Jump to content

Just Bought M-A 35mm Summarit f/2.4


lencap

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings!

 

I just bought a M-A with the new Summarit 35mm F//2.4 lens.  I struggled trying to decide between the M7, M-P and M-A.  I owned the M7 in the past, enjoyed it, but sold it whe I moved to the M9.  

The M9 was a fine camera, but I didn't enjoy digital as much as I hoped I would.  Learning the ins and outs of PhotoShop isn't overly difficult, but I found that I never finished editing my images.  There was always something more to get out of it, and the result was that instead of creating images I wanted I wound up trying to get the "perfect" edit, a task I soon found to be nearly impossible.

 

I also missed the feel of film negatives, and the enjoyment that shooting with film provided.  For me photography had been an activity that I engaged in mentally and physically, taking time to compose and think about what I was trying to accomplish before pressing the shutter release.  With digital it became too easy to just keep shooting, and hoping to get it right in post.  More importantly I missed just looking at, and holding, real pictures.  

This feeling was brought home to me when clearing out my mom's house as she moved to an assisted living facility.  She has boxes of pictures, some nearly 100 years old, and I really enjoyed seeing them again.  Even after all that time the pictures still "worked".  It made me aware of the storage issue with digital images, and how many I've already lost to hard drive crashes, etc.

 

Anyway, that's what made me want to return to film.  Yes, it's harder to get processing done, and yes, it's more expensive to develop and print pictures, but it seems that for me it's the right direction.  I have a perfectly good Nikon F3HP, but I wanted to get something special and so I returned to Leica.  I considered going back to Hasselblad, but the 35mm format is far easier for me to handle and capture more candid type of family photos.  

 

To me Leica film cameras are all fine instruments.  The issue was deciding which one would be best for me, vintage or more recent.  I liked the built in meters of the M7 and M-P, but decided that the M-A would tick all of my "boxes" - well built, pure image creation and no electronics.  I used to shoot Sunny 16 and zone focus with a lot of success years ago.  That's the feeling I'm hoping to rekindle now.  I'll likely get a light meter as well.  The biggest challenge will be getting used to the lower ISO of film and the limitations of getting candid photos in low light situations.  Clearly a M9/M240 shooting higher ISO will give me more flexibility, and if I find that the M-A doesn't capture what I hope to, I can always add a digital body to my kit.

 

Thanks to the members of this forum for your vast knowledge base about all the Leica cameras.  After reading for many days, your collective wisdom pointed me to the M-A.  My thanks for all of the fine information on this site. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion you have made a good decision.

 

Digital Leicas are marvellous cameras (I have one and find it very useful from time to time), but the whole process of neg to print is deeply satisfying.

 

A couple of rolls of film in one's pocket and a chosen Leica and lens in one's hand is a recipe for happiness!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to tell us the most important detail, what color body and what color lens did you choose?  Black on black for stealthy street, silver on silver for classic look, black on silver for the 1970's transitional period, or silver on black, no sane person would use that combination  ;) .

 

If you are an iPhone user, I've found the free application, "Pocket Light Meter" does a respectable job.

 

Eric

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comment and suggestions - keep them coming.

 

I bought the traditional silver/silver combo. I'm not much of a stealth shooter, and I prefer the traditional look, likely related to my "senior citizen" status.

 

I'm hopeful that my eyesight will hold up, but I'll adjust regardless. I feel a bit guilty about abandoning a perfectly functional Nikon F3 for a far more expensive Leica, but I've never had the same connection to any Nikon, Fuji or other brand as I do with Leica. Only the Hasselblad felt similar, and large negatives are addictive, but the 35mm format is more flexible for landscapes and portraits, my primary subject material.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower ISO film is part of the charm. 50 years ago I shot TriX in Acufine developer at EI 1200 a lot for "reportage" work, but preferred PanatomicX for quality work. Now my favorite film is Ilford PanF at 50 ISO. Back in the 1950s this would have been considered a medium speed film.

