I'm considering buying a M6 TTL but I can't quite get the SLR paradigm out of my head. I've seen the kludge for using polarizing filters and it looks really weird but I guess it might work. What I don't understand is how to use other filters , 81X or graduated neutral density types. How do you know what you're going to get on film?

Also, I see a lot of really nice photos using the excellent focusing power of the lenses but how do you know ( guess?) the DOF? Do you just know from experience or DOF tables or do you use the range figures on the lens itself?

-- Dan Roe (roedj@juno.com), July 31, 2001

Answers

Dan, a rangefinder like the M6 has a whole different set of strengths and shortcomings than an SLR. At first, many people want to make the M cameras do all the things they are used to doing with an SLR, and get frustrated and end up selling the cameras. Forget polarizers, ND grads, depth of field previews, long teles, macro. Think quiet, simple, un-obtrusive, no finder black out, no mirror slap, seeing beyond the frame, very slow speed hand holdable, etc. Sure, an M6 can fudge some of the SLR stuff like using a polarizer, but that isn't why a person would want to own a rangefinder in my opinion.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 31, 2001.

Re: DOF

The short answer: You know from experience and paying attention. It's more accurate that using DOF preview.

The long answer (recent thread on photo.net about controlling DOF):

http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001W2H

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 31, 2001.

With rangefinders you can't really use filters (like graduated) that vary across the picture - well, you can, but you're guessing at the results (some might call it 'using experience'). That's why the SLR was invented. Polarizer is just a mild form of graduated filter.

On the other hand, you can shoot very dark filters (ND or strongly colored as for infrared or in-camera color-separating) and still easily see to focus, since the filter doesn't darken the viewfinder as it does with an SLR. 8^)

As to depth of field, I just assume that everything will be mostly sharp with a 28 or wider, and nothing will be sharp EXCEPT what I focused on with a 75 or longer, or with a 50 or 35 close up. For the 35 and 50 at middle distances I don't worry about it. I'm occasionally surprised but rarely disappointed.

RF's are the Forrest Gump camera - "My Mama said, 'Shootin' rangefinders is like a box of chocklits - you never know exactly what you're going to get.' "

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 31, 2001.

'Shootin' rangefinders is like a box of chocklits - you never know exactly what you're going to get.'

I disagree. I have a much better idea what I'll get. Because everything in the viewfinder is in sharp focus, I notice background clutter/strong lines and angles/distracting colors/etc. more readily than with an SLR where things not in the plane of focus are blurry.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 31, 2001.

I think I'm with Mike on this one. In general, I've noticed my compositions and timing are better on my rangefinder images than on my SLR's because I can actually see what I'm photographing right down to the exact instant the shutter is tripped. Sure, if you are at f2.0 & 50mm, it all isn't going to be sharp like in the finder, but I do get less shots with trees growing out of people's heads because you can see the backround. It does takes a little while to get a feel for what will be in focus. It also took me a while to stop shooting every image with the subject in the center of the picture exactly where the double image happens to be!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 01, 2001.

Dan, you probably need to rent one for a wile and spend some rolls on it and guess if it is going to be a camera for your photography. On my experience, I begun with a SLR, (well before that with a 110 instamatic) after seven years a Leica M3 came to my hands, and begun to use it, after a wile it was my favourite camera because of the size, and I guess the feel of it, but still returned to my Canon SLR and nikon, little by little the M Leica begun to gain space in my photography, it demanded me knoledge about the lenses I was using, about ligth, about DOF, in return it ofered me a clear and brigth direct finder, a solid body as none, a compact and discret body, a camera you can hold the entire day, an instrument that is a joy to use, finest optics and the oportunity to be in charge of my photography. Now my SLR´s are all lended to friends, and only use them for copy work, now my entire photography runs through some M bodies. But I understand it´s limits, no macro, no super telephoto, no closer than .70 mts or .40 mts with my 21/3.4, after all those are limits that can live well in my photography, M leicas are made to photograph people, landscapes, arquitecture, sports, up close and even atmospheres.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 01, 2001.

If you need depth of field read it from the lens scale. Early on, I tried to keep everything in focus, trying to keep my 35 lens to F8 or F5.6.

I now think that one of the main strengths of Leica lenses is that they can deliver great photographs with both excellent in-focus and out-of-focus areas, and this differential-focus quality is really outstanding. I choose not to use the mythicial (mystical?)"B" word to describe this effect.

It takes a bit of nerve/confidence to shoot at F2 or F1.4, but the results can be spectacular. They can also be out of focus sometimes. So what? Go for it.

-- wayne murphy (wayne.murphy@publicworks.qld.gov.au.au), August 01, 2001.

I haven't been using mine for very long, but I do notice some differences in the way I'm seeing.

People talk a lot about how you see outside the frame of your image in an RF. This really seems to make a lot of difference. By viewing the image in its context, and then viewing what you 'propose' to make as an image, I think you have a much better handle on your composition. It makes explicit what you're cropping out of the image, which I think gives you more compositional control than the 'tunnel vision' of SLRs.

Also, with SLRs in longer than normal FL's, it can feel a bit voyeuristic with your subjects. You can be 10 feet away but in their face, which is a bit wierd.

I think what's so nice about the RF is that you really see in the camera what you see with your eye/brain system. So it's not WYSIWYG, but it's more like, how you see through the camera is how you normally see, which can make you more an intimate participant of the scene.

I do notice that I look at scenes differently, esp. at the way light works on a subject- I seem to be much more sensitive to low, PM or AM light, illuminated leaves in a tree, light falling obliquely on a subject. And I try to imagine the framelines hovering in front of me as I contemplate a scene. I don't know why, but with my SLRs I never saw this way.

