jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
jacema said:
Hello!
My first post here.
Unfortunately Leica caught on to that idea a year ago. You can buy the M7 in about any coulour now....A lot more expensive and more desirable for thieves I fear....
What's so fantastic 'bout Leica M?
- Thread starter jacema
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 5K
Hello!
My first post here.
Unfortunately Leica caught on to that idea a year ago. You can buy the M7 in about any coulour now....A lot more expensive and more desirable for thieves I fear....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Surely 21/4.5 Biogon? (I have one, Contax fit with M-adapter).
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger
jacema
Member
I have developed the first film from my M2 and half of the pictures are unsharp - so I'm really thinking right now.
I have checked that the lenses focus correct as well in the VF/RF and in the film plane using a piece of ground glass - everything is dead on.
I don't like the perspective of this - I mean 5, 10, 20 years ago I couldn't afford a Leica, but YES I wanted one (it is a great camera and some of the myths about it is utterly nonsense!) and now I might have to face the fact that I'm NOT a RF photographer, because it all boils down to what I see in the viewfinder - in a SLR what's sharp in the viewfinder is sharp on the film - in a RF everything appears to be sharp, but it's actually not.
I really don't like this situation - all right I'm not giving up but give it one or two more tries. OTH if the amount of unsharp pictures doesn't decrease drastically on the next film and the next - then the conclusion will be to trade the camera in for something else.
Jacques.
I have checked that the lenses focus correct as well in the VF/RF and in the film plane using a piece of ground glass - everything is dead on.
I don't like the perspective of this - I mean 5, 10, 20 years ago I couldn't afford a Leica, but YES I wanted one (it is a great camera and some of the myths about it is utterly nonsense!) and now I might have to face the fact that I'm NOT a RF photographer, because it all boils down to what I see in the viewfinder - in a SLR what's sharp in the viewfinder is sharp on the film - in a RF everything appears to be sharp, but it's actually not.
I really don't like this situation - all right I'm not giving up but give it one or two more tries. OTH if the amount of unsharp pictures doesn't decrease drastically on the next film and the next - then the conclusion will be to trade the camera in for something else.
Jacques.
vsolanoy
Established
I'm new to RF photography, but I got a Voigtlander R3A, not an M2 (don't know if I would be able to function without a TTL light meter). The first series of photos were out of focus as I learned to use the focus system, but got progressively better.
The camera's in the shop right now being re-calibrated and rangefinder re-aligned (the rangefinder was off vertically by a hair causing a double image and making it difficult to use in low light).
I'm very happy with the advantages of rangefinder photography -- small, lightweight package (compared to my SLR and DSLR). Given its small size, the lenses are fairly small (I only have a Voigtlander 40mm Nokton) with high quality optics. I really do have to admit that it's not the everything camera that my highly automated SLR and DSLR are, but it really does work better with people - no one mistakes me for a professional photographer (because I'm not).
The camera's in the shop right now being re-calibrated and rangefinder re-aligned (the rangefinder was off vertically by a hair causing a double image and making it difficult to use in low light).
I'm very happy with the advantages of rangefinder photography -- small, lightweight package (compared to my SLR and DSLR). Given its small size, the lenses are fairly small (I only have a Voigtlander 40mm Nokton) with high quality optics. I really do have to admit that it's not the everything camera that my highly automated SLR and DSLR are, but it really does work better with people - no one mistakes me for a professional photographer (because I'm not).
aizan
Veteran
how were you photographing? that'd make it easier to diagnose the problem.
jacema
Member
I was shooting indoors during daytime - the problem is that in a SLR you automatically adjust the focus to see how the motive is, but you don't have to do that with a RF - everything is clear and sharp.
As I said, I'm not gonna give up yet - no way! My intention was to let that M2 live on my chest 24/7.
Jacques.
As I said, I'm not gonna give up yet - no way! My intention was to let that M2 live on my chest 24/7.
