Exiting Leica M: what did you go for instead

[Cholentpot]

I'm working with a classical pianist now and trying to make sure the right piano (preferably grand Yamaha as he is sponsored by them) arrives on time and is tuned the day before. It's worth the effort but takes some work. He's a super nice guy but pianists have strong preferences just like everyone else, of course.

I have no problem with this mindset. He's not playing a honky-tonk in a saloon. You want a top performance the man needs the right equipment.

 

[MattKing]

I'm working with a classical pianist now and trying to make sure the right piano (preferably grand Yamaha as he is sponsored by them) arrives on time and is tuned the day before. It's worth the effort but takes some work. He's a super nice guy but pianists have strong preferences just like everyone else, of course.

You are probably glad you didn't have to do this for Glenn Gould

 

[Don_ih]

One thing rangefinder folk never seem concerned about is inability to preview DoF. DoF is a useful compositional tool and without a through the lens view, you're just guessing.

I generally always focus with the depth of field in mind. It's not a guess, really.

 

[chuckroast]

You are probably glad you didn't have to do this for Glenn Gould

He would have murmuring along the whole time ...

 

[GregY]

Well come to think of it, at one time I did. For at least 15 years I had no 35mm cameras. Even sold my original black paint M2, which was like a part of me. I had an Ebony & several Canhams. Eventually I settled on a 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 & 5x7 back, a Deardorff 8x10, and a Jay Dusard style 4x10 box camera with a 90 Super Angulon XL. Bought a Durst 138, I still have.

Eventually I came to realize i was most excited about photography when I travelled, internationally and in the mountains. LF was just too cumbersome. I still have a handful of Dagors on lensboards & some film holders.
I have some 35mm cameras mostly Leicas, and several MF cameras....& they do everything I need. I don't collect cameras. I don't care how sharp the latest apo-lenses are. I have no interest in matrix metering. I'm just interested in making images and printing them in a darkroom....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

they do everything I need

Sums it up nicely.

I have a 35mm camera, a 6x6 camera, and a 4x5 camera. They do everything I need.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well come to think of it, at one time I did. For at least 15 years I had no 35mm cameras. Even sold my original black paint M2, which was like a part of me. I had an Ebony & several Canhams. Eventually I settled on a 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 & 5x7 back, a Deardorff 8x10, and a Jay Dusard style 4x10 box camera with a 90 Super Angulon XL. Bought a Durst 138, I still have.

Eventually I came to realize i was most excited about photography when I travelled, internationally and in the mountains. LF was just too cumbersome. I still have a handful of Dagors on lensboards & some film holders.
I have some 35mm cameras mostly Leicas, and several MF cameras....& they do everything I need. I don't collect cameras. I don't care how sharp the latest apo-lenses are. I have no interest in matrix metering. I'm just interested in making images and printing them in a darkroom....View attachment 426454

Great picture! Now you're talking my kind of camera! Nothing beats a BIG negative.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I generally always focus with the depth of field in mind. It's not a guess, really.

Showing your age there , Don

 

[tcolgate]

I generally always focus with the depth of field in mind. It's not a guess, really.

It's a guess in the sense that you cannot see the result.

 

[gbroadbridge]

It's a guess in the sense that you cannot see the result.

But you can - I see it in my minds eye - the same way I don't need to look through a viewfinder to visualise a 35mm or 50mm field of view on a 35mm camera.

I just see it in my mind together with depth of field at any particular aperture. Practice makes perfect

 

[brbo]

It's a guess in the sense that you cannot see the result.

The same as most of the pictures with SLRs and almost all with TLRs are taken without seeing the "result".

And if people tell you they can judge critical sharpness of the subject 2m away through the viewfinder with lens stopped down to f11 better than using lens' dof scale... they are full of it anyway.

 

[Prest_400]

Eventually I came to realize i was most excited about photography when I travelled, internationally and in the mountains. LF was just too cumbersome. I still have a handful of Dagors on lensboards & some film holders.
I have some 35mm cameras mostly Leicas, and several MF cameras....& they do everything I need. I don't collect cameras. I don't care how sharp the latest apo-lenses are. I have no interest in matrix metering. I'm just interested in making images and printing them in a darkroom....

I'm on that way to, a few years ago I kept thinking 35mm is the Hotel California of formats, you check out but never leave it. Of course have 35mm cameras standing by. A nikon F90/N90 nowadays is so good value (50€ off auctions) that I have one each in two home locations.
Never went into Large format, for the same reasons and I have a "faster" lifestyle. Recognise I don't put my medium formats down on a tripod as much as they should. Having commonality of stocking up just on 120 (220 wish) film helps a lot.

I agree Minus the matrix metering... A Pentax 645n found its way home, I've grown a mini system and it's a neat, although bulky and heavy, half frame P&S! Bless that Matrix metering, I can just think of composition. I have photo acquaintances that look up to manual mode everything or where modern AF cameras appear almost as heresy and I say, after a decade of manual medium format with the Fuji 6x9 I deserve some automation!

 

[tcolgate]

The same as most of the pictures with SLRs and almost all with TLRs are taken without seeing the "result".

No camera can show you the literal result before the picture is taken. Some can give us a better preview of the result than others.

And if people tell you they can judge critical sharpness of the subject 2m away through the viewfinder with lens stopped down to f11 better than using lens' dof scale... they are full of it anyway.

SLRs and TLRs have lens DoF scales too. If I'm using zone focusing I don't need a rangefinder.
Critical focus is not judged at f/11. On almost all SLRs you'll focus wide open (or use the split prism on the ground glass). I'll say that for me personally, I can judge focus from a split prism on an SLR as well as I can a range finder, and a split prism doesn't need recablibrating.
My point on this though was than a view camera and an SLR can let me preview the focus fall off, which makes it easier to use DoF as a compositional technique for isolating a subject. I don't have to imagine it, I can see it.

 

[brbo]

On almost all SLRs you'll focus wide open (or use the split prism on the ground glass). I'll say that for me personally, I can judge focus from a split prism on an SLR as well as I can a range finder, and a split prism doesn't need recablibrating.

Prism itself might not need calibration, but the entire lens/mirror/ground glass imaging path does. Do rangefinders tend to go out of calibration more often? Probably, yes. But it's also much easier to spot when rangefinder might need adjustments than on a SLR/TLR.

My point on this though was than a view camera and an SLR can let me preview the focus fall off, which makes it easier to use DoF as a compositional technique for isolating a subject. I don't have to imagine it, I can see it.

I understood your point. You obviously take a lot of pictures with wider apertures and believe that you can effectively use dof preview to judge whether you need f5.6 or f4 to achieve sufficient dof for nose and ears to be in focus when you are focusing on the eyes. Maybe that is so. But, consider that some people can do that too on a rangefinder.

I'm just saying that although you can see what focus fall off is wide open, "through-the-lens" systems (especially in small format) are equally as useless to judge the entire scene when stopped down. The image much too dark and magnification much too small. So, I guess you need to use "imagination" on a SLR too or are SLR folks just never concerned about the inability to preview the shot when everything is in focus (same as, according to you, rangefinder folks are not concerned about previewing DoF)?