G
Guest
Oops, didn't work.
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
Dear members,
I an overwhelmed by your positive feedback and your motivation to show pictures in the forum. But please do me a favour and do not upload now big pictures in the forum itself.
In a few days the Leica Photo Gallery of this site is online. If you want to see how it looks like, click on the contax sister site. There it is already online since yesterday.
I am currently elaborating on the best compromises of image quality, image size in pixels and in KB and upload/browser time for the user. Any hints for this are welcome (please to my private e-mail, not in the forum)
I left this image upload option within the forum availbale, because sometimes a picture explains more then 1000 words. But it should used for explanations, not as a Photo Gallery.
I hope you understand this and I am excited about your ACTIVE participation on the new Leica Photo Gallery on this site.
Dirk
I an overwhelmed by your positive feedback and your motivation to show pictures in the forum. But please do me a favour and do not upload now big pictures in the forum itself.
In a few days the Leica Photo Gallery of this site is online. If you want to see how it looks like, click on the contax sister site. There it is already online since yesterday.
I am currently elaborating on the best compromises of image quality, image size in pixels and in KB and upload/browser time for the user. Any hints for this are welcome (please to my private e-mail, not in the forum)
I left this image upload option within the forum availbale, because sometimes a picture explains more then 1000 words. But it should used for explanations, not as a Photo Gallery.
I hope you understand this and I am excited about your ACTIVE participation on the new Leica Photo Gallery on this site.
Dirk
G
Guest
Dear members,
finally, after much struggling with the software, the new Leica Photo Gallery of Leicainfo.com is online as of today.
http://www.leicainfo.com/photopost_3/index.php
This is by far the most advanced photo-upload section you can find on the internet. Full of features for everybody's taste.
You can upload now your own pictures (max. 1200x800 pixel, 130 KB). I restricted it to this size because of bandwith and browser time. You can see the photos in 3 different sizes, as thumbnails (100x100), mid size (400x400) and large size (w1200xh800). Just click on it and try it.
You should scan and upload for the biggest size in pixel. The system does the rest for you. If you upload bigger pictures than 1200x800 pixel, the system will automatically reduce it to the maximum allowed size. I am still testing the best compromise.
Bigger files then 130KB are not accepted at all.
You can post your comments directly below the photos and rate them. E-mail notifications are sent to you.
You can also rate the photos without commenting them. Use for this the special rate buttom under the photo description.
Photo competitions are planned. I added different categories to upload to, so that it is easier for you to find your preferred subjects. I also added a test area and a section for Photo-beginners to have a fast learning curve within the Leica community.
You can send e-cards with the nicest shots to your friends. You can see the photos as a slideshow or traditionnal one by one.
You have to register there separately with your e-mail address only. This is very quick. Please use the same username and password as with the forum. In the long run, I am planning to put both registration systems together. But this is pricewise currently not possible.
I think the long waiting for this new photo section of Leicainfo.com was worth it.
Feedback is welcome.
dirk
P.S.: I had no time yet for scanning and uploading leica photos, so please go ahead first. Only after the first 5 uploads you will see pictures on the indexpage...
finally, after much struggling with the software, the new Leica Photo Gallery of Leicainfo.com is online as of today.
http://www.leicainfo.com/photopost_3/index.php
This is by far the most advanced photo-upload section you can find on the internet. Full of features for everybody's taste.
You can upload now your own pictures (max. 1200x800 pixel, 130 KB). I restricted it to this size because of bandwith and browser time. You can see the photos in 3 different sizes, as thumbnails (100x100), mid size (400x400) and large size (w1200xh800). Just click on it and try it.
You should scan and upload for the biggest size in pixel. The system does the rest for you. If you upload bigger pictures than 1200x800 pixel, the system will automatically reduce it to the maximum allowed size. I am still testing the best compromise.
Bigger files then 130KB are not accepted at all.