Jacques.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
Sometimes when I use an SLR a lot and switch back to an RF I forget to focus.
-Paul
-Paul
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
can you post a few pics here, maybe we can help, are the pics "blurry" as in out of focus or do they look like camera shake? What shutter speeds were you using, etc.? Using an RF takes some getting use to.
Todd
Todd
jacema
Member
They are out of focus or better the focus plane is either behind and that's the majority or in front of where I wanted. Shutterspeed was 1/250 so no camera shake.
I hope I get use to this camera so it'll be just as natural for me to use as my SLR's.
Jacques.
I hope I get use to this camera so it'll be just as natural for me to use as my SLR's.
Jacques.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Jacques, not to rain on your parade, but if anything, the lens may be the culprit. See, it's a Jupiter 12 (AFAIR, the 35mm glass with a huge rear element, right?), and, according to some, these Russian lenses can cause some focusing problem. I had my heart set on a Jupiter 3 (which, IIRC, is the fast 50mm lens in the FSU gear family), but after reading of the focusing problems it may cause, I gave up on it.
Go back to the store, see to "try" either a Leica, Voigtländer or Konica RF glass on your M2 body. In fact, ask if they'd allow a "test drive" on it (after all, you just paid some good money for this camera) and develop the film to find out.
The camera, after all, is a box for film. The glass is the eye that records the image... as the photographer sees it. Good luck... and welcome to the forum! 🙂
Go back to the store, see to "try" either a Leica, Voigtländer or Konica RF glass on your M2 body. In fact, ask if they'd allow a "test drive" on it (after all, you just paid some good money for this camera) and develop the film to find out.
The camera, after all, is a box for film. The glass is the eye that records the image... as the photographer sees it. Good luck... and welcome to the forum! 🙂
MCTuomey
Veteran
I think Todd's request is the right one. Share some of the pictures here and you'll be surprised at how willing members are to offer constructive criticism.
Recently I just processed my first roll run thru my "new" M4 as well. Although relatively new to RFs, my pix were all pretty well focussed. My own problem was exposure. My educated guesses were not so ... educated (tried to use my little Sekonic here and there as confirmation). Point is we all have to learn to use these fine tools - it's not a case of instant gratification. Looking at the Leica-based work of many of the members here, I think the learning curve is worth it ...
OTOH, if you're really uncomfortable with your camera, selling it and opting for the automation of a new Leica or something like a Bessa R2A or R3A might be a path to consider.
Recently I just processed my first roll run thru my "new" M4 as well. Although relatively new to RFs, my pix were all pretty well focussed. My own problem was exposure. My educated guesses were not so ... educated (tried to use my little Sekonic here and there as confirmation). Point is we all have to learn to use these fine tools - it's not a case of instant gratification. Looking at the Leica-based work of many of the members here, I think the learning curve is worth it ...
OTOH, if you're really uncomfortable with your camera, selling it and opting for the automation of a new Leica or something like a Bessa R2A or R3A might be a path to consider.
jacema
Member
It could be the problem, but I know it's a good lens - here is an example
http://www.sitecenter.dk/jacemanuel/scrapbog/view.nhtml?profile=scrapbog&UID=10096
As Paul said - 'Sometimes when I use an SLR a lot and switch back to an RF I forget to focus. '
And that's probably what I'm doing too. Simply got to keep my attention much more on that RF spot.
Thanx for the welcome.
Jacques.
http://www.sitecenter.dk/jacemanuel/scrapbog/view.nhtml?profile=scrapbog&UID=10096
As Paul said - 'Sometimes when I use an SLR a lot and switch back to an RF I forget to focus. '
And that's probably what I'm doing too. Simply got to keep my attention much more on that RF spot.
Thanx for the welcome.
