DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

User comments btil June 2003

Charles,

I understand what your saying about the Nikons, the AF etc. but I can tell you that from my experience manual non-metered camera's have made me a much better photographer then I previously was with my Nikon F100. Was this because my manual non-metered camera's are Hasselblad and Leica. No, appart from giving you some convidence they don't make you a better photographer. But working with non metered manual camera's have learned me so much about photography that I believe I now am much better then before. I can even say that I am now also much better with the Nikon then before.

It requires knowledge and confidence to stray away from the matrix metering and having made some very good shots with the manual stuff has given me that confidence. I'm sure that I would not have learned so quickly staying with the F100 alone.

So there is a lot to say about learning photography the old way and only then moving to the new stuff. I now do enjoy my F100 more then before. I now quite often use it with spotmetering & slow rear sync flash.
 
Leica can't build their Ms to order. There are no economies of scale in such an enterprise and would not be profitable. Unless, I suppose, you'd be willing to pay doulble the current prices for an M body.
 
Alex,

The M's are already almost completely handbuild /assembled so there is no practical reason this couldn't be done. Because of their "outdated" production methods, they are now very well situated for a Build to Order process. It all depends on the options that they would offer. Economies of scale are not a major driver at the prodcution volumes we're talking about here. Also these would be sold through a different physical channel that could save a bundle for all involved. No more inventory buildup /risk etc. So I see no reason this could not be done. Only risk is that Leica might allianate importers and dealers
 
Bas,
I agree for the most part with what you said. However, we often assume that a mechanical camera somehow forces you to make more deliberate decisions about your photos. That may be true to an extent, but at the same time that same concentration devoted to just getting the focus and exposure set correctly detracts somewhat from the effort devoted to "seeing" the shot. There is little to be learned from the process of focusing a camera manually. Exposure, sure. I may be somewhat less sensitive to this issue since I grew up on manual cameras and migrated to AF bodies (while still keeping many manual cameras I should add). I understand metering, contrast, filters and all of the other technical aspects pretty well, so high-tech bodies have never been anything but enhancements for me. Besides, you can always turn all of that stuff OFF on many AF cameras and do it all yourself. I use an F4S as the workhorse of my SLR cameras and it allows utterly complete control over every aspect of the process while also allowing P&S simplicity when conditions favor that.

Finally, consider that the automation that many want very much to show contempt for has so much affected their photo world that they don't even realize it. Autofocus/autoexposure film scanners, TTL flash that allow us to take MUCH better flash photos, motor winders (even M6 guys use them), matrix metering that can get 99% of the photo exposures right, and autofocus which, in my opinion, is MUCH better than I or you can ever manage with manual lenses. That's not opinion, that's fact as documented by countless pros and journals. Several years from the now, when 24 megapixel cameras will be the norm, and most folks will process in Photoshop instead of a darkroom, the F100s of today will be the nostalgia pieces then. Your M6s and Contax S2bs will be the URs of today. And you know what? I don't care as long as I can still get that Leica "look" in my photos and fire off several frames a second at a Formula 1 race with my digital marvel.
 
Charles,

A very lengthy reply, still a very quite day at the office here. You come from a different background. You have learned on the manual camera's and moved on to the automated ones. Hence you know how to apply the automation to get the best of it. I started with the automated stuff and moved to the manual stuff and so you have to see my comments in that light.

I'm not saying that a manual camera is better then an automated one, I am saying that a manual camera is a better learning tool then an automated one. You're comment that you can turn off automation and shoot manual is technically valid but the issue is that a user is faced with a $1500 camera equipped with the best matrix metering system around and it takes a lot of confidence to overrule that. The point is that the automated camera's made me feel that correct exposure setting was difficult. Why else would Nikon/Canon put so much effort in developing matrix metering? Why could they still not make one that's 100% correct? Why are all the reviews always paying a lot of attention to the automated exposure settings? Surely it must be difficult then. Then if it is difficult then why should I override it and not trust the technology.

