Some Leica Legends Are Myths?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Last weekend I brought my M6 plus 50/2 and 90/2.8 and an Olympus S20 flash to a wedding, loaded with T400CN, to get some candid shots for the family. Sensitive to the noise issue, I shot the ceremony with the "ultra quiet" M6 and no flash (1/60 @ f/2). Meanwhile the hired pro was using a Hasselblad 503ELX (motorized) with an assistant holding a second Metz 60CT-4 with a radio slave, that beeped several times each time it recycled. But the "klop" from my M6 turned just as many heads.

Next, with the 90 mounted and using the flash, I went about shooting during the reception. The rangefinder which is supposed to be "great for focusing in low light", was extremely difficult to see. And, with subjects moving (such as people dancing around), focusing on moving subjects was a nightmare. Zone focusing a 90 at short distances at f/4 is not an option! I kick myself over and over for not bringing my Nikon n80.

I've been using the M and loving it for travel photography for years, but after this experience I won't use it for "low light candid" photography again. I seriously wonder why this use has become part of the Leica legend, and if it might not be something of a myth?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001

Answers

Actually I know that my friend Kyle can focus the M6 very quickly and catch fast moving subjects in the rangefinder... of course I don't use the M series and I'm pretty much a R user because I can focus extremely quickly using those lenses :)

Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 13, 2001.


IMHO, in dead silence, the Leica shutter noise can be heard, but I would think that its noise was less obtrusive than the motorized Hassy or even an N80 shutter (which is quieter than an n90 or F100 but still louder than an M6 due to mirror slap). If it's a matter of lesser of two evils, I'd go with an M6 in a church ceremony than anything else (I don't have any experience with leaf-shuttered cameras so I can't say they're quieter).

And regarding low light photography, I specialize in dance performance photography. While ballets are usually well lit, jazz, modern and post-modern performance tend to lean toward the dramatic, difficultly lit scenarios rather than just bright washes of light. The M6 has worked marvelously for me, both in focusing on moving dancers and in focusing on low-light conditions. And I'm usually opened up (with a 50 summicron at f/2).

I guess each photographer has different experiences with any piece of equipment that supports or contradicts the expectations people have of them. For me, the Leica legend of silent and low-light strengths seemed to have worked out as true.

I love the fact that dancers no longer come up to me after concerts saying they could hear which moves I shot because of my shutter noise. It keeps them guessing and impressed with the photos I come back with.

(Before the M6, I shot with an F100 and N80 at dances. Now I shoot with a 50 on the M6 and when needed, an 80-200 2.8 on the F100 from the back of the theater, lens at 200)

Just my two cents.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay

I always maintain that the M is not really a camera for action shooting. It is very difficult to focus any moving subject with a rangefinder. I find an R with a fast lens (50mm up) much superior. Still, I would imagine that you might have found focussing easier with your M than with an SLR at the reception for the static shots at least. Of course, you did not have it to compare. I think in a quiet church any noise disturbs, even a click. No one says the M makes no noise. In a recent wedding I found focussing the R6 with 35mm lens difficult at the reception. I got most of them down, but it was difficult. When it got really dark I had to give up accurate focussing. I think I would have got some shots with an M.

But I do think in many real shooting occasions that the advantages of a rangefinder and the quietness of an M are often exaggerated - in this agree with you completely.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.


There are definitely quieter shutters than the M. Mid 60's rangefinders with leaf shutters. Rolleiflex/Cords. But it's the total package that is unobtrusive. Point a Hassey with a 150mm on it at, for example a couple chatting in a coffee shop (I've worked for a couple of years on a photo series about the culture in cafes), and you might be lucky to get off one frame before you're noticed. I've sat at a table within 10 feet of such a situation and gotten off 1/2 roll with the Leica and never been noticed. It's not just a matter of noise leve. The Leica is quiet in mormal situations, but add it's small size and non-flashiness and it goes un-noticed in most situations. As for the focusing, again it is especially easy to focus a wide angle in dim lighting with a rangefinder. Any book on the subject will tell you that once you enter telephoto land, the advantage decreases somewhat in relation to the SLR. But try and focus a 28 in real dim light on an SLR. You will find yourself searching back and forth because it looks in focus pretty much wherever you set the focus ring. Then try an M. Bang, it's either in focus or it isn't, and you know right away. Add in the vibration aspect (in the above series, probably 1/4 of the images were made wide open at 1/8 or 1/15 of a sec with a 35 Summicron) with very few blurred images. Try that with the Hassey. Finally, did you ask any of the people who's heads turned which camera they found more

