Ergonomics of using a Leica MP

[ymc226]

I am considering changing my vacation camera from a Nikon F6 with an 85mm/1.4 for taking picture of the kids to something a little more compact. The kids are getting older so I can get them to stop and pose for a photo. Usually, I shoot auto-focus, aperture priority so it is basically a point and shoot after I pick the aperture.


A Leica MP with a 75/2.0 is what seems to be what I am looking for.


Looking at the Leica, how natural does it feel to focus, adjust either the aperture (on the lens) and shutter speed on the top of the camera to get the right exposure? I know the M7 has aperture priority but I don't like the "M7" and red Leica painted on front.


Can you learn to do this fast? I don't want to lose candid shots. What do most users of the manual Leicas (that have a built in exposure meter) do? Do you focus, have the aperture preset, and then adust the shutter speed last? I'm still not a great judge of the anticipated exposure needed.

 

[eddym]

I'm not sure how "natural" it will feel to you if you've been using Nikon's little wheelies to adjust aperture and shutter speed. Shooting a Leica M is like breathing to me, but then I've been doing it for about 25 years. With enough practice, anything becomes second nature... but I still prefer rotating the aperture ring on my Nikkors instead of the little wheelie on the camera. That's why I'll never buy a G lens. But I digress.
An MP with a 75 f2 would be a dream machine; if you try it and don't like it, let me know and I'll send you my address.
As an SOP for shooting that camera combo for candids of your kids, I would recommend using an incident meter to choose an exposure, then "set it and forget it" as long as the ambient light does not change much, or the kids are running into and out of the shadows or something. If you use the camera meter, meter a neutral gray area first, then set and forget as above, with the same caveats. You'll need to practice following movement with the rangefinder; it can be tricky until you get used to it. The best thing about that camera/lens combination though, is that you will be able to see what is happening outside the field of view of the lens. For example, if you are focused on one kid and have him/her in the frame for the 75, you can still see what is happening outside that frame in the edge of the viewfinder. This makes it very easy to switch compositions rapidly and catch something you would never have seen if using an SLR.
Like anything new, it takes practice to get used to shooting a rangefinder, but once you get the hang of it, you'll love it. Or hate it. In that case, see above re: my offer.

 

[Lee L]

I don't know if the 75 Summicron is a 'tabbed' lens or not. I daren't look too closely at things like that. If it does have a tab on the focusing ring, then you can do what Leica RF photographers have been doing for decades, and move the lens to approximate focus by feeling where the tab is before you lift the camera. Then you only have a short throw for fine focus once the camera is at your eye. With wide lenses and medium apertures, you can focus "close enough" by feel so that you may not even need the "touch up" focus at your eye. With a fast longer lens like the 75mm, you'll probably need it. What I often do is focus ahead of time (if the subject isn't moving) and take an incident reading with a small hand-held meter (Gossen Digiflash in my case), then bring the camera up and shoot when the timing is right without having to make adjustments. You might be surprised at how quickly the manual rangefinder focus snaps into place for you. It could be as fast and as sure as some AF cameras.

If the subject is moving in and out of the light, I'll take an incident reading for both extremes and adjust by counting f-stop or shutter speed detents as the subject moves before bringing the camera up.

Predicting whether you'll like the RF as compared to the SLR is difficult. Be sure to give the new gear some time and ask questions of RF users. Practice. They are different approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages. I shoot both and can move back and forth comfortably. You might also find that some of the RF techniques will improve your SLR shooting.

Lee

 

[dougjgreen]

I disagree. I don't think that any Rangefinder is ideal for telephoto work. If the OP were going to be mainly shooting 28mm to 50mm, I would say, by all means, get a Leica - but for moderate telephoto use, I think SLRs are better. If I were looking for something more grounded than a Nikon F6, I'd get either a Nikon FM2n or an FM3a, and maybe an 85mm f2 AIS lens, along with a 50mm f1.4.

 

[Tim Gray]

An M7 is going to be faster than an MP. You can always use it in the same manner as an MP if you want, but AE is there if you want it. As far as the red dot and the M7, replace the dot with a black one and use some nail polish remover on the white paint in the M7 logo.

I've been shooting RF for only a couple years and can usually do alright for candid stuff. Estimating focus before you shoot helps some and taking some meter readings before hand also helps. However, AE is going to be faster...

