windraider
Established
A cautionary tale to those that think a Leica makes you a better photographer.
After having my F80 serviced, I popped in a roll for a day at the playground with my children. Had my newly acquired M6 with me that day too.
The popular AFD 28-105mm nikkor was on the F80 and 35mm & 50mm Summicrons on the M6.
With all the glowing opinions on Leica lenses, I thought that the images from the summicrons would blow the consumer zoom away but was I wrong. Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints, but the F80's AF & autoexposure sure made a difference in capturing the moment.
Leica lenses definitely have their unique signature (IMO contrast of background/OOF areas are a shade lower than subjects less than 3m away regardless of aperture - thus giving the Leica pop/glow on the subjects?). However this signature is lost when subject is more than 3m away and images were just blah. Doubt Leica lenses will make a difference for lanscapes or architecture - but for a lack of experience don't take my word for it.
Just wondering whether I've should have just stuck with Nikons:bang:
After having my F80 serviced, I popped in a roll for a day at the playground with my children. Had my newly acquired M6 with me that day too.
The popular AFD 28-105mm nikkor was on the F80 and 35mm & 50mm Summicrons on the M6.
With all the glowing opinions on Leica lenses, I thought that the images from the summicrons would blow the consumer zoom away but was I wrong. Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints, but the F80's AF & autoexposure sure made a difference in capturing the moment.
Leica lenses definitely have their unique signature (IMO contrast of background/OOF areas are a shade lower than subjects less than 3m away regardless of aperture - thus giving the Leica pop/glow on the subjects?). However this signature is lost when subject is more than 3m away and images were just blah. Doubt Leica lenses will make a difference for lanscapes or architecture - but for a lack of experience don't take my word for it.
Just wondering whether I've should have just stuck with Nikons:bang:
windraider
Established
Another vaunted Leica myth - silent shutter.
I always thought that the Leica's shutter was not really that quiet ( I had a M5 previously - shutter sounds slightly louder than that of an M6). But perhaps after spending soooo much on Leicas (pls don't tell my wife) I was unwilling to admit this. Furthermore it was definitely quieter than my D200 and Olympus OM SLRs (despite that much touted pnuematic mirror dampers).
But my fears were confirmed when my 6 yr old son mentioned that the F80's shutter is way quieter than the m6's. After that I waited till we were alone in the house, sat him down in the bedroom and made him listen to me firing every shutter in my camera collection. The M6 was the second quietest shutter but the winner by a mile is the F80.
For all his efforts my son requested that I leave the F80 for him when he is older.
I always thought that the Leica's shutter was not really that quiet ( I had a M5 previously - shutter sounds slightly louder than that of an M6). But perhaps after spending soooo much on Leicas (pls don't tell my wife) I was unwilling to admit this. Furthermore it was definitely quieter than my D200 and Olympus OM SLRs (despite that much touted pnuematic mirror dampers).
But my fears were confirmed when my 6 yr old son mentioned that the F80's shutter is way quieter than the m6's. After that I waited till we were alone in the house, sat him down in the bedroom and made him listen to me firing every shutter in my camera collection. The M6 was the second quietest shutter but the winner by a mile is the F80.
For all his efforts my son requested that I leave the F80 for him when he is older.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
RF cameras are good for, well, what they're good at. If you need or want auto-exposure you could always use an M7 or a ZI or (my choice) a Hexar RF. If you wanted that and AF and the (theoretically, at least) greater precision of RF focus (and great Zeiss optics) at middle focal lengths you could use a G2. If shutter noise is your real bugbear you could use a Hexar (the AF one, not the RF). Or maybe the F80 really is the camera for you, and RFs (and similar) just aren't your style of camera.
Horses for courses, and all.
...Mike
Horses for courses, and all.
...Mike
pvdhaar
Peter
The results don't surprise me at all. The 28-105 may be called a consumer zoom, but it's definately not the bottom of the line Nikon.. Same goes for the F80.
Krosya
Konicaze
Leica (and any RF camera for that matter) is deffinately an aquired taste. Is it better? NO. Is it worse - NO. Well, which is it than? I think it comes down to a couple of things - each type of camera is better for a specific task and also some people just relate better or more to some cameras vs others.
I, personally, like all kinds. I have SLRs and RFs and MF and P&S. All have their uses and all I enjoy using. If you only use one system for a long time, I'm sure you could perfect your skill to take a better photo with it in just about any situation. But than again - SLRs are better at Macro and Sports, Others better at something else.
I'd say - while Leica or other RF system can "potentially" make you a better photographer due to the quality and style this system requires, some things are just up to any given person. It's OK to prefer other systems. After all - its all about the final result, right?
I, personally, like all kinds. I have SLRs and RFs and MF and P&S. All have their uses and all I enjoy using. If you only use one system for a long time, I'm sure you could perfect your skill to take a better photo with it in just about any situation. But than again - SLRs are better at Macro and Sports, Others better at something else.