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

....found more annoying......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay, I was a little surprised by your post. You have greater knowlege of the M system than most who contribute here, myself included.

I agree that in a quiet environment, such as a ceramony, the shutter of the M is preceptible. Perhaps digital cameras are the only ones that can be truly silent. I had an M7 and it was quiet, but the shutter does click and in a quiet envirnment it is noticeable. I suggest that the audience would tolerate your efforts as they are for the benefit of the couple getting married, and I think the M still represents one of the more courteous cameras that you could have used. Certainly more so than the Hassy/Metz set-up, (the minister allowed this?)

As far as the reception, I think that this is a situation where everyone is perfectly wiling to be photographed extensively. Heck, they are happy (drinking?) and wearing their best clothing. I suggest that your lens choice could have been improved with a 35mm lens (maybe 28mm) and a determination to get in closer to the subject, rather than standing back with a 90mm. Zone focusing at F8 and a flash would make this rather easy. Of course tight head shots might need a telephoto, but that kind of shot is typically a static shot. Even a 50mm can make a decent tight shot as long as it isn't a straight-on facial view.

Anyway, just my rambling thoughts.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 13, 2001.


If noise is your only criterion, then, in my experience, any of the TLR's that I have used are much more silent. My Mamiya Universal is even more quiet than my cords, flex or C330. I agree that the rangefinders are easier to focus with wideangles in dim light, IMHO.

I must admit, the last time I used my M3, it was totally silent. Everyone commented on it. Turns out that the shutter had quit working. ;o)))

Art

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 13, 2001.


Interesting comments Jay... I have had exactly the opposite experiences with my M. Yes, the shutter is still loud enough to turn heads in dead silence, but I find it generally goes unnoticed. As for focusing, yes it is definately slower with the longer lenses and slower than an SLR, but I find I can "track" moving subjects and keep them in focus by moving in and out as they move towards or away from me. Is it a perfect tool? Of course not, but I find I get such a great selection of unique images - images I would never have gotten with my SLR - that it more than makes up for it.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay, man, you write very day in more forums, discussion groups and web sites with more posts than any one person could ever dream handling in a month.

This seems to forbid you from learning Leica M photography, though you do dispense your magazine sourced Leica advices and hearsay Leica clichés in large quantities all over the place. Thanks for the candour of this post anyway...

The M is the only possible tool in church for any photographer respecting the people he is photographing. The flashing 'blad pro is producing at industrial scale the standard goods ordered by his customer. The M person will be taking the real pics. the lively ones, the interesting ones, the respectful ones.

Nothing is easier to focus in low light than the M. Being challenged in those conditions shows complete lack of basic skills. Quit the newsgroups and practice, Jay !

Dancing people are easy to capture, unless if dancing consists of running towards the photographer. And even then... Dancers usually move within a relatively well defined surface, passing again and again through the same plane of focus. Focus once, and just wait for them to pass again. Plus, feels absolutely strange to me to shoot dancers through a tele. Why would you want to do that? Get that wide angle on, and get near the couple, in the middle of the dance floor. Only solution for dynamic, fun and intimate images. The essence of a wedding party.

And what is that flash doing on your M? Rate your t-max at 1600, open your 35mm 'cron, and get in there !

Covered yet another wedding ceremony and party for friends a couple of weeks ago. 90% of the pics in their photo album and in their frames are mine. 10% from the flash yielding pro (Nikon). Most of my pics were taken with 35 and 50, some with 21. Only a couple of close-ups during the crucial church moments with a 90 wide open. Great atmosphere, total focus comfort with the 0.72 M at candle light, approving smiles from guests fed up with the antics and noise of the flash yielding pro. Great results. Grainy at times, but so what? Fast B/W for 'candids' indoors, Reala colour neg for formal poses outdoors. No need for medium format.

