What is the attraction?

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/7/2024 at 10:36 PM, CaptainScarlet said:

Don’t get me wrong, I started out with an FE2 and an FM2 and still have them, but seriously what is the attraction for this type of camera, film and everything manual, today?

This is just hype, do not waste your time. I’d be more than happy to help you get rid of the camera free of charge 😀.

More seriously though, just put a roll in there, go out, shoot and find for yourself whether you like the experience and results. 

[williamj]

On 4/8/2024 at 7:23 PM, CaptainScarlet said:

Thanks all for taking the time and effort in providing your informative and thought provoking responses. I believe my path forward is quite clear and that is not to take a binary approach to the hobby, digital or film, DSLR or rangefinder. 

I have invested significantly in Nikon over the years and will use that in most situations, particularly for wildlife and macro, however I do find that taking a large full format camera around with any of the “holy trinity” 2.8 glass (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) has reduced the opportunity for taking pictures and one ends up resorting to one’s phone, simply due to size, weight or noise  

I like the idea of having something lighter, less obvious, but also different to an SLR and that brings me back to my original film days, where I need to think again about all the inputs for manual film photography. I have been given an opportunity to use an iconic piece of kit with what are presumably decent lenses (know idea how they compare to Nikon glass) and I’m keen to try this “zone focusing” business and not have to wait to focus every time I lift the lens!

Many thanks again

 

Alan

 

As a long term user of Nikon film and digital cameras my two cents worth is:

1. All the dials turn the wrong way but you get used to that.

2. In a very small niche an M film camera is the best you can get. That niche is up close and personal and you want to be inconspicuous or have people forget you're there with a camera. A Barnack Leica is at least as good for that purpose. If you're using digital then a small mirrorless or an iPhone is perhaps more inconspicuous, especially with an electronic shutter, but then you'd be asking this question in a different section. Outside of that niche it is a camera with significant limitations.

Of course there is the build quality and the great photographers who used one and all the history and collector's lore but that's less important than #2 above.

I didn't inherit one I bought an M camera with a 50 mm and a 35 mm lens because of point #2 above but obviously I would love inheriting one :). Cheers.

[Danner]

IMHO, the larger distinction isn't AF/VR/TTL (or not), but whether OP wants an analog versus digital work flow after the images are captured.  If most of the images are presented on a computer/smartphone display, then digital all the way.  OTOH, if they are printed to a paper medium and hung on the wall, film and silver-gelatin all the way (again, IMHO).

[harmen]

 

On 4/7/2024 at 10:36 PM, CaptainScarlet said:

film and everything manual

The imperfections of film leave more for the mind to fill in

Not seeing the results instantly makes it easier to be present

The manual process is enjoyable 

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!

[Herr Barnack]

On 4/7/2024 at 10:36 AM, CaptainScarlet said:

Hi all, 

I have just inherited an M6 and a 28mm/50mm summicron lens package and I’ve come to the conclusion that pretty and no doubt iconic as the package must be, as a Nikon digital shooter for the last 20 years, I’m looking for VR and AF and a TTL viewfinder and a memory card slot and can’t find any of them!

Don’t get me wrong, I started out with an FE2 and an FM2 and still have them, but seriously what is the attraction for this type of camera, film and everything manual, today?

I guess I’m looking for what you guys find so compelling about your chosen camera and kit and how difficult and worthwhile would it be for a Leica M newbie like me to transition from DSLR? I’m seriously interested in giving this a go, so any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

 

Many thanks for your time

 

Alan Schenk

 

 

...but seriously what is the attraction for this type of camera?

The build and feel of the camera and lens in your hands - the substance and craftsmanship that goes into a camera and lens that is by and large built by hand.  The quality and reliability of the camera and lens, along with the image quality that they can produce when used by someone who is well acquainted with using a rangefinder camera.  The inconspicuous nature of these small, whisper quiet cameras.  The longevity that film M cameras are capable of, and the heritage of Leica. 

All the above and the fact that for many people M rangefinder cameras are just enjoyable and satisfying to use.  They make you think.  There is no "automatic everything" mode.

...how difficult and worthwhile would it be for a Leica M newbie like me to transition from DSLR?

It should not be very difficult at all.  My first rangefinder camera was a Hasselblad XPAN, which has a tiny focusing patch compared to a film M.  The viewfinder is also not as bright as that of an M.  I learned how to shoot with a rangefinder with this camera before I got my first M camera.  If a person can learn rangefinder photography on an XPAN, they can certainly learn it on an M6. 

It's not that hard, really.  First off, make sure that you have removed the lens cap from the front of the lens.  Sometimes people new to rangefinder photography forget that step and then wonder why all their negatives are clear after developing the film.  Set your film ISO, shutter speed and aperture for an appropriate exposure.  Compose your image, making sure that all elements you want are withing the frame lines.  Focus the lens until the image in the rangefinder patch is sharp and solid - no blur or "double vision" effect.  Release the shutter.  Advance the film.

Rangefinder photography is very different from DSLR photography but it's not rocket science.  Time spent with your eye glued to the camera's eyepiece will hone your skills.