Jacques.
aizan
Veteran
lol. don't forget to focus!
torontotom
Member
with practises manual focusing (of course you need to play with DOF as well) is 10 times faster than auto focusing ... i know it's hard for some to believe cuz i have been there ... 🙂 SRL is designed for what it does and so is the RF.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
R
RML
Guest
torontotom said:
That's my experience as well, especially in darker situations. My 300D keeps looking for a point to focus on, making me miss the shot. Manual focussing on the M2 has been much more accurate.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Jacema,
The Leica is not only a unique camera but also holds a special place in the world of 35mm photog. It was invented early in the 20th century when photography was dying. Leica revolutionized the photog world, similar to the digi revolution is doing now, and kept the art alive.
Leica acquired its status because of its use by legendary photogs, including Eisie, HCB, Kertesz, and so on and on. They selected the Leica because of its reliability, and its great – and still unsurpassed glass.
In a cursory study of the medium you’ll find some of the greatest pictures were taken with a Leica – going back to 1925. Some of these pics even changed the way we view the world – witness VietNam 1968. No other camera maker can make that claim, not even the Contax. That is why Leica is so great.
A Ferrari is just a car. But if I could afford one you damn well know I’d keep that baby shined and good to go. A Valentino suit is just a suit. Or would you prefer to wear a polyester suit?
No, the Leica isn’t just a camera. Its an instrument with history behind it. That is why we devotees take care of them.
<M6 Classic .72 Chrome, M6TTL.85 Black>
The Leica is not only a unique camera but also holds a special place in the world of 35mm photog. It was invented early in the 20th century when photography was dying. Leica revolutionized the photog world, similar to the digi revolution is doing now, and kept the art alive.
Leica acquired its status because of its use by legendary photogs, including Eisie, HCB, Kertesz, and so on and on. They selected the Leica because of its reliability, and its great – and still unsurpassed glass.
In a cursory study of the medium you’ll find some of the greatest pictures were taken with a Leica – going back to 1925. Some of these pics even changed the way we view the world – witness VietNam 1968. No other camera maker can make that claim, not even the Contax. That is why Leica is so great.
A Ferrari is just a car. But if I could afford one you damn well know I’d keep that baby shined and good to go. A Valentino suit is just a suit. Or would you prefer to wear a polyester suit?
No, the Leica isn’t just a camera. Its an instrument with history behind it. That is why we devotees take care of them.
<M6 Classic .72 Chrome, M6TTL.85 Black>
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
35mmdelux said:
Hi 35mmdelux,
>>It was invented early in the 20th century when photography was dying. Leica >>revolutionized the photog world, similar to the digi revolution is doing now, and >>kept the art alive.
Photography was dying in the early 20th century ? And Leica kept it alive ?
That's new to me ! Can you explain that please ?
>Leica acquired its status because of its use by legendary photogs, including Eisie, >HCB, Kertesz, and so on and on.
At least the same amount of top photographs were shot with other cameras by other famous photographers. Sounds a bit like Leica marketing ?
>They selected the Leica because of its reliability, and its great – and still >unsurpassed glass.
If it really always was unsurpassed glass at 35mm there are very different opinions about that issue. And there were enuff other famous and good photographers which prefered Rollei 6X6 because of the unsurpassed better results in general.
>In a cursory study of the medium you’ll find some of the greatest pictures were >taken with a Leica
True, some. And some others of the greatest pics were not taken with a Leica.
But this always sounds a bit suggestive, as if almost ALL "important" photos were taken with Leicas , from 1920 to 2005.
>> No other camera maker can make that claim, not even the Contax. That is why >>Leica is so great.
Sorry, now really you sound as if you have learned the Leica brochure by heart 🙄
The historic reality looks a bit different from Leica's point of view. What about the photos of the pros who shot Graflex, Contax, Argus , Rollei, later Nikon F and Canon ?
>>A Ferrari is just a car. But if I could afford one you damn well know I’d keep that >>baby shined and good to go. A Valentino suit is just a suit. Or would you prefer >>to wear a polyester suit?
Oh, oh, seems you have learned the Hermes brochure also by heart ?