The 'myth' is substantiated by generations of shooters and millions of images. Nothing beats the M for low light work. Try again !

...............................................................

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.


My problem with focusing was I was trying to get peoples' faces in focus on the dance floor and in the dark I couldn't tell if the images were superimposed or not. Before I could "find" the second image and superimpose it, the subject had moved. I couldn't really "track" the people because their movement was unpredictable. I've shot race cars on a track with the M6 and a 135mm lens...outdoors in bright light, high-contrast subject, and unidirectional motion is a different story.

-- JAy (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001.


PS: I only contribute to 2 forums, and only this one with any regularity. I've contributed to other forums in the past but this is the first one which, until today, was refreshingly free of personal attacks.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001.

IMHO there are lot of nice reasons to use RF cameras but the supposed "ease of focus" is not one of them.

In most situations where the rangefinder works well, an autofocus sensor would work at least as well or better.

And, there are some really awful cases, like focussing on repeating patterns or moving people where any kind of SLR has a clear advantage.

OTOH, I love the direct viewfinder. It's just nice to work with compositionally. So I'm willing to put up with compromises in other areas.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay: for low light focusing i suspect it's just a case of new technology surpassing old. My M3 is a LOT easier to focus in dim light than my FM2; but that has become a moot point: The N80 is absolutely uncanny for a passive system. It'll lock on in situations where I can't see what it's locked on to. I do wish it were made as well as it's designed.

And of course cameras using active infrared....but heck, I can't compose in total darkness, so that's an even mooter point..

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay - as one who has followed this forum for a long time before starting to contribute I jump to your defence. The Leica shutter is most definitely NOT virtually silent (as continually preached in Leica sales literature), in fact most modern SLR, compacts and certainly digitals are similar in noise levels. And yes the Leica is particularly poor at focussing on fast irregular moving subjects. And yes the (modern) Leica quality control is no better than any other major camera manufacturer. And yes they don't build them like they used to.

Come on everyone, let's be honest - would we all love, preach and treasure our Leicas' if they were not called "Leica" and didn't come with all the history that is tied up in the whole "Leica" mystique.

Yes we use them because they are the last great handmade, precision, utilitarian, mechanical tool that they are, but....also because they happen to have a certain 'name' that we all wish to be associated with: LEICA. Or as it should be "Leitz".

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 13, 2001.


I guess most of the folks on this forum have more than one camera with one brand on it, that describes all.

I use my Ms the most, but for certain cases, ex. weddings, I know I need my Canon EOS for backup besides my Ms,... sometimes my mood goes to Rolleiflex even P&S, it doesn't matter.

M series is still my most favorate camera, and have taken the pics which I love the most.

Fred

-- Fred Ouyang (yo54@columbia.edu), November 13, 2001.



If Leicas only cost a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand, we would not rush to their defence in quite the same way. The hyperbole that is attached to the M camera, in particular, is extraordinary. I like them as well as the next Leica man, but the claims for them sometimes are really over the top.

Mind you Canon and Nikon owners are usually just as partisan ... and have you heard those d****d Contax owners going on about their Zeiss lenses?!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.


Just a word to protest the cheap shot against Jay and his advice on many aspects of Leica. The posts here are always courteous, even when the question is dumb, and I have asked the occasional one of them. Personal drum-beating fortunately is rare. For what it's worth, I had the same trouble as Jay when photographing active children with the M6 and found I did better with the R.

-- Ivor Quaggin (iquaggin@home.com), November 13, 2001.

Leicas for low-light candid photography? Yes. Leicas for low-light candid *action* photography w/a telephoto? Not really.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), November 13, 2001.

I think we ought to just agree that accurate generalizations cannot be made about Leicas and the way they're best used.