As for whether the experience will be worthwhile, only you can answer that question after giving your M6 a test drive.  Shoot with it every day for a month, then decide.

Edited April 12, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[suvomitra]

I’ll tell you my journey and hope it may send you on one with your own inheritance.
 

Having learned a bit on manual SLRs in the 80s/90s, I got into photography seriously in 2002 with Canon EOS30 and EOS3. These were film cameras but had auto everything including eye movement detection for AF. When Canon released the 10D the following year, I followed the digital wave of even more tech. There followed a long stream of different digitals, early into mirrorless, and many lenses of all different focal lengths. It was all about tech and I spent much of my disposable income on it. However, despite periods of upgrades and downgrades in gear, and even periods of only shooting on iPhones, over 20 years, the quality of my photography improved as a function of only two things - how long and how much I have photographed.  
 

A few years ago, I started noticing that I was going out with a bag full of focal lengths but coming back with images that clustered strongly around 50mm. I was overruling the meter often and striving only to time single exposures at the right moment, with one-point AF only. The eye-watering CAF options and frames per sec were not touched.

You might guess that this is when Leica came into the picture. I started in digital with 35, 50 and 90. I took this set to bucket-list places and increasing only used the 50 lux and nothing else on entire trips. The quality and yield of images went to an all-new level. Whether focusing or pre-focusing with the rangefinder, shooting from the hip with challenging zone focus settings (50mm, f/5.6, at 3-4m), or interpreting the centre-weighted meter, I felt enjoyment, involvement, achievement and results that I’d never had from tech. 
 

Finally, I recently noticed that was increasingly disregarding the meter and yearning to be able to spot meter by eye. I started training with myLightMeter pro. Like you, I had also inherited a Leica (M2) some years ago. I had kept it respectfully stored for sentimental and historical value. I got it out and had it CLA’d. I bought some Ilford HP5 and loaded it. Just last week, I bought a pristine, late-model M3 from its second owner.
 

I think it’s now possible that I’ll become a photographer at some point. For now, I’ve kept the wizz bang tech toys and will sometimes play a human transporter and deployer of them. Who doesn’t like a bit of 8-stop IBIS to blur crowds at will, or eye-detect AF to nail f/1.4 portraits while chatting with with a beer? There’s all that and there’s standing somewhere in a carnival of light and shade and motion and shapes with nothing but a dead neutral 50mm lens, a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring.

You’re fortunate. You’ve even got a light meter to take the sting out. Load a roll of something and step out. Something might happen. No loss if not. The Z stuff will be there when (if) you return. 
 

[edstock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The thing about digital is it all comes down how good are you with Photo Shop or any other enhancement software. You don't have to be a good photographer to shoot digital. I say this having been a professional photographer since the 1970's. I have my stable of Canon digital and lots of lenses. When I want to make images I grab one or two of my M's, and some film and I'm set. No pixels, no white balance, noise reducer, memory cards, batteries, and on and on. These are my own opinions, accept, discard, throw rotten eggs. Which ever enjoy your photography.

[Helge]

After some extensive experience in both areas (analog and digital) I‘m pretty positive, that a bad photographer cannot be put to a good one, just using digital tools, that is just a myth.

You are probably right concerning the post process.

[sometimesmaybe]

5 hours ago, edstock said:

The thing about digital is it all comes down how good are you with Photo Shop or any other enhancement software. You don't have to be a good photographer to shoot digital.

i agree up to a point. digital offers a lot of flexibility, but a 'good' photographer (regardless of medium) should try and get things right in camera 

 

 

 

[jukka]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:20 AM, edstock said:

You don't have to be a good photographer to shoot digital.

Echoing others here, it's very difficult to agree with this statement. Perhaps we could say that getting the exposure right may be easier with digital, but its not rocket science with analogue manual either.

On 4/15/2024 at 5:20 AM, edstock said:

When I want to make images I grab one or two of my M's, and some film and I'm set. No pixels, no white balance, noise reducer, memory cards, batteries, and on and on.

Now, with this here it's very easy to agree with. Film M's simplify the process instead of getting in the way, and allow one to focus (bun intended) on stuff that actually matters, for instance, the content.

[Fotoklaus]

Am 15.4.2024 um 07:37 schrieb Helge:

After some extensive experience in both areas (analog and digital) I‘m pretty positive, that a bad photographer cannot be put to a good one, just using digital tools, that is just a myth.

You are probably right concerning the post process.

Yes, that is correct. and the other myth is to be a good photographer without using a light meter. You will not be able to "guess" the right exposure

without knowing a lot of readings in different situations and remeber them. It is right, that you don´t have to use a light meter every minute of your shooting,

but you have to know when conditions change and do the right settings.

If you are two stops off, the image quality will not be perfect. Not with digital and not with film. It could be "ok" or "good enough".

I always think of Ansel Adams and his aim to get the perfect negative witch leads to the (technically) perfect picture. No "guessing". Exactly knowing what to do is the aim.

