Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 21:58:38 -0700, Mark wrote: >>Since having the M I've realized what a disservice the auto-SLRs have done >>to amateur photographers > i don't mean to "pick up" on any one correspondent, but several people > have now written in about this. > it strikes me that many of you are looking for external reasons for personal > "failings". the disservice is done by the individual, not the equipment they > use. [<snip>] At last - some sanity in this thread! Speaking as a younger member of the list, I grew up with automated cameras, and learned to use them and make the best from them. For the last 10 years I've used EOS cameras and have got used to the way they work, their quirks etc., and I am comfortable with them. I tend to use my current EOS in "P" mode where I know I can read what aperture and shutter speed the camera wants to use from the viewfinder display and I can either "correct" it as I see fit with the exposure compensation wheel on the back of the camera (which is always under my right thumb), or spin the wheel under my right fore-finger to change the combination to one I think will give me the DOF, blur etc. I want. This has become so automatic over time that I don't have to think much about it. I know about the effects of different apertures on DOF, or different shutter speeds on subject movement, or the combination of both on the amount of light transmitted to film to give a certain effect. Therefore why shouldn't I let the camera come up with the basic exposure for me to change as I see fit? What's different about doing that or using a handheld meter and transferring the readings? About the only thing that's different is the amount of time it takes! (OK so I don't have an incident meter in my EOS!) The display in the viewfinder changes brightness depending on the ambient light level, so it's never too bright and distracting, or too dim and difficult to see. Can you say that about the diodes in the M6? The same goes for focus. I can let the camera AF to the point it thinks is correct (and in 99.9% of situations it is quicker and more accurate than I am), and if I don't like where it's focused I can change it just by tweaking the focus ring on the lens. I'm used to this way of working. It frees me to concentrate on composition. Ted and others are used to the Leica M way of working AND that frees them to concentrate on the composition as well! Neither is better, and both will give good results when in the right hands. There's nothing wrong with that, and it bugs me that people seem to think the M way is the only "right" one and people are being "polluted" by these auto-everything cameras. Let's face it, the Leica M camera *is* 20 year old technology, and if that suits you and you can respond to that and produce great photos with it, then fine! Other people prefer modern technology and produce the goods with it. I happen to be more used to modern technology, and I am struggling to get the best out of my M outfit. If Jim fancies coming over to the UK to give one of his seminars, I will be the first to sign up! Jim, how about it? Sorry if this got a bit long! If you got this far, thanks for bearing with me! Simon.