Would I defend my cameras just because they cost more than another brand? No, I defend them because they work for me. And when they stop meeting my needs (or if I've moved on to a style that the camera is not suited for), then they're drawbacks become more an issue.

I'd think others on this forum wouldn't make judgments based on their pocketbooks. They're making judgments based on their portfolios and photo practices.

And lastly, I think it would be naive for us to be "offended" by the way marketing folks sell their products. They're paid to exaggerate and to give as positive a spin as they can.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.


Jacques said, "This seems to forbid you from learning Leica M photography, though you do dispense your magazine sourced Leica advices and hearsay Leica clichés in large quantities all over the place...Nothing is easier to focus in low light than the M. Being challenged in those conditions shows complete lack of basic skills. Quit the newsgroups and practice, Jay !"

Jacques, I think these words are overly harsh on Jay, don't you? Jay is in a group of people who would be the last to lack basic skills with a Leica M camera, and even if his skills DID lack, he definitely didn't deserve such a hurtful slap on the face.

Please see rule #1 in the "About" section!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 13, 2001.


My M3 and CLE are still my first chioce in low light hand held "need to be quiet" situations, but more for events like a stage shows where things are more predictable. I was able to get some existing light shots at a wedding that the bride and groom loved, but the light level still needs to be above a certain point, and it was of the ceromony where things were fairly stationary. I also used the 50 and not the 90. No camera is good in "no light" of course, and sometimes the lighting at inside events can be just awful. I also found out the hard way that trying to manually focus anything moving randomly (like 3 year olds!) is a real hit or miss proposition. I bring the Nikon AF and a flash if I want to be sure of getting sharp images, but I still prefer the look of the existing light ones whenever possible.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 13, 2001.

Boy I had no idea what a controversial subject this would turn out to be. Folks who know me here know I'm a landscape/travel photographer who uses Leica M for its compactness; *usually* shoots in a fair amount of light and *usually* has some time to focus and compose and *rarely* does "people photography" so I readily admit I'm not at all practiced in that type of shooting. For me, an AF camera is probably the best answer, because I don't have either the time or motivation to get good at using the M for candids, especially because I definitely don't have the kind of personality to use a wide-angle lens and get in a stranger's face...and plus I really don't like the way someone's face looks with a 35mm lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001.

I agree: the personal attack on Jay was unnecessary and hurtful. There's enough s**t goin’ on in the world today... we don't need more of it here. I'm depressed as it is.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), November 13, 2001.

Just because a Ferrari costs $125000.00+ doesn't mean it's the best choice for taking the kids to band practice (especially if one of them plays the tuba). I think some people forget the Leica rangefinder is now a somewhat speciallized piece of equipment and should not be expected to do all things. Most serious Lieca users (not all serious owners are users) have other cameras - a specific tool for a specific job.....

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

When the Leica M-series was new, in the early 1950's, it was the fastest focusing camera around. Autofocus has changed all that. I have no doubt that my $450 Elan 7 can focus much faster and with more accuracy than my $2000 M6 TTL. But for the type of photography I do, it doesn't matter.

If I was a working photojournalist, I would carry both an EOS and a Leica M. I would use the former with a zoom lens when the action was fast, the latter when I could spend more time and wanted the magical quality that the Leitz glass has to offer.

Bottom line: Use the right tool for the job.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), November 13, 2001.


Jay:

Is it possible that your M6 shutter needs to be serviced? Could that be the reason for the loud "klop" that turned a few heads? My M6 TTL's shutter is louder than my M3 SS from 1961, which itself is louder than my M3 DS from 1955. I don't know whether it is due to age or different metals, but the M3 DS shutter is almost silent in operation............

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 13, 2001.


Jay:

1) Ignor Jacques. Don't forget this thread from after 9/11. We luv ya, big guy.

2) Leica noise. The M is the quietest interchangeable lens 35mm camera. Leaf shutter Rolleis, Ikontas, and Mamiya 6/7s will beat it, but no 35 or 6x4/6/7/9 SLR will. Try the 1/50th sync speed setting - it's the quietest for some reason. Also see the "Leica Sighting" thread 6 items down.