I'd say - while Leica or other RF system can "potentially" make you a better photographer due to the quality and style this system requires, some things are just up to any given person. It's OK to prefer other systems. After all - its all about the final result, right?
kully
Happy Snapper
I agree with Mark's "horses for courses".
I do like my F80+50/1.8 which for those times when you can't / don't care for all manual exposure and focussing. Like taking photos of over-active kids
It's also the quietest SLR I've used and it's nice being able to seperate the shutter/mirror from the windon.
But then, later, you'll realise that the M6 is grand for some other part of your photo taking self and the equilibrium will be restored.
And you'll be happy you have RF and SLR.
I do like my F80+50/1.8 which for those times when you can't / don't care for all manual exposure and focussing. Like taking photos of over-active kids
It's also the quietest SLR I've used and it's nice being able to seperate the shutter/mirror from the windon.
But then, later, you'll realise that the M6 is grand for some other part of your photo taking self and the equilibrium will be restored.
And you'll be happy you have RF and SLR.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
While I'm not one of those who can't hear the idea that there could be a better camera than Leica, are you sure you aren't comparing photo-finishing jobs? Lame processing and poor prints can really level the playing field dramatically sometimes.
That said, AF and auto exposure can sometimes do more for your images than any Summicron.
That said, AF and auto exposure can sometimes do more for your images than any Summicron.
waileong
Well-known
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
1. Leica doesn't make you become a better photographer. On the contrary, you become a better photographer to use Leica.
2. It's not easy to tell the difference on 4x6 prints, esp. on negative film. If the lab does the prints for you, you have no control over the prints and so you can't make an apples to apples comparison.
3. It follows from 2 that you must shoot slides to remove variable (ie the lab, in this case), then you might be able see the differences.
4. If you're focusing and trying to match the two arrows for every shot, you're doing it wrong. Unless the light is changing by the minute, there's no reason to keep working the exposure. One lightmeter reading of a gray card is all you need, maintain that exposure till the light changes.
Once you understand more about exposure, you'll know that autoexposure frequently gets it wrong, but the tolerance of negative films makes up for it. With just one reading of a gray card, you can get the correct exposure on your M6 for every shot. And you'll not miss the next shot because you're trying to match the two lighted arrows.
5. Ditto for focus, if you're trying to focus for every shot, you're overdoing it. Learn to use zone focus, esp. with your 35 mm.
AF may seem fast, but once you understand this, your camera will be faster than AF because you don't even need to focus as long as you're within the zone.
6. Leica's are a poor choice for landscape. The tripod hole is off centre, you can't use a polarizer conveniently, you can't even frame precisely, etc.
Bottom line:
Learn to use a Leica the way it was designed. Learn to anticipate the picture (ie both eyes open, able to see what's in and outside the framelines), learn to zone focus, learn to expose, learn to make use of the extremely short shutter lag and shoot at the decisive moment, learn to shoot each picture only once, learn to let go.
Once you can learn all this, you will become a better photographer.
Hmmmm
1. Leica doesn't make you become a better photographer. On the contrary, you become a better photographer to use Leica.
2. It's not easy to tell the difference on 4x6 prints, esp. on negative film. If the lab does the prints for you, you have no control over the prints and so you can't make an apples to apples comparison.
3. It follows from 2 that you must shoot slides to remove variable (ie the lab, in this case), then you might be able see the differences.
4. If you're focusing and trying to match the two arrows for every shot, you're doing it wrong. Unless the light is changing by the minute, there's no reason to keep working the exposure. One lightmeter reading of a gray card is all you need, maintain that exposure till the light changes.
Once you understand more about exposure, you'll know that autoexposure frequently gets it wrong, but the tolerance of negative films makes up for it. With just one reading of a gray card, you can get the correct exposure on your M6 for every shot. And you'll not miss the next shot because you're trying to match the two lighted arrows.
5. Ditto for focus, if you're trying to focus for every shot, you're overdoing it. Learn to use zone focus, esp. with your 35 mm.
AF may seem fast, but once you understand this, your camera will be faster than AF because you don't even need to focus as long as you're within the zone.
6. Leica's are a poor choice for landscape. The tripod hole is off centre, you can't use a polarizer conveniently, you can't even frame precisely, etc.
Bottom line:
Learn to use a Leica the way it was designed. Learn to anticipate the picture (ie both eyes open, able to see what's in and outside the framelines), learn to zone focus, learn to expose, learn to make use of the extremely short shutter lag and shoot at the decisive moment, learn to shoot each picture only once, learn to let go.
