Jump to content

for the members who've been around Leica for a long time


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

" In any case TTL metering isn't important for most rangefinder photography. Using the CdS Leicameters was dead easy "

 

From an amature perspective or for photographing a static scene, you may be correct but for a working journalist photographing people or events, TTL metering is a god send.

A journalist can't go back and re shoot news and the exposure has to be good, that's why bracketing was so common, come back from an assignment and tell the City Editor your exposure was off and you won't be working long.

I have an M3 with Leicameter, slowest metering I know of. When I carried the M3, I used a Nikon SLR with TTL to determine exposure for the M3.

The M6 metering I have is very accurate and if I don't have time to bracket, it's usually spot on.

The M7's I have, I only use in AUTO and rarely have an exposure problem. With 21mm lens, it's a virtual Point & Shoot camera and fastest 35mm camera, I know of.-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked part time at a Leica dealer in college, when the Leicaflex SL was introduced. The Leica rep brought one by when we made a field trip to create pictures for a college event on Leica photography. I recall how impressed everyone was with the consistency of exposure as we looked at the negatives to select shots, and realized how TTL metering would simplify the printing process. Yes, it has value, even to those used to working with external meters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the photojournalists [...]

The Nikon F was King and most had two F's with M36 motors.

 

Yes, in part because Nikon almost gave them to us. To the rep's consternation, some guys taped over the Nikon logo.

 

But there was always a Leica M (usually an M4) with a short lens in the bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had graduated from a IIIc to an M4 and didn't want to get a replacement for the M4. Additionally, there were several rumblings that the exposure kludge was fragile. Yeah, by Leica standards it really would empty one's wallet.

 

So, I kept my M4, bought a CLE, upgraded to an M6 and later to my M7.

 

Never looked back.

 

Now, due to macular degeneration, I'm using a Zeiss Ikon and either a 24 or 21mm Leica lens. (The ZI finder is awesome)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe Leica brought out the M6 because some clever person thought of a better way to do TTL metering for the M camera but by then the Leica M was an enthusiast camera..-Dick

 

Yeah - Olympus' Yoshihisa Maitani!

 

The OM-2, introduced ~10 years before the M6, was the first camera to paint a metering pattern on the actual shutter curtain, with a backward-looking metering cell to read the image falling on it.

 

File:Olympus OM2 OTF.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I remember at the time thinking "That would be a good way to fit metering into the classic Leica body."

 

Took Leica a while to figure out the same thing. But, as already mentioned, they were concentrating on the R line, dealing with financial strain, and ignoring (or temporarily dropping) the M line, and the fact they adopted the painted shutter curtain within a couple of years of introducing the M4-P was probably actually an achievement.

________________________

 

On the M5: It was actually the first Leica RF I ever used for a "job" - documenting a dusk-to-dawn shift with an ambulance crew as a local newspaper intern. A store in town had just become a Leica dealer in spring 1976, and the photo dept. manager got an M5 and 35 Summicron as a long-term loaner from Leica, which I borrowed for the night. (I'd had a IIIc and Canon P I'd used for some college classwork.)

 

My main reaction was that the M system was not as petite as the IIIc or Canon (which were tough acts to follow for the M5), and pretty limited for the cost (not a function of the M5 per se - but I really needed something wider than a 35 in some of the settings that night, and f/1.4 in others - and couldn't imagine ever affording a Super-Angulon or 35 Summilux!). I do remember not liking the ( ) metering patch in the M5 finder, nor the bottom-mounted "backwards" rewind crank.

 

Happily went back to my meterless Nikon F's and comfortably-priced 24, 35 and 105 Nikkors. Realistically, if Nikon had offered split-image focus screens into the AF era (8008s, F100), I'd probably never have given the Leica Ms another thought.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection at the time (about 1972-73) when eventually I managed to briefly handle a M5 in a London dealer's shop - RG Lewis, I think - was... wow, heavy, big!

 

Following along from this encounter, amongst the enthusiasts and professionals I met and spoke to who had tried a M5, it wasn't much loved or well received, mostly. One dealer showed me one he said he had had sitting on his shelf for a year, unsold. Sales were slow, and I should have him an offer he couldn't refuse. :(

 

Most criticism I heard pointed to it being too much of a break from the previous Ms: its size, strap lug position, the cluttered viewfinder - though there was praise for its TTL metering, large speed dial and position, and build quality, I recall.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and mostly now we know better, the camera is much more appreciated - especially in Japan - for what it is, despite its quirks: a wonderful camera.

 

I never bought a M5, I was more tempted by the CL - eventually buying a CLE and its three lenses - but now I might.

 

I feel every Leica enthusiast worthy of the name should have had and used a M5, right? A bit like every car enthusiast must have owned at least one Alfa Romeo! ;)

Edited by BrianUK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having used Leica Ms now for almost 20 years, and knowing the Leica crowd, I suspect looks doomed the M5 from the get-go. It just wasn't a 'sexy' camera, although far more practical then any M that came before (and many that came afterwords).

 

My own feeling is that in the early 70's Leica focused on function instead of form (e.g., M5, Leicaflex SL), resulting in some very practical cameras but no so pretty. Unfortunately, the market wants their cute little cameras (not surprising and true for many products), especially when they cost so much.

 

When it comes to actually using the camera, the M5 (like the Leicaflex SL before it) is hard to beat. Very practical, though modern Ms have a better rangefinder patch.

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...