This shot is not fantastic and I wished the focus was on the close eye instead of the far eye, etc, etc. but I wanted to use it as an example of real world grab shots – just one in sub optimum conditions. This was in a Friendly’s restaurant and yes I had my Leica M6. It happened to be loaded with Ilford Delta 100 (actually more like 80 ISO) because I was shooting one of my final calibration rolls that day while walking around. Okay so ISO 80, indoors, what do you think the shutter speed was? I will tell you it was probably like 1/15 at f 2.8. Have you seen your shutter speed indoors at ISO 80 lately?

I am not the steadiest of shooters but I can definitely shoot my Leica at 2 stops maybe 3 lower than I can shoot ANY SLR I have ever owned – really. I can also do it with confidence quickly. The point here is that I picked the camera up and grabbed this shot more quickly than a point and shoot digicam could have charged it’s flash. Really. Why did I care about this shot? Long story but here is the summary.

Did you notice the band-aid on daughter No. 3′s hand and the way she is very carefully holding it away from everything including her other fingers? Well 2 days prior to this daughter No. 3 was carrying around one of her favorite objects – a little snow globe that she used to carry around with her blanket constantly since she got it. Her and I were at opposite ends of the kitchen and she dropped it. Before I could get to her – I literally flew across the room – she reached down and grabbed a piece of the broken glass.

Blood, tears, you know the story. Yea I know I am a bad parent for letting her have such a thing. Well it gets worse – the injury was to the thumb that she used as a pacifier to go to sleep. This was major trauma – over the next few days she named it boo-boo summy and eventually made the pacifier transition to the other thumb.

That was a long long time ago but to this day if you ask her to show you boo-boo summy I will bet she will involuntarily lift her hand and show you that thumb in a manner almost exactly like in this picture.

Now I know nobody gives a crap about this picture except me but that is exactly what I am trying to point out – that is the only thing that is important. Am I glad I shot this and other ones on my M vs. a 1 megapix digicam available at that time – YES. Would I have got this shot going from nothing to “shoot it now” with a point and shoot digicam even now – NO. Would I have a D3 or D700 and fast lens in a Friendly’s while not getting paid – definitely not.

RB

To warm up the old darkroom skills I figured that I would round up a bunch of old unprocessed film that I seem to have accumulated. Don’t ask – there are a million reasons that I have unprocessed rolls of film laying around. I started with one that I knew would be a bear. TMZ shot at 1600 in 2002 – at least that is when I wrote the date on it. The results were absolutely horrible, probably the worst thing that has ever come out of the tank. That includes worse than my very first roll of film developed when I was like 13 years old in the parents basement. I did figure out why this roll was not ever processed, which at least satisfies my curiosity.

The reason that this particular roll was not processed was that it is fairly obvious that I opened the camera while there was still film in the camera – ooooops. I am sentimental, I kept it so that I could process it when I wasn’t so backed up with “real” photographic work just to see. Well that was seven years after. The list of issues goes on from there.  The fog is so bad that you can’t even see through the film – it is now “frosted’ instead of transparent. It has grain that nobody could love – either that or the coating has reticulation from some abuse over the last 7 years that I forgot about it or I screwed the pooch with temp control and shocked it into reticulation. In any case I am not at all deterred. Well I am a little deterred, namely I am not going to shoot any of the expired TMZ that I have – that is headed for posterity labeled “DO NOT SHOOT – IT WILL LOOK HORRIBLE”.

I will keep you up to date on the M series quest – I am going to shoot the M at least as much as I shoot digital for the rest of the year to make sure that I really really want a digital M.

RB

Here is the site and the book Bazan Cuba.

RB

My very first serious camera was a rangefinder about 30 years ago, so I feel like I am home with the whole way of using them. They are comfortable and quite established in my brain and muscle memory. The do about 95% of what most people need, simply and easily. They are not great for sports – at least not from the sidelines. Forget birds from hundreds of yards away. They are a camera that excels at taking pictures of normal sized things relatively close to you. Maybe the best answer to that subject matter.

Here is the bottom line – before you go and plunk down $7,000 of you hard earned cash on an M9 get a regular old M3, M4, or M6 and a regular old user kind of lens like a 50 f2 summicron. Using these will be so close to using the M9 it is not even funny. If you want something with “classic” engraving and gorgeous finishing get an M3, M2, or early M4. Even worn these cameras have an aesthetic appeal that is fantastic. I actually would skip the M4-P or M4-2 because they are actually generally a little more expensive than the previous cameras mentioned, have no real extra “charm”, and are not as good a user camera as an M6. If you can spend a little more money just get an M6. They are much more modern in metering, have frame lines for just about everything (28, 75, 135) that may be missing from some of the others, and are every bit as well built. The finish is more durable but if it is worn it is far from “charming”.

