Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not going to speak for Ted, but you have to admit that the M6 is the "KING OF DARKNESS" and Leica designed the system to be that way. This is probably why, generally speaking, the words M6 and flash are rarely used together. When a company makes an f/1.0 Noctilux lens, a 35/1.4 ASPH lens, a 75/1.4, etc... you can bet that they have given this "natural light" "available darkness" stuff some serious thought. And this is why the R8 is such a good "flash" camera. Even a built-in flash meter! If you see any of Ted's M6 photographs, you'll understand what he is saying. Likewise, you should look at Tina Manley's M6 photos, and read Erwin Puts' article "King of the Night" in last months Photo Techniques. The M6 is not flash friendly. And TTL didn't help. You can drive a car out of the showroom and enter a race. But the use-fit isn't there. You can use flash with an M6, but the use-fit really isn't there either. It's real obvious that Leica put a PC outlet and a hot shoe on the M6 to satisfy that somewhat rare situation (like spelunking) when you absolutely have to use flash. I'll admit that a flash is a lot cheaper than an f/1 Noctilux, or f/1.4 Summilux, but the resulting photographs are worlds apart. IMHO, Jim PS... the other day I saw our beloved late friend "lower case" Mark's new Noctilux (including a B+W UV filter) in the used Leica lens case at KSP. Call Paul Wood or Jeff Alford if you are interested. It is virtually new. Mark only had it for a very very short time. Keeble & Shuchat Photography 290 California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 (650) 327-8996 At 01:13 PM 10/7/98 +0100, you wrote: >tedgrant@islandnet.com (Ted Grant) writes: > >>When you use an M6, which is the ultimate of available natural light >>picture taking machines in the first place, then require flash, fill or >>otherwise, to take your pictures speaks of the lack of the photographer's >>ability to see light and make it work for him or her. > >This seems really overboard to me. That the M is astonishingly >good for natural light work does not in _any_ way the it wrong >to use an M in situations where light is added. If your benchmark >for high quality editorial/reportage is the B/W work of the '30s >to the '60s, then it seems to me that one cannot exclude the work >of people like M. Bourke-White and W.E. Smith. Both of these >photographers produced work of the very highest standard using >artificial light. And while M. B-W tended to use TLR Rolleis, >Smith often worked in 35 mm. Put bluntly, it is presumptuous to say >that other people's technical decisions are incorrect or 'twinky'. > >That said, I just purchased a 'vanilla' M6 HM because I don't >often use flash in my own work (when I do, I use N**** FA or FE2), >and because I think that the TTLs are noticably bulkier (yes!) than >the M6, which is *just* small enough to disappear in my hands. >Furthermore, I think that the TTL metering is not enough of an >asset to justify mofification of the M body. A large new >feature set (including a modern shutter, as described by others >here) might justify such a change, but TTL alone does not, in my >opinion. > >However, to say that OTHERS should not use M series Leicas for >artificial light work is just silly. Just my $0.02. >.......................................................................... >Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com > | PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840 > http://www.photoaccess.com Jim Brick, ASMP, BIAA Photo Access (650) 470-1132 Visual Impressions Publishing Visual Impressions Photography (408) 296-1629