Do I want the 2022 M6, M-A or MP?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You say that you have found the rangefinder experience 'challenging', that your own metering is 'not what you hoped', that you have 'poor technique' for home D&P, you've 'never mastered Photoshop/Lightroom' and found you 'did not use aperture priority shooting as you expected'. That is a lot of challenges to work around to take photographs you are happy with! It's difficult to think of a camera that would be a help rather just another one to be sold.

Are you sure the solution is not to buy another camera, but rather to work out a way through your personal limitations? Or are you actually doing yourself down too much? Which of these limits is genuine and which could you work on and eliminate?

[jankap]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

I thought you had pure manual lens shooting experience with M9.

Anyway, all you actually have to decide is meter or no meter (according to your thoughts I suggest the former) and pick a film body. I advise you try before you buy into that true purist experience of film and see if this works for you. Many shops rent a film Leica, at least here in EU.

Also, there is no "best print size". Whatever works for you.

Exactly!  Give your M9 a new chance. Take photos and show your master pieces here.

Are you fit for chemistry and darkroom work?

If you imagine to crop left and right in the viewfinder, you already have square format vision. Then crop the picture in the darkroom.

Edited November 15, 2022 by jankap

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FrozenInTime]

5 hours ago, archive_all said:

I shot a Hasselblad with an 80mm for a while. It always felt more like a 50mm to me, more restrictive than a 35mm lens. Maybe it was me, I never looked up the actual equivalence though.

My always crop to square yields a 24x24mm negative from 24x36mm, so the comparison is:

24x24mm, 35mm lens ( 34mm diagonal )

56x56mm, 80mm lens  ( 79mm diagonal )

36x36mm ( 51mm diagonal )

24x36mm ( 43mm diagonal )

[Fotoklaus]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb lencap:

Greetings!

Several years ago I sold my M-A and M7 and moved fully to digital bodies.  Now, after owning the Q, M9 and SL I find that I really miss the pure manual lens shooting experience, and the tactile feel of setting aperture and focus rings.  I also realize that although the digital Ms have wonderful photographic ability, the emphasis on technical excellence has lessened the emphasis on composition, at least for me.  So, I decided that to rekindle that enjoyment I'd like to return to a film M body and prime manual lenses.

The issues are:

• I'm a lot older than when I first started shooting, so getting sharp focus on a rangefinder is more challenging than I thought.  That leads to wondering which focal length may be best.  I struggled with the Q's 28mm perspective, and never did get portraits to look as I hoped.  I've typically shot 50mm on my Leica Ms, but wonder if a 35 may be more forgiving?  Have you had to use optional diopters to get the sharp focus you need with the rangefinder system?
• Years ago I bought the M-A as a "old school" approach to capturing images, relying upon the "Sunny 16" method to set the camera.  Unfortunately the results weren't always what I hoped, so I am inclined to have some light metering tools in body - tilting more toward the new M6 or MP.  Thoughts?
• It's been a while since I shot film, and even longer since I developed it.  I expect to rely upon my local camera store experts to handle those aspects for me.  Do any of you regret moving back to film?
• I don't anticipate scanning my photos, and I realize the technical limits of film, but I would like to print a few of my favorites.  I still struggle with the best print size - I tended to favor 13x20 as a maximum, but wonder if that size is commonly used today?
• Finally, I shot a lot of Hasselblad B/W back in the day.  I still lover the square image size, along with a crop to 4:5.  Have any of you considered medium format film before deciding on the  35mm format?  Any regrets or second guessing?

Thanks for the help.

The "Old Guy"

I like to shoot my Leica Ms, but when I have a good 6x6 neg on the table it blows any 35mm away. No fair comparison.

And to "sunny 16": You will buy a rig for 8 to 10k $ and then loose a lot of image quality due to bad exposure.

You can have that much cheaper...

A small Sekonic or Gossen lightmeter will give you perfect exposure and the ability of metering also incident light. Five Seconds for metering and setting the camera up.

