Quote:
Originally Posted by abrewer
If you're into quick-moving stuff like street photography you should go with the M7
That aperture-priority is a life-saver; you couldn't possibly set exposure, focus and get the shot in changing conditions like you encounter in street shots with an MP
If you're shooting under less fast-moving conditions (like most of what I do despite the race cars) the MP is very, very satisfying to use
I shoot my Canon digital stuff when I have to turn something around quickly for the web or someone asks me to do a project for them
I love Leica, but the M8 is a flawed product; and I'll wait for an M9 before I even consider one
Thanks
Allan
|
Messr. Brewer makes some very valid points - particularly about the M8. $5500 Balboas for a jiggered up camera? That makes the M8 a non-starter in my book.
So the choice is now the MP or the M7. The fact that the MP is fully functional with a dead battery (except for the meter, of course) where the M7 functions only at 1/60 & 1/125 without power is what pushed me to the MP. That is a HUGE issue IMO.
True, you can always carry extra batteries but still, I prefer the MP over the M7.
I have recently gotten started doing some street photography and haven't found the lack of aperture priority to be a serious problem. I make my meter readings and select a basic exposure combination. I work off that and it seems to work out, as long as I am not going from sunlight to shade or vice versa. The exposure latitude of Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5+ which I use for street work helps with this method of shooting.
If there is a need to shoot both in the shade and the sunlight, I'll meter both scenes and keep the second exposure combination in mind; then I adjust when/if my subjects move into the sun or vice versa.
I've had my MP since May 2003 and have never wished for an M7 or any other rangefinder, so I must have made the right choice (for me anyway). In fact - if I could have only one camera & lens kit, it would be my MP & its lenses.