I do most of my shooting with a 90mm Summicron-M wide open and at close distances. I have an M6 TTL 0.85 with a +0.5 viewfinder diopter installed, which compensates for my somewhat farsighted vision quite well. Unfortunately, however, I still get a lot of OOF shots. (I know, I know, get the 1.25x viewfinder magnifier.)

My question is, would an Leica reflex with a 90mm Summicron-R be any easier to focus? I know this is a very subjective question, but I'd like to hear of any opinions and experience you may have in this matter.

Thank you.

Peter Hughes Photography

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 05, 2001

Answers

Actually, that depends on the setup which you have the R camera on. For me, personally I have nearsightedness plus a lot of astigmatism which accounts for my trouble focusing (considering that my eyeglasses are nearly 0.8 cm thick on the outside edge) the R camera using the Universal matte screen. I just ordered a split-screen for the R4 just this morning and will have it professionally installed into my R4 later on this week (which is why I am using the Nikon F in the meantime).

The 90mm lens will be a lot easier to focus on the R camera because on the rangefinder M-series, the ability to focus long lens decreases since you have to match up two images on a much smaller area in the viewfinder than say, a 28mm or 35mm lens. That explains why the M series is ideal for shooting 28mm-75mm range in general. Going 90mm to 135mm requires an external viewfinder which is better for those purposes esp. if you have eyesight problems.

The main reason why I don't use a diopter on the R4 is that they don't have a diopter which works. The diopter I need would be too strong for the range that Leica makes the R-diopters for.

Of course, one has to realize that I can't see clearly without my glasses about 3-4 inches in front of me. Anything further than that is totaly blurry and can't be seen. I guess that it kinda sucks to be myself.

sincerely, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

I was told by a leica rep in UK that it varied person to person as to which was easier (even given reasonable light). He performed a trick with a pencil in front of his face and got me to try the R8 + 801.4 and compare with the m6 + 90 - seeing whether I could see the difference between the pencil and his nose in terms of plane of focus. I reckon a lot of times slight subject movement is responsible for out of focus pictures with 90 mm lenses close up (i.e. you focus, but then they move slightly and then you take the picture). Also, sometimes I focus then pivot the camera to alter composition, and this can be just enough (if you're really insanely close to through the focus) For what its worth, (is "FWIW" acceptable?) I found the R easier, but that was in OK light. (BTW, on an unrelated issue I've gone off McCurry a bit since going to Dirck Halstead's site and hearing him tell youngsters to give up on photography - seems like everytime I say something really definite I live to regret it!)

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 05, 2001.

Apparently the concensis of opinion is that the RF is always quicker to focus. Personally, I've always favored the SLR for speed as well as accuracy, even with my M-3 which is much better than any of its successors. Canon's latest generation auto-focusing leaves everything else in the shade, however (IMHO).

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter, I find my R4 very easy to focus with the 90 'Cron. But at the same time, I have no problem with the 90 Elmarit on my M2 or M6 (.72 finder). Of course, the Elmarit has more DOF than your Summicron, wide open, to compensate for any error.

How do other focal lengths work out for you on your M6? This may not be so much a question of reflex vs. RF as one of how well your vision can employ the rangefinder. I don't feel that either system presents any problem at tis focal length, especially with your 0.85 finder.

Is it a question of technique? When focusing close-up with the M finder, it can be hard to appreciate just how much of the subject lies within the DOF at a wide aperture setting. So for example if I focus on somebody's eyeglasses (convenient but wrong), their eye might turn out too soft; but I might not know about it until I see the print, because everything looks deceptively sharp in the finder! With the SLR, one is more aware of the error.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 05, 2001.

Alfie, you don't need to have an R4 viewscreen professionally installed. A screen-changing tool is normally sold with R viewscreens and changing the screen takes only seconds.

Peter, whether it's easier or not depends on which R you're using. I have good vision (aside from reading glasses) and the Leicaflex SL IMHO is incredibly easy to focus accurately with the 90mm Summicron- R. This camera is now ~30 years old and I don't know how difficult it is to get diopters for it.

The R3- and R4-series cameras are the only R-bodies that don't have built-in diopter correction. The R4 isn't as easy to focus as the Leicaflex SL. I used a demo R8 briefly with several lenses and found it very easy to focus accurately, nearly as easy as the SL and much better than the R4.