[jankap]

57 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

My always crop to square yields a 24x24mm negative from 24x36mm, so the comparison is:

24x24mm, 35mm lens ( 34mm diagonal )

 

We already had this discussion once somewhere. 

A Leica lens produces a round picture of 42mm. So a round piece of film or a round sensor would give all opportunities. From perhaps 16x9 to square formats.

I remember, that long ago there has been a camera, that produced film pieces with a round picture on it.

[lencap]

Thanks for the comments.   My frustration with digital overstated some of my comments about technique.  I'm not a pro, but I do know my way around composition and camera controls.  The issues with any camera is learning the controls and limitations of the format being used.  The old days of film made that relatively simple.  Shooting TriX essentially fixed the "sensor" to ISO 400, with some ability to adjust that through the developing process perhaps doubling the initial ISO.  Kodak Portia had a 160 ISO equivalent, with some exotic films reaching 800 or so.  From there choosing a focal length for the lens, aperture setting and exposure time pretty much were the only controls to work with.  The limited choices made the learning curve manageable.  

With digital the camera provides nearly unlimited choices.  ISO equivalents of 100K or more are possible, something that for me is difficult to understand from a traditional film perspective.  The digital scale also provides quite a bit of dynamic range, approaching 15 stops, something meaningfully greater than the typical 13 or so range of film.  Dynamic range on film was easier, for me, to adjust.  A foggy day may limit the range to 7 stops or so.  On B/W film that was a relatively easy adjustment to make when composing.  

Today's digital sensors with the combination of wider dynamic and latitude ranges is part of my technical frustration.  Camera sensors today typically have base ISO readings from 64 (M11) to 200 or so.  So far that's comparable to film, but unlike film most digital cameras provide for "auto ISO" setting.  So when the camera takes advantage of today's modern real time processing choices the base ISO is rarely used, shifting to a much higher setting.  I typically try to shoot at base ISO with my digital camera, maximizing dynamic range and giving a wide latitude for creating the image I'm trying to create.  Yet when I bring these RAW files into LightRoom things change quickly.  A simple slider will essentially change my ISO setting along with all the other parameters I chose when creating the image.  That's the technique problem that I've yet to master.  

The issue is further challenging as film typically underexposed a bit providing a more forgiving development/printing experience.  Digital is the opposite - blow a highlight and the image is largely DOA - the clipped image washes out.  Using a histogram is helpful, but having separate color histograms isn't a common feature on many cameras.  Averaging the various colors into a single histogram often masks color saturation in different channels, which becomes apparent in LightRoom, but wasn't so obvious while composing.

And that is my issue.  I've not adapted my technique to the digital world.  It's not from a lack of desire or trying, it's been ongoing as digital sensors change at a very rapid pace - almost like Moore's Law with computer chips.  The M8 had a crop factor affecting lots of composition/processing choices.  The M9 had a CCD sensor with colors that looked a bit odd initially.  There was also the issue of color shifts in early sensors resulting from UV saturation.  Just as I began to learn how to cope with these challenges, sensors changed again.  ISO ratings exploded, theoretical dynamic range exceeded that of film, but highlight clipping became a much bigger issue.

Having a "fast lens" on film was often necessary to capture enough light to take the photo.  Today it's more an issue of "bokeh" as any digital sensor can provide far more light gathering than the most advanced lenses of the past.  These changes are welcome technically, but impact composition far more than film did.  Add to that the never ending rush to increase sensors to 60MP for 35mm equivalent sizes, and 100MP for medium format and, for me, the rapid pace of technology improvement is more of a hindrance than a benefit as adjusting to these changes takes constant practice and learning.  And when you add PhotoShop/LightRoom to the equation is seems to me as if I have to constantly learn new technical skills instead of improving composition and framing technique.Photography was creative in the sense of capturing the idea of an image on film.  The relatively limited choices allowed me to "develop" my creativity.  The local camera store processed the film, and gave me a finished photo that I could hold in my hand.  Now my "development" is spent learning how to convert a RAW file into something usable with such a wide array of choices that knowing where to start and how to change the settings to get the final look I want is a never ending exercise in frustration.  Did I adjust the slider to the optimum position?  What happens to shadows when I try to create a digital mask?  When should I use LightRoom and when is PhotoShop better to capture what I want to show?  These choices are great for professionals, not so much for me.  I've been forced to become technically proficient instead of creatively proficient.  

