Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Come to think of it, you are right. The M is probably the 1 camera that would work nicely with auto dxing, as long as there is some way of pushing and pulling. However the Ms philosophy has lways included tons of fiddling with shutter speeds focus and aperture. The M is evolutionarily dead though all they can hope to do is give it an electronic shutter. but they may have trouble fitting a speed scale in the finder. This would leave you guessing which speed you are shooting at. Also, they can't squeeze more than 2 or fps out of it with a winder. and the tripod socket is in the worse spot of any camera ever made. To make things worse, it has finally become apparent to most top users that the RF accuracy is questionable with anything above 35 (Yes 35) Seriously, I wonder how many M3s can focus a Noxtilux accurately @F1@8 feet???? Before anyone sez mine can, try it and blow it up. I can only guess that they still haven't squeezed all the juice out of it yet. Still, It's time to move on. Javier Robert Appleby wrote: > Mark, I've often been in situations where I've had to switch between films > and then forgotten to switch the film speed back. DX coding sounds like a > good idea to me. Surely the "philosophy" of the Leica M, to make > photography more direct without lots of fiddling with settings, is well > served by this feature? > As for AE, it can always be switched off, can't it? And why would a new > drive for the M be so appealing while the little motor in the Hexar is the > devil's work? > I love using the M (and don't use anything else), but I'm not blind to its > limitations. I don't presently own a Hexar, but if it came as just the body > at a reasonable price, I'd be tempted. If it had the F5's light meter in > it, I'd get one tomorrow. On the other hand, AF is not a feature I'd be > interested in. > It's true that in the end everything is dispensable except for shutter > speed, aperture and ISO settings. But sometimes it's convenient to have > more features and may make a difference in getting the shot. After seeing > my wife's results with the F100 shooting moving targets a lot of the time, > I can see how it's extremely useful for the kind of work she does. > I think working photographers generally have a pretty pragmatic approach to > equipment. Why this doctrinaire insistence on limiting the feature set of a > camera to what the M offers? > Speak to me, bubbaloo! > Rob. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Dante A Stella wrote: > > > > Axel Schwieker wrote: > > > > > This accuracy is of _no_ use if the smallest exposure adjustment you can > > > do on a M is 1/2-stop. 1/4 stop shutter+meter accuracy is enough. > > > > But it is of use if you have a continuously-variable electronic shutter. > And > ><Snip> > > What camera lacks manual ISO? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Dante Stella > > IMO a strange compulsion to not recognize the dispensability of most modern > camera "features". > If I really wanted the best shot i could get of my garage or tree in my back > yard I'd use my view camera of a design not much changed in a 160 years or > actually much more. > Of course I'd be constrained by not having one with DX coding! > I can't see how someone so into all these modern whizz bang unessary feature > would want to be on a list with a bunch of M6 users. > The M6 a famously classic bare bones exquisite picture taking tool. (hand > held! > Wow! small film!) > Smells like a troll if you ask me! > Mark W. Rabiner > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > Robert Appleby > V. Bellentani 36 > 41100 MO > Italy > tel. (+39) 059 303436 > mob. (+39) 0348 336 7990 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com