I have zero experience with R5, R-E, R6x and R7 bodies.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 05, 2001.

Once again, Alfie is wrong in the extreme. The size of the M focus patch does *not* change when the lens changes. In fact the M's virtue is the brilliant viewfinder / focus patch which *always* retains the same size. When a lens is attached to the camera, a brightline frame corresponding to the appropriate focal length is activated. The framelines aid in composition, and also show the area outside the frame. The focusing is spot-on even in low-light, low- contrast situations. I often use the 90mm lens, and while the framelines are small (compared with the expanse of viewfinder), the unchanging focus patch makes producing a sharp image a relatively simple matter.

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter

It is a bit of toss up. Personally I think for any moving subject, such as small children or indeed older, but active children I find the R with Summicron (or as I now use: the 80mm Summilux) to be a dream for focussing on eyes successfully with the R6.2 or SL. The M works accurately, too but for an extended portrait session I would certainly prefer my R as it just seems easier to me. Certainly when the subject is static the difference between the methods declines.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Alfie's wrong again -- what a surprise. The M's focus rectangle doesn't get smaller as the lenses get longer. The rectangle is always the same size. As the brochure says, "With the combination of split-image and coincidence rangefinder, you can place pinpoint sharpness exactly where you want it." True.

Alfie: your ignorance is exceeded only by the confidence with which you disseminate misinformation. Lay off.

-- Peter Holstein (PHolstein@upenn.edu), December 05, 2001.

Sorry about saying the focusing area is different from 90mm to 28mm lens. To correct myself, I meant to say that the accuracy in focusing a 90mm because of parallax error is less than using a 28mm which accounts for the reason why an external viewfinder is more helpful in this case.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Willhelm My experience of the eos system was that if you turn off the sniper's red light (so as not to freak out your prey) you'll struggle to get the thing to focus at all in anything like poor light. (I haven't tried the 1V yet in fairness) I certainly agree with remarks above about different R bodies - I can focus an r8 with a 50 summicron in virtual darkness but wasn't quite so sure with my R6 (to put it mildly)

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter:

Ignore Alfie's post! He is wrong! :-)

I have a M6 TTL 0.72 and have shot many photos with a Leica M 90mm Summicron at f2. I am nearsighted and have to wear glasses (-2, - 2.5), but have never had focusing problems. Your M6 TTL 0.85 should be able to focus the 90mm lens more accurately than my 0.72 M6 TTL. Is it possible that the problem is with the lens/camera linkage? Perhaps the focusing cam is not connecting properly?

I have also used a Leica R 90mm Summicron lens with Leicaflex SL and R8 camera bodies. The R8 has an incredibly bright viewfinder, and that makes it very easy to focus long focal length lenses. With the Leica SLRs, you get a more accurate viewfinder image (no parallax problems!), you can see the out of focus image area clearly, and perhaps easier focusing overall. Doug Herr is a veteran user of Leicaflex SLs, and like him, I too find the SL very easy to focus and use.

Having said all that, I have to admit that I like using both M and R cameras and lenses on a regular basis. I do not have a strong preference for either the M or R system. I love them both! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), December 05, 2001.

Alfie:

The external viewfinders used with some Leica M lenses cannot be used for focusing! They are used for composition only. You still have to use the cameras's viewfinder for focusing the lens. The M6 0.72 has framelines for 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135 lenses. You need an external viewfinder for the 21 and 24 lenses.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), December 05, 2001.

I favor the R camera for shooting with the 90 but for a different reason that you ask. I personally find that when shooting with the 90 I am more concerned with depth of field and appreicate the ground-glass of the R and its ability to somewhat see what my depth of field is going to be. As well, when shooting with 90 I tend to be trying to concentrate on a specific thing/person and find the more accurate framing of the SLR to be helpful......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter

Although the 0.85 VF and the 1.25X magnifier should make focussing more accurate, these should NOT be necessary with the 90/2.0 Summicron, even at f/2.0 and in the closer range. I have used the 90/2.0 Summicron M lens on an M4P, which has the 0.72 VF with never any problems. I think that when you add a diopter, you introduce another possible error.

I have curvature of the cornea, and I just use the camera VF (no correction) with my glasses on. This is sufficient. It is easier if you use split image (of a straight line) rather than co-incident focussing.