I'm a kid of the computer generation and our attitude is that automation is superior to manual, hence our difficulty to override camera settings. That is a real paradigm that is out there with many photographers. Ask aspiring photographers which technical area they believe to be the most complex and difficult to learn and they will say exposure. The abundance of choices and methods are intimidating to them. Matrix, center weighted, large spot, customizable spot, regular spot, multi-spot averaging, zone system, incident metering, reflective metering and the program modes, sports, landscape, macro, portrait, are all terminology's and methods that are thrown at the aspiring photographer. Even in the manual metering arena there is a lot of confusing subject matter. Dome up or down? Pointed towards the camera, the sky or subject? It takes a lot of time, effort and film for people to start understanding that. Most will be so overwhelmed that will not even bother.

However if one starts with a manual camera you'll find that the principal of the thing is very simple to master. Even Sunny 16 works very well. Only a few rolls will learn you the principals of it and then you have a solid foundation from which to expand. Then you will begin to understand how to apply all the different methods and how they help speed things up. The sad fact is that many will never get there and will stay stuck in their auto mode because they cannot understand the paradigm that they are in. For these people the camera is more then a dark box that holds the film and the lens. It holds the knowledge that they lack and thus they put far more importance on the camera then is required. Go read the canon/nikon flames on the net. They are full of people that are debating that a 45 field evaluative metering pattern must be better then a 10 field matrix because of the sheer higher number of fields, same debate is going on about the 5 AF sensors to 45 AF sensors and the 1005 RGB sensors in the F5. There are very serious, committed amateurs out there that do believe that lugging a 3 pound proSLR around is the only way to get good pictures and that if your serious about your photography then stop complaining about the weight. If the weight is to much of an issue, get a P&S and stop nagging. I'm serious, I've read those comments often. Worse I even believed them for a while.

I see the same thing in the office. People trusting calculations because they are done with a spreadsheet. I've seen people presenting numbers that were absolutely gob smacked that I could spot errors in their spreadsheet calculations just doing the calculations in my head. How could the mighty PC be wrong?

However, now that I've learned to shoot manual I was surprised at how easy it is and at how much better it works for me. I now also understand why matrix metering will never be 100%. Now that I understand exposure I also feel that there is no such thing as a correct exposure. Exposure, as is composition, is a matter of taste on where you want the highlights and shadows to be, there is no automating that.

Camera bodies for me now are not important anymore. I judge them by the tools they have and most importantly the ergonomics of them and how they will support my shooting. For me matrix metering never really worked. I now understand that I favor lighting situations in which matrix metering does not excel. I now prefer spot and set manually or use the exposure compensation. I use the custom function on the F100 that allows you to set compensation with the tumbwheel and that works really fast and reliable for me. If I don't need the speed I still prefer the Hasselblad or the Leica.

So the manual camera's have made me a much better photographer in a shorter period of time then I would have been staying with Nikon only. An other fact is that I would not have picked them up had I not believed that their neg size and optics are better then nikons. So do Leica / Hasselblad make you a better photographer? Yes they do.
 
Hi Bas, hi Charles, you are right, both. Of course you can`t withstand progress in technology. And nobody really want it. For a lot of purposes autofocus, automatic exposure is a must. If you work as a journalist/reporter you can´t live without digital photography anymore. But most of us make photographs for own use. And to make photographs of my family and my hometown i do not need 5 frames/second. I can only speak for myself: I do not want this automatic stuff if it is not necessary. If one of my frames is not in focus or whatever can happen, it is my mistake !
I chose the M6 because of following:
Battery for metering only, on pair a year, no thought about spare, not expensive, can buy it everywhere.
Spot measuring together with manual shutter/aperture setting, never forget to push the memory button, always involved in light-control (Sorry, M7).
Manual Focus, no attention to what an automatic want to focus.
Quiet operation of shutter and film advance/rewind.
Long lasting rigid construction.
Unique design.
Relatively small together with fast lenses.
 