And, to be honest: We buy expensive cameras and the best lenses possible to accept grainy drowned shwadows or eroded higlights?

[jaapv]

With digital? Well if the exposure of a low contrast subject is within the dynamic range of the sensor you will get a good quality image despite it being underexposed by the meter. If the contrast of the subject exceeds the dynamic range you will never get a perfect exposure* and will have to choose the optimal one (or apply HDR techniques)

In any case, we have to consider that the dynamic range of photographic paper is about 7 to 8 stops maximum so our exposure must be such that we are able to compress the DR of our image to that value to get full shadows and highlights.

* like slide film...

[pippy]

On 4/15/2024 at 3:20 AM, edstock said:

The thing about digital is it all comes down how good are you with Photo Shop or any other enhancement software. You don't have to be a good photographer to shoot digital.

The thing about shooting film is exactly the same as with shooting digital; it all comes down to how good you are in post-prod.

You don't have to be a good photographer to shoot Film either. To produce top quality results using either medium, however, requires skill.

Philip.

[LocalHero1953]

It's amazing how these old timer photographers can produce such wonderful images without any post processing at all. Do they just leave the film undeveloped or as negatives, and then just imagine the perfect photo? Or do they just shoot polaroids?

😉

Edited April 17, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Danner]

As a film/darkroom shooter, I can say there is plenty 'post-processing' involved.  Just last night, several trials with one negative to select a contrast grade and exposure on the enlarger, cropping, then some dodging to lighten up foliage in the image, and finally an overall lightening adjustment to prepare for selenium toning, which will be followed with hand coloring (hopefully later today).  Not to mention mounting and framing...

However, no software involved and no time at the computer.  Just the lovely smell of photo chemicals and inner peace the darkroom provides.

[pippy]

39 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's amazing how these old timer photographers can produce such wonderful images without any post processing at all. Do they just leave the film undeveloped or as negatives, and then just imagine the perfect photo? Or do they just shoot polaroids?

I used to bump into Ansel Adams down my local 'Boots the Chemist' Mini-Lab.

Philip.

Edited April 17, 2024 by pippy

[pippy]

30 minutes ago, Danner said:

...However, no software involved and no time at the computer.  Just the lovely smell of photo chemicals and inner peace the darkroom provides.

Not wishing to go off-topic (again) but the thing I really miss about working in the darkroom are those magical moments when the finished print starts to appear and continues to get better and better...

Digital has no way of replicating that feeling.

Philip.

Edited April 17, 2024 by pippy

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's amazing how these old timer photographers can produce such wonderful images without any post processing at all. Do they just leave the film undeveloped or as negatives, and then just imagine the perfect photo? Or do they just shoot polaroids?

😉

My college photography course back in the 1960s covered no darkroom or post-processing content at all - it was all about seeing the image and capturing it on slide film, so you showed your results by projecting slides as-taken. Final involved taking a short roll of slide film and showing the entire set to the class for critique of every shot, to show that you could make every shot count.

[pippy]

19 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

My college photography course back in the 1960s covered no darkroom or post-processing content at all - it was all about seeing the image and capturing it on slide film, so you showed your results by projecting slides as-taken...

Wow! What can I say? Did your lecturers not think that adopting such an approach was to take a very much one-dimensional 'Tunnel-Vision' approach to Photography? Everything shot in colour and everything shot on slide film? How extraordinary!

It's akin to an aspiring musician being given a guitar but being told that they are not allowed to use any but the lowest two strings. And only up to the twelfth fret. Oh and don't try to inject any of that funny 'improvisation' nonsense into your fingering; Fretting-accuracy and sticking to the metronome's click is all that matters...

I understand why the teachers might have concentrated your initial efforts on being able to focus a camera and to set the correct exposure but after those basic aspects were fully understood? What then? Nothing at all?

What a strange state of affairs!

Philip.

EDIT : Just to be perfectly clear, TomB, I'm genuinely curious as to why they would have adopted such a rigid stance on this. Did they give their reasoning?

Edited April 18, 2024 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

What a strange state of affairs!

At that time there was quite a branch of photography that was not "Art" related, but documentary and reportage. Also, a lot of those using 35mm shot slide film never printed, but was used for "slide shows" - which could be very boring if they included a lot of "could have been good" images. In fact, at the time of the class Leica had an exhibition of Leitz equipment on campus that included slide shows showing the quality that could be achieved with Leica equipment (cameras, lenses, and projectors) - as well as microscopes and such. This wasn't long after Leitz had a major effort to do "Leica Shows" with staff like Walther Benser traveling around the world and presenting slides in theaters and such. (see his book "My Life with Leica")

So the emphasis on quality capture included not only proficiency with camera mechanics, but composition and other factors to make the image capture as good as possible - either as an end result or to minimize the processing required.

We commonly did reportage work of events where you were on continuous shooting assignments and just turned in your film where it was processed and published while you were on the next assignment. Editors appreciated a contact sheet where they could just select shots without having to modify them.

This was an Engineering school, so not many with an artistic bent. I still think in terms of capturing reality, not creating art.