I miss Kodachrome, and although Ektar and Portra can still give nice color results, I prefer B&W for ease in processing.

I still use my old M4, but tend to reach for the M5 or 6 for the convenience of the meters.

For the M-A, the Voigtlander clip on meter is handy, but the Gossen Digisix II is more versatile, and also very small.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings!

 

I just bought a M-A with the new Summarit 35mm F//2.4 lens. 

 

well done. i am sure, you will get back to those spledid shots you expect from it. the M-A (just like M2, which i use) will support you in quick capturing of only those pictures, that you really feel you have to make. you can use it quick and it is simple. but only, if you are aware of what you are doing. this awareness is, what it takes to take good pictures.

 

but at the same time, this awareness is what makes it difficult. because it takes your full conciousness. you have to keep concentrated. as soon as you loose your concentration, taking pictures will no longer be possible. and that might be the reason, why you make so little amounts of "not so good" pictures: just because, as soon as you loose concentration it is no longer possible to take pitures at all.

 

one could achieve this from a digital camera. you'd only have to keep it in your pocket, as long as you're not concentrated enough to make a picture. but who would be this disciplined? i have to admit, that i am not. and therefore, everytime i take a digital camera out with me, i come back with 150 to 300 shots of poorly composed pictures. instead of taking the M2 and coming back with those 3 to 6 shots wich really discribe what happened and nail it.

 

have fun with your M-A! but be prepared: it doesn't take those good pictures all by itself.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of you raise the same issue that I experienced, but didn't fully appreciate. When shooting with my M9 (which I sold some time ago) I found that I took lots of pictures - no film cost, easy to do, but failed to appreciate how much post processing time it would take to get them sorted out.  Even if I shot JPEG (which I did along with RAW) I found that the white balance was very sensitive in mixed light, and I rarely got the "look" I expected.  I also became a "chimper" staring at the camera screen after every shot, trying to get better histograms, etc.  

 

For me photography went from an enjoyable way to view the world and try to capture it from my personal perspective, to obsessing over trying to align 16M pixels onto a computer screen.  And even then the computer screen couldn't display the image dot for dot, not to mention that most monitors are not color corrected.  Even if I had a large 4K TV screen I still wouldn't have enough resolution to display a 16M, or even larger now, image properly.  

 

I began to realize that, for me,  I had traded photography for learning how to be a computer editor.  That's a transfer that I don't want to make, and so I am anxious to return to physically holding a negative, and trying to get the physical picture to resemble what I was trying to capture when I pushed the camera release.

 

It's funny - I didn't realize how subtle the change was, trying to convince myself that I was enjoying the entire process.  Turns out, I wasn't.  I returned from Italy a year or so ago - over 2,000 images, but fewer than 5 photographs from the entire effort.  And when I think of how much time and energy I spent trying to "get everything" with my M9, I realized that my wife had a far more enjoyable trip - she got to actually enjoy the scenery, not obsess over capturing an image of it.

 

I took a similar Italy trip years earlier with the Nikon F3HP, which was/is a fine camera, but it just didn't "call to me" like the Leica does, and even though I had some "nice" images, I had few "keepers".  I realized that skill is clearly helpful when shooting, but the Zen approach of "being one with the camera" happens rarely.  That, for me, requires a commitment and bonding with the gear - and that's what I seem to get most with Leica gear.  Is it real, or am I being lured by Leica's advertising?  Frankly, it doesn't matter.  Regardless of why I enjoy using my Leica the fact remains that I do enjoy it.  That makes me want to take more pictures, and that to me is the point.

 

It's like email - far more efficient and easy to use, but there is nothing like sitting at my desk with fine bond paper, my fountain pen, and a beautiful blue/black ink to truly express what I want to express, and to have the person getting that letter want to sit down and take the time to enjoy it fully.  That's what I want my images to do - if not for others, at least for me.

 

Thanks for helping me realize this - it's cathartic, and that's why I bought the M-A.  