It seems to be the entire photography world that's morphed into something I don't recognize.  Read any new camera review.  What do you find?  The reviewer shows highly magnified images with ISO settings of 50K or higher.  What purpose do these reviews serve?  Is a 50K ISO setting really going to be used when trying to create high quality images?  Does chromatic aberration, minor coma and barrel distortion, digitally corrected lenses and all the rest really matter?  It does on a 27" digital backlit screen, but typically not so much on an A4 photograph.  Without an actual physical picture digital imaging, to me, is like the MetaVerse.  It has the potential to be extraordinary, but it's not fully real.  You need a device to see it.  If the power goes out so does your image.  How many digital images taken today will be able to be viewed by the next generation or beyond?  Technology is wonderful as a tool, not so much as a master.

My hobby has been hijacked by tekkies.  If I'm using a digital processor I have no choice but to learn the best way to do what my local camera store did in the past - develop and "print" my images.  And don't get me started on printing.  I can't remember the last time I actually held a print made from a digital cameras.  Everything is digital including viewing on a non-calibrated screen, shot with little thought for how film presented an image using reflected light for viewing and how computer screens use a very different type of screen illumination to present the image.  And while I'm at it, how do you view a 24MP image on a computer screen that can only display 20MP (Apple XDR) in full pixel resolution?  How will I ever see what a 40/60/100 MP sensor is actually producing?  How exactly do I take a digital sensor's ability to create 3 million plus color shades and see it in full native resolution and color?  The simple answer is You Can't.  

OK, rant over.  I'll take my Xanax now and go watch Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.  A nice glass of warm milk and a chocolate chip cookie should help too.  

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Saying the obvious, a camera with a meter does not mean you will get correct exposure all the time.  I keep an incident meter in the bag whether shooting a meter'd film or digital body.  

[Stevejack]

39 minutes ago, lencap said:It seems to be the entire photography world that's morphed into something I don't recognize.  

My hobby has been hijacked by tekkies.  If I'm using a digital processor I have no choice but to learn the best way to do what my local camera store did in the past - develop and "print" my images.  And don't get me started on printing.  I can't remember the last time I actually held a print made from a digital cameras.  Everything is digital including viewing on a non-calibrated screen, shot with little thought for how film presented an image using reflected light for viewing and how computer screens use a very different type of screen illumination to present the image.  And while I'm at it, how do you view a 24MP image on a computer screen that can only display 20MP (Apple XDR) in full pixel resolution?  How will I ever see what a 40/60/100 MP sensor is actually producing?  How exactly do I take a digital sensor's ability to create 3 million plus color shades and see it in full native resolution and color?  The simple answer is You Can't.  

Take a look at the work of Sam Abell. He says a lot of the same things, and detests post production. Doesn’t know how to use photoshop and doesn’t want to learn. He rejects all forms of post production including cropping. 
 

I was watching a talk of his where he said what he aims to see on the back of his digital camera is a Kodachrome slide. Finished in terms of composition, lighting, and content. Nothing ever cloned out or dodged and burned. No colour adjustments. Basically the opposite of probably every professional photographer working today. 
 

Shoot Jpeg + Raw and you really never need to open your files in an image editor unless you one day choose to. It takes a lot of discipline, and you’ll be binning shots a lot of other photographers would simply make work with some editing. But if you think like Sam, that would be cheating - a failure on the part of the photographer to properly capture the scene in the moment. 
 

