If I enjoy the Leica M3 should I just "sell everything" and get a MP?

[ChrisGalway]

Ask yourself exactly how a new camera is going to improve your photography.

I'd spend the money going somewhere photographically interesting.

+1

(I'm going to several photographically interesting places this year!)

 

[GregY]

+1

(I'm going to several photographically interesting places this year!)

Yes 6000€ goes a long way!!

 

[cliveh]

A Leica MP wont give you better photographs than an M3.

 

[GregY]

A Leica MP wont give you better photographs than an M3.

 

[Paul Howell]

Adams made plenty of mistakes and cared enough to turn them into tutorial moments.

We only see a fraction of the images that many great photographers made. I have book Ansel Adams Photographs from the National Parks Services Archive by Basil Cannon. AA had grants during the depression and later to photograph the national parks, he must have turned over some of his prints if not negatives to the Parks Service. What is the books is not his best work. But your right, he learned from his mistakes.

 

[mshchem]

Sure it’s a bit tricky, but isn’t bracketing a prove of one’s incompetence?
I remember traveling in the seventies with my OM-1 and 50 rolls of Ektachrome and coming back with almost 36 well exposed slides on each roll, just using the built in lightmeter.

Bracketing insures you get what you are after. Processing is the other variable that can cause problems. Especially 1st developer time, temperature, and activity.
Bracketing says I don't want a half a$@#ed image after going to the trouble and expense.

 

[mshchem]

A Leica MP wont give you better photographs than an M3.

Absolutely true.

An MP gives you parallax adjusted framelines for wide angle lenses, this is nice.

 

[chuckroast]

We only see a fraction of the images that many great photographers made. I have book Ansel Adams Photographs from the National Parks Services Archive by Basil Cannon. AA had grants during the depression and later to photograph the national parks, he must have turned over some of his prints if not negatives to the Parks Service. What is the books is not his best work. But your right, he learned from his mistakes.

Everyone should read his commentary on the negative for "Moonlight" ... it was, uhm, not optimal

 

[gbroadbridge]

Everyone should read his commentary on the negative for "Moonlight" ... it was, uhm, not optimal

Neither was the resulting negative

 

[GregY]

Bracketing insures you get what you are after. Processing is the other variable that can cause problems. Especially 1st developer time, temperature, and activity.
Bracketing says I don't want a half a$@#ed image after going to the trouble and expense.

Exactly..... We shouldn't look down our noses at 35mm/120 roll film users bracketing....how many LF users take several exposures and then process one & save the other just in case? I know i do....

 

[IpseLux]

Adams made plenty of mistakes and cared enough to turn them into tutorial moments.

One of the greatest images I ever saw, was one of his prints at the local museum.
I could tell spots that had been retouched with a very fine brush…. Speck by speck to imitate the grain.
I can’t describe how much confidence that gave me.
In my mind Adams was perfection incarnate. No I understood he was a photographer, like others, in making mistakes and fixing them.
I realize he did not print all his images. Others did that for him also.
But the feeling remains….

 

[IpseLux]

Exactly..... We shouldn't look down our noses at 35mm/120 roll film users bracketing....how many LF users take several exposures and then process one & save the other just in case? I know i do....

I agree. Exposure is not an exact science. The medium’s latitude dictates prudence by bracketing or not. And I’m glad others have mentioned the variance in processing.
I had never thought of that.

 

[RLangham]

I agree. Exposure is not an exact science. The medium’s latitude dictates prudence by bracketing or not. And I’m glad others have mentioned the variance in processing.
I had never thought of that.

Yeah, there’s a lot of variables in processing. If you’re a war correspondent or a nature photographer developing in the field, you may have adverse conditions or need to squeeze the most cycles out of a solution as possible.

On the other hand I think it’s quite possible that not every great photographer who develops their own film is also equally great at that. FWIW I think I’m a better photographer than lab tech. I’ve had an unopened thing of rinse aid sitting in my lab for years and am just now realizing that it would help with the exact problems I’ve been having.

 

[GregY]

It's a kind of photographic vanity to avoid bracketing. I am well versed in zone system, have all the requisite meters, and a very repeatable film workflow. I still bracket. Why? Because the cost of film is trivial by comparison to the costs of getting somewhere, staying there, and shooting for great outcomes. I'd rather burn some extra frames (or sheets) knowing that I will have something when I get back from a multi-thousand dollar trip.

Well said CR. If I'm spending a 1000€ to fly to Europe I'll burn a few more frames....!

 

[isaac7]

Exactly..... We shouldn't look down our noses at 35mm/120 roll film users bracketing....how many LF users take several exposures and then process one & save the other just in case? I know i do....

Bracketing makes more sense with roll film since all images will receive the same development regardless of how they were exposed. Having negatives with different densities could be really handy if the development led to some things you didn’t anticipate. Bracketing with slides doesn’t necessarily mean you messed up the exposure. Slides that are 1/2 a stop different often times have what could be considered “correct” exposure but look different. Maybe you like one more than the other. Or maybe you like both!

 

[RLangham]

Bracketing makes more sense with roll film since all images will receive the same development regardless of how they were exposed. Having negatives with different densities could be really handy if the development led to some things you didn’t anticipate. Bracketing with slides doesn’t necessarily mean you messed up the exposure. Slides that are 1/2 a stop different often times have what could be considered “correct” exposure but look different. Maybe you like one more than the other. Or maybe you like both!

