x-ray said:
Please let us know what makes a 30 year old M5 superior to the new ZI. What is your real world experience with these cameras?
Dear x-ray, Matthew and other RFF'ers,
The Leitz (M5) is just a very good part of the bunch of camera's I use professionally.
As an example, last week I was on a 3 days job for witch I used 4 different camera's. I knew I had to take pictures in different 'fashions' of the same item, just to accentuate different facets of that item. It was a very intense 3 days.
I shot the M5, the LX, the Hasselblad and the Technorama 617.
Not all at the same time, I organised a little place where I kept the camera's and walked up and down to it when I felt I had to pick an other 'type' of camera because I wanted an other 'type' of picture/approach of the subject.
The 'walking' was intended to make me 'acclimatise' to the other camera. Hopping from a M5 to the Hass. takes a little time...
The M5 was mainly used for handheld low-light shooting, the LX for very low light (and complicated lightening situations) tripod mounted shooting of details and in narrow space situations (in automatic mode), the Hass., mainly the SW/C but also the 500C/M+80 mm, for overviews and alike (also tripod) and the 617 (tripod) for a few special things I wanted to tryout.
I just try to use the right tool for the job.
All shooting was done in available light on colour reversal film.
Now, to satisfy your curiosity about the Leitz M5, it is simple (I do not have a ZI).
The M5 is bigger an heavier than the M3->MP cameras, this is interesting in handheld low-light situations when I shoot at 1/30->1/15 and full open aperture.
The RF is a marvel and the light meter can be trusted 'eyes closed', even in low light AND there is no mirror slam cousing movement-fuzz.
The 'atmosphere' of the picture is very different when handheld or tripod mounted, in some cases it is amazing!
Most of the time I frame the picture as close as I can, so the Leitz lenses are mainly used at minimum focus setting (= +/- 1 meter). Here I actually work on the bokeh of the Leitz lenses, a small part is sharp an the rest is somewhat disappearing in the 'unsharpness', Leitz lenses are good for this kind of work.
In extremes I use a macro-lens on the LX but the out of focus zone of the SMC lenses is not that 'interesting' compared to the Leitz. I am considering the Macro Elmar 90 mm...
In some cases the information in the unsharp zone is of more importance the the actually sharp part of the picture, hide to reveal.
When I have the slides scanned and I have the time, I will post some of the pictures.
P.S. sorry for the pigeon English and the long post.
