Borrowed a Leica M6 TTL 0.85 - Page 2

ReeRay · Nov-09-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

G2 is a really cool camera. They were clearly on the losing side of history when this was released, but now, quite an amazing deal. I think the thing that would keep me from buying one (at least first) is the preponderance of features. Part of the exercise is to love manual again. The G2 seems like a brilliant hybrid, if that's what you're angling for.

Manual focusing is via a turn-wheel on the body with correct focus indicators and distance available in the VF. Very very accurate method.

Autofocus is great with moving subjects as "continuous" AF is available.

Now, here's an interesting spin off - there's an adapter available to fit the superb and Leica busting Contax G lenses to (say) a GF1, Gh1, G1!

These Zeiss G lenses can be got for a few hundred dollars each at present! And the 45mm F2 is generally regarded as the finest sharpest 35mm lens ever!

Interesting developments for sure

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11575

Pindy · Nov-11-2009, 06:27 PM

Now then—got back the first two rolls. The good news is that out of two rolls, everything I tried to focus on was in focus. Due to the slow shutter speeds (I took the vast majority of these shots at night) you have motion blur, but for me the big win is the lack of camera-shake. Many of these were taken at 1/15s or 1/8s and, boy, mirrors really do suck, so I'm very very pleased with this particular advantage.

I did not quite remember the amount of grain inherent in 400 speed B&W film (These are Tri-X and HP5 Plus—not sure which, gotta look at my negs) but grain is not an enemy of sharpness, nor of aesthetics, so it just is what it is and I sort of understand why people want to emulate grain in their post processing. I can't say I like it or hate it. It just is.

One thing that really stands out to me about the Leica, is that the majority of my people shots, even the ones in exterior darkness, tend to have the faces properly exposed. In my digital SLR life, I am constantly looking at shots where the faces tend to be dark and ruddy after the matrix metering exposed for something other than the face I pointed the camera at. Liking this simplistic metering—it's working for me.

None of these test shots are supposed to be anything resembling good photography and I clearly need to do a little black-point work, etc.

***DoctorIt*** · Nov-12-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

Great exposure, sharp faces, shallow depth, smooth bokeh... what's not to like???!

Pindy · Nov-13-2009, 10:23 AM

The limitations imposed on me by this way of working is actually wonderful. It also makes me think, with hand-holdability like this, who needs ISO 6400? (Okay, not really. But still, 1/8s or 1/15s was always an impossibility in reflex-land)

The concept of pre-focusing is beginning to dawn on me. There's this finger grip around the focus rings of many Leica lenses that was baffling at first, but now I can see it's a way of fostering muscle-memory and also giving the photographer a reference of where the lens is focused by feel. I have been told to set the focus ring to infinity after each shot so you only have to move it in one direction as you get ready to make an image. Furthermore, the grip at 6 o'clock (stright down in other words) is 4ft. It would not take much to familiarize oneself with the positions of the grip and their focal distances. More to figure out.

Pindy · Nov-13-2009, 11:30 AM

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:

1. Complexity or an attempt to be all-singing, all-dancing. Sorry Contax G2!
2. Crop factor. Sorry M8 and Epson. Did the APS-C thing and not going back again. Panasonic and Olympus are at least creating lenses for the sensor but both suffer from point #3.
3. No viewfinder

The Zeiss Ikon is a nice alternative to an M6 or M7 and should be considered. But in the end, I want the M9 because it's the way forward, until somebody else does a FFRF.

Could I actually divest myself of the DSLR to fund this desire? I think I would seriously regret it. When I think of all I would miss it doesn't appeal so much. Macro lenses. Telephoto lenses. Wireless flash. Remote triggering (something I do enough to make it a loss). Today's DSLRs are an incredible value for money. Still, I think the RF could cover 80% of the photography I do so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

ReeRay · Nov-13-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:

1. Complexity or an attempt to be all-singing, all-dancing. Sorry Contax G2!
2. Crop factor. Sorry M8 and Epson. Did the APS-C thing and not going back again. Panasonic and Olympus are at least creating lenses for the sensor but both suffer from point #3.
3. No viewfinder

The Zeiss Ikon is a nice alternative to an M6 or M7 and should be considered. But in the end, I want the M9 because it's the way forward, until somebody else does a FFRF.