Once you can learn all this, you will become a better photographer.
windraider said:
Turtle
Veteran
one would not expect to see optical differences using 200 speed film on a tiny print! shoot slide film and print them 12x16 and one would expect to see differences. Might not leap out at you, but shoot your nikkor zoom wide open at say, f4 and then try to leica primes at the same aperture.....
Besides, I use my SLR for shooting kids (so to speak) as I find it the better tool for the job. If you do too, no problem!
If you want to do street photography, you might find the Leica preferable for a number of reasons.
With fine grained film and medium to large prints I would use the Leica every time for landscapes etc, personally.
RFs dont replace SLRs.
Besides, I use my SLR for shooting kids (so to speak) as I find it the better tool for the job. If you do too, no problem!
If you want to do street photography, you might find the Leica preferable for a number of reasons.
With fine grained film and medium to large prints I would use the Leica every time for landscapes etc, personally.
RFs dont replace SLRs.
waileong
Well-known
One other thing: if your M6 is louder than your F80, it may be time for a service. I know my M4 makes a delicious and sexy "schick" sound when I shoot, it's soft and it's cloth.
windraider
Established
Yeah I'm new with my M6 & summicrons so I skipped hyperfocusing just to see what the image quality was like when accurately focused - quite good for close ups and in low light. Usually took one exposure reading per scene, but when only one triangle is lighted I get paranoid - maybe the M5's analog needle meter is better in this respect as it shows how far it deviates from the recommended exposure.
Don't get me wrong, I know I didn't do a scientific test to prove that Nikkors are equal to Leicas in resolution or other qualities, its just that the Leica didn't make much of a difference in what it was suppose to excel in - street photography (I presume kids at a playground would qualify as a street scene). I was hoping to show my wife that Leica would give a quantum leap even with cheap fim & print, now I don't even dare show her the photos next to the F80's pics
I'll burn a few more rolls thru the M6 to get the hang of it - my pics may not be that great yet but it sure is a fine handling camera.
On the point about shutter sound:
I've tried at least 15 other Leica bodies before I bought one. While definitely quieter than all other SLRs I've handled, I don't think the quietness of the shutter was what attracted me. Actually you must really hear the F80's shutter for yourselves - nothing like a SLR almost a whisper. Tried the AF Hexar once, shutter acoustics didn't strike me as significantly quiet and with a fixed 35mm lense I didn't think it was any different from an Olympus mju - am I missing anything?
Don't get me wrong, I know I didn't do a scientific test to prove that Nikkors are equal to Leicas in resolution or other qualities, its just that the Leica didn't make much of a difference in what it was suppose to excel in - street photography (I presume kids at a playground would qualify as a street scene). I was hoping to show my wife that Leica would give a quantum leap even with cheap fim & print, now I don't even dare show her the photos next to the F80's pics
I'll burn a few more rolls thru the M6 to get the hang of it - my pics may not be that great yet but it sure is a fine handling camera.
On the point about shutter sound:
I've tried at least 15 other Leica bodies before I bought one. While definitely quieter than all other SLRs I've handled, I don't think the quietness of the shutter was what attracted me. Actually you must really hear the F80's shutter for yourselves - nothing like a SLR almost a whisper. Tried the AF Hexar once, shutter acoustics didn't strike me as significantly quiet and with a fixed 35mm lense I didn't think it was any different from an Olympus mju - am I missing anything?
windraider
Established
Yeah AF can sometime be a real pain in low light and off-centre subjects.
Otherwise its sweet for the lazy photobug in me and I can always blame the system for missing a shot (actually I'm slow in composing my photos most of the time - but sshh).
Call me conventional but I just love the film advance wind-on in manual cameras. Don't care for motordrives and other automatic film advance contraptions.
Otherwise its sweet for the lazy photobug in me and I can always blame the system for missing a shot (actually I'm slow in composing my photos most of the time - but sshh).
Call me conventional but I just love the film advance wind-on in manual cameras. Don't care for motordrives and other automatic film advance contraptions.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
waileong
Well-known
Better?
Better?
1. The "recommended" exposure is nothing more than 18% gray. You know that, right?
2. You cannot appreciate image quality with 4x6s. Esp. those printed by workers earning min wage.
3. Yes, you can show better resolution and contrast (resolution, lpm, etc) with your Leica lens, but prob will need a tripod. Handheld camera shake is the great leveller.
Generally, better pictures from Leicas come not from technical qualities , but from better composition, subject and expression. In other words, you can shoot at the decisive moment because of your min shutter lag, you can shoot discreetly because your camera is small and light, you can shoot without flash because your lens is fast, you can shoot creatively because you can open both eyes and anticipate the action.
4. Kids at a playground is "action" photography to me.
Better?
1. The "recommended" exposure is nothing more than 18% gray. You know that, right?
2. You cannot appreciate image quality with 4x6s. Esp. those printed by workers earning min wage.
3. Yes, you can show better resolution and contrast (resolution, lpm, etc) with your Leica lens, but prob will need a tripod. Handheld camera shake is the great leveller.
