Merkin
For the Weekend
Answers to these questions, albeit out of order-
The M6 is basically an M4-P with a built in light meter.
Using a handheld/external meter is not difficult, but it is slow compared to using a built in meter. You take the reading, which will often be given as an EV (exposure value) number. You then convert that number in to the desired combination of ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed. You set your camera to those values, compose, focus, and shoot. There are several different kinds of light meter, including incident meters, reflected meters, and spot meters, or combinations thereof. Each style of metering is done differently.
The sunny 16 rule is one method of determining your exposure without a light meter of any sort. The rule states that when shooting an object that is 18% grey (also known as middle grey or zone 5) in full sun on a bright day, if you set your aperture to f/16, and set your shutter speed to match your film speed as closely as possible (1/125 for ISO 100, 1/500 for ISO 400, etc), your exposure will be at least passably correct.
The Bessa R does not use the Leica M mount, it uses the LTM (Leica Thread Mount, also known as screw mount) mount. You can get adapters to use LTM mount lenses perfectly on M mount cameras, but you cannot put M mount lenses on LTM camera bodies. The R2, R3, and R4 cameras, on the other hand, do use the M mount, just like the Leica M series. There are a lot of people who absolutely love LTM cameras, with good reason, but from what you have said, M mount is the way you want to go, especially since you would be able to use any LTM lens on whatever M mount camera.
Moving on to the difficult bit- weddings.
One thing you need to realize is that you will not be able to just jump in with a leica or bessa and shoot weddings like a pro, ESPECIALLY if you get an unmetered body. Leicas are only fast operating cameras for people who have had a LOT of practice with them. The reason that Leicas have a reputation for being fast operating cameras is that when they first came out in the thirties, they were very fast cameras to use, compared to everything else that was on the market at the time. (note that I am referring here to the user's speed in operating the camera, not the speed of the lens.) These days, however, they are actually rather slow to use, especially for relative newbies to rangefinder cameras. For the first month or two, for you to make a well metered, well focused shot with an unmetered rangefinder camera will take you at least a minute. At small apertures like f11 or f16, exactly precise focus isn't as important because you have enough depth of field to cover slight errors, but at small apertures like f2.8, f2, and f1.4, precise focus is CRITICAL, and precise rangefinder focusing takes a good bit of practice. Shooting in low light makes rangefinder focusing even more difficult, because the focusing patch is more dim. Rangefinders are known for being good in low light because they don't have a mirror that flaps like a SLR does, but this only buys you a stop or two of slower shutter speed. They are only as good in low light, however, as your ability to focus them accurately in low light. If you dive straight in to a wedding with a rangefinder camera without lots of practice with it, you are going to miss a LOT of shots. The vast majority of wedding photographers these days use DSLRs (or SLRs in general) for a reason- they are faster to operate. Sure, there are plenty of people out there who have been using rangefinder cameras for years (Al Kaplan, for instance) who could run circles around any SLR user in the speed of operation department, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Also, and as with many of the things I have said, there are plenty of people who would disagree with me, but wanting to buy a camera just because it is the same camera a favorite photographer of yours uses is, in my opinion, a poor reason to choose a camera. It is much more important to find equipment that suits your own unique personal style of photography, be it large format, a rangefinder, an slr, or a toy camera. The camera does not make the photographer a superstar, the superstar photographer makes the camera sit up and beg.
Spend some time considering the Leica R system- it uses the same fantastic lens designs as the leica rangefinders, but it is an SLR camera system that seems like it would be better suited to your current skill level. R system equipment is also significantly cheaper than M system equipment. Whatever camera you get, I wholeheartedly recommend that you get one with a built in meter.
wgerrard
Veteran
I want to second Markin's comment. Choose a camera that's right for you. Don't get caught up in the romance of imitating someone else. If that turns out to be a rangefinder, that's fine. But, try to be rational about it. (Like I should talk.) Cameras can be an expensive way to discover one's own preferences.