You can post your comments directly below the photos and rate them. E-mail notifications are sent to you.
You can also rate the photos without commenting them. Use for this the special rate buttom under the photo description.
Photo competitions are planned. I added different categories to upload to, so that it is easier for you to find your preferred subjects. I also added a test area and a section for Photo-beginners to have a fast learning curve within the Leica community.
You can send e-cards with the nicest shots to your friends. You can see the photos as a slideshow or traditionnal one by one.
You have to register there separately with your e-mail address only. This is very quick. Please use the same username and password as with the forum. In the long run, I am planning to put both registration systems together. But this is pricewise currently not possible.
I think the long waiting for this new photo section of Leicainfo.com was worth it.
Feedback is welcome.
dirk
P.S.: I had no time yet for scanning and uploading leica photos, so please go ahead first. Only after the first 5 uploads you will see pictures on the indexpage...
G
Guest
I haven't jumped into this discussion yet, but have been reading with a lot of interest. I'd like to now add a couple of thoughts based on my experiences.
I use both Nikon and Leica M systems, often on the same shoots, and have consistently noticed that when I'm in difficult lighting situations, the Leica meters have outperformed the Nikons. This is really surprising, because Nikon has all the bells and whistles (3D multi-segmented matrix metering) and Leica has the relatively unsophisticated silver reflective dot. Often, when getting exposure readings that vary considerably, it has turned out that the Leica was correct. I've now gotten to the point where I always trust it, even over the "foolproof" Nikon F5. I'm wondering if others have had similar experiences?
My other observation is that I do find the focusing to be faster in many situations than the F5 autofocus, even using the S lenses (silent wave). True, the autofocus can instantly lock on when shooting a normally contrasty subject. But get into lower light, or focus on subjects which don't have much contrast, and what you get is an autofocus lens that goes back and forth "looking" for something to focus on, while with the Leica you're already there. That situation occurs so often that when shooting my Nikons, I have gone to using manual focus for most situatons. I simply got tired of missing shots while the focus drifted all over the place.
Even though most of my shoots are now done in digital format, the M6 system will stay with me.
I use both Nikon and Leica M systems, often on the same shoots, and have consistently noticed that when I'm in difficult lighting situations, the Leica meters have outperformed the Nikons. This is really surprising, because Nikon has all the bells and whistles (3D multi-segmented matrix metering) and Leica has the relatively unsophisticated silver reflective dot. Often, when getting exposure readings that vary considerably, it has turned out that the Leica was correct. I've now gotten to the point where I always trust it, even over the "foolproof" Nikon F5. I'm wondering if others have had similar experiences?
My other observation is that I do find the focusing to be faster in many situations than the F5 autofocus, even using the S lenses (silent wave). True, the autofocus can instantly lock on when shooting a normally contrasty subject. But get into lower light, or focus on subjects which don't have much contrast, and what you get is an autofocus lens that goes back and forth "looking" for something to focus on, while with the Leica you're already there. That situation occurs so often that when shooting my Nikons, I have gone to using manual focus for most situatons. I simply got tired of missing shots while the focus drifted all over the place.
Even though most of my shoots are now done in digital format, the M6 system will stay with me.
G
Guest
People tend to forget, I suspect, that however simple or complex the metering system in a camera may be, whether a true spot, a center-weighted average or a matrix pattern is used, the end result is ONE single lens aperture setting and ONE single shutter speed setting for the entire frame. You can't expose different parts of the frame to differing extents, however much you might wish to. So, all you are trying to do, when measuring the light, is to arrive at the best aperture and shutter speed for the shot.
In this regard, the M6TTL exposure metering system has earned a reputation for being very reliable, if used judiciously. Without wishing to seem elitist, I believe that Leica M users are generally serious photographers (who else would spend so much money on a challenging and not-very-user-friendly camera?) with above average ability to understand and cope with complex lighting conditions.