3) Leica focusing. RFs are faster for STATIC subjects in any light, because the focusing is binary yes/no (do the images line up or don't they?) With an SLR you're in a continuum ("Is it sharp? Could it be sharper? Whoops, it went fuzzy again. Back up.")

RFs are also definitely easier/faster/more accurate (but not necessarily all three at once) in low light WITH WIDE/NORMAL lenses. I've shot dance-floor action very successfully with an RF (Canon P - I'm looking for the negatives) - 50mm lens at f/4 plus flash (it was REALLY dark) and using trap focus. With a 90 you may be stretching the envelope.

RFs cannot follow-focus at all - follow-focusing is the quintessential 'continuum' focusing situation, totally alien to the binary RF image. TRAP FOCUS is the ONLY way to handle fast-moving action with a rangefinder, but often actually works even BETTER than AF or follow- focus with an SLR, because you're redefining the paradigm so that it's about TIME (the best MOMENT to fire, and the forte of the Leica quick- fire shutter) rather than SPACE (the best PLACE to focus).

Decide the best framing for the kind of action you're shooting. Find a substitute subject at the right distance to get that framing (floor, steps, grass, whatever) and focus on it. Then use the viewfinder to follow the action WITHOUT REFOCUSING and shoot when the action and distance come together. Voila. The RF is BUILT for this kind of photography - your subject stays nice and clear in the RF window regardless of whether it's 'in focus' or not, and the shutter fires RIGHT NOW when you hit the right moment/spot. .

.

In fact trap-focus action photography can get as addictive as gun- hunting (but without the dead bodies). Try it next time with the dancers/kids/pets/whatever before sinking into the black pit of an SLR viewfinder. 8^).

Re: infrared autofocus. Yeah, My (late) G2 could focus in a totally black room or facing a blank wall. WHERE it would focus was a different question ;^)

Cheers

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 13, 2001.


Addendums:

"The RF is BUILT for this kind of photography..." I should add that trap-focus shooting is also the one time when I really USE the "space outside the frame lines" to keep track of what's coming up as I pan around following the action.

Tech details on picture: M4-2, 90 TE (thin), Pan F, 1/1000 @ f/4. Focused on part of steps below where 'boarders seemed to hit their high point. Panned with action. Shot.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 13, 2001.


In complete silence it is the sound not the volume that attracts people's attention. A dropping pin will do it just as well as breaking glass. I did some photos at a wedding this summer with a couple of M cameras and a 90 amougst other lenses. I had no problems but did use the above "trap" focus method. I may be wrong but I think an AF lens (long focus and f/2 at least) wide open in low light would give just as much trouble. At this wedding someone was using an SLR and darned if my M wasn't just as noisy as the SLR. I then realised that the M was next to my ear and the SLR was almost 80 feet away :-).

After I have fired off a few frames with my M I often get asked to hurry up and take the picture. When I fire my SL2, I get no such questions.

I enjoy reading Jay's responses and questions. I have always found him helpful and polite. I do not always agree with him but then my wife assures me I am always wrong. So there!

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 13, 2001.


My M3 DS also seemed noticeably quieter than the M6 I played with. I'm curious about this, anyone else notice the M3DS to be quieter than the newer cameras, and if so, what would be the reason for it be?

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 13, 2001.

Jay,

In addition to being quite and ease of focus in low light, another key strength of M photography is the fact that one not only sees what's in the frame but subject matters outside of the frame as well. I think we all know that the M photography is very different from that of SLR, the key is to choose the right tool for the job and the decision is a personal one. For the type of application that you mentioned (at a wedding with fast moving subjects), I would stick with the 50 cron (or 35 cron if you prefer the wider view), zone-focus first then move your body along with the subject while maintaining the zone distance between you and the subject. Remember to always keep your M at the eye-level readying for the next shot (this minimizes distractions as well). Do that with the 90mm will be harder as its DOF is narrower (unless using small apertures and fast film). The bottom line, there is no ideal camera, with a lot of practice the application that you mentioned can be done with the M. For some, it is what the M is made for.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), November 13, 2001.