I like rangefinders for mundane, but important, reasons. They're smaller and lighter. Their lenses are smaller and lighter. That's important to me because I really hate carrying stuff around. If a camera is too heavy or too cumbersome for me to use a wrist strap and carry it around for a few hours in my right hand, I won't use it. My eyes seem a better match for RF focusing, too. I also use an Olympus OM-2N, an SLR that's almost exactly the same size as a Bessa. (As Merkin notes, low light focusing can be problematic, but then it's problematic with an SLR. It's dark, after all.)
If I was doing weddings for money, I'd buy a good DSLR, put it on automatic with a fat memory card, turn off all sounds, and shoot up a storm, figuring that 90 percent of the pictures would be OK. I'm taking pictures for the bride and groom not for me. Just because I like old-fashioned manual focus cameras and figuring out exposure on my own doesn't mean that the automatic focusing and metering systems in today's DSLR's are not very capable and useful. In the seconds that I'm setting exposure and focusing with a rangefinder, the other guy has rattled off a couple dozen shots with his DSLR. Guess who stands a better chance of making the customers happy?
I like rangefinders for mundane, but important, reasons. They're smaller and lighter. Their lenses are smaller and lighter. That's important to me because I really hate carrying stuff around. If a camera is too heavy or too cumbersome for me to use a wrist strap and carry it around for a few hours in my right hand, I won't use it. My eyes seem a better match for RF focusing, too. I also use an Olympus OM-2N, an SLR that's almost exactly the same size as a Bessa. (As Merkin notes, low light focusing can be problematic, but then it's problematic with an SLR. It's dark, after all.)
If I was doing weddings for money, I'd buy a good DSLR, put it on automatic with a fat memory card, turn off all sounds, and shoot up a storm, figuring that 90 percent of the pictures would be OK. I'm taking pictures for the bride and groom not for me. Just because I like old-fashioned manual focus cameras and figuring out exposure on my own doesn't mean that the automatic focusing and metering systems in today's DSLR's are not very capable and useful. In the seconds that I'm setting exposure and focusing with a rangefinder, the other guy has rattled off a couple dozen shots with his DSLR. Guess who stands a better chance of making the customers happy?
snausages
Well-known
Multi, do you have access to any sort of light meter? Even if you used a small camera as a meter, it might be an informative exercise to set your DSLR to manual everything and then meter with something else. Then you can get a feel for that kind of workflow and judge if it's for you.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Have you already considered buying a used R-D1 and a fast 35mm lens, such as the Nokton 35mm f/1.4?
Bobonli
Established
Why don't you try borrowing or renting a RF before unholstering your Visa card?
If you're coming from DSLR land, there's going to be a bunch of ergonomic issues that you should be aware of before purchasing. I just "test drove" an M6 for a week and found:
1) Holding it was very different from holding a DSLR. Even though I have small hands, the M6 did not feel natural in my hand after decades of using SLR/DSLR.
2) The lens is arranged differently from my Nikkors, so I had to learn where to find the aperture ring etc
3) The lens is tiny compare to SLR lens. Once again, an ergonomic issue you must adapt to
4) As others have mentioned a RF is not the tool for fast action shots like sports and weddings where you need to focus and meter very quickly. Maybe for someone with years of practice, but not for a beginner.
Can one adapt to these differences? Yes. The question is whether you want to or need to to get the particular mission accomplished.
If you're not familiar with Sunny 16.......well not to be rude but that's pretty rudimentary. Completely understandable, however, since it's not essential knowledge to operate a DSLR. It is essential for a manual camera; otherwise, you'll be wasting a lot of film since you need to have some basis for knowing whether your meter is misleading you.
I'm a big fan of Mike (Nick) Nichols of Nat Geo. He speaks favorably of RFs in this month's Outside magazine. However, that would not motivate me to buy one without trying it out for myself.
If you're coming from DSLR land, there's going to be a bunch of ergonomic issues that you should be aware of before purchasing. I just "test drove" an M6 for a week and found:
1) Holding it was very different from holding a DSLR. Even though I have small hands, the M6 did not feel natural in my hand after decades of using SLR/DSLR.
2) The lens is arranged differently from my Nikkors, so I had to learn where to find the aperture ring etc
3) The lens is tiny compare to SLR lens. Once again, an ergonomic issue you must adapt to
4) As others have mentioned a RF is not the tool for fast action shots like sports and weddings where you need to focus and meter very quickly. Maybe for someone with years of practice, but not for a beginner.