Could I actually divest myself of the DSLR to fund this desire? I think I would seriously regret it. When I think of all I would miss it doesn't appeal so much. Macro lenses. Telephoto lenses. Wireless flash. Remote triggering (something I do enough to make it a loss). Today's DSLRs are an incredible value for money. Still, I think the RF could cover 80% of the photography I do so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

I said you would have trouble handing it back

Welcome to the RF world

***DoctorIt*** · Nov-14-2009, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

... so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

Thanks for a great couple posts - really good info/analysis here for anyone who enjoys this kind of gear and shooting.

Moogle Pepper · Nov-16-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers:

Made some hacking program to steal a fraction of a penny from everyone's bank account.

rutt · Nov-17-2009, 05:12 AM

Nice shots.

I have an old Leica, unused for years. You may have inspired me to get it out and play with it if I get bored with my GF1.

angevin1 · Nov-17-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorIt

Thanks for a great couple posts - really good info/analysis here for anyone who enjoys this kind of gear and shooting.

ditto!

ReeRay · Nov-17-2009, 03:54 PM

Have you noticed the way film and related hardware is creeping up in price?

It's not scarcity related either as there's a plentiful supply of all products.

I bought a complete Rollei 6002 kit on Ebay 18 months ago. Mint condition, charger, 4 spare batteries, prism finder, 50, 80 and 150 PQ lenses - total cost was $985. It was a steal.

Last week on Ebay a 6002 with just an 80mm HFT went for the same price!

Conclusion - film still rocks

Pindy · Nov-19-2009, 06:17 PM

It's been interesting perusing the rangefinder forums; I'm struck by a few differences. First, many of the participants don't seem to care much about critical focus and I suppose they're quite right as hobbyists to concentrate on mood, emotion, color, light, gesture and all the other things you may want to concentrate on. Still, it makes a change from the technical perfection a lot of digital photographers seem to strive for, here and elsewhere. The other notable thing is, because so many RF shooters still use film, you see a range of prowess in how well the person can scan a negative, slide or print (or how well their lab did) and a lot of scans that I would have nixed are proudly presented. Again, how interesting it is to visit with similarly-minded people who espouse different aesthetic ideals!

I cannot say, from my time lurking amongst the rangefinderati that I have come to love film any more than I did. In some cases, it's breathtakingly beautiful in the right hands and eyes. There seems to be a pattern of me liking Portra 160VC quite a bit. Other times, it's like driving miles of hard road. Seeing a digital shot is sometimes soothing with its lack of grain and other filmic qualities that are less than ideal.

It makes a horse race.

michswiss · Nov-20-2009, 06:15 AM

I'm struggling right now where to take myself technically, whether to stick with dSLRs or experimenting with film, RF, MF or something other. It would be a jump back to where I started many decades ago, but I'm so tempted. Thanks for documenting your experience.

ReeRay · Nov-20-2009, 04:39 PM

I had the same quandary some 18 months back. Everyone was extolling the virtues of digital, it's immediacy and efficiency

Then I realised they were all working Pro's under pressure to meet deadlines

Film was not an option

Then I realised how lucky I am

I don't have, want or need any clients. No delivery deadlines, no pressure and no problems if I screw up.

So I can shoot film, take my time scanning (which I love) and spotting (thank God for ICE) and know it's all my own work.

I figured what film to use, the exposure, filtration and lighting and not some pre-programmed chip in my DSLR

I guess it's like comparing prints from the lab as opposed to my own darkroom.

The satisfaction factor is immense

And is there really a better sight than a dozen wonderful glowing trannies on a light box?

The blessing of being an amateur eh?

Pindy · Nov-20-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReeRay

The blessing of being an amateur eh?

This is one of the truths that reminds me I don't have anyone to please but myself. I don't need to have a "pro" camera because I'm not a pro—never will be. I may want a feature (like ISO 12,800!) but it doesn't dictate if I eat or not.

I cannot convince myself that film is where it's at, but the digital alternative in the format I'm pursuing is, in camera terms, like buying a $75,000 car.

ReeRay · Nov-20-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindy

This is one of the truths that reminds me I don't have anyone to please but myself. I don't need to have a "pro" camera because I'm not a pro—never will be. I may want a feature (like ISO 12,800!) but it doesn't dictate if I eat or not.

I cannot convince myself that film is where it's at, but the digital alternative in the format I'm pursuing is, in camera terms, like buying a $75,000 car.