The only thing I can think of is that either the diopter is causing a subtle focussing error, or the camera RF (or possibly lens) is off. The M cameras with 0.72 VF were designed so that it is possible to focus a 90/2.0 at f/2.0 with sufficient precision at all distances. It is possible, if the focussing error is subtle, you may not have noticed it when the lens was stopped down because the depth-of-field was sufficient to compensate.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 05, 2001.

If you're using a 90mm lens to frame the *same* shot on an M vs an R, the details will appear much smaller in the M because you're basically looking at a 28mm view with a little box in the middle of it. That sometimes makes it hard to focus on small details...a person's eyes, for example. Also, DOF is less so the SLR gives a very precise indication of sharp vs unsharp, and the effective baselength M vs R begins to even up in the 90mm range. The light level still has some bearing, even with a 90/2 you still need enough light to focus, but I don't really find the M much brighter than an f/2 lens on an R.

Where the R comes out ahead is that you can focus anywhere on the screen, rather than needing to focus centrally and then recompose. This is actually less of an issue with a 90 because the rangefinder patch occupies a greater proportion of the frame.

Much as I like the R system, my comparisons with Nikon AF bodies is that their screens are much brighter and less coarse than even the R8. I see this especially with telephotos and macro. With a 90/2, the all-microprism screen is the best, followed by the Universal. The all-matte screens in the R's are not state-of-the-art IMO.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 05, 2001.

It seems to be that close up and wide open an SLR has to be doing better than the M body.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

This is an appeal to Tony. I and others are very grateful to you for founding this forum. Unfortunately, it's now prey to unadulterated garbage from Alfie Wang. I know you've defended him in the past, but the material he's putting out on the subject of photography and camera use is woefully incorrect and could lead to serious mistakes. His posts to this question are a case in point. While he knows *nothing* about the M focusing patch, nothing about the auxilliary viewfinder (which has nothing to do with focusing), he insists on contributing misinformation. Worse, his contributions are larded with doubletalk. As a rule, your forum members shoot Leicas because they adhere to higher standards and have heightened sensibilities regarding photography. Alfie Wang's sensibilities are low (an understatement), and he seems to have no appreciation of the damage he does. I might add that he's plaguing several forums. Please, please: do something.

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

I have no problems focusing my 90/2 wide open with my 0.72x M6. It is easy, no hunting about and the focus is dead on. I recommend you test your camera/lens combination carefully to make sure it is focusing accurately. We are not talking about very much depth of field here. The M6 rangefinder has adjustments that allow you to calibrate it so that it is very accurate. If it is just slightly off, it would give the results you are getting.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 05, 2001.

Gulley: I for one am grateful for Alfie's contribution to this thread!! Without him, I wouldn't have known that my M6 was broken!! My rangefinder patch has always stayed the same size!! No matter which lens I was using, always that pesky unchanging little square!! Talk about Leica quality control!! I'm going to take it in and have that fixed ASAP!! Or perhaps I should upgrade to that new M6AE that's coming out soon!! Maybe the rangefinder patch will be fixed on that model!!

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter! You mean all those beautiful depth-of-field effects in the 'Goth girls' portraits were accidental??!

My new (old) 90 'cron focuses more consistently than my old (new) 90. I think, with long fast lenses on an RF, there sometimes just has to be a cosmic 'match' between a specific lens and body. Also, some older lenses have a longer focus 'throw' (You have to turn the barrel through more degrees to reach close focus) and that this contributes to accuracy (but reduces speed).

I recently tried a 90 R-cron on a Leicaflex SL and it was accurate but not necessarily faster than the M. The R lens is very subtly different from the M - slight double-line 'bokeh' in foreground OOF areas where the M version's 'bright rings' appear in the background. They are not identical optical designs - similar elements in similar positions, but different thicknesses. The M seems SLIGHTLY sharper at f/2, but that's based on a very limited number of pictures and lens samples.

If you're considering an SLR body I'll put in a plug for the SL - I've had much better results trying a couple of SLs recently that I ever had before with R4-7 bodies. I think the mirror/shutter action is softer and the camera (sized between the R4-7 and the R8) is easier to hold steady - for me. Downsides - no hot shoe, won't work with 16, 24, or earlier 80-200 zooms, motors hard to come by (esp. in working order), no AE. In other words, just like an M4 with a Visoflex built in. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 05, 2001.