"Hm, what's that man doing here with his camera? Some people, they carry their hobbies to the most inappropriate venues! Can't he just sit back and enjoy the performance? Uh, oh, he's lifting it up, I swear he's going to...CLICK. I wonder if he's going to do it again... [tension rises] CLICK."

:-)

Its not so much that the Leica is loud (it is louder than a Rolleiflex TLR or a Mamiya 7) but that people tend to be attracted by the presence of cameras, especially amateur cameras, so their clicks attract attention. Even if in relative terms, the click of a Leica shutter is far quieter than the creaks and clicks of a man shifting about on a folding chair in a theater, or of women walking by in the aisle on high heels. Or the amplified music or sound coming from the stage.

Had you been the professional on the spot (the guy with the unbelievably noisy Hassy ELM), the sounds you would have made going about doing your work would have not attracted anybody's attention or disturbed most.

So, the moral is, its really not worth worrying about. Even a quieter camera is going to attract just as much attention, or cause as much annoyance as your Leica M6. And you are going to be just as self conscious. So I guess its really up to you.

BTW, I do think that the N80 is about the quietest SLR around, because the soft clop sort of sound it makesAnd as for

"Zone focusing a 90 at short distances at f/4 is not an option"- you bet. Motorized SLRS do many things very well, quite a few tasks better than a Leica M. Use them when they will get the job done.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 13, 2001.


Hi Jay,

I am from the M is a great camera for weddings camp. And lots of practice was what I needed to get good shots in the low light and active situations. It was extreamly frustrating at first since I was missing shots I knew I could get with an SLR. So get back up on the horse, Take your M6 to some challenging situations and shoot lots of film. You soon will be getting the results your looking for. Forget you even have an SLR.

And by the way, that thing about becomming invisible and inaudible when using an M is pure myth.

Regards and keep posting Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), November 13, 2001.


I was not attacking Jay-the-person, and I apologise to him and others if this was understood as a "hurtful slap on the face".

I was hitting at Jay-the-poster: how can one go on posting advices to others all over the place when one does not have the personal experience substantiating such advices ?

9/11 has nothing to do with this discussion.

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.


Yes, the key to the M is not how quiet it is. (And it is pretty quiet although my friend's M6 TTL is much more quiet than my newly revised M2 from Leica!). The key is the unobtrusiveness. I had a Mamyia 7 and it was slient. But I sold it because everytime I pulled it out everybody around me went "woooo a professional". And that's not the effect I am going for.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), November 13, 2001.

"Come on everyone, let's be honest - would we all love, preach and treasure our Leicas' if they were not called "Leica" and didn't come with all the history that is tied up in the whole "Leica" mystique. "

Well, I'll be honest about it! I like my rangefinders because they are the only cameras with which I can guarantee to get the subject in focus in very low light. They're not ideal for following moving subjects in those conditions perhaps, and I have yet to use modern AF, but for my work they're ideal and I virtually never have out of focus shots.

I also shoot the occasional wedding and find them ideal for that as well.

I really don't care about whether thay have Konica or Leica written on them, in fact if the Hexar RF had been available when I got my M's I would certainly have got that instead.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 14, 2001.


I've shot action shots with my M2 & Summicron 50/2 under available light, no flash. The setting was a stage show and people were moving around. I'd wait for them to pose or stop moving then shoot. It's also pretty quiet. No metering was done. All I know is that at that available light, I'd shoot with a 400 film at f/2.8 and at 1/15th of a second. Focusing was hard but I'd point the focusing box on the subject's outline at a predictable spot, where the subject would be standing. It takes a while to get used to it, but the key is to think ahead by knowing the exposure, prefocusing, and timing the shot.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), November 14, 2001.

The legend for me is that Ms are great because they are so timeless and mechanically perfect. All that in this day and age of electronical wonders! The myth is that they are great although so old and mechanical. Or is it the other way around?

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 14, 2001.

Jay: I don't want to let this thread go to the archive without adding my thanks to the chorus - I've benefited hugely from the vast expertise of your posts, delivered always with good-humored patience and unfailing courtesy. Glad you're arou

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

.....around!........./....