Far more discipline than I’ll ever have, but I respect the hell out of it and by the way your post reads I think you’ll get a lot out of watching some of Sam’s talks on youtube.  

[LocalHero1953]

No need to be dazzled by the tech. Just shoot digital as you would with film: set ISO to, say, 100, expose as you did with film, then tweak (I use that word intentionally - no need to make big changes) in Lightroom for brightness, shadows and highlights. If you get the exposure right in camera for the same scenes you shot on film, you shouldn't need to make many adjustments later. 

As for exposure, you are not shooting a digital negative (despite the raw format being 'DNG'), you are shooting a digital positive, so expose as if it is reversal film, to protect the highlights. And you don't need a histogram, simple or coloured - what histogram did you use when you shot film?

I switched fully to digital with the M9*, and decided it wasn't worth going above ISO 800, which is not that different to film. In those days of Lightroom 3 the sliders were labelled 'brightness', 'highlights' and 'shadows' so it felt like an on screen version of what I would have played with in the darkroom. My expertise in digital post processing just evolved thereafter with each upgrade of camera and software. I don't spend many hours in post processing now - much less than I used to with the M9, because (a) I have got quicker at it and (b) later Leicas have got white balance, skin tones and shadow colours far more sorted than then.

 

* though I now shoot both film and digital 

Edited November 15, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[ianman]

55 minutes ago, Stevejack said:

But if you think like Sam, that would be cheating - a failure on the part of the photographer to properly capture the scene in the moment. 

Poor Sam.

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

Do I want the 2022 M6, M-A or MP?

All three are really nice little machines. 

It would be nice to eventually have one of each - but I'd likely go with a black paint MP 0.72 to start with.

[a.noctilux]

Do I want the 2022 M6, M-A or MP?

No

maybe MDb ?

Edited November 15, 2022 by a.noctilux

[lmans]

5 hours ago, lencap said:

 

My hobby has been hijacked by tekkies.

No it isn't....just look at those that shoot film like I do....I haven't been hyjacked by mega-pixels or all of the features on a camera. With my MA or M3 or even M6, there is so little to worry about other than exposure and composition. Frankly, when handed a digital like my Monochrom, I over-think it and get flustered. But with my MA, ...easy.

Looking at your overall concerns, I would say you are not quite confident enough to shoot with a MA...  either keep the M9 and learn basic photography by taking out the battery or, sticking with the M9 digital and enjoying what it has to offer (learn it).  I would not invest in another camera for that is just assuming the camera will solve the problem and the camera usually doesn't, rather..... you solve the problem. The camera is just a tool to take the image (digital or film).  jim

[Huss]

5 hours ago, RayD28 said:

Saying the obvious, a camera with a meter does not mean you will get correct exposure all the time.  I keep an incident meter in the bag whether shooting a meter'd film or digital body.  

Keeping a separate incident meter also doesn't mean you will get correct exposure all the time.  It just means you have another meter.

With both in camera and separate meters, the user still needs to know how to interpret the scene and what they are looking for.  For me, I never carry a separate meter if my camera has one.  I can take a reading off the back of my hand etc w my camera if I need a comparative reading.

[Erato]

22 hours ago, lencap said:

Greetings!

Several years ago I sold my M-A and M7 and moved fully to digital bodies.  Now, after owning the Q, M9 and SL I find that I really miss the pure manual lens shooting experience, and the tactile feel of setting aperture and focus rings.  I also realize that although the digital Ms have wonderful photographic ability, the emphasis on technical excellence has lessened the emphasis on composition, at least for me.  So, I decided that to rekindle that enjoyment I'd like to return to a film M body and prime manual lenses.