Can one adapt to these differences? Yes. The question is whether you want to or need to to get the particular mission accomplished.
If you're not familiar with Sunny 16.......well not to be rude but that's pretty rudimentary. Completely understandable, however, since it's not essential knowledge to operate a DSLR. It is essential for a manual camera; otherwise, you'll be wasting a lot of film since you need to have some basis for knowing whether your meter is misleading you.
I'm a big fan of Mike (Nick) Nichols of Nat Geo. He speaks favorably of RFs in this month's Outside magazine. However, that would not motivate me to buy one without trying it out for myself.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Multi, you mentioned you just ordered a Kiev 4. I think (as long as you've got a GOOD copy) that will give you some idea how RF works and if it's the right type of camera. (If you get a bad copy, your first experience with RF camera would a bad one, but don't judge the whole RF cameras based on that!)
I'd suggest buying an used Bessa or a Leica you can comfortably afford, try it for a month or 10 - 20 rolls, then do one of the following: 1) keep it, 2) sell and buy the RF camera you really like to have, 3) sell and get back to your DSLR system.
Thankfully, unlike cutting edge digital SLRs, used film RF cameras won't lose their values much over time. So if you decide to sell it after a month or two, it is likely that you are not losing any money. If you want to get your money back quickly, sell it a bit cheaper than the price you paid, and call the difference the "rental" fee. So when I said "you can afford," that actually means the money you don't need to see for a month or two, not losing in the "gamble" over this RF tryout.
That's what I did, and I'm now madly in love with RF cameras after being SLR user for 15 years. (well, I still love my OM, though)
I'd suggest buying an used Bessa or a Leica you can comfortably afford, try it for a month or 10 - 20 rolls, then do one of the following: 1) keep it, 2) sell and buy the RF camera you really like to have, 3) sell and get back to your DSLR system.
Thankfully, unlike cutting edge digital SLRs, used film RF cameras won't lose their values much over time. So if you decide to sell it after a month or two, it is likely that you are not losing any money. If you want to get your money back quickly, sell it a bit cheaper than the price you paid, and call the difference the "rental" fee. So when I said "you can afford," that actually means the money you don't need to see for a month or two, not losing in the "gamble" over this RF tryout.
That's what I did, and I'm now madly in love with RF cameras after being SLR user for 15 years. (well, I still love my OM, though)
Last edited:
multivitamins
Member
Hi, first of all thanks for the informative comments. I think I should consider getting a body with M mount rather than the LTM.
About wedding. Yes, Its pretty hard to shoot wedding when you don't have the right gears. I've done I think 8 weddings now and I think DSLR suits very well... About getting into RF... Actually, its not my favorite photographer that influenced me to go fully RF. He influenced me to get a leica. hehe.. The main reason that pushed me to get an RF is I want something new. I want a new era in my passion.
Well, its a personal thing. It may be more practical and easier to use DSLR. But sometimes I just really want something to satisfy my craving for photographs. And I think RF will give me more satisfying pictures as compared to DSLR. Because using RF I need to work more. I need to think more. I need to compose accurately as much as possible since I only have 24 or 36 shots left. It may not be as sharp as my 70-200 L lens, but Its more satisfying.
I think I will learn more of the basics in RF. Its just me...
Thanks for the comment. Now I need to learn how to use the Sunny 16.
multivitamins
Member
Hi gerrard.
My weekend/part-time job is an events photographer. I also do some portraits and now exploring fashion photography. And Im being paid.
Its just me. I do like DSLR because its more practical and easy to use. Yes, I am confident that I can get good pictures out of it. The same thing I want to do with RF. I want to take the risk to explore more about photography. I have nothing against DSLR. Its just me. I like trying out things. I want something different. I still can borrow a good DSLR for my part-time job. I just feel that I need something new now to satisfy cravings.