I have seen M3 and M2 cameras in great shape – I mean fantastic shape in every way, even cosmetically and with a recent CLA go for about $900 regularly. Ugly M2′s and M3′s go for even less, they will probably work just fine and produce fantastic pictures, they just have less finish, a couple of dings, and missing vulcanite. I have also seen barely used M6 cameras that most of you would mistake for new (not collectors) for about $1500 – If you are lucky you can find an ugly one that goes for half that. As far as a 50 summicron, the funny thing is the aluminum barreled black lenses of the 1990′s that are BETTER than older models seem to be about the least expensive – sometimes you can find “user” 50 summicrons that are older for a lot less if they have cosmetic issues but if they are only a little less money go with the new one. In any case there are plenty of various vintage summicrons that are fantastic for $300-400.

So… for somewhere between $1000 and $2000 you can get a perfectly capable Leica rangefinder in good working order and a lens that is probably better than any you own right now. Both items will probably be able to be sold for exactly what you got them for, or more. Drop the price by $100 each and you can get rid of them in 24hrs. The combo will work exactly like an M9 (with the exception of metering), will take fantastic photos on film, and allow you to test out the wonderful world of rangefinders for pretty much free, assuming you sell the stuff if it is not for you. If you decide it is for you  you can get some practice in while you save up the rest of the money, sell the body and keep using the 50 summicron on the M9, whatever.

You may notice that I did not recommend getting a Voigtlander body or lens just to test the waters. There are a bunch of reasons for this but I will focus on just one. The economic one, If you are not going to keep the Voigtlander and use it do not buy one, at least not new, and even used you will not be able to turn it around quickly or for even close to what you paid if you decide that the whole deal is not for you. The other reason is that although very similar, they are operationally not the virtual clone of other M series bodies and the M9.

One caveat – the older M bodies do not have a meter, none. This means you will have to meter with an external meter or your camera and transfer the settings. Don’t worry – if you light and your subject don’t change – your exposure doesn’t need to change – really. Take your reading – set the camera, shoot away. The M6 has a fantastic meter build in but you will have to know how to use it. It is not an evaluative meter and it is fairly tight so you have to know what you are pointing it at and what that means.

If you have any questions let me know – I have been a rangefinder shooter/lover for a long time and this is exactly what I would do if I didn’t already have a couple of M bodies laying around.

RB

Here are some other thoughts on the M9 I have posted as well:

Leica Finally Does Things Right With The M9

DSLR vs. Leica M9

Leica M9 – Thoughts on Lenses

After giving it some thought over the weekend, I have come up with what I would do about lenses. Not necessarily what I have done but what I would do now – assuming that I did not have unlimited funds and knowing what I know now either by experience or the experience of others that I trust personally. Here are a couple of very broad things real quick and then some specifics. First I would NOT buy the new Leica budget lenses. It’s not because they are no good, it’s because I could do better for the same or less cost. I would also not buy the newest of the idiotically expensive Leica designs, like the 21 f1.4,  unless I had a really really good reason. If you must have a brand new Leica lens to go with your brand new Leica M9 – just so you have perfection to compare other things to, I would stick with something like the 35 or 50 f2 summicrons. Not cheap but as close to perfection as it gets.

Here is what I would do. I would probably buy Leica’s “normal-ish” kinds of lenses used of the 90′s or early 2000′s vintage. These lenses are perfect, are built to last a life time, and most of them have not been used all that much. They are not collectable and are half what new ones cost that have no fingerprints. On that point unless you are a collector  stay away from collector stuff.

Moving on to the more exotic kinds of glass. I would buy the Voigtlander lenses. Specifically the 50 f1.1 and the really really wide stuff. If you are on a much tighter budget I would not hesitate to use any of that line of lenses. The build quality is extremely good, probably better than the new “budget” Leica glass. For lenses that are not quite so exotic I would probably go with the Zeiss ZM series.  The Zeiss ZM series are built by the same people as the Voigtlander lenses – just Carl Zeiss designs, tolerances, materials, etc. The 18, 21 f4.5 and 21 f2.8 are all very affordable and you will never see a difference between these and the Leica lenses. Heck the Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are very good throughout the range if you want to go all out brand new. While you are at it grab the anniversary R2/R3 Voigtlander set WITH a 50mm f2 that is rated as good as anything else on the planet for about $1000 and you will have a film body to boot for half of what a 50mm f2 Summicron cost new.

Just my 2¢

RB

Ps. The photos included with this post were all taken with an M6 and 50mm f2 Summicron. I would say about 80% of the reasonably decent photos of my three daughters where made with this combo or the 90 f2.8 Elmarit both extremely affordable and extremely capable.