Edited by lencap
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film - seductive isn't it!  In early 2011 after a five year film-hiatus I returned by purchasing a new M7. Hard to explain why except for deciding that a 0.58 vf was required, next along came a MP-ALC.  Then came a IIIg (for sheer 'fondle-ability'!).  Of course 35mm is fine, but size matters - and the desire to once again experience 6x6cm negs resulted in the arrival of a Rolleicord Vb.  All was well for a few years until I began to wonder how something larger than 6x6cm would be.  No way could I physically manage 5x4" so eventually I settled on 6x9cm with a Texas Leica (Fuji GW690II). Wonderful if somewhat heavy.  Realising that I could just about cope with its weight on short forays (I am somewhat old and decrepit) raised the thought that maybe, just maybe I could finally scratch a very long held itch - by purchasing a Hasselblad. A 1969 500C arrived at the beginning of the month and whilst it has been quite a learning curve, the results have been very pleasing.

 

All the foregoing is a long-winded way of saying that purchasing a film Leica can result in unintended consequences!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 everytime i take a digital camera out with me, i come back with 150 to 300 shots of poorly composed pictures. instead of taking the M2 and coming back with those 3 to 6 shots wich really discribe what happened and nail it.

 

 

  I returned from Italy a year or so ago - over 2,000 images, but fewer than 5 photographs from the entire effort.  And when I think of how much time and energy I spent trying to "get everything" with my M9, I realized that my wife had a far more enjoyable trip - she got to actually enjoy the scenery, not obsess over capturing an image of it.

 

 

I share that feeling of digital overload ... and gear overload - it's good to get back to a minimalist setup and editing before pressing the shutter then hand crafting a few choice images.

I even find working through exposure estimation in my head - bright to dull , backlit or front lit ; is more reassuring than trying blindly following or trying to second guess center weighted metering.

 

For the above M-A with a compact lens is a great choice, but also the jewel like mechanical perfection of that camera is very calming in a software defined world.

Edited by FrozenInTime
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

lens cap wrote:

".... I didn't enjoy digital as much as I hoped I would.  Learning the ins and outs of PhotoShop isn't overly difficult, but I found that I never finished editing my images.  There was always something more to get out of it, and the result was that instead of creating images I wanted I wound up trying to get the "perfect" edit, a task I soon found to be nearly impossible."

 

That's why I never transitioned to digital,  but kept using transparencies as the medium. When you press the shutter release, you've already accomplished "post processing." All that remains is to use a light table and a loupe to select the keepers, and relegate the remainder to the trash.  No computer time required, and you then have a physical object that has recorded what you observed, and what you wanted to remember. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of you raise the same issue that I experienced, but didn't fully appreciate. When shooting with my M9 (which I sold some time ago) I found that I took lots of pictures - no film cost, easy to do, but failed to appreciate how much post processing time it would take to get them sorted out...

 

 

 

Digital photography is SO much faster and easier than fim photography - until you sit down at the computer... :huh:

Edited by Carlos Danger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Congratulations. It is a beautiful camera.  I will say, that, if you decide to acquire another digital body, the M9 makes a terrific companion to your M-A.  While it doesn't have the high ISO capability of the CMOS cameras, its sensor is remarkably similar to the sensitivity of film stocks, and its low base ISO allows you to shoot wide open, if you like, without an ND filter.  I find myself using my M9 exactly like my non-metered film Ms.:  Sunny 16 and either 200, 400, or 800 ISOs.

 

Great shooting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital photography is SO much faster and easier than fim photography - until you sit down at the computer... :huh:

 

Gimmie a break.

 

I am willing to bet that less than 5% of our members use wet-processing and printing, and those who do  spend a whole lot of more of time for each print than digital mavens do.

Edited by pico
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Gimmie a break.

 

I am willing to bet that less than 5% of our members use wet-processing and printing, and those who do  spend a whole lot of more of time for each print than digital mavens do.

 

5% so many? I thought   < 1% looking in my surroundings.

 

BTW Lencap , welcome to the forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...