The Leica M3 is a difficult tool when precision matters

[Certain Exposures]

This is just a thought on my mind this afternoon. There are things I appreciate about the M3 and things I do not.

I recently took a photograph of a subject that should have been centered in converging lines and shadows to create a unique frame. I tried accounting for parallax by taking a couple extra shots and shifting my position based on prior experience.

I failed. None of the frames satisfied me because I needed pinpoint precision to get the image I wanted and that is the Achilles heel of a rangefinder.

People who manage to achieve that level of precision in the heat of the moment with a rangefinder are quite skilled.

 

[cliveh]

How close were you? And what focal length lens were you using?

 

[Certain Exposures]

I was within ~9 FT and using a 50mm lens.

I have had similar struggles close to infinity with symmetrical compositions like lining up two people talking between equally spaced pillars, for example.

 

[Bill Burk]

Don’t throw out the M3 it’s a good camera. The framelines should be accurate. Infinity never moves, hence you should focus infinity and note framelines to compose the background, then focus close and compose foreground on framelines (keeping background where it was in the frame). Then go to the hyperfocal focus without moving composition.

Or get a Nikon F for its legendary 100% finder.

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps your M3 needs to be looked at by a camera repairer.

 

[brbo]

When pinpoint precision is required you bring your paint, canvas and brushes...

 

[eli griggs]

A good rangefinder and a seamstress/tailor’s cloth retractable tape measure go a long way to keeping your images sharp.

 

[Dali]

Change of camera and move on.

 

[Besk]

Since I am mainly a 4x5 shooter using the ground glass I have a hard time not using my Nikon F2 when shooting 35mm. That said my Leica Cl (film) sure is smaller!

So for precision framing a SLR is going to be much easier to use.

 

[chuckroast]

This is just a thought on my mind this afternoon. There are things I appreciate about the M3 and things I do not.

I recently took a photograph of a subject should have been centered in converging lines and shadows to create a unique frame. I tried accounting for parallax by taking a couple extra shots and shifting my position based on prior experience.

I failed. None of the frames satisfied me because I needed pinpoint precision to get the image I wanted and that is the Achilles heel of a rangefinder.

People who manage to achieve that level of precision in the heat of the moment with a rangefinder are quite skilled.

Pinpoint precision calls for an SLR with a 100% viewfinder. For this purpose I use a Nikon F, F2, or F3.

 

[chuckroast]

When pinpoint precision is required you bring your paint, canvas and brushes...

I believe that is called "pointillist precision" ...

 

[chuckroast]

A good rangefinder and a seamstress/tailor’s cloth retractable tape measure go a long way to keeping your images sharp.

I have a friend who using a laser distance measurement tool for much the same purpose with old folders that do not have a rangefinder.

 

[mshchem]

Nikon F5

 

[rulnacco]

It's a well-known built in feature of rangefinders that the frame lines are not going to be terribly accurate, particularly at certain distances, and that exactly what's in and out of the frame and where it's located within the frame are not going to correspond exactly to what you see in the viewfinder, even with parallax correction. Rangefinders, especially the M, are very good at what things they're good at, which is shooting quickly, on the move, using zone focus, shooting in low light (no mirror slap), and shooting by feel. If you're wanting precise framing, they're probably inherently the worst cameras for that, and that's something anyone who buys/uses one should know and, really, accept.

Cameras are like guitars--you use different instruments for different purposes, depending on the feel you want while playing it and in what you get out of it.

To sum up all that, if you really "needed pinpoint precision to get the image I wanted" you were using the wrong instrument. It's not an Achilles heel of the rangefinder--that implies a fatal flaw--it's just part of its nature, a well-known part. If you really want the most precise framing of all, the correct choice is an SLR with 100% coverage (or a mirrorless digital). For that specific purpose, the fact that an SLR has viewfinder blackout and mirror slap is not an Achilles heel, if you can mitigate the latter by mirror lockup or using the self-timer. It's just making use of the instrument's capabilities to accomplish what you want.

If you want the sound produced by a Telecaster, you wouldn't try to produce it with a Martin D-28, etc.

 

[oxcanary]

But a Stratocaster is so versatile - would most SLRs be the Stratocaster of the film camera world?

 

[eli griggs]

I have a friend who using a laser distance measurement tool for much the same purpose with old folders that do not have a rangefinder.

My laser Leica rangefinder is best for distance of 4 meters plus but my old analog rangefinder is great for 2.5 feet and closer than that, the tape, which reads in feet and centimeters rules, no pun intended.

For the Hasselblad and older cameras, I am very happy to have all three.