9 Comments

1. Bruce Robbins says:

   July 18, 2008 at 6:34 am

   Hi Matt,

   You seem to be getting on fine with the M6. Are you going to be writing about your experiences with it? I gave some thought a few weeks ago to getting one and then realised that I didn’t like the fact that there is so much negative beyond the framelines and that I couldn’t see how out of focus the background was at wide apertures (or most apertures for that matter). Sometimes it’s essential to be able to see how blurred the background is if, for example, you want it to be recognisable but not obtrusive. I suppose the guesswork required in those two areas applies to all rangefinders though, meaning that they’re just not for me.

   Anyway, I managed to convince myself that I’m not missing anything by not having a Leica (there’s still that nagging suspicion, though) and bought a lovely black OM1n and 50mm lens that are as close to being in new condition as it’s possible to get for around one-tenth the price of an M6 and 50mm Summicron. Looks like I’ll be sticking to SLRs in future.
2. matt says:

   July 18, 2008 at 8:27 am

   I’ll eventually write about the M6, but I’ve been kind of swamped lately.

   The guess work involved in framing and using DOF with an RF are largely overstated. With experience its fairly trivial to work around these limitations. In return, you get that big bright view of the world that no SLR can match. Even a VF as nice as the OM1’s pales by comparison.

   That said, the OM1 is a dandy camera with great lenses. Sadly, mine locked up one winter day, and I’ve not got around to getting it fixed. It was only $70, so I can’t complain too much ;-)
3. James says:

   July 19, 2008 at 6:04 am

   Yes, and please let us know how you find the M6 viewfinder vis-a-vis the Hexar. I’m now using a D80 almost all the time, for the workflow, but still like to pick up the old rangefinders, just to look through the things.
4. Hi Matt says:

   July 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm

   First, as usual nice work Matt. I dived back into Leica. I’m running around with
   an MP and a friend has dropped an M6 w/35 1.4 ‘lux.(which I have sent both out to be worked on) So I’m fortunate to have the Zeiss Rep’s Zm glass to play with…(more on this later). for: Bruce Robbins- hey man my first Leica was an M5 33 years ago… the last until now was a chrome M6 in 1992. There is nothing like an M, it is “pure simpilcity” seeing your world thru its rangefinder-
   but you need to get one and “live” with it.
   cheers
   Frank
5. Bruce Robbins says:

   July 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm

   I’m not a complete Leica virgin: I had an M2 and M3 and a few lenses about 25 years ago. I can’t remember now why I sold them but the fact that I did and held on to some Nikon SLR stuff must be significant. I hear what Matt’s saying about working around the imprecise frame lines but I didn’t find that as easy as he seems to. I like going in close to a subject and placing it at one side of the frame and that’s difficult when the frame line only shows around 85% (as I understand it) of the actual field of view. The OM1 shows 97% which is one of the reasons I bought it.

   I can’t see how you can work around the degree of blur when using a rangefinder, though. Increasingly, we’re all talking about bokeh but when you use a rangefinder you have to imagine what that will look like. Sometimes shooting wide open just blurs the background too much so that an important element can’t be recognised. With an SLR you can stop down to check but not with a rangefinder. It’s not a case of SLRs being better than rangefinders: it’s just a different way of working.

   Matt’s right about the brightness of the M viewfinder and that’s something I’ll miss. But I think I’ll find that easier to live with (the OM1’s finder is nice and bright, by the way) than what, in my opinion, are the significant drawbacks associated with the rangefinder.

   And anyway, it’s about the image, not the camera and whatever you use to get it is OK - just as long as you get it!
6. matt says:

   July 21, 2008 at 8:46 am

   According to the Leica FAQ, the M6’s 50mm framelines are 93% accurate at .7M, but I understand what you are driving at, and there is no doubt, framing is more accurate with an SLR. However, even if the OM1 shows 97% of the film area, I can’t see it all because the eye relief isn’t quite high enough for me. The OM1 is pretty good in this respect, but I sill have to move my eyeball around a bit to get it all in. Also, even if an RF is less accurate, I find that being able to see what is outside the frame makes framing choices easier; you can see what you are missing.

   I’ve had a number of SLRs with DOF preview levers, but I never ended up using them that much. I guess I’ve just gotten good at guessing what things will look like. Mostly I just know when they are going to look bad, but I do like a bit of uncertainty in my photography, and there is always bracketing for DOF.
7. Oren Grad says:

   July 21, 2008 at 10:07 am

   Re judging bokeh, an SLR viewfinder isn’t really WYSIWYG either. Focusing screens can do funny things to a projected image.

   Yes, it’s certainly easier to get a rough sense at open aperture of the effects of having the background way out of focus. But in my experience it’s hopeless to try to anticipate subtleties of OOF character in the picture from the appearance of the finder image at working aperture. I don’t think I can do it even on the plain ground glass of a view camera.
8. Bruce Robbins says:

   July 23, 2008 at 1:54 am

   You should get a pair of contact lenses, Matt: they’re a lot cheaper than a Leica. ;-)

   You could well be right about the M6’s coverage at .7m but my understanding is that the coverage displayed by the framelines varies according to subject distance. It’s as low as 85% and I’d guess 93% is probably the best it gets. Not only do you have to judge how much is being left out, you have to make that judgement at various focussing distances. I can see, though, from the way you often compose your pics that there’s a bit of wiggle room as far as frame coverage is concerned and 97% accuracy, or higher, might not be that important for you.

   I agree that DOF preview levers are about as much use as a chocolate teapot - if you’re stopping down to a small aperture as it gets far too dark to judge anything accurately.

   The out of focus characteristics for SLRs can be different on film when compared with the image through the viewfinder. I have an old Minolta SLR with a 50mm f1.4 Rokkor lens and the on film bokeh is much better than what I see through the viewfinder. Having said that, at apertures down to f4 it’s still an accurate representation of how blurred the image will be. At smaller apertures things start to get a little gloomy again.
9. matt says:

   July 23, 2008 at 9:19 am

   ‘You should get a pair of contact lenses, Matt: they’re a lot cheaper than a Leica. ;-)’

   I just can’t abide the thought of sticking anything in my eyes.