payasam Posted August 16, 2013 Share #21 Posted August 16, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see no virtue in not using commonly available tools. From around 1960 to 1974 I worked without a meter. Then I got a camera with a meter built in, and the number of badly exposed frames dropped. My photographs were better, and there is no evidence that I became a worse photographer because I had to think less about something that is more reliably measured by an instrument than by eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 Hi payasam, Take a look here The great M3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AB007 Posted August 17, 2013 Share #22 Posted August 17, 2013 Nikon F5 with an infallible 1,005-segment color 3D matrix meter system seems ideal However, people have various reasons to shoot with various Ms or other cameras for that matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted August 17, 2013 Share #23 Posted August 17, 2013 My experience of Nikon's Matrix metering on various bodies is less good, in the end I abandoned it and use the centre weighted setting, this works well along side my M6ttl and the Voigtlander VCII meter I have on the M3, with a healthy scepticism and an input from sunny 16 at all times of course! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted August 17, 2013 Share #24 Posted August 17, 2013 The M3 is kind of like a 1960's sports car. There's a lot to appreciate and it's fun to drive in that old school way of driving. It's not about speed (they are slow in the modern sense) or about efficiency (petrol wasting and polluting and prone to a lot of fussy upkeep.) It's more about a certain tactile experience and an admiration for what once was. A nostalgia of a bygone era tied into a recognition of a particular period of craft. But it's not really something you might want to always use on a daily basis (or take a long trip in.) Instead you'd have it for the weekend along with your current car and its more up-to-date conveniences and useability. "...it is not about speed...or about efficiency" - spot on, CalArts 99. My Ms are already relatively slow to work with, so nostalgia can take a hike. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2013 Share #25 Posted August 17, 2013 It depends on the sort of film you're using if exact exposure metering might be necessary. Color-Negative and Black & White films are more tolerant than films for color slides. When traveling in analog days with M3 and goggled Summicron 35, I used M6 with Tele-Elmar 135 not only for detail shots but also as a kind of spot exposure meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted August 17, 2013 Share #26 Posted August 17, 2013 "...it is not about speed...or about efficiency" - spot on, CalArts 99. My Ms are already relatively slow to work with, so nostalgia can take a hike. Thanks. I agree. I often find myself attracted to old cameras (and old cars.) I do appreciate them for various reasons (craft) although with nostalgia and the 'coolness factor' probably being the main attraction. I'll sometimes come close to buying vintage, but then I have to slap myself in the face as a reminder that what I really need is a quick to use tool and not something to fuss over. I don't want the camera itself to end up being the main point or the purpose of image making. Well, maybe the M3 to use sometimes on a personal weekend outing would be kind of fun...... oh wait, <slap> ouch....okay, never mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philcycles Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share #27 Posted August 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Couple of things: We shoot for fun, or at least I do. I sell some stuff but I do it for fun. Mechanical things are fun for me. Leicas are pretty mechanical and the most fun. I had a Quick Load in my M3 many years ago. Worked great but I can change film pretty fast with the spool. BTW, I hate the M4 and up loading system. Takes me much longer than the pronged spool. Phil Brown Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejd Posted August 17, 2013 Share #28 Posted August 17, 2013 I've brought an M3 with the early 35mm Summicron with me on holiday for a week or two. Seems perfectly fine & a great pleasure to use. It is good to give it an outing. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/210764-the-great-m3/?do=findComment&comment=2399784'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2013 Share #29 Posted August 17, 2013 ... With just such a M3 and goggled Summicron 35 around my neck in 1993 a gripman called me while driving his cable car: "Hey man, M3" and at the terminus he gave me good advice where to get used Leica equipment in Frisco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted August 17, 2013 Share #30 Posted August 17, 2013 I've brought an M3 with the early 35mm Summicron with me on holiday for a week or two. Seems perfectly fine & a great pleasure to use. It is good to give it an outing. [ATTACH]393203[/ATTACH] Enjoy! I love M3 so I have two:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted August 18, 2013 Share #31 Posted August 18, 2013 Hello Everybody, As per Aesop's question in #7 of this Thread & Phili's nice video in # 13: Unfortunately my computer connection has not been functioning well for the last 2 months or so & so there was no audio. I would simply add: If you pull the snail inset out about 8mm, then the frame counter will reset itself & you can simply reinsert it by pushing it gently & snugly into place. If you put your right thumb into the space in the snail & put the insert in with your thumb @ 10:30 on a clock dial then the snail will always be in correct alignment. Don't put the film in any further than 2 O'Clock. 3 O'Clock is generally OK. Some films are thicker than others. After advancing the film a small tad, turn the rewind knob to pick up any slack. Like you would with the M4, etc. Then put on the baseplate. The quickload shoe will fine tune the film that you pretty much put where it was supposed to be. Advance the film 1 frame & snug again. Advance a second to be sure. Enjoy your dinosaur from the old days as you would a Ferrari 365GTB/4 convertible which is its contemporary. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivis Posted August 18, 2013 Share #32 Posted August 18, 2013 I use almost always Tri-X. BTW the way I really like using a CV 40 mm on my M3 without goggles:p. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philcycles Posted August 18, 2013 Author Share #33 Posted August 18, 2013 I use almost always Tri-X. BTW the way I really like using a CV 40 mm on my M3 without goggles:p. The entire viewfinder on an M3 seems to be cover a 35mm angle of view nicely. Phil Brown Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 18, 2013 Share #34 Posted August 18, 2013 I totally hear you on being put off my the M3 frame lines. The rounded corners and overall thickness have always bugged me. Not just me then It's a non-issue for many but if something bugs you, you can't easily ignore it! The folding plastic tip on the advance lever on the later M models is another thing I can't stand, they make me feel like the thing is going to fall off or I'm dropping the camera. I'd have to fit one of the solid levers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted August 19, 2013 Share #35 Posted August 19, 2013 I see no virtue in not using commonly available tools. From around 1960 to 1974 I worked without a meter. Then I got a camera with a meter built in, and the number of badly exposed frames dropped. My photographs were better, and there is no evidence that I became a worse photographer because I had to think less about something that is more reliably measured by an instrument than by eye. Practical wisdom. The gravitas of a functioning M2/3/4 cannot be matched by any contemporary or successor but the M6 comes damn close. Running around with a light meter these days just becomes a pointless distraction, even if its your iPhone. These wondrous old devices are now more artifact than tool, like taking a 1930's touring car out for an occasional spin. Beautiful and elegant but its dated impracticalities becomes quickly apparent and in the case of lacking a meter, something of a burden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 19, 2013 Share #36 Posted August 19, 2013 I'm not sure I'd use 'gravitas' in this context Sure it means "weight" but in the sense of importance or seriousness. Each M I have handled has impressed me build quality-wise, even the digitals, and the fact that M cameras of any vintage mean business is not something I think can be doubted. Then again, the same can be said of a Canon F-1 As so often, the answer is that it depends. For pros today, there's very little practical or economical possibility to use old cameras to put bread on the table. There may be a lucky few photographers, who are able to support themselves financially using these 'artifacts', of course, but they are a clear minority. Personally, as a passionate amateur photographer, I have absolutely no problem at all to use meterless cameras. I have a clunky artifact in the shape a 1931 Leica II which does the trick in almost every situation. The only time I've felt it lacking is shooting in dark surroundings, due to the 1/20 as slowest speed. As for what you say about dated impracticalities and that lacking a meter is a burden, again that depends on ones needs. I've seen great M shots with an action element to them, such as Dirk Steffens nice racing photos. And i've seen terrible photographs take with the latest and greatest 1D5000s. In my opinion, what is needed to take a good enough photo, beyond a camera and a lens, is simply a brain, some measure of artistic vision and at least one eye. I reflected on this yesterday, scanning a number of rolls - my exposure assessment has clearly improved significantly shooting my M4 and the II over the last few years. Meterless shooting for me these days is more liberating than a burden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejd Posted August 19, 2013 Share #37 Posted August 19, 2013 Filmwise, I've been using some Lucky iso 100 film and some Ilford HP5+ recently, having finished off a pile of Tri-X that I was given a few years ago (use-by date 2003). I have some Agfa APX 100 and 400, and a few odds and ends -- Era 100, Adox 25 & 100, Agfa Scala -- and then I'll need to buy some more supplies. Film is so cheap and buying it feels so virtuous compared with buying cameras and lenses that it is hard not to end up with far more than one needs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 19, 2013 Share #38 Posted August 19, 2013 I don't understand these arguments about the M3 being like driving a classic car, or too slow. My M2 is just as quick to use as an MP, or I suspect even the new M. Why should it be any slower? AF and program matrix metering might speed up things a little. I often use a handheld meter with every camera I use, because I like to take incident readings. It's not about speed, it's about how one likes to work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted August 19, 2013 Share #39 Posted August 19, 2013 fwiw, I meant it in the context of rewinding film and loading fresh film, not exposure. One can get quite adept at guessing exposure. But for me (and me only) using the M4 or the M6 over the M3 (or the M2) just feels a lot more efficient since my usual subjects won't wait around for me to refill. A meter isn't the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted August 19, 2013 Share #40 Posted August 19, 2013 Hello Everybody, Anyone who wants to guess their exposure without a meter should certainly do so. There are a number of situations where using a light meter is unnecessary. But: I am continually puzzled by the number of people adverse to using a meter to measure light in complex situations. Guessing exposure is like guessing where the distances are on an unmarked focussing mount or guessing what the aperture is on an unmarked lens barrel. Why? Using a meter to help determine exposure is like having a shutter speed dial with the shutter speeds engraved & click-stopped on it: The engravings & cllick-stops are useful tools for taking better pictures. Utilizing film latitude to make up for any errors in exposure determination by guessing - After having a shutter precisely calibrated: Is logically silly. Just my thoughts. Best Regards, Michael . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.