Assuming there's not something wrong with the lens or camera, that combination should focus accurately and consistently. I also use the 90 Summicron wide open at close range on an M3, and the limiting factor in getting perfectly in focus shots is how steady my subject and I are. Even a 1/4 inch of movement makes a noticeable difference, and 1/2 an inch throws things off dramatically. Different equipment won't change that.

In the shot below, you can see that the near eye is soft because of the slight angle of her face.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 05, 2001.

While I too like the SL, I am amused how all of sudden it seems to be "the R to have". It commands the lowest price apart from the original 'flex, so the market is speaking differently! The SL2 remains expensive as it always has been as it is the last Wetzlar fully manual camera concurrent with the last "real" M, the M4, and has the very useful advantage of having a useable meter once you get below about 1/30 at f2 with 100 ISO film.

To fit a motor on an SL you need an SLMOT which are certainly rare and no one in their right mind would ever want to actually use the SL motor compared to the R winder or motor. Also while it has excellent image brightness, I have not noticed the R6.2 being markedly inferior (the R4 is inferior) and it has the advantage of interchangeable screens, a very sensitive meter with spot and center-weighted metering and a hot shoe, prerelease (I thought that was always considered an advantage for long tele shots?), diopter adjust for the viewfinder and it is smaller and lighter. I used an SL for seven or eight years and I was always told by other Leicaphiles how awful it was ("diesel Leica" ha-ha etc.) Now I still have it but rarely use it as a) it has no diopter adjust - very useful for those of us whose "eyes are not what they were". b) does not accept all the lenses I have c) unuseable meter when it gets at all dark d) noisier than the R6.2 e) heavier f)no TTL flash or hotshoe g) no winder possibilities that make any sense. Still now I know I am holding on to a veritable solid-gold classic! I find this all rather ironic. How the worm turns! I like the camera myself, but, the fact is, I always use my R6.2 instead of the SL. The SL now is a back up.

I think we need to get some sense of proportion here! To my mind for someone who has to carry their camera about with them all day and wants a manual camera the R6s are much more useful as much as I like to use an SL and admire its fine build quality.

Hey Andy -- want to buy my SL?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Jay sez:

If you're using a 90mm lens to frame the *same* shot on an M vs an R, the details will appear much smaller in the M because you're basically looking at a 28mm view with a little box in the middle of it. That sometimes makes it hard to focus on small details...a person's eyes, for example.

This observation is among the more helpful here, IMO. I will only add I have made some candid portraits in which the subject is using their hands to obstruct a clear view of their face, by accident and by design. Nonetheless, the eyes are in perfect focus. These are neat shots because you can get their facial expressions via their eyes, peering through their fingers, tho' their faces are partially obstructed. Did that makes sense? ugh- I'm very scanner illiterate so I can't show what I mean.

Anyhow, only an RF viewfinder patch let this be possible during a candid shot- I have never made such a photo using an SLR (or P&S).

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Andy -- The Goth portraits weren't "accidents" but I did have a lot of failures due to poor focus.

The result is that I swapped my M6 for a motorized R8, which I believe will suit my subject matter and style of shooting better. I can focus over the entire groundglass, there is no parallax, and the 90mm Summicron-R focuses closer then the M version.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 05, 2001.

Leica is a cult more than a camera. While it might be worth joining that cult for an M rangefinder and its absolutely superb feel, ergonomics and cachet (I own an M3), the SLR's are another matter entirely, being many years behind the pack technologically. IMO Canon EOS rules the 35mm SLR world these days, with Nikon a struggling second.

Peter...back in August.

What happened to you and EOS??? I hate to say it, but perhaps it is my privilege here to say "I told you so"? Why the change?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Peter: Sorry to step all over your 90mm question - hope this additonal info also comes in useful.

Robin:

IM very HE: I've borrowed store R4/5/6/7s for years and always thought, "Boy, these R lenses are overrated. They can't produce a sharp image for beans!" Recently I've tried the same lenses - including the 90 'cron (back on topic) as well as all those 180s tested recently - on an SL - and suddenly they're SHARP! Even the 90 at 1/30th.

I can't swear that it's the mirror shake, or the focusing screen, or the hand ergnomics - but something sure changed!

I found a similar effect in my Nikon days with the F vs. the FM2 - the FM2 had the features, but the same lenses on the F were noticably crisper.

I pointed out some of the SLs drawbacks - and you added the meter limitations and the lack of diopter adjustment - both good points. If you crave a 24 or 16 or motor you're SOL with the SL.

