Re: [Leica] M3 or rapidwinder (LONG!)

[Martin Howard <mvh@media.mit.edu>]

>[M3 or rapidwinder...?]

Get an M3 and equip it with a rapidwinder ;)

Seriously, though, the two let you do rather different things, so (as
always) it depends upon your style of shooting and what you want to do.
My experiences of using the M3 and rapidwinder are:

M3: The M3 is wonderful for 50mm lenses.  I have '50'-eyes, so most of the
shots I see are in 50mm, which means that my M3 gets a fair amount of
exersize.  With the 50 mounted, you get only the one frameline (with nice,
rounded corners to show you the outlines of a mounted Kodachrome slide ;)
and near 1.0 magnification (it's actually 0.91x).  If you shoot with both
eyes open, it's fabulous, because you can see the action going on around the
framed portion: it takes a little getting used to, but if you can shoot with
your right eye to the VF, then it's like having a pair of framelines just
hanging/floating around in your field of vision.

Of course, the M3 is also good, by virtue of it's greater magnification, for
lenses longer than 50mm: The higher magnification affects the effective
length of the rangefinder, or something like that, which means that
focussing with a 90/2.0 wide open (or similar critical situation) is easier.

Then, there is the silky smooth feel of a 35yo, well looked-after M3.

Rapidwinder: I'm currently using a rapidwinder on my M2 which Tom is
exceedingly generously letting me borrow until the one I've ordered is
completed.  I've been using this for two or three weeks (time flies when
your having fun, so I'm not quite sure ;)

The RW is great for streetshooting.  It's a style of photography that
fascinates me a great deal, and the advantage of the RW is that it enables
you to get two-three shots off in rapid succession.  I haven't mastered the
style or technique yet, but practicing at home I'm getting to the point
where I can shoot without taking my eye from the VF and not jiggle the
camera too much.

I use an incident meter and preset exposure and zone focus.  Then, with the
RW, I can get two-three shots off of people on the streets here in Boston
before anyone has noticed.  This would not be possible without the RW.

Another benefit of the RW is that it adds height and stability to the
camera.  With the RW lever down, the thumb of your left hand goes along the
left side of the camera, the index finger rests on the focussing tab or lens
barrel, and the remaining fingers of the left hand support the camera and
wrap around the RW lever.  Leaning the camera on the bones of your nose and
eyebrow and gripping it firmly with the right hand, this results in an
exceptionally stable platform for the camera to rest upon.  I'm quite sure
that this lets me shoot at one speed slower than normal, along with a little
controlled breathing.

Stability also becomes an issue when shooting with longer and heavier
lenses: I don't own a 75/1.4 or any 135, so I cannot comment on those, but I
do have a 1960's 90mm f/2 Summicron, which, by M-standards, is a pretty
heafty piece of glass.  Having the RW as an additional few ounces of
counterweight to this when it's bolted onto the M2 results in better
ergonomics.  (Of course, having an M3, it gets used on that most of the
time.)

So, bottom line?  It depends! ;)  My dream camera would be an M3 with RW
and 50mm f/1.4, and I'll get there some day.  That would suit my style of
photography exceptionally well.  I hope that the information above (based
on first-hand experience) can be of some use in helping you make a
decision (feel free to email me privately otherwise, if I can supply more
info).  I guess the best thing would be if you can find either an M3, or a
RW, or both, and try them out and see which suits your needs best.

M.

- -- 
Martin Howard                     |      2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large
Visiting Scholar at MIT Media Lab |      values of 2.
email: mvh@media.mit.edu          | 
www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------