 

[elekm]

You must absolutely try a tabbed lens before plunking down your hard-earned cash. Some people love tabbed lens. Some don't. I personally don't care for them, although several lenses that I like have them.

 

[rpsawin]

Frankly how a camera/lens combination "feels" is strictly a personal matter. Go to a camera store that sells Leica gear. Put a 75mm lens on an MP body and see what happens....test drive it for yourself.

Bob

 

[budrichard]

Coming from an F6 to an MP is going to require an adjustment. Judging by your comment about the red dot and M7 on the camera front, you are a critical user and there is a good chance you will be frustrated with an MP. I have an M6 which operates like an MP and two M7's which I mostly use in AUTO. I use the M7's(Motor M) or an FM3a with motor for pictures of children and with a 75mm Summicron(has no focus tab BTW) either works well. The M6 requiring exposure and focus for constantly changing scene is a bit of work even after having an M3 for 20+ years.
Frankly your F6 combo is about as good as one can get for what you are doing and the MP plus lens is a very expensive alternative unless you just want Leica glass and a very quiet camera.
Opps, I forgot that the F6 is also a motor and you will have to purchase a Leica Motor M to come even close to the speed of the F6. I have Motor M's on both my M7's for ease and speed. I have a Leicavit but its not as fast and stable a platform for sequence photography.Good luck!-Dick

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I agree with a couple of the comments here. The M and 75 will b no substitute for the F6. I would either stick with a SLR or use a M for wider angle work. I personally do not think a 75 offers a big enough frame line (even on a 0.85) to be a pleasure to use, or quick etc. I have enjoyed using a M with my kids but from 21-35mm. Anything longer than that is it is not the best tool for the job. You may be able to get the kids to stop and pose, but that will change the nature of the pictures considerably. do you want that?

 

[Softie]

Can you learn to do this fast? I don't want to lose candid shots.

An M plus a telephoto lens---especially if you have a 0.72 body---is guaranteed to result in lost candid shots.

I've used an M3 and a 50 and 90 Summicron pretty extensively for kiddie work. Your keeper rate will definitely be lower than with the Nikon. With the M you have to preset the exposure for the prevailing conditions and then trap focus if you have a lively subject. If you like the tool better, though, you might be happier with the results you get. I wouldn't recommend the M over the F6, but if you wish to spend that kind of money, be my guest.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd say go for a used F100 if you want a smaller camera. No point in using a Leica where an SLR will do just fine...and you already have the glass and will already know how to use the camera. In other words, spend $200-$300 instead of $6,000, and get just the same, if not better results. Rangefinders are good for lots of things, but their benefits are also totally lost with some things. I don't think the things you describe doing require a rangefinder in any way.

 

[ymc226]

Thanks for all of the suggestions and opinions. Seeing that the M is better for wide angle work, those that have taken pictures of their kids using their M (using 21-35mm lens), candidly, what kind of compositions were they of?

I am not meaning to change the "style" of how I shoot my kids but am curious of what other dads/moms do. If I surmise, the children would not be in the forefront of the picture but would comprise a small part of a larger scene.

 

[Tom Duffy]

I currently use a Leica M with a 35mm and a 50mm. The 35 always seems to have adequate depth of field for candid snapshots; the 50 needs to be focused carefully. The 75mm would be even harder to focus quickly. If you are used to an autofocus slr and you don't want "posed" shots of the kids don't get the Leica. I'm not familiar with Nikon but the Canon outfit I would consider would be a 7n with a 85 f 1.8. I'm sure Nikon has an equivalent.

That said, try the MP. You might buy it for the shutter alone. I'd much rather use the Leica and get a smaller percentage of "keepers", rather than use a noisy, bulky SLR.

Take care,
Tom

 

[Tom Stanworth]

best solution: both

I agree with Tom as you will see from my reply to your PM. wide lenses, a M and kids can be great fun. I have some really fun shots of mine running through long grass towards me as I lay down with a 21 for example. Not as easy to do with an AF SLR for sure

 

[ymc226]

Thanks for all of the suggestions, opinions and PMs. I just received a black MP/0.72 with a 35/1.4 Summilux. I marvel at how natural it is to focus (with the tab) with my ring finger while adjusting the aperture with my thumb/index fingers. The direction of the aperture adjustment is also intuitive in that you rotate in the direction that the arrows indicate in the viewfinder. I find that getting the correct or slightly 1/2 stop overexposure is quick and easy. It reminds me alot of how my Nikon FM/2 and a little of how my Nikon F3 operates except at how light and quiet the camera and lens are. I still pick up the F3 sometimes but it has the attached motor drive.