Thanks for the comment. I really like this forum. People do help you here...
multivitamins
Member
Yes. I use full manual metering with my DSLR. I just don't know how to use an external light meter. Kinda different. I purchased one from ebay for $2 and see it myself. I'll let you know once I get it. Its kinda vintage. It has GOST and some shutter speed numbers. i think its hard to use because its cheap.
multivitamins
Member
Not thinking of getting a digital RF yet. I want to learn how to develop and print some films myself.
multivitamins
Member
Thanks for sharing your experience with RF. I expect that RF is a new world.
I started digital thats why I never mind knowing the Sunny 16 since my camera has a built in meter. I guess I need to practice it now. I'll just buy a bessa first and try it for a few months. lets see what will happen. If I like it, I'll upgrade. If I don't - I'll sell it.
Thanks.
Hi,
I think I'll get a cheap one first, like bessa and a lens like 35 or 40 or 50. I'll play with it for a month or two. And lets see what happens. Im really tempted now to get a body without a built it meter . It will force me to learn more, especially the sunny 16.
Hopefully I can get my kiev 4 this week. Hopefully it doesnt have any probs. I got it really cheap....
katcons
Established
Hi, just my two cents (aka how I got bitten by the RF Bug). 
My take on it: try several sorts of [inexpensive] gear before plunging for the really VISA-busting purchases.
I'm relatively new to film photography, being into it for a year. For around 10 months, I have been using rangefinders mostly for going to the streets, and even up to portraits if I get to be really lucky to be close enough to the subject.
The following are my RFs, in order of purchase/ gifting:
- Yashica Electro 35GSN (Aug'08)
- Konica C35 (May'09)
- Kiev 4 (Jul'09)
- Kodak Retina IIc (Jul'09)
- Leica IIIf (Aug'09)
I started with the "basic" metered RF first, and felt how RFs work, focusing, adjusting, and just get the feel of things. The Konica C35 was a smaller and lighter alternative, but still had automatic functions.
When I got used to it, I got the Kiev 4 so I can have more control over the camera. The thing is built like a tank, and I loved it. It also inspired me to take to heart exposure settings, and using my palm as an improvised light meter.
The Kodak Retina IIc is very compact, and can be easily put into my girlie bag when I don't feel like lugging along my Fastpack. IMO, it's also great in low light.
Then, the IIIf! My birthday gift to myself, haha. It's so light (compared to my other cameras) and compact, especially with the collapsible lenses. I'm using an Elmar and J3 on it now, with the J12, industars, and helios on their way from Alex Photo.
For me, each camera has its specific purpose, and I'm very comfortable with this setup. Once you get the Kiev, I would recommend doing some street photography with it. Will it come with the Jupiter 8?
Hoping it arrives soon.
My take on it: try several sorts of [inexpensive] gear before plunging for the really VISA-busting purchases.
I'm relatively new to film photography, being into it for a year. For around 10 months, I have been using rangefinders mostly for going to the streets, and even up to portraits if I get to be really lucky to be close enough to the subject.
The following are my RFs, in order of purchase/ gifting:
- Yashica Electro 35GSN (Aug'08)
- Konica C35 (May'09)
- Kiev 4 (Jul'09)
- Kodak Retina IIc (Jul'09)
- Leica IIIf (Aug'09)
I started with the "basic" metered RF first, and felt how RFs work, focusing, adjusting, and just get the feel of things. The Konica C35 was a smaller and lighter alternative, but still had automatic functions.
When I got used to it, I got the Kiev 4 so I can have more control over the camera. The thing is built like a tank, and I loved it. It also inspired me to take to heart exposure settings, and using my palm as an improvised light meter.
The Kodak Retina IIc is very compact, and can be easily put into my girlie bag when I don't feel like lugging along my Fastpack. IMO, it's also great in low light.
Then, the IIIf! My birthday gift to myself, haha. It's so light (compared to my other cameras) and compact, especially with the collapsible lenses. I'm using an Elmar and J3 on it now, with the J12, industars, and helios on their way from Alex Photo.
For me, each camera has its specific purpose, and I'm very comfortable with this setup. Once you get the Kiev, I would recommend doing some street photography with it. Will it come with the Jupiter 8?
Hoping it arrives soon.
Last edited:
multivitamins
Member
Hi, just my two cents (aka how I got bitten by the RF Bug).