The issues are:

• I'm a lot older than when I first started shooting, so getting sharp focus on a rangefinder is more challenging than I thought.  That leads to wondering which focal length may be best.  I struggled with the Q's 28mm perspective, and never did get portraits to look as I hoped.  I've typically shot 50mm on my Leica Ms, but wonder if a 35 may be more forgiving?  Have you had to use optional diopters to get the sharp focus you need with the rangefinder system?
• Years ago I bought the M-A as a "old school" approach to capturing images, relying upon the "Sunny 16" method to set the camera.  Unfortunately the results weren't always what I hoped, so I am inclined to have some light metering tools in body - tilting more toward the new M6 or MP.  Thoughts?
• It's been a while since I shot film, and even longer since I developed it.  I expect to rely upon my local camera store experts to handle those aspects for me.  Do any of you regret moving back to film?
• I don't anticipate scanning my photos, and I realize the technical limits of film, but I would like to print a few of my favorites.  I still struggle with the best print size - I tended to favor 13x20 as a maximum, but wonder if that size is commonly used today?
• Finally, I shot a lot of Hasselblad B/W back in the day.  I still lover the square image size, along with a crop to 4:5.  Have any of you considered medium format film before deciding on the  35mm format?  Any regrets or second guessing?

Thanks for the help.

The "Old Guy"

A total escape for your scenario could be an M10 Monochrom with old lenses for reasons:

• Neat and clean image quality, and it's just like the medium format, but be aware that it's not a square or 4 by 5. You may choose to print a few, no scanning process, less post-process required if you're taking an old school shooting filmscript alone with Monochrom in mind. BTW, print size won't be an issue and the local printing is friendly for sure when they're pro. 
• Apply diopter properly could be helpful indeed. A 35mm or either 50mm focal length won't be a concern when the sight problem is resolved.
• Light metering is surprisingly accurate on the M10 Monochrom. It's good enough, according to my experience. I still use a Gossen Starlite I and version II when I choose to use a better zone system approach.
• One thing to know regarding the system optimization is much greater beyond the camera / lenses SPEC, just like your experience shared on the other threads regrading the chore of vinyl. With a system that comes with simplicity that it will be a beautiful release of your digitalization upon photography. You'd have more time and space to improve relevant skill sets or simply enjoy your life.
• As a reminder, you might need a masterhood display medium once you're highly digitalized. Most of my pals, family members claimed that they could even feel the heat of the sun and it's not clinical at all. 
• I'm using a M4 for film photography and I love it.

Cheers,

Erato

Edited November 15, 2022 by Erato
mistypo

[lmans]

As you state 'Now, after owning the Q, M9 and SL I find that I really miss the pure manual lens shooting experience, and the tactile feel of setting aperture and focus rings.".....   your needs or wants or whatever are confusing. Sure you can shoot manual with the MA or MP or M7 or M6 or or or, but you can shoot total manual with the Q or your existing M9 or a SL. Are you just after a new camera and if so, does it make a difference what any of us say here as you appear to have your mind made up that the only way to get to your nirvana, is to buy a new camera. If that is the case, go ahead.....but I don't think you are ready for that either. 

[Topsy]

FWIW, I use my M9s in full manual never change ISO during a shoot/day rarely chimp (what's the point with an M9) and I like the fact that if I go out for a shoot and only shoot 10 or so frames I can see them straight away. I also have film Ms, MP, M2 and M4-P but they sit idle as I prefer to use my M9s for 35mm sort of shooting. For Film shooting I use Medium Format on Bronica Sq-Ai or Yashica-Mat.

[lmans]

1 hour ago, Topsy said:

FWIW, I use my M9s in full manual never change ISO during a shoot/day rarely chimp (what's the point with an M9) and I like the fact that if I go out for a shoot and only shoot 10 or so frames I can see them straight away. I also have film Ms, MP, M2 and M4-P but they sit idle as I prefer to use my M9s for 35mm sort of shooting. For Film shooting I use Medium Format on Bronica Sq-Ai or Yashica-Mat.

Sounds good.....      

Why not just stick with the M9? I doubt if you are going to find too many MP's or MA's as the production line appears to be the new M6 considering how well it has been accepted.... 

