Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks to everyone who responded to my query. I particularly like Bob's suggestion to use Auto ISO, a facility I had not thought of using. That's almost an analog of shutter speed preferred mode, even better, because you get to choose the aperture also. I was so puzzled, because the test shots I did just before writing to the LUG were hand held, but I was concentrating on being steady, not on the subject, so I would guess that shooting at real subjects and thinking about the subject and the framing does not necessarily lead to steadiness. This tempts me to tell a story. Some time in the early 1940's, living in Chicago, I bought a small 35mm camera called, I think, a Wirgin. I also think it was at a store in the Loop called Central Camera. I felt lucky, because cameras were damn hard to find then. I took it to New York on vacation and shot a set Kodachromes in a friend's garden. I'm sure I used a shutter speed that was commonly considered ok for hand-held: 1/25. When returned to Chicago, I took the camera and slides in to work to show to a colleague. It was a Manhattan project lab, and one security guard wagged a finger at me for bringing in a forbidden camera, but he made no more of it. Well, my friend started looking at the slides with a 20X magnifier and said: "These aren't sharp; your camera is no good." Then, when he came to the last one, he said: "Hey, this one is sharp." The reason was that the sun had been going down, and the last slide was shot on a tripod. I was so traumatized by that experience that my minimum speed for for hand-held became 1/250 for years! It was a surprise to me to find that I could get sharp pictures at 1/25 and even 1/15 if I was lucky with the M9 and a 35mm lens. Herbert Kanner kanner at acm.org 650-326-8204 Question authority and the authorities will question you. On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Herb, > > Since you seem satisfied with the post Leica calibration test shots, my > guess is it is camera shake caused by the longer lens and heat of the > moment. My suggestion would be to manually set the shutter speed at 1/250 > or higher, set the ISO via the menu to AUTO with the max ISO being your > limit of tolerance (maybe 1200 for daylight shooting, higher for indoors), > and then simply choose the f/stop as you would on aperture priority (which > is what you use now probably). So really no change in your shooting style. > > The only thing I am unsure of on the M9 is whether exposure compensation > still works when using manual mode. So you may have to meter the way older > M film cameras did (M6 and after with the built in meter) by finding an > area to meter and depressing the shutter half way and reframe. Just watch > your histogram to avoid over exposure. > > Walk around and shoot a few flowers and see what you think. > Best, > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> wrote: > >> Since 99,9% of my use of my M9 (and my M6 years ago) has been with a 35mm >> Summicron, I confess to being a rank amateur when it comes to the 90mm >> Chron. After being irritated by too many soft-focus shots with the 90, I >> did a careful test of a fence from about 12 feet and found that the >> rangefinder/lens coupling was slightly off. So I sent it in to Leica, got >> it back about $350 later, checked out out and found it to be spot on. >> >> OK, now here's my experience. When I went to the first of two outdoor >> band concerts in a park, a couple did some very spectacular dancing to >> the music and I failed to get a picture. So, for the next concert, I >> brought my 90mm so that I wouldn't have to get under their noses or have >> to do an extreme crop. >> >> Well, the dancing couple didn't appear, but I took a lot of snapshots and >> every one of them came out very fuzzy. I don't have a record of shutter >> speeds or f numbers, but I was outdoors at reasonable ISO and lighting, >> so I assume the I was probably around f/8/of f/5.6 and probably around >> 1/250. I should have had a depth of field of about twelve feet or more >> for some of those shots and at least two feet for the close couple I >> took. None of them appeared to be sharp anywhere. >> >> Could it be the increase in the effect of camera shake with the longer >> lens? I would have thought that the inertia from the extra weight of the >> lens would have compensated. Yesterday, wondering if the lens had >> mysteriously lost its calibration, I did a hand-held test at 12, 50, and >> essentially infinity feet and the pictures were needle sharp. However, to >> be critical, I did the test at f/2, so I got pretty high shutter speeds. >> >> Any advice from users of longer lenses on Leica M series? >> >> Herbert Kanner >> kanner at acm.org >> 650-326-8204 >> >> Question authority and the authorities will question you. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information