Rethinking RF

[Tim Gray]

I've had my M6 + 50 cron for about a year. I've really enjoyed the camera so far. At the same time, I've noticed my favorite photos from the last year are from my Canon 1V, which I've actually only had for 6 months, with a 28 or a 50 usually mounted. To be honest, the thing I like the most about the M setup is its size. Shooting with it is great, but the best part about the size is how tiny the bag is with the camera, lens, and 4-5 rolls of film. It's a joy to carry around the city or on a trip while *not* taking photos.

I think part of the reason for the high usage of the 1V is the 28mm lens - I don't always see 50mm, even though I shot for 6 months with just the M6 and the 50. A lot of shots seem to need a 28 or a 35 for me. Which leads me to think that I should get one for my M to properly evaluate its fit to me as a camera. Which leads me to the fact that I've been seriously considering picking up a 35 ZM lens. Which leads me to the root of all evil, money. Funny how that works.

As much as I'd love to have a 35 and a 28 on my M6, that costs money, money which I don't necessarily have. I started to think about the fact that that my M6+50 costs about $1500. And that something like an OM-1n + 50 + 35 would cost about $150 and satisfy pretty much all the things I like best about my M6. Am I silly for thinking this?

Or I could just give up and get one of those newfangled Canon G9's.

 

[Gid]

There are plenty of people here who would say you are very sane for considering the OM. I suppose it depends if you need or want to hand hold down to 1/8 on a regular basis. As for digital, then, that is a different proposal altogether and opens up a whole new range of possibilities.

 

[Tim Gray]

You know, that's one factor that I obviously forgot. I do quite enjoy taking pictures down at 1/15 and sometimes 1/8. I'm sure in the end, I'll sit on it for awhile longer and pick up a 35. It's not like I'll lose that much money on this stuff if I decide to sell at a later date.

Digital/film... not the primary concern. I love shooting B&W film and will continue to do so, but I was originally interested in the M because it was a relatively small package with a good image.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm sort of the same as you, I tend to get slightly better results with SLRs sometimes, I dont know why - It just seems to work with my for some reason. I love the feel of mechanical film SLRs like the FM2 and leica r8s etc but they're just too big and bulky - I may as well use a DSLR

OM's are really great... If you're going to do it and use it seriously my advice would be to get it a FULL CLA at camtech first - make sure it's going to be trusty for you. Not that they're unreliable but they're quite old. Also, I can handhold my OM2n pretty much as well as my m4-2. Down to 1/8th pretty well, sometimes lower depending on the circumstances.
I use a 30d DSLR and an m4-2 and an om2n.
This covers all bases for me - the DSLR for serious client work, the m4-2 as an everyday carry camera and the OM2n as a more serious focussed film camera.
The OM is actually smaller than my leica, the lenses slightly larger in most cases. However, the lenses aren't as good as zeiss/leica glass. Still quite good though.

Don't opt for one of those canon g9s - the film cams you mentioned have a much better quality and cost less.

I don't know if this answers what your asking, but I did try!

 

[drewbarb]

I like RF cameras for the benefits of the whole optical system. Hand-holding low speeds is only one of these. I also like not being blind during the instant of exposure. The biggest benefit, though, is the fact that using an RF is so relatively imprecise that I stop rely on the camera so much, and use my naked eyes more, and more critically, and use the camera to grab what I see. When I use an SLR, the tunnel vision effect puts more distance between me and my subject; and I can't see very well- did my flash fire? Was the subject making a funny face in that last shot? Did I miss the moment I wanted? A RF puts less distance between me- my eyes- and the things I am trying to see.

If you're using the RF and the SLR as basically the same kind of tool, then I think you are missing much of the point of RF shooting. That said, it makes most sense to use the tool that works best for you. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[shadowfox]

Tim, here's an idea, get an LTM to M-bayonet adapter, then shop patiently for an affordable old Leica, Zeiss, or Jupiter wide-angle lenses.

In particular, you may want to research on Jupiter 12 (35mm/3.5) which is cheap. It would give you the same "look" as you would get with your Leica glasses. I'm not saying the same quality, just that classic real-glass-lens look.

On the other hand, I would be glad if you decided to pick up an OM kit also.

 

[2tcreative]

Om user as well

Om user as well

I have a fairly complete OM system (at least for me). I have an OM1n (backup) to two OM4 bodies. I have motor drives for all 3. I have all Zuiko lenses from the 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 4 different 50's (1.4 MC, 1.4 SC, 1.8 MIJ and a 3.5 macro), 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/2.8 and the 300/4.5.

In all honesty, I shoot with the 35mm or 28mm almost all the time. Which is why I have moved back into the rangefinder area. Even though I think the OM is quieter than most older 35mm and it is in the size area (minus the drives) of a nice rangefinder, it still doesn't allow me to work quietly enough and doesn't give me the range in darker environments. Lens speed is one thing, but these old eyes see better through the RF viewfinder than even through a 1.4 slr finder.

I wish I could find the OM to M mount adapter as I think the Zuikos are right there with the best lenses in the world. I especially like my 24 and 28. Plus, I most likely spent less for all my lenses than one master-class RF lens like the Summilux.

I may start to thin out my OM collection to make room for a few more RF lenses. Especially since I have a Contax IIa coming back from Henry Scherer that he says looked like it had never been used when he opened it up!! Would love to add a couple of classic lens to it to go with the Zeiss Opton 50/1.5!

 

[JNewell]

Not silly - but I find I look at the world, and engage with the subject, very differently when using an SLR compared to an RF. "Dynamic," people-centered situations usually come out better with an RF. Static subjects, extreme WA, extreme tele/sports, etc., work better for me with an SLR. It's sort of a making vs taking the picture difference. I have tried to give up the RF several times and keep coming back (and getting killed on $ when I do - no more!).

 

[raid]

Would the Om-M adapter give you coupled Rf capability?

 

[BillBingham2]

Tim,

You are not crazy to ask the questions. Now if you start loosing arguments with yourself, that’s another matter, but I will not go there.

Up until I got a Nikon S2 (now I’ve switch to an S3 2000), I’ve never been a 50 user/lover other than for close-up stuff. I have a 40/1.4 that is on my M6 most of the time and am very happy with it. When I’m carrying a single camera it’s either a Bessa L or a Leica M4-P with a 25/4 on it. I sold my 21/2.8 Elmarit because it never got any use, the 15/25 combo replaced it and did a better job. The 15 for when I need to get everything in and the 25 is way better with respect to distortion.

When I go on long trips I carry both an SLR and a RF kit. SLR for long stuff (180 and up) and RF for 105 and wider. While my main kit is based around an F2A, I do have an OM-1 kit that gets almost as much use. I have a wide in each (28/2.8) that are very small and it gives me a back up if my main RF camera (S3 2000 or M6) goes south.

Leica glass is great, but the price is way out of line. IMHO, even the new stuff is too high. ZI (Tony Rose has great prices) is more reasonable, but I love CV glass. The price is great and quality is very close to Leica. If you do existing darkness, the CV 35/1.2 is in a class to itself. I still have a 35 and a 90 ‘Cron that I will never sell, but I’ve found some great stuff a lot less expensive. Take a look at the new CV lenses in M mount (21 & 25). I have the old mount version of the 25 and it ROCKS.

B2 (;->

 

[Issy]

And that something like an OM-1n + 50 + 35 would cost about $150 and satisfy pretty much all the things I like best about my M6. Am I silly for thinking this?

QUOTE]

Not at all. This might not be the best forum to get sympathy, though.
😉 (tongue, firmly in cheek)

I have been bouncing back and forth between shooting my Hexar and my Nikon F100 with "primes".

My wife even commented... I "see" better with the F100. I personally, "see" and frame an image beter if I have it like the LCD on the back of a digital point and shoot ---only what will be in the frame.

The RF user will argue the ability to see what's coming into the frame, and the lack of "blackout", but for me I am either distracted by what's outside, or lose track of the framelines. YMMV

I've thought of doing somehting similar with an old Nikon FG body (small), and some small nikon AIS primes.

Bill

 

[2tcreative]

Coupled RF with OM adapter

Coupled RF with OM adapter

Would the Om-M adapter give you coupled Rf capability?

Raid, as I understand the adapter to work, it would not allow coupling to the RF. However, since I would use it on the 24 and the 28 I could get away with range focusing. And the Zuikos are nearly as small as the larger M-type lenses so wouldn't be un-balanced or un-natural.

 

[ferider]

Would the Om-M adapter give you coupled Rf capability?

There are two adapters. An uncoupled one, and a more expensive one
that is coupled but has a separate focusing scale. You focus using
the adapter focus ring, read the distance, and transfer to the lens.
Or as I sometimes do, so set both lens and adapter to a certain distance,
like 1m, for instance, and then move your body until the patch aligns.

Here you go, the coupled one:

Hoping to one day get the 21/2 for it ....

Roland.

 

[2tcreative]

There are two adapters. An uncoupled one, and a more expensive one
that is coupled but has a separate focusing scale. You focus using
the adapter focus ring, read the distance, and transfer to the lens.
Or as I sometimes do, so set both lens and adapter to a certain distance,
like 1m, for instance, and then move your body until the patch aligns.

Here you go, the coupled one:

Hoping to one day get the 21/2 for it ....

Roland.

Roland, did you get the adapters from Stephen Gandy, or...? I can't seem to find either one. Stehphen hasn't returned my email request regarding an adapter for OM to M.

 

[ferider]

Got mine from Stephen, yes. It will take about a month to get it made.
Try sending him an RFF PM. I once lost some emails from him in our
spam filter here at work ...

One more thing, which I thought was a bit annoying: the adapter can
only be made to bring up 50mm lines.

Good luck,

Roland.

 

[raid]

Raid, as I understand the adapter to work, it would not allow coupling to the RF. However, since I would use it on the 24 and the 28 I could get away with range focusing. And the Zuikos are nearly as small as the larger M-type lenses so wouldn't be un-balanced or un-natural.

I have a Canon FD adapter B that lets me use FD lenses on LTM bodies without RF coupling. Using Zuiko lenses sounds good to me.

 

[raid]

There are two adapters. An uncoupled one, and a more expensive one
that is coupled but has a separate focusing scale. You focus using
the adapter focus ring, read the distance, and transfer to the lens.
Or as I sometimes do, so set both lens and adapter to a certain distance,
like 1m, for instance, and then move your body until the patch aligns.

Here you go, the coupled one:

Hoping to one day get the 21/2 for it ....

Roland.

Roland: This is a fine looking lens and adapter. Good for you.

 

[mich8261]

Tim,

You have put into words what I have been suppressing in my mind. About a year ago I joined the RF crowd with a Canonet and followed shortly by a Bessa and eventually an M2. It has made me enjoy shooting film again and even got me to learn to process B&W. But I have struggled with the actually photography. I have difficulty "seeing" with the RF cameras. When I took a class, I often shot one roll on a manual SLR and the other on one of the RF cameras. Without saying which was which, my teacher often found the SLR rolls to have more keepers. I think one of the difficulties I am having is coping with the minimum focussing distance. I am not ready to give up, but I need to find some ways to improve my shots. Maybe I have to give up the SLRs so that I learn a new way rather than compare.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[Trius]

This will likely sound like heresy coming from me ...

If I were to only able to have one system and the choice were between RF and OM, it would probably be RF. I say probably because I bounce back and forth between "seeing" better with an SLR, and doing better with an RF, especially for available darkness and quick shooting. Close/macro work is another factor to consider, so that would tip the balance back to OM.

As much as I love Zuiko glass and have certain favourites, RF glass (be it Leica, Zeiss or CV) in many, many cases presents a better "look" to me.

That said, I don't think I'm getting the best out of my OM glass right now. I don't know what it is, and maybe it's just a feeling that isn't justified. I have several rolls of K64 that just got shipped off to Dwayne's yesterday, plus a roll of Reala that is being souped. When it comes back I may change my mind.

Gid: Your comment about the OM handheld at 1/8s intrigues me. I don't think I can do that, but I haven't done any controlled test to show me the results vs. an RF @ 1/8s. I'll have to do that. I feel comfortable with my RF @ 1/8 and even 1/4, but only 1/60 or 1/30 on the OM. Like I said, I'm going to do some testing to see what actual results are.

 

[JNewell]

I have difficulty "seeing" with the RF cameras.

My own experience is that some things I just can't / don't see with an RF.

Also, for what it's worth, "seeing" the RF way really does take some work to develop, and to maintain.

If I had to pick one, I guess it would be an SLR - but happily I haven't had to choose one or the other.

I will say that for me at least while not everything works on RF, the things that do work much better...much, much better. But it's only a subset of things that I photograph.

If I could take you back into the early 1980s you'd see what it looks like when someone tries to do it all with an RF. Viso housings, accessory finders, yada yada yada. That didn't work, either!