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

Jay: I agree with David Kelly. I've learned a lot from you about both M and R. Thanks for your valuable contributions to this forum and to the Leica Reflex Forum.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001.

Jay has been extremely helpful with pertinent, meaningful advice and informational posts that have many in this community, including myself. The least we can do is to repay him in part by helping him with a technique issue-the worst one can do is to mock him for a lack of technical skills in response to a good faith inquiry.

So, Jacques, I'm not sure exactly what you mean... Should anyone who has previously given to this forum, refrain from asking any questions, or otherwise avoid displaying any gaps in their knowledge, the better to avoid personal mockery? Or are you saying that until we have all the answers to all matters, we should not dare post any advice? Or that there is something terribly wrong about passing on received knowledge, which of course, is precisely the point of a database forum?

Exactly how will these cooperative forums work if we proceed with guidelines so stifling?

Loosen up, Jacques :-D

This is a hobby forum, and a successful happy one at that! It does not work too well when we start getting critical about individual members when no misconduct is involved.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 14, 2001.


I sense some self dilusion here. It is NOT by pasting rehashed LUG/Puts/media clichés under the guise of personal experience (using sentences starting by "I") in tons of mails posted on various mailing lists and web sites every day that anyone can provide "valuable contributions".

Questions, basic or complex, on the contrary, ARE usually "valuable contributions".

And the questions heading this thread are perfectly valid questions...coming from someone who might have bought a M a couple of weeks/months ago or used one by accident during the week-end. These are questions that certainly deserve to be addressed and argued.

But these are questions that CANNOT possibly come from someone who is simultaneously serving the world and beyond with megabytes of "pertinent, meaningful" advice on the M and R systems and on photography in general.

Either you know what you are constantly writing about, and you will have solved the questions above years ago, or you do not know what you are writing about, and you should refrain from disseminating pseudo-knowledge.

Answers based on first hand experience are "valuable contributions". Refering others to named sources (articles, books)and/or older quotes/mails/threads/sites is a "valuable contribution".

Come on, take a look at this.

Or this (scroll down) , or this (scroll down).

Let us all be honest now: how can you state such highly impressive things confidently and then ask the question that triggered this thread ?

Of course stating this makes me sound as someone who is not nice, and makes the subject of my flagging (or flogging) look like a victim.

Nevertheless, a fraud is a fraud. A nice, polite and civilised fraud is still a fraud.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.


J,

Um, call me dense, but I'm not getting your point. Not at all.

Maybe it has something to do with "knowing everything."

I'll say this: The first person who posts to this forum who really does indeed "know everything" will be banished. Forever. I mean it.

I'm still referring you to Rule #1 in the About section of this forum. Calling someone a fraud for no good reason is not nice. And in this particular case, after having read the threads you've refered to, you are still dead wrong about Jay.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 15, 2001.


And a big, arrogant ass is still an ass. No?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 15, 2001.

Andrew:

My M3 DS also seemed noticeably quieter than the M6 I played with. I'm curious about this, anyone else notice the M3DS to be quieter than the newer cameras, and if so, what would be the reason for it be?

The answer is yes, even when the shutter was working. I don't know why.

Tony:

And a big, arrogant ass is still an ass. No?

I am suprised that you would post my personal description.;o)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 15, 2001.


Thanks for the votes of confidence. The gentleman who considers me a fraud somehow must have missed the numerous references throughout my posts to the fact that my expertise, if I dare call it that, is in landscape, scenic and wildlife photography, as well as the mechanics of the Leica equipment. I have never made any claims to having much experience--or luck--with "people photography". I'm humbled by all the people here who have invested as much time and effort into that area of specialty as I have invested in mine, and grateful that we can share our collective experience.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 15, 2001.

"The M is the only possible tool in church for any photographer respecting the people he is photographing. The flashing 'blad pro is producing at industrial scale the standard goods ordered by his customer. The M person will be taking the real pics. the lively ones, the interesting ones, the respectful ones."

I think this is one of the numerous Leica myths. I've seen outstanding wedding albums produced by people using F5's with flash, just as I've seen really appalling "photojournalist" wedding albums produced by Leica users. Wedding photography is a very specialised domain and the kind of camera used has nothing to do with the quality of the results. Just as in every other field of photography.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 15, 2001.


In response to Jacques' rather rude replys to Jay's question I say this.

Jay has never claimed expertise in the field of candid/lowlight/street/wedding photography.

His knowledge in technical matters in photography and in Leica specifically has always been substantiated with on field practice.

He has always helped out others by being supportiveand informative, even when they have fielded ridiculous questions.

A so called "fraud" would never allow even the slightest suggestion of not knowing the answers to everything.....Jay's question was I believe was a genuine request for advice to a forum of people he felt comfortable enough to ask for help in matters he was struggling a with.

Please offer a little curteousy to a gentleman who has never refused to offer help to others around him.

In response to Jay. The situation you described....lowlight rapidly moving subjects....is difficult for every camera setup. It is equally fustrating for one to have autofocusing cameras (mine was EOS30) hunt back and forth. However if it is only an occasional foray into wedding style photography then I think ultimatedly your F80 with flash infared assist reduced to only the central focus point would be quicker and easier.

Noise wise.....people have a knack of just knowing that you have a camera and are about to take their photograph. I'll bet if all you did was raise your camera and pretend to take their photo, they would still turn and look at you disapprovingly.

It's how you handle the stormly look that follows that creats the photojournalist in you ;-)

I think how a lot of wedding photography succeeds is in the use of flash photography with small aperatures and lots of depth of field.

After a while your begin to realise most photographs are a certain distances with certain lenses, so you prefocus and just frame the subject to fill the finder in the proportion you know is at the correct distance. Then you just fireaway allowing the flash to freeze movement and your depth of field at F8/11 to cover any errors.

Typical Leica M style available light photography shot wide open with slow shutterspeeds.....is definitley an aquired art. Again prefocusing and moving your body back and forth to keep you in the Zone. Shoot lots and don't expect too many keepers! This is just a matter of practice, practice, practice!

Cheers. Simon

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), November 17, 2001.


"His knowledge in technical matters in photography and in Leica specifically has always been substantiated with on field practice"

Simon,

I still claim that is not true. I claim there are unavoidable compulsive posters (and compulsive hardware buyers) who spend their available time haunting newsgroups and reproducing pseudo-kowledge (pasting under the first person guise opinions and experiences previously published here and there by others). Can I prove it is so in this case? No. Is it important? No.

Does claiming this make me a rude "arrogant ass"? It seems so. Should I then shut up? I guess so.

Since I do not wish to go on ruining other people's fuzzy wuzzy on line experience, I have refrained from extending my comments made in this thread to any of the other threads of this great site, and, again, apologise to whoever cares for my cynical bluntness...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), November 18, 2001.


Wizz bang cameras are like soaps, you do not have to think.A leica m makes you think, and practice makes perfect.Real artists create throught practice, and that is what a leica m is all about.Escape from being a wizz banger,to do this takes a bit of effort.If you want easy buy a compact and join the herded masses.

-- callen jones (callen@futurenetuk.co.uk), March 09, 2002.

I don't think there is anything mythological about use of Leica RF models in low light situations. I use Leica M for low like street photography and for photography at indoor parties, etc. But it is not easy to photograph moving individuals at a distance using a 90 mm lens in dim light. For this sort of thing, I do not get sharp focus on very image, but I do OK. Of course, when the light is sufficiently dim, you cannot see the RF well enough to focus. In this situation, an AF camera with an IR focussing aid would obviously do better.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 09, 2002.

FWIW, my M3 is (in my eyes, at least) easier to focus than my M4. It's much easier than my Canon F1 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens aboard in low light (say at 1 footcandle, or 7 on the Gossen scale).

If everything is pindrop quiet, my M3 shutter can seem fairly loud. In a room with a bunch of people attending a fairly formal function, it's barely audible.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), April 16, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