>>No, the Leica isn’t just a camera. Its an instrument with history behind it.
Amen ! Said Mr. Cohn and went to vancy. And so did Mr Coenen.
Let's hope the new management cares a bit more for the future and ot only for the past.
Please don't take this as offensive, it is not meant so but to me your statement really sounds like a perfect summary of Leica's marketing strategy . Are you a Leica undercover agent? 😀
All meant in good humor ! :angel:
Bertram
kiev4a
Well-known
I have to throw in with Bertram on this one:
Photography wasn't dying when the Leica appeared on the scene. Millions of people were snapping away with box and folding camera. Nearly every family had a photo album. What Leica did was put the camera into a more compact form. Even then, the majority of pros used the Speed Graphic until the late 1940s.
Leica has shot it's share of famous photographs but I would suggest that probably the majority of "classic" photos were made by photographers using Nikon equipment. Capa shot a lot of his stuff with the Contax. David Douglas Duncan's images of the Korean War made the world aware of the quality of the Nikon rangefinders and Japanese lenses. The Nikon F slr absolutely dominated 35mm photography in the late '50s, '60s and early '70s. I would be willing to wager most of the memorable photos from the Vietnam war were shot with Nikons.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Leica "M" -- with its silky smooth shutter and film advance and wonderful lenses. It has been the standard every other camera manufacturer has tried to reach. But is is just one of a number of camera brands that figured prominently in the history of film photography.
Photography wasn't dying when the Leica appeared on the scene. Millions of people were snapping away with box and folding camera. Nearly every family had a photo album. What Leica did was put the camera into a more compact form. Even then, the majority of pros used the Speed Graphic until the late 1940s.
Leica has shot it's share of famous photographs but I would suggest that probably the majority of "classic" photos were made by photographers using Nikon equipment. Capa shot a lot of his stuff with the Contax. David Douglas Duncan's images of the Korean War made the world aware of the quality of the Nikon rangefinders and Japanese lenses. The Nikon F slr absolutely dominated 35mm photography in the late '50s, '60s and early '70s. I would be willing to wager most of the memorable photos from the Vietnam war were shot with Nikons.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Leica "M" -- with its silky smooth shutter and film advance and wonderful lenses. It has been the standard every other camera manufacturer has tried to reach. But is is just one of a number of camera brands that figured prominently in the history of film photography.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I didn't say that Leica ONLY shot the best fotos, thats ridiculous -many were shot with 6x6 and Graflex, etc, although I don't know of many shot with 6x6 or Graflex in combat situations, where the equip is put to the ultimate test.
Fact: Leica was at the tip of the spear in the 35mm revolution.
Fact: Many early 20th century publications fotos were not fotos at all, they were illustrations.
Fact: Leica tone and the image boheh remain unmatched.
Fact: While Zeiss glass is outstanding, none match the high speed of Leica lenses.
Don't get me wrong, Friend, next to my Leicas I've got a F5 just waiting for the moment to kick ass.
In the final analysis its ALL about the photog and not the equipment. The most important foto (for me) I ever shot was with a Olympus PS. Its grainy and out of focus, but I don't care. I seized to care about "tack sharp" a long time ago. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Leica remains on the tip of the spear quality-wise.
Fact: Leica was at the tip of the spear in the 35mm revolution.
Fact: Many early 20th century publications fotos were not fotos at all, they were illustrations.
Fact: Leica tone and the image boheh remain unmatched.
Fact: While Zeiss glass is outstanding, none match the high speed of Leica lenses.
Don't get me wrong, Friend, next to my Leicas I've got a F5 just waiting for the moment to kick ass.
In the final analysis its ALL about the photog and not the equipment. The most important foto (for me) I ever shot was with a Olympus PS. Its grainy and out of focus, but I don't care. I seized to care about "tack sharp" a long time ago. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Leica remains on the tip of the spear quality-wise.
Last edited:
