jaimiepeeters
Well-known
1/500 is definitely fast enough, it must be camera or user error.
these were taken at 1/250:
and these at 1/500:
and 1/125:
The feet of your second and third image are motion blurred
Richard G
Veteran
Like me, and he's only like me in this, Simon finds 1/250 is enough. If the light is available I will always have 1/250 as the default on the street. I thought of Simon as soon as I saw the thread title. Some of his images are etched in my memory. Hopefully a question like this comes up again soon so we see some more.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Buy an M9 and the shutter speed goes up to 1/4000 
before you all load up your shotguns and seek me out, it was just a joke; though Leica lovers and haters get heated so I'll chuck a few angels and such in to make amends...
:angel::angel:
...I'll get my coat...
before you all load up your shotguns and seek me out, it was just a joke; though Leica lovers and haters get heated so I'll chuck a few angels and such in to make amends...:angel:
:angel:...I'll get my coat...
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
well.. I was asking for which RF would work for ME.. I'm sure you guys can come up with some good options that have shutters faster than 500?
Sounds like the cameras shutter isn't firing at the speeds indicated on the dial. As far as a step up... how about a Bessa R or a Leica CL?
Meakin
Established
Well ..IMHO - I find it hard to believe that the reason for your problem is that you need a camera with a shutter faster than 1/500 of a sec. But with that being said, it is your choice and one RF that does come to mind is the Konica Hexar RF (Top shutter speed = 1/4000 sec.)
/Meakin
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Show me a picture of a man walking, close up, and nothing is motion blurred on 1/500
When you shoot somebody from a distance you wont see the tiny movements, but close up, you need higher than 500. I tested it with the X100.. I got it sharp between 640 and 1000.
The Hexar RF plus lens puts me back about 1500, doest it not? anyting perhaps in the 1000 € range?
When you shoot somebody from a distance you wont see the tiny movements, but close up, you need higher than 500. I tested it with the X100.. I got it sharp between 640 and 1000.
The Hexar RF plus lens puts me back about 1500, doest it not? anyting perhaps in the 1000 € range?
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
nobody seems to believe us, but trial and error proves us right..
not that THAT matters.. but I would rather talk about a solution.
furcafe
Veteran
It's not that we don't believe you, just that you seem to have higher, sports photography-style, standards for avoiding any blur. Most street shooters prefer, or are willing to accept, some blur (after all, Saints Cartier-Bresson & Winogrand didn't have a problem w/it ). There's a reason why sports photographers use modern equipment, not RFs or TLRs like they did back in the '40s & '50s.
As far as solutions, they're pretty limited: a used Hexar RF, which tops out @ 1/4000th, or 1 of the newer Bessas & the Zeiss Ikon, which top out @ 1/2000th. There's no film RF that goes up to 1/8000th like a Nikon D4 or Canon 1Ds (or their film predecessors).
). There's a reason why sports photographers use modern equipment, not RFs or TLRs like they did back in the '40s & '50s.As far as solutions, they're pretty limited: a used Hexar RF, which tops out @ 1/4000th, or 1 of the newer Bessas & the Zeiss Ikon, which top out @ 1/2000th. There's no film RF that goes up to 1/8000th like a Nikon D4 or Canon 1Ds (or their film predecessors).
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
It's not that we don't believe you, just that you seem to have higher, sports photography-style, standards for avoiding any blur. Most street shooters prefer, or are willing to accept, some blur (after all, Saints Cartier-Bresson & Winogrand didn't have a problem w/it
As far as solutions, they're pretty limited: a used Hexar RF, which tops out @ 1/4000th, or 1 of the newer Bessas & the Zeiss Ikon, which top out @ 1/2000th. There's no film RF that goes up to 1/8000th like a Nikon D4 or Canon 1Ds (or their film predecessors).
OK, let me point out Joel Meyerowitz. I like his style and that would be a perfect example of what I'm trying ot achieve, explain. I dont think I need to go up to 4000 but higher than 500 (lets say 1000) should do the trick.
Doesn't the Leica M series go up to 4000 too? Leica M2/M3? Not sure about this really, just asking.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
found it:
Joel Meyerowitz: It's a difference in the ASA at which you're shooting. We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry's were crisp. Frank didn't work that way. His pictures were much slower. You could see he was working at 1/30th and 1/60th and 1/125th.
so 1000 is the key... now the camera.
Joel Meyerowitz: It's a difference in the ASA at which you're shooting. We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry's were crisp. Frank didn't work that way. His pictures were much slower. You could see he was working at 1/30th and 1/60th and 1/125th.
so 1000 is the key... now the camera.
foolproof
Established
danielmk2
Member
the speed does matters, however it's us that solve the problems. If we use an M with max. 1/1000 shutter, just keep that in mind and don't try to push it over its limit. If we use an Hexar RF with 1/4000, we have the chance to push ourselves further
furcafe is right, style makes difference, I do have many photos that are a little blur, but I'm still happy with them because they don't always need to be very sharp
If any fast motion should be totally freezed for that moment, don't hesitate, grab the Hexar RF and shoot, it's what you need, I'm pretty sure
furcafe is right, style makes difference, I do have many photos that are a little blur, but I'm still happy with them because they don't always need to be very sharp
If any fast motion should be totally freezed for that moment, don't hesitate, grab the Hexar RF and shoot, it's what you need, I'm pretty sure
TXForester
Well-known
I don't own a Leica, but looked it up on cameraquest.com. It says there the M3 goes to 1/1000. That should do it for you.
The Canon P goes to 1/1000 too.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Thanks TX.. I saw a Hexar RF incl Voigtländer Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 PII start bidding at 600€ ... and M2 + lens would set me back about 1000 total.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
So do Barnack Leicas (IIIa and later), Contax/Kiev, Nikon... Not rocket science. Just don't expect it to work reliably, unless the camera has recently been tuned up.
Get a Bessa. A hundred bucks buys a Bessa-L (I doubt you're using the RF much with your style).
Bob Michaels
nobody special
The light output of the sun is constant everywhere on the earth. Now sometimes there is a bit of haze but you mentioned "sharp tree shadow on ground" which indicates clear sky. Is your reading a reflected reading from something dark? That might indicate why you would get a stop over actual. Some meters drift as well. Of course, in actual practice a stop more exposure using negative film means nothing. How one meters can strongly influence the reading one gets. But if you take an accurate reading with a good incident meter, you would get a stop less. That is why some old timers who do not use a meter always get perfect exposure while those who simply follow meter readings are mislead.
Richard G
Veteran
Bob, some of those old timers were using a Rolleiflex which had an exposure guide on the back, with different exposures for winter versus summer. The low winter sun in northern Europe through more of the atmosphere does reduce the light somewhat.
Meakin
Established
I'm not going to "show" you anything, I don't need to (EDIT: I can see others have) - I have an opinion different from yours. Respect that please, and I will do the same with yours
What I'm trying to say is this:
In my humble opinion and from what you have described in this thread, you would be in a far more advantageous postion, if you worked on adapting your technique to fit the situation - instead of seeking a technical solution so as to adapt the situation to your liking.
I'm not saying that 1/500 sec is enough in any situation, only that from what is described here, it seems plausible that the problem may be elsewhere than the 1/500 sec max shutter.
Good luck!
Cheers,
/Meakin
How many more do we have to list? There are bunch listed in this thread. What is wrong with the suggestions?