Don't we just know it!

Turning back to RF cameras - lots of places I've attempted to shoot with my DSLR are a no-go area. Camera is taken off me, locked away in a closet pending my exit!

Now I return with my little old G2 - "senile old man with his pre-war film camera, leave him to it, he's harmless"

Thank you very much!

Eddy · Nov-22-2009, 05:46 AM

.

Here are some of my shots with the Leica M8.2..You gotta luv this camera easy to carry and very discret

Eddy · Nov-22-2009, 05:48 AM

Pindy · Nov-23-2009, 09:44 AM

Very nice! It seems like such a long way to go to save, but I think it'll be worth it.

Pindy · Dec-01-2009, 07:16 PM

I bought an M6 TTL off Fred Miranda. I have no lens yet, but that's a start. WOuld've liked an M7 but I can't swing it right now. The trouble with this whole thing is film. It just... sucks. Oh, it can look nice. but it's so expensive to process and have scanned. I have mulled over buying a scanner, but I would prefer to find a service that does it well for me that's not too expensive. My local pro lab (A&I) do a decent job but their scanning prices are outrageous and I cannot afford to keep spending $25/roll to process and scan film at medium res. High res is $35! Seriously? I'm paying way too much for labor.

I need a scanner or I'm gonna lose my shirt dealing with this.

Nov-13-2009, 10:23 AM	#24
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	The limitations imposed on me by this way of working is actually wonderful. It also makes me think, with hand-holdability like this, who needs ISO 6400? (Okay, not really. But still, 1/8s or 1/15s was always an impossibility in reflex-land) The concept of pre-focusing is beginning to dawn on me. There's this finger grip around the focus rings of many Leica lenses that was baffling at first, but now I can see it's a way of fostering muscle-memory and also giving the photographer a reference of where the lens is focused by feel. I have been told to set the focus ring to infinity after each shot so you only have to move it in one direction as you get ready to make an image. Furthermore, the grip at 6 o'clock (stright down in other words) is 4ft. It would not take much to familiarize oneself with the positions of the grip and their focal distances. More to figure out. Last edited by Pindy; Nov-13-2009 at 11:03 AM.

Nov-17-2009, 05:12 AM	#29
rutt Cave canem! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boston Posts: 6,395	Nice shots. I have an old Leica, unused for years. You may have inspired me to get it out and play with it if I get bored with my GF1. __________________ If not now, when?

Nov-22-2009, 05:46 AM	#37
Eddy Quick Shooter Tuc0 Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 189	. Here are some of my shots with the Leica M8.2..You gotta luv this camera easy to carry and very discret __________________ E.j.W.

Nov-22-2009, 05:48 AM	#38
Eddy Quick Shooter Tuc0 Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 189	__________________ E.j.W.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Nov-11-2009, 06:27 PM	#22
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	Now then—got back the first two rolls. The good news is that out of two rolls, everything I tried to focus on was in focus. Due to the slow shutter speeds (I took the vast majority of these shots at night) you have motion blur, but for me the big win is the lack of camera-shake. Many of these were taken at 1/15s or 1/8s and, boy, mirrors really do suck, so I'm very very pleased with this particular advantage. I did not quite remember the amount of grain inherent in 400 speed B&W film (These are Tri-X and HP5 Plus—not sure which, gotta look at my negs) but grain is not an enemy of sharpness, nor of aesthetics, so it just is what it is and I sort of understand why people want to emulate grain in their post processing. I can't say I like it or hate it. It just is. One thing that really stands out to me about the Leica, is that the majority of my people shots, even the ones in exterior darkness, tend to have the faces properly exposed. In my digital SLR life, I am constantly looking at shots where the faces tend to be dark and ruddy after the matrix metering exposed for something other than the face I pointed the camera at. Liking this simplistic metering—it's working for me. None of these test shots are supposed to be anything resembling good photography and I clearly need to do a little black-point work, etc.