In this regard, the M6TTL exposure metering system has earned a reputation for being very reliable, if used judiciously. Without wishing to seem elitist, I believe that Leica M users are generally serious photographers (who else would spend so much money on a challenging and not-very-user-friendly camera?) with above average ability to understand and cope with complex lighting conditions.
G
Guest
Hi Ray...
Just couldn't resist. I agree with everything you say, except ... a challenging and not-very-user-friendly camera...
I consider my TTL to very-user-friendly because I can do everything I want with it! That's why I spent so much money on it.
Just couldn't resist. I agree with everything you say, except ... a challenging and not-very-user-friendly camera...
I consider my TTL to very-user-friendly because I can do everything I want with it! That's why I spent so much money on it.
G
Guest
I note the following with the M6 metering/battery. When the batteries weaken, the readings become inaccurate. This is before the display no longer lights. I caught it when I noticed the slower response. Also, the "f/16 rule", shutter speed at ISO, f/16 in bright sun, alerted me also. User friendly? It's what you want. Loading, you have confirmation of film transport with the rewind knob turning. Ability to see around frame and anticipate action. Especially valuable when you can't predict, such as wildlife - fish jumping, whales, etc. Manual focus will not hunt out a target you did not intend, such as choosing a center or background point of focus. I use my M6 for what it does best. No camera does everything best. Think of the Visoflex system, and what some Leica user said about the ultimate Visoflex system, the Leica R.
G
Guest
Gents,
Basic engineering principles govern the design of metering systems. Despite what many think, metering systems are not hard to design, nor is there any trickery involved. To suggest that a manufacturer like Nikon has metering systems inferior to that of Leica is simply not true. Nikon and Canon with their huge engineering resources are the world leaders in metering systems. Multi-pattern meters, despite the purists' bold statements of "too much automation" are simply better in 99% of applications than averaging meters even with the best photographer. The metered results stem from tens of thousands of different scenes analyzed and compared to generate metering profiles for the systems in pro Nikons, Canons, etc. No, multi-pattern meters are not fool-proof, nor can they be relied upon in all situations, but the simply fact is that if you exercise the same critical thought processes over such a meter as you do and averaging meter, you will be rewarded with a higher percentage of well-exposed shots. The reason Leica and some other companies do not use multi-pattern meters is that the "purists" would decry it for no good reason, and they can't afford the high development costs to do so. Time and time again we excuse lack of technological advancement for maintaining some type of perceived functional superiority of Leica bodies. An M7 with multi-pattern metering would be a better M7 if Leica did it right. I think we (me included sometimes) tend to wax too romantically about Leica gear simply because it looks so good, is built well, and has good optics. Bottom line is that a Nikon F5 with Leica lenses would outperform any Leica made in any situation. If you, the Leica using public, would pressure Leica into building up-to-date bodies while maintaining build standards and quality, you know what? They would. And analogy is that we drive cars today with ABS, air bags, and sophisticated transmissions. Are they inferior to the "analog" cars of 30 years ago? No way. They're better in every way. Simple fact is that there is no way that 1950s technology Leicas, despite how beautiful they are, can compete with the latest cameras from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Contax, etc, etc. I love Leicas for different reasons than some; beautiful construction and great optics. They simply are not better picture taking machines than the Japanese cameras guys. Interesting that Leica has gone to Japan on so many occasions to build their more sophisticated designs isn't it?