But "It commands the lowest price" - that's just another positive in my book. 8^)

RE: yours - I'll get back to you. I'm not actually ready to do anything now, but have my eye on a slightly dinged black chrome for $400 - same one I used for my tests. What've you got?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 05, 2001.

Re Andy Piper's comments on a "cosmic match" between an M camera and a specific lens: in the "Technical" section of Jim Marshall's website, it states that "Once a lens is perfectly matched to a camera body, he never takes it off. He feels this gives a slight edge to the focus and helps produce a consistant result." This explains why Marshall carries 4-5 Leicas at a time.

Marshall is one of the greats. His site is at http://www.marshallphoto.com/

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), December 05, 2001.

>>>
To fit a motor on an SL you need an SLMOT which are certainly rare and no one in their right mind would ever want to actually use the SL motor compared to the R winder or motor. Also while it has excellent image brightness, I have not noticed the R6.2 being markedly inferior (the R4 is inferior) and it has the advantage of interchangeable screens, a very sensitive meter with spot and center-weighted metering and a hot shoe, prerelease (I thought that was always considered an advantage for long tele shots?), diopter adjust for the viewfinder and it is smaller and lighter. I used an SL for seven or eight years and I was always told by other Leicaphiles how awful it was ("diesel Leica" ha-ha etc.) Now I still have it but rarely use it as a) it has no diopter adjust - very useful for those of us whose "eyes are not what they were". b) does not accept all the lenses I have c) unuseable meter when it gets at all dark d) noisier than the R6.2 e) heavier f)no TTL flash or hotshoe g) no winder possibilities that make any sense. Still now I know I am holding on to a veritable solid-gold classic! I find this all rather ironic. How the worm turns! I like the camera myself, but, the fact is, I always use my R6.2 instead of the SL. The SL now is a back up.
<<<

All true! I miss not having a lightweight winder on the SL but for my use the R6.x's other additional features don't help me.

I find I can grip the SL body better than the R4-R7 bodies.
The SL has a continuously-variable shutter, which the R6.x doesn't have. The other R-bodies only have continuously-variable shutters in auto-exposure modes, which I've found to be more likely to produce exposure errors than manual exposure. The continuously-variable shutter is a very big deal to me because I'm using long lenses hand- held, at full aperture so I can get the fastest possible shutter speed. The continuously-variable shutter means I don't have to compromise my exposure.
I don't need a viewfinder diopter.
I don't need the R-only lenses, but just in case I ever do need any of them I've bought a beater SL2; most of those lenses can be retrofitted to work on the SL2.
The mirror pre-release doesn't do anything for me because most of my subjects are active (see http://www.wildlightphoto.com) and I prefer to use the camera hand-held. If I ever do need a pre- release it's possible to pre-release the SL or SL2 mirror by flicking the shutter release.
The meter sensetivity isn't a problem 99% of the time, again because I'm using the camera hand-held. In really dark light I'm out of hand-held range .
I rarely use flash, and when I do the cord is no big deal.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that it fits my needs only because I have limited requirements. For those whose equipment needs don't include the newer R-bodies' features the SL is bomb-proof and affordable, and in my case I've been far more productive with the SL than with any R body before the R8.>

One of the main reasons the SL is so inexpensive is because there were 33,000 of them made. It's not a rarity like the R-E or R4sP, with only about 5,000 of each made.


-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 05, 2001.

>>>
The meter sensetivity isn't a problem 99% of the time, again because I'm using the camera hand-held. In really dark light I'm out of hand- held range .
<<<

This should have included (enter the SL2) and the end but the software stripped it off. Also the link to my website doesn't work. Try the copy-and-paste routine: http://www.wildlightphoto.com

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 05, 2001.

wow, i really like how marshall's leicas are all beat up. guess i'll have to use mine a lot more to get them like that. But why is the site written in the 3rd person?

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

The brassing gives the cameras some character, huh? It's like the patina on old leather or wood ... but heck, it's the pictures that count and boy, Marshall's a master! Great subjects of course (and a great era) ... we're not worthy ... ps. Please, Tony, make Alfie stop posting his inane comments about things he knows nothing about; after seeing his pictures, I doubt that he knows the first thing about anything in photography ... this is such a refreshingly informative and civil forum and a joy, it's a shame that one immature and socially maladjusted person can bring out the worst in everyone and ruin the character of the discussion.

