Joys of spring

[firkin@netconnect.com.au (Alastair Firkin)]

G'day Bob,

Thanks for the note. Mine of course was a bit tongue in cheek given the
recent banterings on the group.

>I came into the world with an M3,

I've heard of being born with a silver spoon, but this is great ;-)

>and added a CL for crowded urban work. The LTM always impressed me as
>being more compact; and I'm sorry I didn't buy a IIIG when they were
>available. So I understand your >POV.

I started with an M3, didn't use it much as I didn't understand it back
then, and was still very much the SLR user, but when I got a CLE it proved
to be the bridge, which has allowed me to work backwards towards the more
manual cameras, and appreciate some of their advantages.

>The M's always seemed to be faster and the viewfinder somewhat larger.

Yes, but it is a bit more cluttered, especially on the later M's. Though
I've only used the SM for a week, its viewfinder is bright and of course is
really just a clip on version built into the top of the camera, so if I am
enjoying its view of the world, I may find the others will also have
advantages. There has been some comments, that HCB used a viewfinder
accessory even when using M's, so perhaps there is some yet unclear
advantage for me to discover. I am a little worried about the accuracy of
the framing, but have yet to see a film returned. Spring is proving her
most mischievous.

>Had I opted for an LTM I probably would have preset focus and carried along a
>separate meter. Also, using a wide angle, 90mm or 135mm with an LTM required
>an additional clip-on viewfinder. Therefore I would have been limited to
>doing almost everything with a 50mm -- which isn't a bad idea.

I certainly have always loved switching and swapping lenes. One of the
"good" disciplines of this camera will be that I will have to change my
habits a bit. I actually love the 50mm focal length, and find that unlike
others on the list that the 35 is a bit too wide. It is perhaps because I
was brought up with a 50 on my first Minolta, but I feel a bit intrusive
with the 35 and when I feel comfortable the subject seems a bit distant.
I'm still learning the uses of the 35.

>I can advance film on the M3 without removing the camera from my eye. That's
>not very easy to do with the LTMs. Fast sequence work is almost impossible
>with an LTM, unless you use a rapid winder; I think they were available for
>certain models.

Again, my "training", all self experimental with little in the way of
thought, sees me a bit cheap. When I see a photo opportunity, I stalk it
for a variable time. Then something seems to say "FIRE" and the shutter
releases. I'm done with it then. I will usually walk away happy to risk the
moment to that one shot. Since joining this group, I've tried to burn more
film, but old habits die hard, (must be the Scot in my name and nature ;-)
Still even when I'm going to take more than one frame I still like to
re-view the subject away from the camera, and then to perhaps revisit it
from another perspective. This means that I rarely keep the camera to my
eye even when I was sports photographer at school. I would certainly like
to hear more about the uses and techniques you use for rapid sequence shots
particularly where you find it "invaluable" in capturing the right image.

>On balance the M seemed to be the better alternative for my type of work. The
>bayonet mount on the M also saved a lot of time in the field.

Yes, I have to agree. The next step is a zoom or variable lens platform,
and it will be interesting if these rumours of a variable M lens come to
anything.

>In any case an RF Leica is irreducible in quality no matter which model we
>use. Leica Solms is now in the enviable position most mfg's dream about:
>having an exclusive product. If Solms electronifies the M, they lose that
>precision market and with it the reason for Leica's existence.

I would not have understood this comment before, but I'm really beginning
to see why so many of the group prefer "less" in the M and R6 cameras.

I find so many of the comments on lens quality facinating. I have to say,
that it was the continually brighter better prints from the CLE which
eventually swayed me towards the RF and Leica. My SLR Minolta system,
though fine in almost all regards, is for the first time in gathering dust.
I've even taken the batteries out to use as spares on the M6. But you
comments are very valid. It is not just the lens. The way I now see and
plan my shots is different. My ability to capture some of the things I used
to not understand is growing, and this is in part due to the limitations
and differences of the rangefinder camera. I have found the same learning
experience with the TLR Rollei. There would not seem to be the same
differences in the Leica R cameras, so the 'reasons' for buying them would
seem to be purely the glass, quality of construction, reliablility, lack of
"features", and name/feel. I for one am lazy and know that if my SLR had
all the wizz bang features I'd use them. I do not think I would have the
disipline at the present to turn them off when not needed and use 'manual',
so IFF I ever try a Leica SLR I might come into the system through a 6, or
6.2, and if one day I can trust myself then perhaps the R99

>Therefore it seems reasonable that the Leica M series will be with us
>indefinitely, come digital or high water. And the LTMs will probably parallel
>that eternity on the used market.


Yes I hope and think so.

Alastair Firkin,

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html