.4, or a 90mm f/4.
Erwin Puts on RF accuracy
Erwin Puts has moved his site. However, I've found an archive of his discussion here: http://leica-users.org/v04/msg07362.html
The same discussion also appears in his Leica Compendium book.
Looking at the Bessa R base length of 24mm, we find that it is just sufficient to focus properly a 50mm f/1.4, or a 90mm f/4.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have owned all 3 and to me the sturdier thing is kind of a joke, no offense. Yes Leica is sturdier, so what? I have had my CV R3M for over 6 years and it has always worked like a charm. Get what you like. CV's are cheaper. if you can swing it the M6 is really nice. Zeiss Ikon they are wonderful.:angel:
Pioneer
Veteran
After dealing with 3 camera failures with my M6 I moved to ZI. Since March this year I have shot a little over 250 rolls of film in the ZI, most of it handrolled, and it has never so much as stuttered. I know that this is only one person's experience, but every time I read a post where someone runs down the ZI for its "light duty build" and proclaims the virtues of Leica for its "sturdy reliability" I just shake my head.
michaelwj
----------------
Just thought I'd throw in my 2c.
I was in a similar position, went with a 'user' M6, cheap, mechanically excellent, cosmetically not so good, pitting in the zinc etc.
I went with a Leica because as others said, its a Leica, and if you went with one of the others, you'd always be wondering.
However, if I were to do it again, I'd get a cosmetically better one to begin with. If I had done that I wouldn't be looking to buy a nicer condition model now and you won't loose money.
Off topic, getting a rangefinder changed my photographic outlook completely. Be prepared and enjoy.
Michael
I was in a similar position, went with a 'user' M6, cheap, mechanically excellent, cosmetically not so good, pitting in the zinc etc.
I went with a Leica because as others said, its a Leica, and if you went with one of the others, you'd always be wondering.
However, if I were to do it again, I'd get a cosmetically better one to begin with. If I had done that I wouldn't be looking to buy a nicer condition model now and you won't loose money.
Off topic, getting a rangefinder changed my photographic outlook completely. Be prepared and enjoy.
Michael