Guys, I agree to a point with everything you say. I think everyone's ideas are right. One thing that I feel is still overlooked is that an AF body (especially pro models like my F4S) can be manually focused very easily and you can even get focus confirmation doing so...IF YOU WANT TO. There is simply no advantage to having a manual focus body compared to a good AF body. There seems to be something of a myth floating around that manually focusing makes you a better photographer. I agree with Bas that from a metering standpoint that starting with multipattern metering makes more bad photographers than good ones. I don't disagree with that at all. I guess the easiest way to state my case is this; if Leica made an autofocus M body (M8)
happy.gif
, and it had manual override for the focus, maintained its size and feel, and maintained the beautiful build quality, Leica sales would increase and many more folks would buy Leicas. Even some pros. Not possible you say? The Contax G2 is such a camera with some flaws. It's limitation is a smaller stable of lenses. Period. Zeiss even makes a zoom for the darn thing that's pretty good. Want quiet? Ever use a Konica Hexar Silver? Wanna talk lens quality? Use a 45mm Planar and you'll think some Leica designers defected to Zeiss. The point? Quality, feel, and convenience are possible in the same small Leica package. Wanna go all manual? Do it. Wanna use more convenience at times? Do it. Don't fall prey to the party line that lack of innovation and technology infusion somehow maintain better photographic standards. The fact that 99% of the world's photographers use AF bodies (35mm or medium format now) ought to tell you something.
 
manual focus may not make you a better shooter but it sure is a lot quicker!!

paul
 
Paul,
That's another myth about manual focus. No way, no how can you focus your M6, R8, or any other manual camera as quickly or accurately as I can with my F4 or F100. Can't be done. Especially the F100 with a fast lens. It's nearly instantaneous. I own an M6, have owned other Leicas, and still love them. But, fast to focus compared to good AFs they aren't. You can get to near film-plane-tolerance pretty quickly with an M6, but my F100 will be dead on. You'll get 50% truly sharp photos your way (assuming we're talking focusing quickly) and I'll get 95%. Come on, guys, ask any reputable reviewer or pro and he'll tell you the same thing. We can go on forever on this, but there are many myths about M Leicas that have been hanging on since the 50s. They were faster to focus than the Spotmatics and Nikkormats of 30 years ago, but this is a new day and they are technological relics. I used the same lines to convince my wife I needed the M6, but the simple fact is that it's an outdated design with only minimal advantages: quiet to operate, small, and wonderfully built. They won't outlast a Nikon F5, are no more reliable (mine needed 2 repairs in 2 years), are far more cumbersome to use (ever tried to load your M6 in a hurry or without doing the leader fold?), and are lens-limited. There are a few valid reasons for owning an M6 or M7: you like the beautiful body, you like Leica lens quality (but you can get that with the Rs as well), you like the exclusivity, you like well-crafted mechanical objects (that's me), and you just like the idea of the whole "process" of M usage. All valid, all fair, all a matter of preference. But please don't try to tell me that an M is more productive in any way than a pro AF camera. Not true. Period. I will refrain from further discussion on this topic since I know this discussion with most Leica users is wasted time. I'll spare you all. Remember though, that I've been a Leica user since 1969 and I am as loyal to the brand as anyone. Just know when to put the M6 away and use my other stuff.
 
Guys,

On the focussing your 100% correct, but on my walls at the moment the only shots worth putting up come from the blad and one from the Leica. I have however made great shots with the F100 that grace the walls of friends.

I have learned to be more deliberate with my photography resulting in more keepers per roll. Previously I was happy with 2 or 3 out of 36. Now I get 6-7 out of 12 (120 roll) and 10-12 on 24 roll with the Leica (prefer 24 over 36 for push/pull reasons, don't shoot enough for 36 at one speed)

They all have their place. On the F100 I have disabled the focussing via the release button and use the seperate AF button, that helps placing focus where I want it to be.

All in all I am sure that if I now only had to shoot Nikon I could match the quality that I get from the other stuff. But my favorite camera ranking

Hasselblad 503CW
Leica M2
Nikon F100
 
Back
Top