-- DH (DHil@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

this is such a refreshingly informative and civil forum and a joy, it's a shame that one immature and socially maladjusted person can bring out the worst in everyone and ruin the character of the discussion.

I take extreme issue with this statement. Alfie has never been uncivil. He may not be as knowledgeable as others, he may be undeniably wrong, and he may not share the esthetics of others here (frankly, while technically brillant, I find some of Mike Dixon's portraits rather cheesy, but I do not think he should be barred from this forum. A chacun son gout).

The character of the discussion has not been ruined by his posts. It's those knowitalls who come out of the woodwork and spend more time bashing Alfie than actually correcting his statements and setting the record straight. If these people would just relax their lower sphincters, the character of this forum would remain unchanged, enhanced.

If you or others are unable to remain civil in the presence of his posts, which you are not required to read, then by god that is YOUR problem. What is this "bring out the worst in everyone" bull? What happened to personal responsibility?

The credit for civility and the blame of the lack thereof rests with one person only, yourself. If you can't behave and you blame someone else, that is truly "immature and maladjusted."

-- Tse-Sung! (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Well, you can disagree as much as you want but a community this is and whether or not I take personal responsibility for my reactions to Afred Wang's posts or others' replies to his posts, it cannot be denied that Wang is annoying to many and is most responsible for the ire engendered by his posts. Take his voluminous and ridiculous posturing (and name dropping and philosophizing and sanctimoniousness) and inane posts out of the equation and the character of the community will be much improved. Instead of trying to change human nature, I think asking one member to change his ways is much more reasonable ... it's not asking for much. And Wang's happiness wouldn't be affected in any way. He can still hold true to his aesthetic principles and snap-shots and opinions about equipment ... all I ask is that he ration is out much more sparingly (with much more discrimination). A decent community on the web is a rare gem and should be actively encouraged and protected. As it is open to all comers, it can degenerate rapidly and unexpectedly. Wang shows no inclination to take due care to contribute positively; in fact, he seems bent on getting his way regardless of how others may feel about it. That's fine for the the sake of his "art" and fine in life, trudge ahead and do your own thing Mr. Wang, but is it really too much to ask that he not ruin something that affects more than himself with a seemingly small change in his behavior? If you or he feel that it is too much to ask, then I say you are acting in an overly selfish manner ...

-- DH (DHil@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

"As a rule your forum members shoot Leicas because they adhere to higher standards and have heightened sensibilities......." Gulley, I hope that you wrote this with a lot of tongue-in-cheek. The Leica M's are fine cameras capable of Good Stuff in the hands of a talented photographer.I'am afraid that, too often, they are used as pass keys to an elitist Good Old Boy Club whose effete membership seems to be growing in direct proportion to the sales of M's [ I just bought a Minolta CL so I can't join]. But then, what you said was really TIC, right?

Best, John

-- John Myers (mymacv@aol.com), December 05, 2001.

At the risk of being completely OT... I completely agree with you that a decent web community is a rare gem indeed.

But guess what. I have NO idea what you're talking about, re: Wang's name dropping, getting his way, santimoniousness. Why? Because I don't read all his stuff! That simple.

Um, it's an idea I freely share with anyone. Really. Free of charge.

In the good ol' days of Usenet, there were trolls, spammers, and all manner of malcontents ruining it for everyone. As you may or not may recall, it could have a big effect on everyone, b/c fora were not orgnaized as LUSENET is: i.e., people couldn't start threads that were very separate from one another. These trollers were bad, and they made it impossible for people to come to meet and commune. EVERY post would be met with verbal aggression, anger, inflammatory remarks- racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. Unless you're talking about some other group, I don't think Wang's posts come close to that.

Perhaps you may with to point out where he's been...

posturing (and name dropping and philosophizing and sanctimoniousness) and inane posts

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

If you insist on saying that it is over-reaction on the part of people who find Wang annoying rather than Wang himself, I see no point in engaging in a debate with you. Re-read his posts and people's reactions to them... If you still insist that he's a positive element in this community, then we should just agree to disagree, call it a day, and go home ... there is no accounting for taste or perspective. It's not a matter of rhetorical nitpicking: Wang's posts _are_ annoying and irrelevant to many--many seemingly reasonable people (if I may, I'd like to count myself among them), people whom I'd like to have around to discuss Leicas and pictures taken with Leicas. Wang threatens to scare many of these same people away, and I'd their contributions over Wang's. You may say that I should just ignore his posts, but if you look at the message that generated this chat, it is not authored by Wang nor does it appear to have anything to do with him, yet I am confronted by his ridiculously misinformed posts. Would the series of posts not benefit from missing his posts? And can I say something about that, when clearly Wang himself makes no attempt to change? We (I and others who have commented on Wang) have been reasonable, I think, Wang and people like yourself have not ...