Basic engineering principles govern the design of metering systems. Despite what many think, metering systems are not hard to design, nor is there any trickery involved. To suggest that a manufacturer like Nikon has metering systems inferior to that of Leica is simply not true. Nikon and Canon with their huge engineering resources are the world leaders in metering systems. Multi-pattern meters, despite the purists' bold statements of "too much automation" are simply better in 99% of applications than averaging meters even with the best photographer. The metered results stem from tens of thousands of different scenes analyzed and compared to generate metering profiles for the systems in pro Nikons, Canons, etc. No, multi-pattern meters are not fool-proof, nor can they be relied upon in all situations, but the simply fact is that if you exercise the same critical thought processes over such a meter as you do and averaging meter, you will be rewarded with a higher percentage of well-exposed shots. The reason Leica and some other companies do not use multi-pattern meters is that the "purists" would decry it for no good reason, and they can't afford the high development costs to do so. Time and time again we excuse lack of technological advancement for maintaining some type of perceived functional superiority of Leica bodies. An M7 with multi-pattern metering would be a better M7 if Leica did it right. I think we (me included sometimes) tend to wax too romantically about Leica gear simply because it looks so good, is built well, and has good optics. Bottom line is that a Nikon F5 with Leica lenses would outperform any Leica made in any situation. If you, the Leica using public, would pressure Leica into building up-to-date bodies while maintaining build standards and quality, you know what? They would. And analogy is that we drive cars today with ABS, air bags, and sophisticated transmissions. Are they inferior to the "analog" cars of 30 years ago? No way. They're better in every way. Simple fact is that there is no way that 1950s technology Leicas, despite how beautiful they are, can compete with the latest cameras from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Contax, etc, etc. I love Leicas for different reasons than some; beautiful construction and great optics. They simply are not better picture taking machines than the Japanese cameras guys. Interesting that Leica has gone to Japan on so many occasions to build their more sophisticated designs isn't it?
G
Guest
I stand by my statement. I've used the Leica M6 and Nikon F5 side-by-side and when there have been discrepancies, more often than not the Leica has given the correct reading. This is not a "perceived functional superiority," rather it is an observation based on years of experience with both systems. Yes, it defies logic. That why I brought up the issue in my post.
Ultimately, any camera is simply a tool and the only good reason to express preference for one over another is for the results obtained. Simply making the tool more complex and sophisticated does not guarantee better photographs, nor better exposures. The fact that the Japanese manufacturers have produced cameras which have instruction manuals the size of dictionaries does not in any way make me feel like jumping on their bandwagon. I'm hardly alone in this regard. If you want to get a sense of how wonderful all the Nikon and Canon technological advances really are, logon to the robgalbraith.com forum site and read a few threads.
Ultimately, any camera is simply a tool and the only good reason to express preference for one over another is for the results obtained. Simply making the tool more complex and sophisticated does not guarantee better photographs, nor better exposures. The fact that the Japanese manufacturers have produced cameras which have instruction manuals the size of dictionaries does not in any way make me feel like jumping on their bandwagon. I'm hardly alone in this regard. If you want to get a sense of how wonderful all the Nikon and Canon technological advances really are, logon to the robgalbraith.com forum site and read a few threads.
G
Guest
It seems to me that when one is using matrix metering, which is giving you a reading based on "tens of thousands" of varying scenes, it becomes impossible to "exercise the same critical thought processes...as you do an averaging meter", because you don't know what evaluative processes have already been applied by the matrix designer. Maybe the designer has already applied necessary compensations for that scene--and maybe he hasn't. So how does the user know when to trust and when not to trust the matrix reading?
With averaging or spot, you understand that the meter is simply reporting the light it sees and suggesting exposure based on a mid-tone rendition of the scene. Now the photographer can use his skills to modify the exposure recommendation, if he recognizes that such is not appropriate for the particular scene or effect that he wants.
I am not denying that matrix metering may have advantages. I'm just suggesting that if you use it, you give up the ability to rely on your own interpretations of the scene's exposure needs.
Julian
With averaging or spot, you understand that the meter is simply reporting the light it sees and suggesting exposure based on a mid-tone rendition of the scene. Now the photographer can use his skills to modify the exposure recommendation, if he recognizes that such is not appropriate for the particular scene or effect that he wants.
I am not denying that matrix metering may have advantages. I'm just suggesting that if you use it, you give up the ability to rely on your own interpretations of the scene's exposure needs.
Julian