Nov-13-2009, 11:30 AM	#25
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	So the decision was made to acquire one of my very own. Not sure if a film body or whether I may just siphon off a nice, long embezzlement towards an M9. How did they do it in Office Space? All the other RF cameras I've considered are worthy in their own right but most have one or two deal breakers: 1. Complexity or an attempt to be all-singing, all-dancing. Sorry Contax G2! 2. Crop factor. Sorry M8 and Epson. Did the APS-C thing and not going back again. Panasonic and Olympus are at least creating lenses for the sensor but both suffer from point #3. 3. No viewfinder The Zeiss Ikon is a nice alternative to an M6 or M7 and should be considered. But in the end, I want the M9 because it's the way forward, until somebody else does a FFRF. Could I actually divest myself of the DSLR to fund this desire? I think I would seriously regret it. When I think of all I would miss it doesn't appeal so much. Macro lenses. Telephoto lenses. Wireless flash. Remote triggering (something I do enough to make it a loss). Today's DSLRs are an incredible value for money. Still, I think the RF could cover 80% of the photography I do so it pushes me to consider it, late at night when I should be asleep.

Nov-17-2009, 03:54 PM	#31
ReeRay Big grins Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Thailand Posts: 29	Have you noticed the way film and related hardware is creeping up in price? It's not scarcity related either as there's a plentiful supply of all products. I bought a complete Rollei 6002 kit on Ebay 18 months ago. Mint condition, charger, 4 spare batteries, prism finder, 50, 80 and 150 PQ lenses - total cost was $985. It was a steal. Last week on Ebay a 6002 with just an 80mm HFT went for the same price! Conclusion - film still rocks

Nov-19-2009, 06:17 PM	#32
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	It's been interesting perusing the rangefinder forums; I'm struck by a few differences. First, many of the participants don't seem to care much about critical focus and I suppose they're quite right as hobbyists to concentrate on mood, emotion, color, light, gesture and all the other things you may want to concentrate on. Still, it makes a change from the technical perfection a lot of digital photographers seem to strive for, here and elsewhere. The other notable thing is, because so many RF shooters still use film, you see a range of prowess in how well the person can scan a negative, slide or print (or how well their lab did) and a lot of scans that I would have nixed are proudly presented. Again, how interesting it is to visit with similarly-minded people who espouse different aesthetic ideals! I cannot say, from my time lurking amongst the rangefinderati that I have come to love film any more than I did. In some cases, it's breathtakingly beautiful in the right hands and eyes. There seems to be a pattern of me liking Portra 160VC quite a bit. Other times, it's like driving miles of hard road. Seeing a digital shot is sometimes soothing with its lack of grain and other filmic qualities that are less than ideal. It makes a horse race.

Nov-20-2009, 06:15 AM	#33
michswiss Stuffed Animal Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Not home Posts: 1,286	I'm struggling right now where to take myself technically, whether to stick with dSLRs or experimenting with film, RF, MF or something other. It would be a jump back to where I started many decades ago, but I'm so tempted. Thanks for documenting your experience.

Nov-20-2009, 04:39 PM	#34
ReeRay Big grins Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Thailand Posts: 29	I had the same quandary some 18 months back. Everyone was extolling the virtues of digital, it's immediacy and efficiency Then I realised they were all working Pro's under pressure to meet deadlines Film was not an option Then I realised how lucky I am I don't have, want or need any clients. No delivery deadlines, no pressure and no problems if I screw up. So I can shoot film, take my time scanning (which I love) and spotting (thank God for ICE) and know it's all my own work. I figured what film to use, the exposure, filtration and lighting and not some pre-programmed chip in my DSLR I guess it's like comparing prints from the lab as opposed to my own darkroom. The satisfaction factor is immense And is there really a better sight than a dozen wonderful glowing trannies on a light box? The blessing of being an amateur eh?

Nov-23-2009, 09:44 AM	#39
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	Very nice! It seems like such a long way to go to save, but I think it'll be worth it.

Dec-01-2009, 07:16 PM	#40
Pindy Leica Rhinestone Cowboy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Posts: 1,041	I bought an M6 TTL off Fred Miranda. I have no lens yet, but that's a start. WOuld've liked an M7 but I can't swing it right now. The trouble with this whole thing is film. It just... sucks. Oh, it can look nice. but it's so expensive to process and have scanned. I have mulled over buying a scanner, but I would prefer to find a service that does it well for me that's not too expensive. My local pro lab (A&I) do a decent job but their scanning prices are outrageous and I cannot afford to keep spending $25/roll to process and scan film at medium res. High res is $35! Seriously? I'm paying way too much for labor. I need a scanner or I'm gonna lose my shirt dealing with this.