Re: [Leica] Thanks!! OT Nikon F5

[Robert Jagitsch <robertj@powerlogix.com>]

>
>Now, don't shoot me down in flames.  As I have said, my new M6 is great and I
>love it but it is not the tool for the job IMHO for the scenario above.  My F5
>is.  So, as so many have said before, the picture counts and I know what will
>give me the best chance of getting it.

As the owner of a Nikon F5 as well as a Leica user (several Ms) I 
will relate this scenario:

Yesterday I broke in my M4 that I recently acquired, by taking it to 
my daughter's soccer match. Frankly I was concerned that I wouldn't 
get the shots I wanted due to the lack of my ability to focus quickly 
with a rangefinder.  Secondarily was the question of exposure.

On my M6, I have gotten quite used to tweaking the aperture ring to 
make the LEDs light up for proper exposure. This can become dominant 
to the photo taking exercise, because of the nature of the metering 
LEDs...if the aperture ring is as little as 1/2 stop off, sometimes 
only one LED lights. The same thing happens if you are 6 stops off! 
So it's difficult to tell exactly how close one is to the proper 
exposure. The end result is I find myself paying perhaps too much 
attention to dialing in the LEDs for every shot. (One advantage of 
CLs and M5s with their analog display.)

This time, however, I had no meter. I looked outside the window prior 
to leaving for the soccer fields, and pointed my M6 out towards my 
front lawn. The day was semi-overcast. It said 1/125 at F8. So I set 
my 135mm Tele Elmar at F8, and the shutter speed on my M4 to 125 and 
left it there. I then loaded in a roll of Kodak 100 print film, 36 
exposures.

With the exposure out of mind, I could concentrate entirely on focus 
and composition. This made the match quite enjoyable...instead of 
concentrating on making the LEDs point at each other for every shot, 
or being distracted by them, I didn't even think about exposure. In 
effect I was using an 'automatic exposure' M4. It was just like using 
my F5...choose the 'mode' and leave it there.

The other difference is that I could follow the subjects running 
around the field much easier. Using my F5 and a zoom lens, the 
subject takes up the entire frame, and a fast moving subject requires 
an equally quick response to follow properly. Using the M4 and Tele 
Elmar, however, I had a huge amount of extra room (outside the frame) 
with which to anticipate movement; it was much easier to follow the 
subject with the M4 than with the F5. (This also helped me to get the 
shot at the exact moment instead of relying on a motor drive.)

Lastly, I found that focusing was quite easy. It never took more than 
a small nudge of the focus ring for the subject to snap into focus. 
And since almost all the subjects were near the ball, I just focused 
on that.

Also, the M4 is small and exceedingly quiet. I was able to take 
portraits of the kids and they weren't even aware of my presence. 
Compare this to the heavy, large, loud F5 with the 80-200 AFS zoom 
bazooka.

I consider myself lucky to have both kinds of cameras at my disposal, 
and I find it enjoyable to get good shots with my Leica in an area 
supposedly out of its realm of expertise.

- -Robert


- -------
PowerLogix R&D, Inc.
Main Office: 3921 Steck Avenue, Suite A105 Austin, TX 78759
(512) 795-2978 x107 (512) 795-2981 FAX