-- DH (DHil@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Let me just add one more point before I call it a day (and it's not to make the last point but to just put a thought out there). An open community such as this depends on more than a decent moderator (which Tony is in spades!). It requires the due care of a core of decent participants to prevent a rapid decline into ascerbic attackes ... people who care about how the community functions and evolves and contribute to its health. The forum is more than its space in cyberspace, it is the participants. If we see a person who is a blatant source of conflict or negativity, it shouldn't be too much to ask the person to moderate his/her behavior. When this fails, as it has with Wang, I don't think it's too much to point this out and ask others to think about why this is so... So my initial post was meant to point this out to Tony and to others ...

-- DH (DHil@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

Wasn't the original thread about a focusing issue? But now look where it has gone. Alfie himself only takes up a fraction of the space that's being devoted to him. To minimize the disruption, we can minimize the space being given to Alfie-Analysis. Why not discuss the matter by private email instead, when necessary?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 05, 2001.

Peter,

Some beautiful (and fun) shots on your site. Thank you.

You have made your choice and swapped (arrgh!) your M6 for a R8. I own both but cannot really afford that, so I am considering swapping (arrrgh!) the R stuff for more M stuff. But with exactly the same existential questions: if I go for the 75 'lux and 135 'apo-telyt + 0.72M, will I increase my focus failure rate or not at full aperture shots, compared to the focus success rate achieved with my R8 and 180 apo-elmarit or obtainable with a R8 and 80 'lux (do not own that one)?...

In real life, there is absolutely no question I rather go for the M when deciding what to carry out. Weight and volume are such a punishment with R stuff. I only use R for paid shooting (in this case the R gear -w/motor of course- also looks more impressive to the customer's eye, and that strangely helps price discussions!).

My experience of 0.72 M +90 mm elmarit is that I get a BETTER focus success rate compared to equivalent R setup, even wide open, and even at close distance. I find the 90 framelines to be more of an asset than an inconvenience, as I can freely weigh alternative angles and framing while shooting. Contrary to what is stated by some pseudo- experts, there is NO problem focusing on the near eye through those frames (there is even no problem focusing in low light on a low contrast pinpoint through those frames...).

Obviously the question of the eventual lack of precision in the linkages between your lens, your body and the telemetering system is a question that is independent of the correct usage of the focusing patch. But that can be true for a SLR as well: a slight mirror problem or a slight screen placement problem might not be detected at shooting stage, but lead to OOF pictures. WYS Is not necessarily WYG...

I often shoot in low light, never use flash, never do studio, so my needs are not the same as yours. And you sometimes crop real tight, at or beyond the limit of the M's minimal focusing distance, so SLR is indeed "safer" for you.

However, I'm sure that you WILL soon re-purchase a M + short tele for your "non-gothic" outdoor portraits. Your Monterey woman artists will feel more comfortable, and so will you. This ongoing M-R balancing act is probably one of the elements that help Leica survive..... ;-)

PS Alfie: do not let yourself be terrorised !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

Jacques -- Thank you for the thoughtful and informed response. I'm glad this thread has returned to the matter at hand.

...the question of the eventual lack of precision in the linkages between your lens...

I'm quite sure my M was aligned properly. When it was in, in was in. But I don't think the rangefinder is as adept at discerning the difference between the eyeball, eyelash and/or the eyeglass frames as a SLR would be.

Frankly, even as a once-time EOS-1v owner, I am mightily impressed by the R8. It is an ergonomic masterpiece, the high points of which I do not have time to list right now. Suffice it to say that the love affair was firmly established when I realized that, for once, the PC socket was situated in a logical place: the 1v's is on the left side, which means the PC plug either fell out or put pressure on the strain relief; the M6's is on the back, which means that I am always wrestling it away from the eyepiece. In fact, the R8 is the first 35mm camera I've owned in recent years that did not need gaffer's tape to hold the synch cord in place!