For now, I will probably use the camera in good light (outdoors), keep the shutter relatively fast and unchanged and adjust the aperture to obtain the right exposure Once I get to become more adept with the system, I will probably go with my original plan for a 75/2.0 Summicron and get the 1.4x viewfinder magnifier to make focusing easier.

Does anyone know why the 75/1.4 Summilux is not in the current lens line-up?

 

[rulnacco]

I just received a black MP/0.72 with a 35/1.4 Summilux. I marvel at how natural it is to focus (with the tab) with my ring finger while adjusting the aperture with my thumb/index fingers.

One way that you can use the tab to help you focus even more quickly is to become familiar with what distance it is focused on depending on where the tab is. For example, when the tab on my old rigid Summicron 50 is at the 6 o'clock position, I know I'm focused at 9 feet. If I want to focus at 6 feet, I just pop it over to the 7 o'clock position.

In good light with the depth of field of your 35, you might not even need to use the rangefinder very often if you want to keep up with fast moving children! I use the technique all the time when street shooting, and it works great if I don't have the time to focus properly.

 

[Robert Budding]

Thanks for all of the suggestions and opinions. Seeing that the M is better for wide angle work, those that have taken pictures of their kids using their M (using 21-35mm lens), candidly, what kind of compositions were they of?

You clearly want a Leica - now you're changing your requirements to fit the camera. So just buy it.

 

[budrichard]

You do not need a magnifier for the 75mm lens.
The 75mm Lux is due for a replacment ala the ASPH Noctilux. I expect to see a 75mm Lux ASPH in the future.-Dick

 

[rpsawin]

MP with a 75mm is one of my favorite combinations. I have the CV 2.5/75mm Heliar. Like any new camera/lens practice makes using them second nature.

Good luck,

Bob

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Like several others, I consider teles for portraiture and other fairly close and fast-moving subjects to be SLR territory. A rangefinder *can* do it, just usually not as well (caveat: Low light levels and the focussing quality/accuracy of the SLR could change that statement).
Teles on RFs for theatre/concert/landscape photos generally work much better.

 

[35mmDelux]

The M7 is far better for this application. If the logo and red dot are a big deal, then your probably not ready for this elite tool. It will not be as fast as the F6, since the F6 is a do everything. I would say these are just different tools.[until recently I owned an F6. They're both great cameras.]

 

[menos]

Congratulations on the new camera. I have recently acquired a Leica M6 0.72 with 50 Summilux ASPH and 90 Tele Elmarit.
I used Nikon DSLRs before (FM3a, D300, D3) and truly fell in love with shooting the Leica M.

I strongly advise you, to get the Leica 1.4 magnifier or the Japanese Exposure 1.35 magnifier (which also has a diopter correction adjustment similar to that on the Nikon D3), if you will use lenses from 50 mm and longer.

I have my 1.4 magnifier permanently on the M6, as I can now shoot with both eyes open without any distraction and the focussing and framing is much more natural than with one eye.

I still use my D3 a lot with longer glass, when the subject is beyond my focus ability with the Leica and when bulk and noise is not a show stopper.

Lately, I took the M6 with 50mm and some Tri-X with me on a business meeting with dinner and aftermath and cannot imagine, to have showed up with a D3 and 50 AF-S, firing away. The Leica though is all about stealth and unsuspicious operability. I love that. You really can sit next to another person in a concert or club and shoot without the person taking notice - unthinkable with a SLR.

The FM3a has seen no film after I got the Leica. Compared to the M6 it is bulkier (although lighter), much noisier, much harder to operate in low light. In good light, the FM3a is much quicker to use with attached motor drive and aperture priority program though.

Next to the smooth operation, my biggest love compared to the Nikon cameras goes with the Leica lenses.
I have seen no Nikon lens, that remotely touches the qualities of the Leica 50 Summilux ASPH in sharpness and lack of optical defects (I use Nikon lenses from a 17-35 AF-S to a 300 2.8 VR). The Leica M lenses really shine there and this is a very strong argument for using the M system over a SLR system, that is often overshadowed by the "rangefinder experience discussions". After I adjusted myself to see the beautiful Leica rendering, I see only defects, when looking at photographs, taken with the D3 and 50mm AF-S, which is undoubtedly Nikons top of the line 50mm AF lens up to date.