My take on it: try several sorts of [inexpensive] gear before plunging for the really VISA-busting purchases.
I'm relatively new to film photography, being into it for a year. For around 10 months, I have been using rangefinders mostly for going to the streets, and even up to portraits if I get to be really lucky to be close enough to the subject.
The following are my RFs, in order of purchase/ gifting:
- Yashica Electro 35GSN (Aug'08)
- Konica C35 (May'09)
- Kiev 4 (Jul'09)
- Kodak Retina IIc (Jul'09)
- Leica IIIf (Aug'09)
I started with the "basic" metered RF first, and felt how RFs work, focusing, adjusting, and just get the feel of things. The Konica C35 was a smaller and lighter alternative, but still had automatic functions.
When I got used to it, I got the Kiev 4 so I can have more control over the camera. The thing is built like a tank, and I loved it. It also inspired me to take to heart exposure settings, and using my palm as an improvised light meter.
The Kodak Retina IIc is very compact, and can be easily put into my girlie bag when I don't feel like lugging along my Fastpack. IMO, it's also great in low light.
Then, the IIIf! My birthday gift to myself, haha. It's so light (compared to my other cameras) and compact, especially with the collapsible lenses. I'm using an Elmar and J3 on it now, with the J12, industars, and helios on their way from Alex Photo.
For me, each camera has its specific purpose, and I'm very comfortable with this setup. Once you get the Kiev, I would recommend doing some street photography with it. Will it come with the Jupiter 8?
Hoping it arrives soon.
yes. Its a Kit. kiev 4 and jupiter 8. However I don't know if it really works coz I got it really cheap. Plus, it includes a vintage meter something.
Well, I think I'll be getting a cheap one first like bessa. Take a sip and see if I like the taste.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi, If the important word is "passion" then we've gone right back to a Leica M2... Just expect a bit of culture shock and a lot of fun.
Regards, David
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sunny-16 is an method to approximate exposure setting without the use of a light meter.
It's based on one known good setting: Set your shutter speed to the closest to your film ASA number, and set the aperture to f/16 when it is bright and sunny.
That's why it's called the Sunny-16.
The beauty of this method is that it's an offset system. You decide how much light is available and you offset the above "rule" to accommodate the light.
So for instance, in a shade of tall buildings, you'd use f/8 or f/5.6 instead of f/16 even though it's a bright and sunny day.
After you learn how to offset the settings based on the light, it'll become second nature and you'll be surprised how much that liberated you from having to use meters.
This works very well for C-41 and B&W film which have a good margin for exposure setting tolerance. Slide film will be more hit and miss unless you're in a situation where the lighting is constant.
Give it a try, to me, this is the preferable way to use TLR and rangefinder cameras
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Multi,
There is a really nice looking M6 (with 0.85 finder) recently CLA'd and much better MP VF/RF upgrade by Sherry K. for pretty sweet price.
Just a heads up, no affiliation with the seller. I've talked with Mike over PM and he seems really nice guy though.
Update: Well, it's gone already.
There is a really nice looking M6 (with 0.85 finder) recently CLA'd and much better MP VF/RF upgrade by Sherry K. for pretty sweet price.
Just a heads up, no affiliation with the seller. I've talked with Mike over PM and he seems really nice guy though.
Update: Well, it's gone already.
Last edited:
slungu
Established
I am also just starting with the rangefinder business and I can only subscribe to the above. I got myself a Bessa R2 and a Voigtlander 90/3.5 because I just saw a great deal on that lens. Still looking for a good deal for a 35mm lens and eyeing a V35/3.5 or a very good deal on the ZM35/2.0 I plan to add a 21mm later on and maybe a 35 Nokton for low light athmospheric shots, but for now I am just going out with the Bessa and the 90mm looking for shots and getting used to the camera. I can not imagine regretting getting the Bessa, even if at some point I will get a Leica body, I simply want to take pictures.
Good luck and have fun
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
With your budget you can do it the best way from the beginning.
Get a nice M2 and the 35 1.2 Nokton, with a sekonic for incident and spot metering.
Cheers,
Juan
Get a nice M2 and the 35 1.2 Nokton, with a sekonic for incident and spot metering.
Cheers,
Juan