I hate to punch a hole in your theory, but the Monterey women artists were shot mostly with an EOS-1v; only the photo of Claire Lerner was shot with an M--an old M3- -with the 90mm Summicron.

I find a motor drive almost essential for both fashion and portraiture. The closer focusing distance will be a big plus. And the Aperture Priority mode will certainly come in handy on occasion.

...I'm sure that you WILL soon re-purchase a M...

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 06, 2001.

Peter,

I don't think the rangefinder is as adept at discerning the difference between the eyeball, eyelash and/or the eyeglass frames as a SLR would be.

This is precisely the opposite of my experience. Blame it maybe on my eyesight, but I have a much easier time discriminating such details by placing my confidence in the rangefinder patch of the M than placing it in my capacity of visualising very slight focus shifts on the ground glass of any SLR. By trusting the patch, I can easily focus on a very small low contrast point that would painfully torture me in the manual focus SLR world (and that would fool any AF system). The closer I am, the easiest it is to discriminate such small details of course, and the more necessay it is to do so. No use nitpicking on lashes/eyeball with a 90mm 5 meters away from the subject... I KNOW through personal experience that with the 90 elmarit at minimum distance, my 0.72M rangefinder patch will be totally reliable at f2.8. I unfortunately do NOT know through personal experience if that would still be the case with the 90 'cron at f2, the 75 at f1.4 or the 135 at f3.4. Reading other people's experiences with such settings gathers a mass of contradictory conclusions, and maintains my own level of FUD at a high enough level to justify my R8 investment (aaargh!). This FUD traces one of the main braking points that lead users (such as myself) to opt for SLR usage. The other main braking points could be the will to access macro applications, tele applications, studio applications or zoom features. However, I still find strange that after decades of 0.72 monopoly, this debate on focus has not been terminated once and for all... Anyone want to lend/rent me a 75 f1.4 for a couple of weeks ? On another level, I totally agree that the R8 is THE SLR dream body. And I was not assuming that your Women artists pics had been shot through any particular system, I simply stated my belief that such subjects would feel more comfortable posing in front of a M... ;-)

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001.

My first shoot with the R8 confirms my belief that the R8 is indeed easier for me to focus at close range then the M6 0.85.

It is true that the M is a less imposing and less threatening camera then the R8, which is much like the EOS-1v HS in that regard.

A Canon or Nikon nameplate signifies professional to a client. The Leica nameplate signifies elegance, luxury and an uncompromising pursuit of quality. Now, if only I had a Porsche and some handmade Italian suits to go with it!

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 07, 2001.

With my R8 I consistantly get sharp in-focus shots with the 90mm Summicron even wide open from 5 feet away. However I can't say the same with the 90mm Elmarit on my .85x M6, and I get about 30% in-focus shots with the 75mm Summilux wide open from 6 feet. I have sold the 75mm Summilux out of frustration and now use the M6 for 21mm to 50mm only.

On the other hand I find the R8 extremely difficult to focus with wide angle lenses. I have tried the microprism screen and it was an improvement. I don't what it is since I don't have this problem with Nikons. Now the R8 is for 50mm and above and the M is for 50mm and below.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 07, 2001.

Getting an 0.85 mag M6 and a 1.25X magnifier is not the solution if you can't focus a 75/1.4 or 90/2.0 M lens accurately at full aperture (though these will improve the accuracy of focus). Either you (or less likely, your equipment) is the problem.

These lenses as well as the 50/1.0 Noctilux were designed so that they can be focussed accurately at full aperature at all distances, using the 0.72 viewfinder of the M2, M4, M4-2, M4-P, or M6. If you don't understand the basic principles of rangefinder focussing, I recommend Gunther Osterloh's excellent book on the M system.

I have never had a problem focussing fast lenses (including the 90/2.0 and 50/1.0) at full aperture before. The depth of field is relatively small in the near distance, but the plane of focus always comes out where I place it. I think frequent failures to obtain sharp focus under these conditions suggest faulty technique. Such errors of focus would not show up at greater distances or when the lens is stopped down, because the increased depth of field will mask these errors.

There has been a lot of nonsense on this site about the Leica M being a "wide angle camera". This is simply not the case. Believe me, if you can't focus longer and faster lens on an M camera, you need to learn how to use the M system properly. It was designed for highly precise spot focussing. It is annoying to see so many people interpret their own failure to focus the camera properly as some type of design flaw.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 07, 2001.