Maybe this is why it seems many Leica M shooters use the 50mm ('normal') as their longest focal length- b/c is goes just to the limit of normal human vision. Anything beyond that is arguably artificial- I mean, it's not really normal to be 50 yards away from a model and filling your frame with him or her using a 300mm/2.8.

I used to think I would be distracted by all the other stuff in the viewfinder in RFs, but I've gotten used to it and see its many advantages. Also, it has been said that since everything appears in focus in the RF viewfinder, you are more likely to be careful about cluttery compositions- you don't have the illusion provided narrow DOF, as is the case with SLRs, of little clutter b/c many elements appear out of focus. So you do so by good composition. In a sense you're forced to be cleaner and more deliberate in your composition. A good thing.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

"People talk a lot about how you see outside the frame of your image in an RF. This really seems to make a lot of difference. By viewing the image in its context, and then viewing what you 'propose' to make as an image, I think you have a much better handle on your composition. It makes explicit what you're cropping out of the image"

This is one of the things I like best about the RF viewing experience. It reminds me a bit of Michaelangelo's comment about chipping away the marble to find the statue within. It's as though the whole frame is the block of marble, and you can hunt around inside it to find the best statue. It's a lot easier to see what part of that marble block to throw away.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 01, 2001.

The 2 types of cameras each have their advantages and disadvantages. When you're at home with the luxury of two or more camera systems to choose from you can mix and match. On the road, it's another story, especially if you carry backups as I do. I've learned to mentally visualize shallow DOF with the M, and I use the DOF preview on my SLR's about 5:1 to the shutter release (frustrating often because Leica R DOF preview mechanisms are *junk* and love to stick shut). I use screw-type ND grads with the M, taking advantage of various apertures to change the gradation positioning according to a set of slides I made through which I preview the scene (landscape photography can be slow and methodical usually). I've also learned how to very precisely compose through the M framelines at various distances, what I'll really get on film compared to what the finder frame shows. I don't like handholding any SLR at any shutter speed, while with the M I can get by with a little bracing (leaning against something solid). I make my choice depending on the preponderance of subject type I expect to encounter, and how much bulk and weight I am prepared to carry. Getting around the various fortes and shortcomings of the camera types is secondary to me.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

When I shoot with SLRs, I usually have a bag full of gear - lenses, filters of all different types, finder attachments, etc. When I shoot with RFs, I find I have just the camera and one or two lenses.

In recent years, that bag of gear did nothing but get in my way. I wasn't getting any photos with it I enjoyed. I sold off all my SLR gear and replaced it with a small Leica M kit. Now my pictures are the interesting part, not the bag of gear.

It's a different aesthetic, a different way of seeing. I often set my focus just by the scale on the lens, using the DoF marks to determine a focus zone. I never use filters anymore, or only very rarely. And those filters I do use are generally just a simple Orange or Green.

It takes some experience, some getting used to, but ultimately the pictures are what matter and I'm very happy with the pictures.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 02, 2001.

Hi, Dan: You have already been told most of the most important issues. Just one more clue: get in RF photo only if you have the time and the will to experience and learn the hard way: wasting some film and loosing some good opportunities at first. Here is where the two opposite ends meet: hi-tech cameras are said to do everything much easier if you don't know much about photography and are not willing to devote time to learning. My own experience with them tought me that in order to get out of hi-tech cameras what they are actually able to do you must know a lot about photography. Otherwise you will be shooting in Program all the time and, in reality, an inexpensive P&S with a decent lens would be the same as useful for you as your multi thousand dollar marvel. So you'd better take your time to learn or forget about it. Right the same thing here, only that with far fewer toys to play with: just light and DOF. You can use filters for sure. Provided you have time to do it the RF style. With SLRs the only filters I usually use are polarizers. In fact I have a polarizer always on on each SLR lens I own though everybody else has told me that I shouldn't. But I like what I do with them. And I have made good images with polarizers in my M3s (slides only) but I need to have the time available to do it. Which most of the times is the case, anyhow. With a M6 it should be easier because of in-camera light metering. For the other filters, you need to have time and film available to learn, too. You can do excellently concerning DOF too. Provided you take your time and film to experiment and learn. By the way: if you start by believing what the DOF scale on the lens says, you will go much faster. It really helps. Later on you will guesstimate surprisingly on the spot most of the time. Certainly I have a fairly long experience in photography (taking pictures, to be true) but now I'm considering like real experience only the time I have been using my M3s. And that is much shorter. And I still have lots left to learn and have fun. I only ask for time for it. I hope you will have it. Plenty of it.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), August 02, 2001.

I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughtful and thorough responses. I'm still not sure which way to jump just yet but you've all given me a lot to think about. Thanks again. -- Dan

-- Dan Roe (roedj@juno.com), August 02, 2001.

An awful lot of SLRs don't have an aperture preview feature. I learned DOF using the lens scale, so switching to a rangefinder wasn't much of a paradigm shift for me in that respect. I'll second the motion, though, that modern SLRs with zoom lens, AF, and program AE have diminished basic photography skills over the last decade. I enjoy the process of making a photograph. Using a camera that exercises that process and those skills, more than anything about the viewfinder, is what I enjoy the most about the Leica M.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the big smile on my face when I see my results is really the result of being able to see around the framelines, or being able to see a sharp background. I'm still willing to believe that there's magic at work because these cameras are made by elves in the Black Forest.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), August 03, 2001.