Yes, ultimately I think bracketing is part of acknowledging that there's no "correct" exposure, there's "what tone will this light value render at this EV on this emulsion with this processing, and what tone is desirable/acceptable?" I think it's fine to hedge your bets since A) no one is keeping score and B) we can't all be doing the zone system all the time.

 

[beemermark]

I know you said you didn't like shoe mounted meters but the MR-4 is the perfect meter for it. Couples to the SS dial and meters heavily to the finder 90mm rectangle.

 

[mshchem]

Bracketing with color negative film, sent to a minilab usually results in nearly identical prints. Testimony to the latitude of negative film. Why Hollywood didn't shoot Ektachrome.

 

[ChrisGalway]

I appreciate that everyone has different expectations of their photos and for some bracketing ... getting the "perfect" combination of exposure and processing is very important.

But not everyone shares this view. Over the past 5-6 years, I've taken around 800 medium format 6x6cm stereo pairs of Provia 100f on about 20 or so 2-4 day photo-trips within Europe and I would estimate that over 90%, probably over 95%, of the photos are "well exposed" without any bracketing, just using a tiny AstrHori meter and common-sense/experience guided by the Sunny 16 rule. Each roll of 6 stereo-pairs is pushed/pulled individually on (home) processing. These slides are viewed in an optical viewer, so apart from adjusting the brightness of the illumination (for slightly darker sides), I have no other control over the final result.

Things like subject matter and stereo composition are far more important to me than perfecting the exposure. The one thing I do try to avoid is over-exposure, as washed-out highlights are unrecoverable, but slightly darker shadows can be compensated to a certain extent by increasing the brightness of the viewer illumination.

Of course I'd like every photo to be "perfectly" exposed/processed ... who wouldn't? ... but there are other aspects to consider.

 

[IpseLux]

I appreciate that everyone has different expectations of their photos and for some bracketing ... getting the "perfect" combination of exposure and processing is very important.

But not everyone shares this view. Over the past 5-6 years, I've taken around 800 medium format 6x6cm stereo pairs of Provia 100f on about 20 or so 2-4 day photo-trips within Europe and I would estimate that over 90%, probably over 95%, of the photos are "well exposed" without any bracketing, just using a tiny AstrHori meter and common-sense/experience guided by the Sunny 16 rule. Each roll of 6 stereo-pairs is pushed/pulled individually on (home) processing. These slides are viewed in an optical viewer, so apart from adjusting the brightness of the illumination (for slightly darker sides), I have no other control over the final result.

Things like subject matter and stereo composition are far more important to me than perfecting the exposure. The one thing I do try to avoid is over-exposure, as washed-out highlights are unrecoverable, but slightly darker shadows can be compensated to a certain extent by increasing the brightness of the viewer illumination.

Of course I'd like every photo to be "perfectly" exposed/processed ... who wouldn't? ... but there are other aspects to consider.

Back in the days of chemical printing, with enlargers and such, a very slight variation in exposure, of 1/3 of a stop, or even less, could make the difference between a great Cibachrome print and a glorious one. Screen images are very vivid, but man those prints would put computer screens to shame. They could be gorgeous. Like a visual expresso, compared to McD’s café.
But yes, there are other important aspects to photography also.
IMHO, the mark of a good photographer is not that he nails every image, but that every image he takes, even when he goofs can be salvaged, and make acceptable. More than acceptable, relatively good.
I suspect much of that is what younger photographers do in digital processing now. I used to do it in the darkroom.
Full disclosure, I started photography in the School of Journalism, and that has impacted how I see and do photography.
A workable exposure is a must. If I do that, I consider myself golden.
Kind regards.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I exposed a roll of slide film recently and, judging by the results, my instincts are sufficient. I still value a meter although I do not depend on one anymore. Hot shoe meters are always a compromise in my experience.

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

The M7 requires batteries for most of its shutter speeds and the automatic function would be a dangerous siren song for me. I have removed it from consideration.

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition. That is related to why I made this post here (link).

Get it if it makes you happy and will produce more inspired photos.

 

[MattKing]

I bracket to deal with challenging lighting conditions that are difficult to meter - basically to increase my chances of a usable result.
But I also bracket because different exposures tend to give results that print differently.
For many subjects, changing the exposure changes the priority of the different parts of the scene.
So bracketing gives me choices later - sometimes options that I didn't even think about when I exposed the film.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You guys really pushed this thread off the rails. Lol.

OP- the MP won't make a difference. Better to use the moolah learning about photography. Take a workshop with someone you admire. Then your pictures will be better. In fact using a Leica won't make your pictures any better than using a multitude of other cameras. Don't fall for the b.s.

 

[gbroadbridge]

You guys really pushed this thread off the rails. Lol.

OP- the MP won't make a difference. Better to use the moolah learning about photography. Take a workshop with someone you admire. Then your pictures will be better. In fact using a Leica won't make your pictures any better than using a multitude of other cameras. Don't fall for the b.s.

 

[mshchem]

Have fun, don't go nuts. It's a lot easier to aquire than disperse.