Generally, better pictures from Leicas come not from technical qualities , but from better composition, subject and expression. In other words, you can shoot at the decisive moment because of your min shutter lag, you can shoot discreetly because your camera is small and light, you can shoot without flash because your lens is fast, you can shoot creatively because you can open both eyes and anticipate the action.
4. Kids at a playground is "action" photography to me.
windraider said:Yeah I'm new with my M6 & summicrons so I skipped hyperfocusing just to see what the image quality was like when accurately focused - quite good for close ups and in low light. Usually took one exposure reading per scene, but when only one triangle is lighted I get paranoid - maybe the M5's analog needle meter is better in this respect as it shows how far it deviates from the recommended exposure.
Don't get me wrong, I know I didn't do a scientific test to prove that Nikkors are equal to Leicas in resolution or other qualities, its just that the Leica didn't make much of a difference in what it was suppose to excel in - street photography (I presume kids at a playground would qualify as a street scene). I was hoping to show my wife that Leica would give a quantum leap even with cheap fim & print, now I don't even dare show her the photos next to the F80's pics
I'll burn a few more rolls thru the M6 to get the hang of it - my pics may not be that great yet but it sure is a fine handling camera.
On the point about shutter sound:
I've tried at least 15 other Leica bodies before I bought one. While definitely quieter than all other SLRs I've handled, I don't think the quietness of the shutter was what attracted me. Actually you must really hear the F80's shutter for yourselves - nothing like a SLR almost a whisper. Tried the AF Hexar once, shutter acoustics didn't strike me as significantly quiet and with a fixed 35mm lense I didn't think it was any different from an Olympus mju - am I missing anything?
Last edited:
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Honestly, almost *anything* looks good (or can look good, if exposure and focus are not too far off) on 4x6 prints from a decent minilab. The question is: what does a cropped 11x14 look like? Or, back when film ruled and KM25 was king, what does a slide look like at 12x18 feet?
I use SLRs and RFs side by side, but not often at the same time. I have come and gone and come back again on RF photography over 35 years. It does somethings better, but it doesn't do it all. One thing I found frustrating was young children, though I'm sure better photographers than I can do that well with RFs. For adults, especially relatively intimate photos, nothing touches the RFs still, at least for me. YMMV. Consider persevering.
pvdhaar
Peter
Call me a heretic, but the same holds for an RF. It can be a pain in low light, and requires the focus/recompose dance for off-center subjects.windraider said:
Instead, my (d)SLRs can focus in light where I would have trouble seeing the RF spot double image, and that's without the AF assist on the flash kicking in. With the grid pattern cast by the flash, the AF works in total darkness, or on subjects that have no contrast. And the off-center AF spots mean I don't even have to focus/recompose..
Hardly a fair comparisson in my view. Sure, it's reasonable to expect that a $400 zoom won't do as well as a $1000 prime. But the moment you compare similarly priced lenses, you'll find the field leveled..Turtle said:
Turtle
Veteran
pvdhaar said:
Of course comparing a $1000 prime with a $400 consumer lens is not fair, but the OP compared results from two lenses fitting this description. Similar comments could have been made wrt a SLR prime, I agree.
KM-25
Well-known
I happen to see a big difference in shooting great color neg or slide film in brilliant light.
You kind of have to think of it like....you won't really see much of a difference between a Corvette or a Ferrari F50 if you are stuck in traffic.
Leicas are the choice of some of the best photographers in the world for a reason...
You kind of have to think of it like....you won't really see much of a difference between a Corvette or a Ferrari F50 if you are stuck in traffic.
Leicas are the choice of some of the best photographers in the world for a reason...
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Turtle
Veteran
but if the ferrari and Corvette got out into open road, which would you use; a duck or a tea towel?
Handholding is somewhat of a leveller, but only shen shutter speeds are low. When speeds are high, even just 125th with a 50mm optical performance is really quite obvious. Differences are visible slower than that, but depend on how steady you are. Contrast and colour is quite obvious all the time. I have SLRs and do not choose not to use them on the basis of optical performance. some lenses ae great and even when they are not the best around, if they get the job done? Of course if you play to the strenghts of an SLR, a RF will be found lacking more often than not. The converse can also hold true.
Handholding is somewhat of a leveller, but only shen shutter speeds are low. When speeds are high, even just 125th with a 50mm optical performance is really quite obvious. Differences are visible slower than that, but depend on how steady you are. Contrast and colour is quite obvious all the time. I have SLRs and do not choose not to use them on the basis of optical performance. some lenses ae great and even when they are not the best around, if they get the job done? Of course if you play to the strenghts of an SLR, a RF will be found lacking more often than not. The converse can also hold true.