It would be interesting, to see the difference with the better matching comparison between the Nikkor 58 Noct and the 50 Summilux ASPH.

 

[clayne]

menos, as both a Leica and Nikon owner I can tell you that while I love Leica optics there are plenty of Nikkors that are awesome lenses. No, they're not zooms. They're older AI and AIS primes. Your approach is a bit clinical with the viewing of photos and inability to appreciate them without honing in on "defects" through comparison of sharpness, etc. This is not what Leica optics are about, really.

Personally I find the ASPH lenses to be much too sterile in their own right - and much prefer the older pre-ASPH lenses. Additionally my standard setup is F3+M4. I almost always grab both - but I regularly grab the F3 by default. Leicas are great and they've helped me with many great shots - but it's a bit much to think they're god-like above SLRs. My F3 is easily a better camera to use with wide-angle lenses (24 and below). I find the M4 more appropriate with a 35 or 50.

 

[takef586]

What you want is an M7 with the pre asph Summilux 50. I suggest to get the 0.85x version, especially if you do not wear glasses. If the dot and M7 logo disturb you, just use some black tape - many do this. This camera is extremely fast to use, and the AE is very reliable. The lens is a mixture of sharpness and mellownes which is ideal for portraiture, and it is long enough to get you a great half body image. Get the latest version for closer focus if you need to shoot closer than 1m. For a head and shoulders portrait I would recommend a 90/2.8 Elmarit first version, a great portrait lens with unique rendering for people photography. Make sure it is clean when you buy. Both these lenses together will be less expensive than the 75 Summicron. Last advice: go to some well stocked shop and try to handle a Leica first to see if this is your cup of tea.

 

[menos]

menos, as both a Leica and Nikon owner I can tell you that while I love Leica optics there are plenty of Nikkors that are awesome lenses. No, they're not zooms. They're older AI and AIS primes. Your approach is a bit clinical with the viewing of photos and inability to appreciate them without honing in on "defects" through comparison of sharpness, etc. This is not what Leica optics are about, really.

Personally I find the ASPH lenses to be much too sterile in their own right - and much prefer the older pre-ASPH lenses. Additionally my standard setup is F3+M4. I almost always grab both - but I regularly grab the F3 by default. Leicas are great and they've helped me with many great shots - but it's a bit much to think they're god-like above SLRs. My F3 is easily a better camera to use with wide-angle lenses (24 and below). I find the M4 more appropriate with a 35 or 50.

Clayne, don't get my post wrong please. I am not a pixel peeper. I am very new to the Leica M. I never bought the "superior Leica look talk" you get these days.

I really thought, optically the nikon lenses, I use are of the finest in 35mm.
I learned different after I have been astonished by the brilliant look, these Leica lenses offer.

I only shot 3 lenses so far - a 35 f2 ASPH, a 50 f1.4 ASPH and a 90 2.8.
The look, I have seen with the 35 is really beautiful and I have to get hold on a good sample sooner or later. After the first weeks with the 50mm and the M6 I look with a different eye on my Nikon photos, I take parallel to the film shooting.

Lately, I had to spent too much time for my taste, to photoshop color fringes from some wide open shots with my 85 1.4.
Shots wide open with the 50 AF-S, to catch bright light sources can not be done, as they develop really nasty shapes under conditions, the Leica 50mm just does not expose.
The sharpness of the 50 Lux from f1.4 on is insane compared to the uncontrasty, washed out look, I get from the Nikon 50 AF-S.
The Nikon lens is a fantastic piece of glass and has produced some of my favorite photos. It looks very different though, once, you see, what the Lux can do under similar conditions.

I really enjoy using my Nikon gear. I really enjoy, using my Rollei 35 with some color film on a trip, despite the big scratch on the front element, the missing focus during guessing and the odd meter position and exposure controls.

What I was really surprised about is, how good the Leica lenses really are.

The "character" and "rendering" and all the other gaga really comes by itself - the technical benefits from a Leica M though are sometimes over looked, when talks over "not possible with a SLR" or "better for wide angle use" are going on. I am entirely positively surprised, to a point, where I find myself grabbing the M6 rather than the D3, despite the D3 might very likely net technically better shots (pushing TX400 to ISO 3200 @ f1.4 and 1/30).

This shows, how enjoyable rangefinder photography and the created images are.