[lencap]

I apologize for the confusion I’ve unintentionally created in this thread.  I’ve posted aspects of this topic in various sections of the forum, primarily because I couldn’t find a section that addresses all Leica platforms in one common area.  So you may find variations of this topic in the Q, SL, M sections.  My intent isn’t to create confusion, but I couldn’t find an easy way to address cross platform issues in a single place on the forum.  If I missed it I’m truly sorry.

I also realize that because of this confusion I wasn’t clear that I sold ALL of my Leica gear over the last several years.  Most recently the Q and SL/Zoom/Sigma 50mm ART lens went to a new owner as a package - which I found the best combo for my needs. The decision was partly the result of personal frustration as well as very strong current resale prices.  I sold my film M bodies prior to the “Film revival” of recent years.  I bought the M9 when I moved away from film.  I also owned Nikon DX and Z platforms along with Fuji X-trans gear.  Each was technically competent, but there was no “joy” in the experience.  The gear was a tool, not speaking to me creatively.  That’s why they were sold and why I returned to Leica digital to try to find Nirvana.

Along with the platform changes I became more involved with learning LR/PS by taking classes, both in person and through Zoom and internet training tools.  I found the learning curve very steep and it taxed my patience.  I’m from the school that says “Tell me the time, not how to build a watch”.  I was spending too much time trying to replace the skill of my local camera store that developed and printed my images without any effort from me.  That frustration remains.

The result is that now my only digital camera is the recently released iPhone 14 Pro, which surprises me with the images it produces and the ease with which it integrates with my Apple ecosystem.  Editing is also easier, though clearly not as flexible.  It’s always in my pocket and costs less than the sales tax on the gear I sold. There is a lot I like about the experience, but I know that a “real camera” is an itch that will be scratched at some point.  In the interest of full disclosure I’m leaning toward considering the Hasselblad system in addition to Leica.  It’s not a pure technical competition.  It’s more to do with how I felt when using the Leica and Hasselblad systems - they compelled me to take photos, to improve and enjoy the journey.  They were also both film based systems, hence my post in the film section for this topic.  Whatever my final decision “joy” will at least be a part of the solution.

The bottom line is that I truly don’t know what direction I’ll take next.  Digital images have many benefits, but, for me, it’s less engaging/enjoyable than my memory of shooting in a more traditional manner, like film.   That’s why I started this post - to try to find out from film shooters, and those with a lot of experience with all of the Leica platforms, what your solutions are to the issues I’ve raised.  And implied in the search is the realization that after using the iPhone it’s clear that computational imaging is real and will appear in all brands in the not so distant future.  That is another reason for my search.  The cost in time and coin by rushing into a quick solution isn’t something I want to repeat.

Thanks again for your patience and understanding, along with your willingness to share your experience and perspectives.  All are appreciated, and I again apologize for the confusion.

Edited November 16, 2022 by lencap

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stevejack]

2 hours ago, lencap said:

The bottom line is that I truly don’t know what direction I’ll take next.  Digital images have many benefits, but, for me, it’s less engaging/enjoyable than my memory of shooting in a more traditional manner, like film.   That’s why I started this post - to try to find out from film shooters, and those with a lot of experience with all of the Leica platforms, what your solutions are to the issues I’ve raised.

I'm digital all the way, but I still have more film cameras than digital cameras. They do different things, and I don't really try to make my images look a certain way or have a particular aesthetic. I did experiment with film-look profiles in lightroom and I've certainly seen and even like some of what those profiles can do, but I've settled on the fact that film looks like film and digital looks like digital and it really doesn't matter how the shot was taken if it's actually a good shot. A good shot will be a good shot regardless of whether it has grain, or pastel colours, or whatever else. 

My daily carry these days is a film camera. I use digital when I need to, or when I experiment with something new, and I have no interest in shooting wildlife with film or sports with film... I'm keeping film mostly for shots of the kids, walking down the street, that kind of thing. I sit on a computer all week so carrying an analog camera that doesn't run on batteries or have a screen is why I'm using film. Not really due to the aesthetic of the end result.